File talk:R u still downcov.jpg

File size
I lowered the resolution in accordance with WP:FUC, what seems to be the problem now? QuestFour (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you changed the version to your preferred one, after being told not to do so: . Nowhere does the guideline you link to mention file size, merely resolution. You did not alter the resolution (300 x 300), but you did alter the content to a version you prefer, without consensus. For the record, I agree that we should use the version without the advisory. Probably a good idea to stop making disruptive, pointy changes to this image to try to shoehorn in your alterations now. Thank you. -- Begoon 03:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to shoehorn my alterations, both you and JJMC89 reverted my changes for the image being oversized, after I resized it to comply with the policies and guidelines you reverted again this time for not agreeing with the new version, which is derived from Apple Music instead of an unknown digital capture. As I mentioned in JJMC89's talk and the edit summery, the Apple music version has the correct color and saturation. As for the advisory sign, all official versions and almost all of 2Pac's albums on this site contain them. Now, could you please clarify? what exactly do you disagree with? Thank you, QuestFour (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I disagree with changing to the version with the advisory. Colour and saturation vary on different versions, and I see nothing wrong with the existing one. There's nothing "official" about a version hosted by Apple just because "it's Apple". Since and I both seemingly don't agree with your change, you don't have consensus - but you're welcome to try to get consensus. If you start a discussion about that somewhere please courtesy ping both JJMC89 and me to that discussion. In the meantime, repeated reverts against consensus are disruptive, and should not be made. In future, please describe the changes you make to any image(s) properly - none of your upload summaries include the pertinent information that your upload(s) are of a different version. Thank you. -- Begoon 04:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not clarifying, you already stated that you disagree with the advisory but you didn't provide any rationale on why you do so. JJMC89 did by saying it's "ugly" and "unnecessary", which is arbitrary, subjective, and not a valid reason but at least it's one. As for the saturation, the majority of copies have identical or similar saturation to the Apple version. In regards to the third point, of course there are no "official" versions per say, but some sources are more reliable and authoritative than others. Regards, QuestFour (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that ugly is subjective, but the advisory is unnecessary since it isn't actually part of the cover. I'm not going to fuss over it though. What I do care about is the unnecessary reuploads (of this cover and most of your uploads), especially at higher resolution than permitted. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining in JJMC89, besides what was mentioned above, the Apple version has a clear source, wouldn't listing it in the summary be preferred instead of an unknown creator of a digital capture? QuestFour (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as JJMC89 points out - it isn't part of the cover, so unnecessary, and, subjective or not, ugly and distracting. Since I agreed with the reason given I saw no reason to reiterate them. In among all your edit warring, by the way, did you notice that the ("more reliable and authoritative") version you are trying to upload doesn't appear to be straight, and has an ugly sliver of white at the top due to what seems to be its bad rotation. If that does end up being the consensus version please fix that (or ask for it to be fixed). Thanks. -- Begoon 05:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's recap, shall we? 's main concern is the file size, which was resolved; he doesn't seem to have any strong opinions regarding the image itself. Therefore this makes the dispute now basically between us two. The dispute is, you disagree with me uploading a version from a known, reliable source and to provide a link for it in the file summary because you don't like that it has an advisory sign? is that correct? QuestFour (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I see no reason to replace the existing file with one which I don't think is an improvement. It's a simple position which needs no re-characterisation from you, thanks. Of course, without the edit-warring and deceptive summaries I probably wouldn't have cared quite as much. Had you been open from the start that you actually wanted to upload a different version I would have preferred not to, because I don't think it's an improvement, but I'd probably have been willing to just fix the defects in that file for you and leave it at that. My opposition, initially fairly weak, has certainly been reinforced by the way you have approached the issue - I dislike pushy edit-warring intensely. What I'm going to do, though, is upload a fixed version of your preferred version - largely because you're boring me now and it seems like the only way to get you to stop whining on about it - I'll do that shortly. I suggest you don't take this approach in future, though - I notice from your talk page that edit-warring seems to be something of a habit. It's not a good one. -- Begoon 07:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)