File talk:Space- Above and Beyond - Chig (2).jpg

Matthew
Don't revert this revision please. You want edit war? I don't understand your provoking modus operandi. LexingtonDark 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me why you are repeatedly reverting to a low quality image? Which also fails the WP:NFCC (as your image is not from the episode, so likely not a television capture). Matthew 17:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is not MY image but User:Q Original's image. In my opinion his image is really better than yours. (If I remember, I see this scene on TV, so this image is probably a television capture.) That's all.LexingtonDark 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could please tell me what you find better about your "friend's" image?
 * I'll tell you why I think "my" image is better:
 * It's a clear image that isn't blurry that is of a good quality
 * It isn't grainy or washed of its original colours
 * The fine details are visible
 * Why is your image bad?
 * It's low quality
 * It's very blurry and blocky
 * One side of the face is black, the other side is white (it's been photoshopped...)
 * Because of it's blurriness/low quality the fine details are not easily visible
 * Naturally you would proclaim your "friend's" image is better (a sense of loyalty, I guess). Matthew 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear boy. Your image is dark and blurry. I can't see any detail... (And yes, I have strong sense of loyalty to User:Q Original)LexingtonDark 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. I guess a third opinion is needed. Matthew 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need more opinions (but we have three opinions: your, Q's and my). You are in minority at this moment LexingtonDark 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're not Q Original (I suspect you are), your opinion is not neutral and carries no extra weight. As you admitted, you're helping him because he's your friend. Matthew 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I happened to stumble upon this discussion, so I might as well add my opinion on the matter. I think the darker version should be the one in use, because (even though it *is* darker) more detail is visible. The other one has a poor contrast ratio, so it is actually more difficult to see the detail clearly (most of it falls in regions that are shadowed, and therefore actually darker than in the other one). Additionally, it is quite a bit more grainy. So, now it's two independent opinions against one and someone who looks suspiciously like a sock- or meatpuppet. --Pekaje 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)