Talk:Neon Bull

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Brazil Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poster revert[edit]

Why was the poster change reverted? New upload has original colors that can't be achieved in jpeg format. — Film Fan 21:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, after several days of you not responding while you go about your other edits, I tried again, and you reverted again. You didn't respond. You just reverted. That's edit-warring, and won't be tolerated. — Film Fan 19:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all the previous reasons - you keep edit-warring. Maybe find posters for the hundreds of articles that don't have one would be better for you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit war, actually. And again, that's not a reason. You're making it personal, again. It's about the content. Give me a real reason or back off. I'm not going to spend time adding images to articles that I have no interest in. I'm not paid for this. I edit the articles that interest me. And that's none of your business. — Film Fan 20:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FF The poster you've uploaded is extremely poor quality compared to the other one, Your one may well be the original but either way the other version is much better and should stay (Had I been the one to spot your replacement I too would've reverted!). –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke, Davey2010? Did you even check? The PNG preserves the original colors of the image. The jpeg is incapable of doing that. The beige comes out as almost white, and the reds and oranges are thoroughly faded in the jpeg, as always, and the image is riddled with compression artifacts, because that's what resizing to jpeg does. Check the original image if you doubt me. — Film Fan 20:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be joking ?, The JPG version is more readable than your PNG version, The comparison site doesn't work and anyway I've compared them both earlier which is why I'm saying the JPG is far better, I would kindly suggest you give up and move on. –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're flat-out wrong and the comparison image proves it. Is the site just not loading for you, Davey2010? — Film Fan 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope that site doesn't work for me so unfortunately it doesn't prove bugger all but as I said I had compared both earlier on here earlier and JPG version is by far brighter and more readable to me, I'm a bit miffed as to how you cannot tell the difference....., Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed brighter, but not an accurate representation of the original image, and like I said the colors are faded and there are compression artifacts everywhere, which you must be able to see. I'll see if there's another site that does the mouse-over comparison. — Film Fan 21:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is your browser loading this one, Davey2010? If not, I'd suggest loading in a different browser. It's clear as day. — Film Fan 21:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on I'm confused ? ... When I compared both images from the infobox (via diffs) the JPG version was the most readable but now they're the exactly same ?, I see you've got the JPG one replaced but that was 4 days ago and now there's no difference at all? ... Surely I'm missing something here ?, Ah yep it works - The one on the left is much much better and it's alot less .... pixelated I think, Thanks for kindly finding the comparison thing :) –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really follow anything you just said, but as you can see, the PNG is the far superior resize. Another example here. — Film Fan 22:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say was 2-3 hours there was a difference between the JPG & PNG and now there isn't ... Is that easy to follow lol ?, Agreed I suppose. –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that would be. There is a difference between the image that shows on the article page and the image that shows on the image page, because Wikipedia does further resizing to fit the article page, and Wikipedia's image resizer is far better at dealing with PNGs than it is with JPGs. So if you actually click on the images, they will look more similar, but if you load the article without clicking on the image, you will see the image(s) that I've posted on the comparison sites, since that is the image that most users will see. Maybe this explains the confusion... — Film Fan 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the consensus now is finally correct, so I will be restoring the PNG image, and the other PNGs that Lugnuts incorrectly reverted because he has a personal problem with me, which he will never let lie. — Film Fan 11:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus. Try again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are three people in the conversation. You are the only one still sticking up for the jpeg, and that's only because you dislike me, so yes, there is consensus. — Film Fan 13:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it. Now you're being even more pointy than normal and stalking my edits. Well done you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not being pointy, and I haven't stalked your edits, and you can't ignore evidence. — Film Fan 13:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"you can't ignore evidence" - you're damn right. The evidence that of the thousands of film articles on here with posters, you happen to randomly follow and edit-war on the ones I've been working on. What are the chances? Pretty good if it's someone with your awful reputation. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I wish you didn't exist. I have no interest in confrontation. We share an interest in certain types of film, all of which you WP:OWN. Could you be any more childish? — Film Fan 13:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you're too funny. Well carry on stalking me. The evidence is building up and it won't be long before you're blocked. Again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scaaaary. — Film Fan 14:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Now go get your consensus and get back to me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is there, just as there is on the other talk pages of similar cases which I will be following up when I can be bothered. Davey even thanked me for my edit, which you have undone again. Stop edit warring. Why are you doing it? You will be blocked if you continue. I have no interest in seeing you blocked since I'm not a pathetic child (*cough*) and I appreciate that many of your edits on other articles are helpful. However, you are often blinded when you are outsmarted. Learn to lose. Don't take everything so personally. Make it about the content and not the editor. We're both wasting time on trivial bullsh!t here. You are the only person with an objection and it's not a valid one. — Film Fan 20:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts - You're an editor who I greatly respect on this place and I believe you're correct on almost everything however in this case I don't think you are, Instead of us all edit warring - What is it about the image you're not happy with ?, PNG is often the preferred format (infact all of my uploads are now more or less PNG). –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at FF's block log. He's got a long history of disruption, edit warring and general shit that he tries to pull. I have no idea what's going on his head, but he likes to be disruptive, then blame everyone else. He's now making WP:POINTY edits and hounding me (and other users). Let him have his way, if he wishes, but it won't be long before he's blocked once again. I'm sick of wasting my time with this troll. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe the avoidance of any further "edit-wars" and/or doubts, @Davey2010:, can you make the necessary changes. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You never stop, do you. My block log is ancient history. Most of the blocks came because of previous blocks, because I was inexperienced and people like you knew how to manipulate situations. I'm not letting you do that anymore. Don't waste your time on me; I'd rather not waste my time on you. If I edit something, leave it unless incorrect. How old are you? Don't answer that. Just find something new to say or don't say it. — Film Fan 12:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lugnuts, Ah I wasn't aware of the hounding nor the block log- I simply assumed this was obviously a normal editor who simply wanted to update a poster but it would seem it goes far deeper, In that case I withdraw all of my opinions - Not supporting a disruptive editor period, Will do, –Davey2010^Talk 12:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey2010. My block log is ancient history and came about almost entirely because of Lugnuts. I am not a disruptive editor and it's a long time since I got involved in edit wars. As you can see, whenever I get reverted I take it to the talk page to discuss with the other editor to see if there is actually a valid reason for the revert. One should be judged on their recent/current behavior and not on little temper tantrums that went down in years gone by. Are you with me? Cheers. — Film Fan 13:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference User:Film Fan was indeed blocked permanently in August 2018. He was blocked permanently in 2013 as well so perhaps in 2023 he'll be blocked again. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]