Talk:List of Archaeological Protected Monuments in Nuwara Eliya District

Image Post office

@Dan arndt: Please explain why are you replacing the Nuwara post office image by a significantly lower quality (blurred) image, which is only showing parts of the buildng. --A.Savin (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not significantly lower quality and it's not blurred. It's a nicely framed image of the building showing the entrance. It's not spoiled by bunch of gawking European tourists or an unkempt patch of grass. And lastly, I cannot state this more emphatically, it's natural. It hasn't been transformed into a gaudy image with bright colours using specialist software.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Please specify, what written rule(s) on images are you referring to. For my part, commons:COM:Image guidelines is "my" guideline and it describes, among others, perspective distortion as unwanted. (Yes I know Commons ≠ Wikipedia, but still, for image content Commons is the hosting and relevant project, and I don't know such guidelines here on WP.) Everything else is a matter of taste, not a reason to sabotage good faith corrections. --A.Savin (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would concur with Obi2canibe's comments. Your image is dominated by the foreground rather than the focusing on the building itself. The current image clearly depicts the main architectural features of the building, particularly the entrance and clock tower. It is also not an enhanced image which would otherwise distort the true appearance of the building. Dan arndt (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: I disagree, because Your image is dominated by the wire rather than the focusing on the building itself. And still I see no response on my question addresed to Obi. --A.Savin (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Did I mention any rules? Commons image guidelines don't apply to Wikipedia but if we are going use it, the new image is overprocessed. Yes, it may be a matter of taste but I see two editors favouring the old image and only one favouring the new image. FYI, this discussion also applies to the image used in the Nuwara Eliya Post Office article (all languages).--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Did I mention any rules?" No you didn't, and that's actually a problem. So if there is no rule on Wikipedia, the relevant rule is actually on Commons, which is quite logical because without Commons there hardly would be any images in Wiki articles. And I have been long enough on Commons & much more familiar with the image evaluation rather than you. "Overprocessed" definitely looks different. And you Obi2Canibe are meanwhile in no way neutral when it comes to a discussion with my participation. --A.Savin (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: So you accept that your image is overprocessed? "I [am] much more familiar with the image evaluation rather than you" - can you point to where in WP:POLICY it states this is how we work in Wikipedia? And you have sidestepped the fact that you are in a minority in this discussion.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As for me, the basic WP policies are: a) WP:BOLD, b) WP:AGF, c) Common sense.

No, I'm not in manority, because this is not a democratic process at all. I am alone here against two obviously biased users. What they "decide" is not consensus. --A.Savin (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please demonstrate where these ‘biases’ exist, clearly a demonstration that you are not acting in good faith. Dan arndt (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: Your hostility towards me and my work is in fact a perfect example of Assuming bad faith. You should learn to understand that a) Sri Lankan articles are not your private property and b) Even if a photo taken by yourself is replaced, it is not personally motivated. --A.Savin (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have never assumed ownership of any articles on Wikipedia and I have no problem with replacing images that I have taken with better quality images, as long as they are representative of what the article is about. Maybe you should think think twice before making baseless accusations in the future. Dan arndt (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I'm glad you brought up WP:BOLD. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, a discussion has taken place. You, as the bold editor, have not shown a consensus for your change therefore the status quo applies.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What we have is not "consensus" but the fact that same two users are consequently harassing the same third user, considering all his edits problematic by default and monitoring all his contribution. This has absolutely nothing to do with AGF, and when it comes to an Arbcom case (and I'm sure someday it will, because you with your buddy Dan arndt are giving everything not to let me do my job in peace, and I'm not willing to stop, as my edits are clearly intended to raise the quality of WP contents), they certainly will recognize that. --A.Savin (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Please try to remain civil, as you have been told on ANI, and try to focus on the issue at hand rather than making threats about reporting editors who disagree with you. And, I repeat, there is no consensus for change so the status quo applies.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, there is no consensus. No need to repeat myself. --A.Savin (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So we're in agreement. there is no consensus. What happens then?--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)