Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cebr1979: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:00, 10 October 2015 view sourceLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators760,035 edits →Photos: Response← Previous edit Revision as of 01:09, 10 October 2015 view source Cebr1979 (talk | contribs)10,843 edits →PhotosNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:
:::Hi ]. I'm fully aware of that. Unfortunately, when dealing with photos, reverting doesn't do anything. It doesn't bring the old photo back.] (]) 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC) :::Hi ]. I'm fully aware of that. Unfortunately, when dealing with photos, reverting doesn't do anything. It doesn't bring the old photo back.] (]) 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
::::An image is just a file name. Unless the file is deleted, the image still exists. Go into edit on a previous version of the page with the better photo and save that version. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC) ::::An image is just a file name. Unless the file is deleted, the image still exists. Go into edit on a previous version of the page with the better photo and save that version. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::No, ]. You are incorrect. I am telling you: '''Nothing brings the old photo back. It has to be re-uploaded.''' Even going to a permalink, is useless. Case in point: ]: & . Both the same photo. and . Both are the same because '''there is not a way to get an old photo back - it must be re-uploaed.''' ] is useless when dealing with photos. Everything and anything other than re-uploading the old photo as a replacement for the new photo is useless on wikipedia.] (]) 01:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:09, 10 October 2015

@This user can be reached by email.

Photos

Hi, Cebr1979,
I saw your comment about an editor replacing okay images with ones of lesser quality. Please read WP:BRD, it might provide some helpful advice for you. Liz 00:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Thank you however, as seen here, I did attempt that and it did nothing to bring the old photo back. Unfortunately, WP:BRD appears to be useless when dealing with photos.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, if an editor makes a lousy edit, you are free to revert it (but not edit-war) and if the editor wants it back in, the issue needs to be discussed on the article talk page. Liz 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I'm fully aware of that. Unfortunately, when dealing with photos, reverting doesn't do anything. It doesn't bring the old photo back.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
An image is just a file name. Unless the file is deleted, the image still exists. Go into edit on a previous version of the page with the better photo and save that version. Liz 01:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
No, Liz. You are incorrect. I am telling you: Nothing brings the old photo back. It has to be re-uploaded. Even going to a permalink, is useless. Case in point: Victoria Newman: permalink of old photo & permalink with new photo. Both the same photo. Here is a permalink of the old photo and here is a permalink of the new photo. Both are the same because there is not a way to get an old photo back - it must be re-uploaed. WP:BRD is useless when dealing with photos. Everything and anything other than re-uploading the old photo as a replacement for the new photo is useless on wikipedia.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)