Forum:I hate the new rule: Difference between revisions
CooleyBoy10 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Forumpost |
{{Forumpost |
||
|text=I think it was probably how this rule came with no prior announcement that's at least in part upsetting OP. Honestly, while I do like the idea behind the rule and can manage handling adding sources to my images, I have to admit that I don't really like how the rule was suddenly announced and implemented with no prior announcement about it, no offense. |
|text=I think it was probably how this rule came with no prior announcement that's at least in part upsetting OP. Honestly, while I do like the idea behind the rule and can manage handling adding sources to my images, I have to admit that I don't really like how the rule was suddenly announced and implemented with no prior announcement or other communication with the community about it, no offense. |
||
|username=HibiscusCrown20 |
|username=HibiscusCrown20 |
||
|rank=User |
|rank=User |
||
Revision as of 22:35, 13 May 2022
| Report post
|
I've been gone for well over 2 months, and this is what I come back to. The new rule contains that you will delete any image that does not contain descriptions. Now this goes against what the wiki stands for. And I am fumed with anger that this is a new rule. I'd like to talk to any of the admins here. Or anyone who also agrees or disagrees with this rule, I'm spreading my opinion, and I hope you accept it, whether you agree or disagree, I do not care your opinion is yours. But I would love this rule to be tooken down. And I do not care if you're an admin or not, I do not see you as a Supreme deity. Or as a God. If you abuse your power as admin, you will do not deserve such title. Anyways talk to me, I see you as a normal human, so please tell me some information about this rule so we can all move on. And this page is supposed to express what we love the most. My little brother has been forced to put descriptions. On his centron logo finds. And if this is bugging my brother, it also bugs me. |
| Report post
|
And what's wrong with having to add descriptions to the pages? It's a Wiki; the point of it is to keep everything updated on logo information. That's what the Wiki is. And it really doesn't look good when you have pictures of variants, but no info on what the logo is like or even where it come from. And in worst cases, those pictures can even become logo mysteries. I don't expect to be treated like a god because I'm not one. But you still need to follow what we say. We have these rules for a good reason. And if you or your brother can't handle that, then you can both leave. Otherwise, just help us maintain the integrity of the site and the descriptions. It's not asking too much. Now I don't want to see anymore whining here, clear? |
| Report post
|
I am not whining here, but just spreading my opinion. We don't really need logo information, though. We don't really need descriptions for the logos. We just need the description for the pages. C l g wiki also known as closing logo group. I just really think it would save people the time on this page. Since now word summer break, it is a time to relax and do other stuff and not worry about a description over a logo. Anyways, some things and your paragraph made me rethink. But I still stand for what I stand for maybe me and you can do in negotiation. Cause my brother was forced out of his retirement |
| Report post
|
Agreed with Matt. Many problems and mysteries stemming from the old WF days can be traced to unspecified captures (TAT, KingWorld eagle, blurry PBS P-Head). |
| Report post
|
@Rodney As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to negotiate. Either you play by the rules or you leave the wiki. Real simple. |
| Report post
|
1. Correct me if I'm wrong but this rule applies to new images uploaded after the rule was instated. We are not wiping out every image from the wiki uploaded before now that doesn't have a description. This rule helps to make sure captures are genuine. 2. How hard is it to simply just type in "This capture was taken from [source name/type]" in the description box while uploading??? This isn't a herculean task by any means. I know this rule kinda came out of nowhere, but I genuinely don't understand why that aspect upsets you. Even if you forget the name of where you got it from, you can simply say "I forgot where I got this but this came off a full movie on YouTube" or something like that. |
| Report post
|
I think it was probably how this rule came with no prior announcement that's at least in part upsetting OP. Honestly, while I do like the idea behind the rule and can manage handling adding sources to my images, I have to admit that I don't really like how the rule was suddenly announced and implemented with no prior announcement or other communication with the community about it, no offense. |
