53,710
edits
User talk:Soroxas: Difference between revisions
→Talk sprites
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) (→Talk sprites: not worth responding to that one, honestly) |
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
Now NinjaSheik, I'm sorry if the RC seems flooded, but there's not much else I could do because there were a ''ton'' of Galleries out-of-date and lacking COM talk sprites. I'm honestly surprised there were so many talk sprites uploaded to the wiki, but not in Galleries. I was doing something that was long overdue. Perfect captions, if anything, are more like the cherry on top, while I view simply having the basics there is a far more important concern. [[User:Soroxas|Soroxas]] ([[User talk:Soroxas|talk]]) 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC) | Now NinjaSheik, I'm sorry if the RC seems flooded, but there's not much else I could do because there were a ''ton'' of Galleries out-of-date and lacking COM talk sprites. I'm honestly surprised there were so many talk sprites uploaded to the wiki, but not in Galleries. I was doing something that was long overdue. Perfect captions, if anything, are more like the cherry on top, while I view simply having the basics there is a far more important concern. [[User:Soroxas|Soroxas]] ([[User talk:Soroxas|talk]]) 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC) | ||
#No, dude, I can't easily check a completely separate website, especially when my internet protocols do not let me visit certain websites. This is why I gave an explicit reason, citing policy, for why I was removing the images. I | #No, dude, I can't easily check a completely separate website, especially when my internet protocols do not let me visit certain websites. This is why I gave an explicit reason, citing policy, for why I was removing the images. I was mistaken as to the particulars of those specific images, but I was plainly editing in good faith -- which is also why I did not accuse you of vandalizing or purposefully doing anything wrong when I reverted, I just noted the policy I was reverting based on. ''As I tried to explain earlier'', that is the way to go about contentious discussions -- not this bit about things being "overly pedantic" or feeling like it's "the cherry on top". | ||
#You are still misunderstanding the point of the headers. They are not to specify the game. They are to specify point in the timeline. ''All'' of the X works (chi, Unchained, Back Cover, and Union) use "Kingdom Hearts X" as their header, and even the "new realm" justification for Union/Unchained still has the conceit of reliving all the previous memories (a meta take on being able to replay earlier missions), so all the events are chronologically jumbled up together. | #You are still misunderstanding the point of the headers. They are not to specify the game. They are to specify point in the timeline. ''All'' of the X works (chi, Unchained, Back Cover, and Union) use "Kingdom Hearts X" as their header, and even the "new realm" justification for Union/Unchained still has the conceit of reliving all the previous memories (a meta take on being able to replay earlier missions), so all the events are chronologically jumbled up together. | ||
#It's semantically false. "Cold" does not simply mean "not nice" -- it means "emotionally distant, unfeeling, dispassionate". "striking someone in a rage" is fundamentally not dispassionate. If it's a pivotal or notable character moment, then it should be possible to describe what the import of the moment actually ''is''. If it's possible to do ''that'', it should be covered in the text. And, honestly, this is a case where a picture is ''not'' worth a thousand words -- the information communicated by that animation could be pretty easily covered just in text. | #It's semantically false. "Cold" does not simply mean "not nice" -- it means "emotionally distant, unfeeling, dispassionate". "striking someone in a rage" is fundamentally not dispassionate. If it's a pivotal or notable character moment, then it should be possible to describe what the import of the moment actually ''is''. If it's possible to do ''that'', it should be covered in the text. And, honestly, this is a case where a picture is ''not'' worth a thousand words -- the information communicated by that animation could be pretty easily covered just in text. | ||
#You are wrong about whether the images are "notable and fine", and as Ninja said, you are putting the wiki in a legally bad place. | #You are wrong about whether the images are "notable and fine", and as Ninja said, you are putting the wiki in a legally bad place. | ||
#There ''exactly'' is "much else you could do", unless you're telling us someone is holding a gun to your head. Dude, this is what I was talking about earlier -- a staff member directly told you "your edits are bothersome to the community and violate our policies", and you're giving them a nonpology and dismissing their explanations of ''why'' the captions matter. Do you not get that you talked down to a staff member as if ''you'' understood the wiki's agreed-upon policies and the legal burdens the wiki operates under better than they did? ''Read the article I linked you'' -- by spamming the galleries and articles with all these images and ''not'' putting in the work to demonstrate why the images are ''necessary'', you are violating fair use policies, which puts the wiki in a bad legal state. In other words "simply having the basics there" without doing the full job ''will fuck us''. I was not screwing with you when I told you that I have spoken ''directly'' with Square Enix representatives about the specific issue of images, among other issues of affiliation or legal kosherness. Square Enix ''is'' aware of our site, and thumbing our nose at fair use ''does'' damage the wiki.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC) | #There ''exactly'' is "much else you could do", unless you're telling us someone is holding a gun to your head. Dude, this is what I was talking about earlier -- a staff member directly told you "your edits are bothersome to the community and violate our policies", and you're giving them a nonpology and dismissing their explanations of ''why'' the captions matter. Do you not get that you talked down to a staff member as if ''you'' understood the wiki's agreed-upon policies and the legal burdens the wiki operates under better than they did? ''Read the article I linked you'' -- by spamming the galleries and articles with all these images and ''not'' putting in the work to demonstrate why the images are ''necessary'', you are violating fair use policies, which puts the wiki in a bad legal state. In other words "simply having the basics there" without doing the full job ''will fuck us''. I was not screwing with you when I told you that I have spoken ''directly'' with Square Enix representatives about the specific issue of images, among other issues of affiliation or legal kosherness. Square Enix ''is'' aware of our site, and thumbing our nose at fair use ''does'' damage the wiki.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC) | ||