22 Mar

Commons:Village pump

‎New guideline draft
← Older revision
Revision as of 16:38, 22 March 2013
Line 881:
Line 881:

Incidentally, I can't find ''any'' reference to spamming or promotion in policy or guideline, including [[COM:BLOCK]], which seems a bit odd. Am I missing something? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I can't find ''any'' reference to spamming or promotion in policy or guideline, including [[COM:BLOCK]], which seems a bit odd. Am I missing something? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

+

+
:re spam, (facepalm) people are getting blocked for ''more'' policies that don't even exist. The draft is great, however, it still has too many harsh and unrealistic ideas in it. The word 'discouraged' equates to 'blockable' in many admin's minds, and the draft clearly links datestamps with 'discouraged'. I can't see Juliette Average uploading good pics to commons and getting herself blocked as a good outcome.

+

+
:The most important thrust of the argument here, is what effect if any do watermarks have on education ? I would say in the case of timestamps none whatsoever and so they should be welcomed with open arms. What is the worst case scenario here ? that someone intentionally uploads tens of thousands of images after adding timestamps ? [[:W:Hindenburg disaster|'oh the humanity']] of tens of thousands of good quality educational images. [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

= March 21 =

= March 21 =

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=93095785&oldid=93094417