Forum:Screenshot fights...

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Screenshot fights...
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 31 October 2009 by Soldier 1033.


I am honestly getting sick and tired of all of these screenshot fights.People keep replacing images that as were just fine as they were.Whether its to boost edit counts or just to get your screenshot posted over some other person's.I know I'm not the only one who notices this.Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 08:44, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Question - What exactly do you mean? Could you give some examples? I honestly doubt people would upload new images just to get their editcount up. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:04, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You'd be surprised Oli Lol Chicken7 >talk 13:45, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Answer - A good example would be people constantly doing a different version of an already existing image.A good example would be when people replace Hapi's images and constantly revert the image back to theirs.Another one would be on the Guy page,the image of the player in front of the noose.It is always getting replaced.Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 14:09, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the correct term to use would be "edit/image wars". I don't agree that users are reverting it to increase their edit count. Have you properly examined the reasons they have given? For example, Hapi's animations are often replaced due to the lack of Anti-Aliasing, but sometimes other users revert it back because of certain flaws with the newer version. Most of the time, it isn't pointless discussion, but they should take it to the talkpage. See [[:File:Runescape_spells_ancientmagicks-teleport.gif]] or File:Dragon claws equipped.png. The second actually has 10 or more deleted revisions that were all reverts back and forth. C.ChiamTalk 14:15, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe those examples are for edit count increase. But I think it happens... Chicken7 >talk 14:23, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Anti-Aliasing?In what form...?Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 14:35, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone actually reverts for edit count increases, FYI. Was giving examples of the edit wars. I don't understand your question, Gamebox. C.ChiamTalk 14:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
I was saying what do you mean Anti-Aliasing... Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 14:40, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Anti-aliasing makes the graphics smoother. And please sign with a templated signature. --Iiii I I I 14:41, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Sometines, changes don't show up for some time and it looks like same image was re-uploaded. Sometimes people do give the crappiest reasons for replacing images - but we have to assume they're doing it for the wiki's benefit. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 14:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I don't mean reverting, I mean uploading new images that are practically the same. Chicken7 >talk 14:45, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I have stopped too many proxy invasions,vandal raids,and edit boosters to assume good faith.I know what to look for.This wiki is too lenient on punishment...Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 14:51, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Your experiences do not allow you to ignore our policies. C.ChiamTalk 14:53, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Someone puts false info into an article (a reason for ban) YOU have to assume good faith.He might not have known it was a lie.The only reason I have seen people ban for is pissing off a mod or vandalism.If its not vandalism there should be no notice.The reason that policy is there is because this is a kids game.Kids have to be cleaned up after.Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 14:59, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if it is vandalism, we do not usually assume good faith for someone adding the f word to an article. But say someone adding the wrong skill level to a guide, that'd just be a revert and talk page note. Chicken7 >talk 15:01, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Assuming good faith means to not assume that other editors had bad intentions (in this case, we assume the editors are not looking to increase their edit count) and are only trying to help. AGF does not apply solely to vandalism alone. C.ChiamTalk 15:02, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware.I'm also aware that the policy does not make wikia's policies void.Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 15:05, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

What Wikia policies? This is the RuneScape Wiki, you follow our policies here. C.ChiamTalk 15:07, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
This site is hosted by wikia.Therefore you must abide by Wikia's Policies.Wikia requires all wiki's too be well maintained.Some people pay no attention to recent changes nor errors.I have already said I will not correct anyone's mistakes.When I correct someone's mistakes its generally because it was an attempt at whole hearted jackassery.On a side note... are you saying the wiki is over due for evaluation?Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 15:15, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
The Wikia policies do not contradict AGF, in fact the policy on vandalism there says that Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. What is your point? C.ChiamTalk 15:21, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
I have stopped too many proxy invasions,vandal raids,and edit boosters to assume good faith. Heck, you only have 29 mainspace edits and you dare to say all that? If that's experienced, I'm a Wikia Staff. --Nup(T) 15:22, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Not on this wikia?FTW?For a LONG time I couldn't remember the password to this account.I had another account that I used on a few others.This isn't the only wiki.Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 15:26, October 31, 2009 (UTC) Also it doesn't have to be vandalism for you to be banned.Moonclan hat.png Gamebox77 Arcane spirit shield.png 15:30, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I am now closing this discussion because the OP is only using it as an excuse to flame and argue with others and there is nothing constructive about that. Do not continue to make comments on this discussion. Andrew talk 15:35, October 31, 2009 (UTC)