User talk:SEACONS: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
Deceptitran (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Look, we can only have [[canon]] images in the main namespace. You Seacon image is obviously a fan made image, so it can't go in the main article. You could load it up as a user image, but it just can't go on the main article. I'm sorry. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | Look, we can only have [[canon]] images in the main namespace. You Seacon image is obviously a fan made image, so it can't go in the main article. You could load it up as a user image, but it just can't go on the main article. I'm sorry. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
:While the awesomeness of [[:Image:Fuckyeahseacons.jpg|that image]] is not in doubt, we've decided to only use official TF images int he articles. And if we were going to be akign exceptions-- there's a lot of other images we'd put before that one (because they are incredibly awesome, not because this one is not.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | :While the awesomeness of [[:Image:Fuckyeahseacons.jpg|that image]] is not in doubt, we've decided to only use official TF images int he articles. And if we were going to be akign exceptions-- there's a lot of other images we'd put before that one (because they are incredibly awesome, not because this one is not.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:05, 25 March 2009
Look, we can only have canon images in the main namespace. You Seacon image is obviously a fan made image, so it can't go in the main article. You could load it up as a user image, but it just can't go on the main article. I'm sorry. -- SFH 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- While the awesomeness of that image is not in doubt, we've decided to only use official TF images int he articles. And if we were going to be akign exceptions-- there's a lot of other images we'd put before that one (because they are incredibly awesome, not because this one is not.) -Derik 17:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
