3,101
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:By awarding separate point totals for images, these being the same as for edits. Any image would get two points, and if the image is of exceptional quality--unusually striking, or an original graphic that obviously took a lot of the submitter's time and effort to produce--then it gets six.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 07:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
:By awarding separate point totals for images, these being the same as for edits. Any image would get two points, and if the image is of exceptional quality--unusually striking, or an original graphic that obviously took a lot of the submitter's time and effort to produce--then it gets six.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 07:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree with your scoring system, Terry. However, I would want there to be a provision that safeguarded against mass-uploads - say, the image must be included in an article (and be relevant!) to count for points. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:45, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree with your scoring system, Terry. However, I would want there to be a provision that safeguarded against mass-uploads - say, the image must be included in an article (and be relevant!) to count for points. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:45, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
:::'''Uploads: 2 points
:::'''Uploads''': 2 points
Exceptional Quality:+2 EC points
Exceptional Quality:+2 EC points
Used in Article:+2 EC Points
Used in Article:+2 EC Points
::::Work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 23:26, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
== Welcoming ==
== Welcoming ==