User talk:Darkpope
Cut it out with the unreferenced rulings. Danny Lilithborne 19:03, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
- How about we only put in referenced rulings and not stuff that any non-idiot could figure out. Danny Lilithborne 19:13, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
- Understandable, but we've had a guideline that only rulings referenced with UDE/Konami or high ranking judges make the cut on the "Card Rulings" page, otherwise there'd be no end to it. Danny Lilithborne 19:19, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
- You got to hope for a judge with some common sense. Whoever your opponents would be would probably reject a ruling on a Wiki site on its face, anyway. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
- Understandable, but we've had a guideline that only rulings referenced with UDE/Konami or high ranking judges make the cut on the "Card Rulings" page, otherwise there'd be no end to it. Danny Lilithborne 19:19, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
Card Rulings:Soul Devouring Bamboo Sword[edit]
I couldn't have known that as you didn't provide a reference or even give an edit summary. I checked Netrep and Yu-Judges before reverting. That's proof that it's not an official TCG ruling, which is what the section you posted it under, "TCG Rulings", is for. Any rulings that are unsourced typically get reverted, with the explanation as to why they were reverted in the summary.
Anyway... it's still unofficial. It wasn't directly issued from UDE or Konami. We don't document rulings individual users come up with, regardless of whether they are correct or based on similiar rulings. -- Deltaneos (talk) 02:26, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
- I did not revert it for being in the wrong section. I reverted it for being unofficial/unsourced. You posted it under TCG Rulings and I checked the official TCG rulings and found it wasn't there, proving it was unofficial. Now maybe TCG rulings was the wrong section... but there was no evidence given to say it belonged in any other section i.e. you didn't give a source. There was nothing more I could check, so I reverted and gave the reason for reverting in the summary. If the ruling was legit, I explained that it was unsourced, so all you had to do was provide a source.
- I still don't think posting unofficial rulings based on other official rulings is allowed. The consensus has been only rulings directly issued from UDE or Konami, no exceptions. If that's been changed, I havent heard of it. -- Deltaneos (talk) 02:48, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
