@Fleur de Lis
Understandable and appreciated; though that’s mostly there to try and deter ne’er-do-wells from needlessly messing with tags.

Yes. I often forget those exist.

I was just going from the tag history page saying “Stop! This user is a staff member. Ask them before reverting their changes.”

I was sure that you or other staff member would agree to a change after seeing the added context.

@Fleur de Lis
Things like this aren’t really report-worthy; PMs would be ideal.
Also, just because a staff member made tag changes, doesn’t automatically make those tag changes correct. The tags were changed before proper context was given, retroactively making my particular change incorrect.
@Smokey Meadow
You’re the person who made the final image. You’re the one who uploaded it. You’re the one who also has the ability to change the tags. Your authority is ultimate when it comes to tagging this image.
I made an assumption based upon common context clues of AI imagery. If you, the editor and uploader of the image, say that I’m wrong, then please change the tags to what you deem to be appropriate.

Also, as for your fear of your artist tag being potentially claimed by someone else; that simply isn’t going to happen.

@Smokey Meadow
Though Exhumed Legume has been on this site for long time, he isn’t on the site staff. Neither he nor I have the authority to overwrite evan555alpha’s change to the tags without permission.

This is not a big art site. This is primarily a mirror/archive with a small “community” element. Things can move slowly here. Even more, some recent drama has driven out a couple of the more active moderators.

If I was you, I would file a report on this image as Rule #3: Bad tagging/sourcing. That should bring to attention of someone who actually is on staff. Clearly explain the whole situation in the report, assume good faith from the site staff, and give it some time.

And remember, noone here magically knows anything about what you’ve done on other sites in the past.

@Exhumed Legume
Yes, that’s more acceptable, and accurate. If you updated that, I would have no objection to the way this image is tagged. And thank you for your kind words.

@evan555alpha
@Smokey Meadow

So machine learning assisted would seem fair?


She’s cute, by the way.

Bonus points for the Gadget reference.

@Smokey Meadow
> refuse to tell people what you did
> get mad when people don’t know what you did

I wasn’t even aware of this site until recently. And I made no comment on my level of skill. I just claimed to exist. Seems that people like what I do well enough to upload it, fwiw. I’ve apparently existed here as an artist a very long time. The fact that many of my images inspired derivative works and memes should be enough proof that I’ve contributed to the fandom. I’ll hold off on tagging any of it with an unverified tag that can be easily claimed by literally anyone else.

So you saw a bunch of your work on here and didn’t tag it? And that untagged work is proof of your skills?

Just to ensure we’re on the same page, you can still tag your work “artist:smokey-meadow” without a verified link.

@evan555alpha
This image is a Photoshopped composite made using some AI sources. I actually drew the whole body and jumpsuit myself. 20+ layers in Photoshop, and it took me three weeks to do. You’ll never reproduce this image with any kind of prompt or other AI technique, so calling it generated is inaccurate. AI can’t produce things like the partial transparency effect on the glasses, which proves even the AI sourced face was heavily altered with Photoshop. Feel free to apply whatever scarlet letter tags and insults you see fit, but your site is chock full of years-old uncredited examples of my work. I’d say that makes me an artist, if nothing else does.

@Anonymous #1354
@Anonymous #739F
You guys are right - it is. I’ve tagged it as such.
Generating AI content, does not an artist make you.

It’s AI content.

Pretty sure that needs the “ai content” tag