Jugofthat said:
...Wait. What exactly is this about? Are you saying I'm not allowed to add an artist's or commissioner's info (from a source) to a post if I'm not its uploader?

Unless "to create information" (that seems pretty vaguely worded) means I'd have to be deliberately pulling things from my ass and making it seem as though it's quoting one of the people involved. Now outlawing that I could understand.

It's best to not fuck with descriptions, because you can do anything a description can in a comment or source field. If you want to give credit to a music maker or the secondary animators, do it in a comment. If they forgot a second source, say the owner's end of the commish'd piece, change the source to include it.

For uploaders, they can use the description to say/relay information that doesn't belong in a comment. For instance, stories, character details, "uploader quips", or artist details. That stuff should not be modified and making a long comment, or series of comments, would be not smart.

So, ultimately, it's curtesy between the first and third parties: uploaders use descriptions to put information that may (not) be needed, third party can choose to comment on it, or add more, or choose not to.

In your example, the smartest method is to use "[.section=*], remove the . , and replace the * with "artist information". Once you are done with the info, end it with [./section] ,again remove the . . It saves people the time of reading through your comment by sectioning it, and if people are interested you've just provided the information they may have needed. A person can't edit your comment, but some random Douchebag McAsshole can choose to re-edit out your description information, so commenting it saves a potential description war.

As pseudo off-topic, I've never seen that rule enforced while looking through negative records, and I'm willing to assume it's because they don't have to, tagging and sourcing is the most common method of adding needed information.