From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|
:::You could have simply stated it in the edit summary of the second rollback, instead of resorting to canned warnings and threats against editors with good intentions. [[User:Loveuu23|Loveuu23]] ([[User talk:Loveuu23#top|talk]]) 16:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
:::You could have simply stated it in the edit summary of the second rollback, instead of resorting to canned warnings and threats against editors with good intentions. [[User:Loveuu23|Loveuu23]] ([[User talk:Loveuu23#top|talk]]) 16:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
::::To clarify, disruptive editing under [[WP:DE]] does not require malicious or intentional conduct. It refers to the effect of an edit pattern, not the editor’s intent. In this case, the repeated removal of the image based on an incorrect premise about the Commons file history met that definition, regardless of good faith. For clarity, this was already stated in the initial revert summary. I explicitly noted that the hijacked image had already been reverted at Commons. That information was available at the time and directly addressed the concern. That said, the issue itself is now resolved. No further action is needed as long as future changes are based on accurate premises and applicable policy. ”'<span style=”color:#f535aa”>—</span> [[User:Paper9oll|<span style=”background:#f535aa;color:#fff;padding:2px;border-radius:5px”>Paper9oll</span>]] <span style=”color:#f535aa”>([[User talk:Paper9oll|🔔]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paper9oll|📝]])</span>”’ 16:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
::::To clarify, disruptive editing under [[WP:DE]] does not require malicious or intentional conduct. It refers to the effect of an edit pattern, not the editor’s intent. In this case, the repeated removal of the image based on an incorrect premise about the Commons file history met that definition, regardless of good faith. For clarity, this was already stated in the initial revert summary. I explicitly noted that the hijacked image had already been reverted at Commons. That information was available at the time and directly addressed the concern. That said, the issue itself is now resolved. No further action is needed as long as future changes are based on accurate premises and applicable policy. ”'<span style=”color:#f535aa”>—</span> [[User:Paper9oll|<span style=”background:#f535aa;color:#fff;padding:2px;border-radius:5px”>Paper9oll</span>]] <span style=”color:#f535aa”>([[User talk:Paper9oll|🔔]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paper9oll|📝]])</span>”’ 16:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
:::::Yes, the guidelines you cited are all correct, but your initial attitude wasn’t so analytical and reasoned. |
|||
|
:::::You may think your attitude is fine, but because of you, I will no longer offer any goodwill to English Wikipedia. That’s all. [[User:Loveuu23|Loveuu23]] ([[User talk:Loveuu23#top|talk]]) 16:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:16, 7 February 2026
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to P.O, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have already informed you of the image issue in the edit summary of that entry. Since you haven’t verified it and instead accuse others of destructive editing, I feel no need to further remind you. Please continue using the modified, infringing image in that entry! Loveuu23 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- File:Block B at KCON 2015 in Los Angeles – 9.jpg had already been reverted at Commons to its pre-hijacked state, which automatically restored the original version on English Wikipedia as well. At no point after the Commons revert was the hijacked version displayed in P.O, making the local removal of the image unnecessary. Accordingly, the claim that English Wikipedia was “continuing to use the modified, infringing image” is incorrect. Before making changes of this nature, please ensure that you are familiar with the English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any concern regarding a hijacked revision appearing in the file history pertains solely to historical records and does not affect current use, and should be raised at Commons, where revision history is maintained. Further unnecessary changes to the infobox image on P.O where the sole or primary rationale is the assertion that the image remains problematic due to the presence of a hijacked revision in the file history, or any substantially similar rationale, would constitute further disruptive editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- You’ve explained it very clearly now! But I find it hard to accept that you labeled it destructive editing when it was clearly not intentional!
- You could have simply stated it in the edit summary of the second rollback, instead of resorting to canned warnings and threats against editors with good intentions. Loveuu23 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- To clarify, disruptive editing under WP:DE does not require malicious or intentional conduct. It refers to the effect of an edit pattern, not the editor’s intent. In this case, the repeated removal of the image based on an incorrect premise about the Commons file history met that definition, regardless of good faith. For clarity, this was already stated in the initial revert summary. I explicitly noted that the hijacked image had already been reverted at Commons. That information was available at the time and directly addressed the concern. That said, the issue itself is now resolved. No further action is needed as long as future changes are based on accurate premises and applicable policy. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, the guidelines you cited are all correct, but your initial attitude wasn’t so analytical and reasoned.
- You may think your attitude is fine, but because of you, I will no longer offer any goodwill to English Wikipedia. That’s all. Loveuu23 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- To clarify, disruptive editing under WP:DE does not require malicious or intentional conduct. It refers to the effect of an edit pattern, not the editor’s intent. In this case, the repeated removal of the image based on an incorrect premise about the Commons file history met that definition, regardless of good faith. For clarity, this was already stated in the initial revert summary. I explicitly noted that the hijacked image had already been reverted at Commons. That information was available at the time and directly addressed the concern. That said, the issue itself is now resolved. No further action is needed as long as future changes are based on accurate premises and applicable policy. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- File:Block B at KCON 2015 in Los Angeles – 9.jpg had already been reverted at Commons to its pre-hijacked state, which automatically restored the original version on English Wikipedia as well. At no point after the Commons revert was the hijacked version displayed in P.O, making the local removal of the image unnecessary. Accordingly, the claim that English Wikipedia was “continuing to use the modified, infringing image” is incorrect. Before making changes of this nature, please ensure that you are familiar with the English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any concern regarding a hijacked revision appearing in the file history pertains solely to historical records and does not affect current use, and should be raised at Commons, where revision history is maintained. Further unnecessary changes to the infobox image on P.O where the sole or primary rationale is the assertion that the image remains problematic due to the presence of a hijacked revision in the file history, or any substantially similar rationale, would constitute further disruptive editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
