User talk:Grufo
Add topicLatest comment: 14 days ago by Chrisahn in topic Assume good faith
Listing for discussion of Module:Params
[edit]
Module:Params has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aasim (話す) 18:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I know this is a bit of a disappointment, but I have to concur that the template is not suitable for En.wiki. It may be more suited for a more tech-oriented wiki like Fandom Developers wiki, though. I do appreciate the hard work that you put in to make the module as robust as possible. Perhaps something simpler and easier to maintain would suffice for English Wikipedia. Aasim (話す) 18:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Aasim: Given the previous discussion, this does not come as a surprise. Let's see what others have to say. --Grufo (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I went ahead and forked to Fandom Dev Wiki where the module perhaps can be refined further, I know it may be a bit of a disappointment that the module is likely to be deleted from English Wikipedia, but perhaps on Fandom (where people already need to learn DPL, and also people are more willing to experiment with formats such as this) it will find a home. Aasim (話す) 02:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Aasim: Given the previous discussion, this does not come as a surprise. Let's see what others have to say. --Grufo (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of Template:Link with archives for discussion
[edit] Template:Link with archives, a dependency of this page, has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged, redirected, or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * in solidarity 17:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of Module:Translitteratio for discussion
[edit] Module:Translitteratio, a dependency of this page, has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged, redirected, or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * in solidarity 21:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Assume good faith
[edit]Hi, in your edit summary here you said that I edited your comment "on purpose". I didn't. I hit "rollback" instead of "undo" because it was more convenient. That's all. I didn't think about which of your edits I'd have to undo to restore my comment that you accidentally deleted.
You also edited your own comment after I had responded several times. That violates WP:REDACT. No big deal, I don't mind much, but if you want to follow the rules, you should strike the old word instead of deleting it. Chrisahn (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- You can't simply “hit rollback”. Since you say you believed I had accidentally removed your comment while making other changes (and I believe that's what happened), using rollback necessarily meant reverting at least some of those other edits as well. As for my edit to my opening statement (changing “flaw” to “limitation”):
- There is no substantive change in meaning
- Before making that change, I checked whether anyone had commented on my specific wording or quoted it, and I didn't find any comments.
- If you think that particular edit creates a problem—for example, if it makes one of your replies harder to understand or changes the context of your comments—please let me know. --Grufo (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- You can't simply “hit rollback” – Of course I can hit "rollback". You don't know what you're talking about. Again: Assume good faith. If an editor says "I hit rollback", you should assume that the user hit rollback. Maybe the user has a gadget that you don't have. Assuming that you know better what the user can or can't do is pretty arrogant. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding the rest of your comment: Just read WP:REDACT. This time, I'll let your violation of that guideline slide, but if you violate it again, I'll revert your edits.
- In general: You really need to work on your way of communicating and collaborating. You often misunderstand or misrepresent what others are saying. In this case, you accused me of stuff I didn't do, and when I pointed out that you broke a rule, you made up exceptions from that rule. That's not how this works. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- You keep posting one comment after another, reinforcing your own narration each time. “On purpose” and “bad faith” are not synonyms. I always assume good faith. You necessarily had to use rollback knowing that it would revert my comments as well (hence “on purpose”)—unless you thought that the edits you were reverting consisted only of the removal of your comment, in which case that would mean assuming bad faith on my part. That, however, does not mean you acted with bad intentions; it simply means that you made the wrong decision (meaning: you did not think straight). As for WP:REDACT and editing other people's comments, you should be cautious: WP:REDACT only says that “it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes”, whereas WP:TPO clearly warns: “never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning”. If an edit of mine constitutes a problem, I'd suggest finding another solution, such as explicitly pointing out what you find problematic (also under the same discussion, personally I don't care). --Grufo (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I did not edit your comments on purpose. Maybe you don't know what "on purpose" means. I didn't intend to change your comments. I saw that you had deleted my comment. Certainly by accident, no big deal, but still a clear violation of the guideline you just quoted, so I did what was most convenient for me and hit "rollback". (Yes, I actually have a "rollback" button, because I have Wikipedia:Twinkle. Very useful.) I didn't really care which of your edits deleted my comment. You had been sloppy and probably ignored an edit conflict warning, so I didn't feel obligated to check how that happened exactly. But then you accused me of doing it "on purpose" because you felt I wasn't careful enough when I reverted your violation... Not cool. Anyway, you reinstated both of your changes (although one of them wasn't quite in line with WP:REDACT, but I guess you didn't know that, and it's no big deal anyway). Fine, we're done. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- We both deleted one of the other's comments. However, to delete your comment, I had to click a button labeled “Publish changes”, believing that I was publishing my changes while completely ignoring that there were changes on your side as well. You saw that your comment had disappeared, and instead of simply restoring it and mentioning the accidental removal in your edit summary, you clicked a button labeled “rollback” on my changes, which included my new comment. “On purpose” means exactly that: “not by accident”. You said yourself that you did not click “rollback” on my changes accidentally (e.g. by pressing the button by mistake), but because “it was more convenient”. Again: “on purpose”, that is, “intentionally”. I therefore don't understand your objection to my edit summary. --Grufo (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I did not edit your comments on purpose. You apparently don't quite understand what that phrase means. But you said somewhere that English is not your native language. Never mind. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to understand how “I rolled your edits back because it was convenient” does not contradict “I did not edit your comments on purpose”. In any case, I don't think there is much more to discuss about this. P.S. As an administrator on lawiki, I have a “rollback” button by default over there. Personally, I hate it and find it very dangerous. It can be a lifesaver when dealing with vandals—I admit it—but outside of vandalism, I prefer to inspect people's edits rather than use it. I definitely think there should be an option to hide that button and display it only on request (which is something you can actually do, whereas I cannot). --Grufo (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I'll try again... Your full edit summary was: "I am sorry if I accidentally removed your comment, but that does not mean you can edit my comments on purpose". The only comment I "edited" was the one in which you changed one word. I deleted your other comment, I didn't edit it. So when you wrote I "edited" your comment, you meant that single word change, right? And I didn't do that on purpose. I simply rolled back both of your edits. I didn't care much about the details. The only purpose of my actions was to restore my comment. Everything else was collateral damage. It was not done "on purpose". Is that clear? But maybe you still don't understand. If that's the case, that's probably because you don't quite understand what "on purpose" means in English. Well, never mind. (P.S. I find rollback buttons very useful.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Wait, have we reached the point where you argue that completely removing another person's comment is not “editing” it? I think it has always been clear to me that your intention was never to censor me or alter my comment; the fact that we are still discussing this shows that I never assumed bad faith, and I believe you did not either. However, this statement is still problematic: “I simply rolled back both of your edits. I didn't care much about the details.” Let me try to reframe my point more explicitly: you are allowed to cause damage by mistake (for example, by accidentally clicking “Publish changes”, provided that you fix it afterwards). You are also allowed to accidentally click “rollback” (which is one reason why I dislike that button; it has happened to me several times). But you should not simply roll back and not care much about the details. I understand that, after seeing your comment disappear, you felt that restoring it was the priority. Yet that action falls into a different category from a simple accident. I hope we can finally close this discussion (I am perfectly fine with that). --Grufo (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- 1. Yes, there is a difference between editing and deleting a comment. 2. You deleted my comment. By accident, but still a pretty bad faux pas. In such a case, I think it's OK to simply revert the accident, even if there's some collateral damage. That's what I did. Sure, I could have taken the time to restore my comment without changing yours, but I didn't have to. You made the mistake, you should clean it up. 3. And that's what you did. Good! I never intended to revert your edits for good. I expected you to restore them (this time taking care not to remove my comment), and that's what happened. Fine. 4. Again: I didn't edit or delete your comments "on purpose". That was not the purpose of my action. The purpose was restoring my comment. Everything else was collateral damage. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Wait, have we reached the point where you argue that completely removing another person's comment is not “editing” it? I think it has always been clear to me that your intention was never to censor me or alter my comment; the fact that we are still discussing this shows that I never assumed bad faith, and I believe you did not either. However, this statement is still problematic: “I simply rolled back both of your edits. I didn't care much about the details.” Let me try to reframe my point more explicitly: you are allowed to cause damage by mistake (for example, by accidentally clicking “Publish changes”, provided that you fix it afterwards). You are also allowed to accidentally click “rollback” (which is one reason why I dislike that button; it has happened to me several times). But you should not simply roll back and not care much about the details. I understand that, after seeing your comment disappear, you felt that restoring it was the priority. Yet that action falls into a different category from a simple accident. I hope we can finally close this discussion (I am perfectly fine with that). --Grufo (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I'll try again... Your full edit summary was: "I am sorry if I accidentally removed your comment, but that does not mean you can edit my comments on purpose". The only comment I "edited" was the one in which you changed one word. I deleted your other comment, I didn't edit it. So when you wrote I "edited" your comment, you meant that single word change, right? And I didn't do that on purpose. I simply rolled back both of your edits. I didn't care much about the details. The only purpose of my actions was to restore my comment. Everything else was collateral damage. It was not done "on purpose". Is that clear? But maybe you still don't understand. If that's the case, that's probably because you don't quite understand what "on purpose" means in English. Well, never mind. (P.S. I find rollback buttons very useful.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to understand how “I rolled your edits back because it was convenient” does not contradict “I did not edit your comments on purpose”. In any case, I don't think there is much more to discuss about this. P.S. As an administrator on lawiki, I have a “rollback” button by default over there. Personally, I hate it and find it very dangerous. It can be a lifesaver when dealing with vandals—I admit it—but outside of vandalism, I prefer to inspect people's edits rather than use it. I definitely think there should be an option to hide that button and display it only on request (which is something you can actually do, whereas I cannot). --Grufo (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I did not edit your comments on purpose. You apparently don't quite understand what that phrase means. But you said somewhere that English is not your native language. Never mind. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- We both deleted one of the other's comments. However, to delete your comment, I had to click a button labeled “Publish changes”, believing that I was publishing my changes while completely ignoring that there were changes on your side as well. You saw that your comment had disappeared, and instead of simply restoring it and mentioning the accidental removal in your edit summary, you clicked a button labeled “rollback” on my changes, which included my new comment. “On purpose” means exactly that: “not by accident”. You said yourself that you did not click “rollback” on my changes accidentally (e.g. by pressing the button by mistake), but because “it was more convenient”. Again: “on purpose”, that is, “intentionally”. I therefore don't understand your objection to my edit summary. --Grufo (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I did not edit your comments on purpose. Maybe you don't know what "on purpose" means. I didn't intend to change your comments. I saw that you had deleted my comment. Certainly by accident, no big deal, but still a clear violation of the guideline you just quoted, so I did what was most convenient for me and hit "rollback". (Yes, I actually have a "rollback" button, because I have Wikipedia:Twinkle. Very useful.) I didn't really care which of your edits deleted my comment. You had been sloppy and probably ignored an edit conflict warning, so I didn't feel obligated to check how that happened exactly. But then you accused me of doing it "on purpose" because you felt I wasn't careful enough when I reverted your violation... Not cool. Anyway, you reinstated both of your changes (although one of them wasn't quite in line with WP:REDACT, but I guess you didn't know that, and it's no big deal anyway). Fine, we're done. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- You keep posting one comment after another, reinforcing your own narration each time. “On purpose” and “bad faith” are not synonyms. I always assume good faith. You necessarily had to use rollback knowing that it would revert my comments as well (hence “on purpose”)—unless you thought that the edits you were reverting consisted only of the removal of your comment, in which case that would mean assuming bad faith on my part. That, however, does not mean you acted with bad intentions; it simply means that you made the wrong decision (meaning: you did not think straight). As for WP:REDACT and editing other people's comments, you should be cautious: WP:REDACT only says that “it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes”, whereas WP:TPO clearly warns: “never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning”. If an edit of mine constitutes a problem, I'd suggest finding another solution, such as explicitly pointing out what you find problematic (also under the same discussion, personally I don't care). --Grufo (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)