User talk:79.151.31.9

November 2021
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pope John Paul I, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Pope John Paul I, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * But I'd only put the original caption of the of 12:56, 16 October 2021 by Serols, before another user changed the file to a not-valid.


 * With the other articles, I only put photographs of Pius IX that were more suitable in historical terms in each article. Sorry for not explain carefully in the past.
 * Get consensus for image changes. You cannot unilaterally decide to make numerous image changes. And stop leaving edit summaries that lie. Sundayclose (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Pope John Paul I. Sundayclose (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop leaving misleading edit summaries
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use edit summaries that are misleading, intentionally or not, as you did at History of Catholic Mariology, you may be blocked from editing. Changing an image is NOT a "correction". Sundayclose (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

FINAL WARNING
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Papal States under Pope Pius IX. STOP leaving misleading edit summaries. Sundayclose (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll stop. But please, don't revert all because some of my modifications were for restore original photos of some articles like Pope Leo XIII, which the Library of Congress file was removed by other person without consensus and in Pius IX the photo of the Pope with the King of the Two Sicilies I'd translated the caption from the Spanish and the Italian Wikipedia, so I can't give for the momemt an extra source that confirm this.
 * I've only editing with good fair and not for disturb the articles so I'm sorry for my actions.
 * I'm not wasting hours sorting through your edits to separate the few good ones from the many bad ones. YOU stop making bad edits and we won't have a problem. The burden is on YOU, not me. You apparently don't believe that you will lose your editing privileges, but if you continue disruptive editing I assure you, you will. Sundayclose (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

= Photos of Pius IX = Hi Sundayclose, I really seriously promise you that I didn't try to hurt anyone and my only intention was to improve the multimedia of the articles as well as some descriptions, I present again my apologies for having edited erroneously and that it gave a feeling of disruptive.

Therefore, after trying to find information about the description of the photograph of Pius IX with Francis II of Dos Sicilias, I have changed the description (citing the Getty Images page where it is described) and, in the discussion, I' ve added links to the versions in Spanish and Italian from Wikipedia where the description of the audience with Francisco II is used instead of that of the cardinals, to confirm that I' ve translated it from there and that it isn't my invention.

In addition, regarding the image, I've reverted to the 1862 portrait by Fratelli D'Alessandri, since the 1878 one was also changed WITHOUT a consensus, and immediately afterwards, I indicated it in the discussion too, in addition to incite on a consensus to decide a main image between the previous two and the one from 1875.

I really hope to deal with this to make better edits and, again, I apologize for my mistakes. Thanks, --79.151.31.9 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your apology is meaningless if you continue making disruptive edits. You don't seem to have grasped three very important points, or you are intentionally ignoring them: STOP making mass changes in images without discussion on the talk page. STOP creating captions that have no verification of the facts. STOP leaving misleading edit summaries. Until you change these behaviors, your edits will continue to be reverted and you will eventually lose your editing privileges. Now, I'm not wasting any more time repeating myself to someone who refuses to get the point. Your bad edits will be reverted without further discussion here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Images (again)
If someone reverts an image change, go to the talk page and get consensus instead of edit warring. Read WP:EW. And please keep these facts in mind about images: Newer isn't always better. Color isn't always better. Close-up isn't always better. Please consider the photographic quality of an image before changing images. Sundayclose (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the tips on the images, since I did not realize to check the photographic quality and, instead, I tried to make them high resolution, "portrait-like" and, as far as
 * possible, in color.
 * I'll try from now to take on these details into account, and also I regret any inconvenience that I may have caused.--79.151.31.9 (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, if two images are equal except for resolution, higher resolution is better. But with differences in photographic quality, not necessarily. Sundayclose (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I understand it better, and all thanks to you. I'll keep it in mind for my future editions and I regret again my mistakes in the past.
 * Sincerely,--79.151.31.9 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)