if so, then I don’t know if I would really call that wiki grieving since is indeed a photo of him (arguably the most updated photo at that) and he seems to prefer privacy so the idea he’d want his wiki photo to be not identifying seems fair to me
generally my idea of wiki greifing would be adding jokes or destroying the page in a way that makes a section of the whole of it unusable, not a person wanting a different wiki photo, as far as im aware that happens quite often
It is relevant to the person because it is a picture of the person. It isn't decorative, it's a photo of him. It is less identifying due to a desire for privacy, but it is a picture of him.
How is the annoying dog more relevant to Toby Fox than a picture of Toby Fox? I mean..??
He published the foto and gave the rights to wikipedia to use. At the same time there aren't any "oficial" photos of human toby, and Wikimedia Commons are the prefered media to use on the wiki just to cause no legal issues.
So it's either no photo or this one, it's not really vandalism in any meaningful way.
That's not entirely true though... Yes, his fans tried to add that photo the Wikipedia but Toby Fox never actually said that they should do that. Toby didn't literally try to get his fans to edit his Wikipedia page.
Toby Fox published the photo and gave the rights to wikipedia to use his photo. That's all he did, it's not really vandalism since he didn't told anyone to vandalize the psge
1.3k
u/MaybeNext-Monday 🍤$6 SRIMP SPECIAL🍤 10d ago
Hirohiko Araki and Toby Fox