I stumbled upon this suggested edit. It adds the following text to the end of an answer:


I now have a solution on how to fix the mirror catch (only confirmed for specifically the Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 on Canon full frame bodies):


I guess this should be rejected, because it doesn't add any information. Only a link. I skipped because I wasn't sure about the whole thing of an anonymous user personating a registered one. The registered user is Jakub, which makes it unlikely that this is a hoax of a spambot. I guess the issue is due to him not being logged in properly.

Any thoughts on how to deal with this kind of situation?

  • \$\begingroup\$ I assume this wasn't actually Jakub, but someone who noticed both the post here and the personal blog with more information. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Sep 10, 2015 at 3:17

1 Answer 1


Accept or reject on its merits, whether it's the original poster or someone suggesting an edit. Obviously this is Jakub, adding to his post, possibly on a different device and doesn't remember his password, or didn't realize he wasn't logged in properly. Nothing sinister about it I'm sure.

The link is tangential to the answer, but could be useful to someone who wants to adapt a lens to infinity focus on Canon mount. It's not a link-only answer - I don't see any reason to reject the edit.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Right, it's an added link, not a link only. \$\endgroup\$
    – null
    Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 21:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yes, but please reject this "EDITED!" junk. Just edit it to be currently correct. Think Wikipedia, not web forum. No one cares about the minutiae of the post's history. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Sep 10, 2015 at 3:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .