Scott
 | This page will be cleared from time to time. For old messages please consult the history, which is the only tamper-proof form of archive. |
Use of RD3
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Hi, Scott. Just noting that I wanted to raise this issue with you too but only recently got 'round to this. Putting aside the fact that these revisions are very old for now, Wikipedia:Revision deletion § Misuse states that
RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility ... Material must be grossly offensive
. Things like 'When people eat Pringles, it is very yummy according to the people who eat/ate it', 'WORST WEB PAGE ON THE WEB "LULZ!"', keysmashing, and 'SUNNY TOSS MAFIYA' do not fall under that and should not be deleted. Please reconsider your refusal. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)- Hi Sdrqaz. I'm afraid your interpretation is at odds with established consensus, which isn't surprising given the poorly-written preamble that you quote which appears to contradict the definition of RD3. The last time that I'm aware of that the community discussed limiting the use of RD3 to such a context was in 2011, at which time the sentiment "RevDel is a useful tool in denying recognition to regular vandals" was the most endorsed, which is in keeping with the definition of "purely disruptive material". If you feel that the criterion is inadequately defined you can certainly reopen the topic for discussion. In the meantime, however, I've attempted to resolve the contradiction. — Scott • talk 10:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have brought this up at the administrators' noticeboard (diff). You are invited to respond to the concerns there, per policy. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Sdrqaz. I'm afraid your interpretation is at odds with established consensus, which isn't surprising given the poorly-written preamble that you quote which appears to contradict the definition of RD3. The last time that I'm aware of that the community discussed limiting the use of RD3 to such a context was in 2011, at which time the sentiment "RevDel is a useful tool in denying recognition to regular vandals" was the most endorsed, which is in keeping with the definition of "purely disruptive material". If you feel that the criterion is inadequately defined you can certainly reopen the topic for discussion. In the meantime, however, I've attempted to resolve the contradiction. — Scott • talk 10:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Revision hide request
edithey there was a pretty bad edit on Hurricane Beryl. I'm not sure if it is worthy of a revdel but it seems pretty racist, so I'm reporting it just in case. Cheers!
link to revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Beryl&diff=prev&oldid=1233915555
Gaismagorm (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. Thanks for spotting it. — Scott • talk 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- no problem! Gaismagorm (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Revdel request
editHere after picking your name from the revdel roster: requesting removal of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yasir_Al-Rumayyan&diff=prev&oldid=1161251713 where an IP has posted personal information, when you've got a moment. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for spotting it. — Scott • talk 19:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Amberlihisar
editHey, why did you subtst the WikiProject banner at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Amberlihisar? Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hiya, it was to turn off the categories but retain the presence of the template, because I couldn't immediately work out how to do it another way. — Scott • talk 09:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|category=no}}should work. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)- That still produces a couple of categories, so I've just nowiki'd it instead. — Scott • talk 09:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think
File:Ten Year Society.svg
editHey, is there any five year version of File:Ten Year Society.svg anywhere? — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm not involved with that any more. Best of luck. — Scott • talk 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Review requests at AfC Participants
editHello Scott, hope you are well. Could you please review the requests at AfC Participants, I've been waiting for a few days to have my request reviewed. Many thanks! Azarctic (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm afraid I've never had any involvement with that so I'm the wrong person to ask. — Scott • talk 22:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh it's fine then. I've been waiting a few days that's all. Thanks anyway. Azarctic (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you are willing to revision delete on your categories. Could you perhaps delete my block log, I was blocked awhile ago for sockpuppetry because I changed to this account, because on my other account it revealed on real name. On the reason of my block on the log it also states my real name. Could you delete that for me. Thank you! Azarctic (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, revision deletion can only be used on personal information if it was revealed accidentally. Pretty much the only thing it's possible to do to completely separate yourself from a former account at your real name is a clean start. Sorry, I know that's not a great option. — Scott • talk 14:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is personal information on the reason because the person who blocked me stated my real life name on the reason which is personal and private. It is possible to do on block logs. Even if I do go for a clean start, it will not resolve my issue because the block log is still there with my personal name on. Please if there is anyway I can delete it even if other admins agree with it and a discussion is made. Azarctic (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's really not going to be possible. The problem is that the block log is used for accountability and as a record of how/where/when things happened. In your case there was some confusion regarding the use of more than one account, and the discussion which led to a block on your current account being unlifted was made on the user talk page of your old account. Keeping track of the sequence of events is why the (un)blocking admin made note of it in the log.
- Because you intentionally created the account under your offline name, and used that until switching to another account, there's nothing in our policies which allows it to be considered "private" and thus eligible to be hidden. Every other admin will tell you the same thing, as well as pointing out that the account registration page already has a comment that "Your username is public and cannot be made private later".
- If it helps at all, our log pages are hidden from search engines on the web so they're not going to show up if someone searches Google for your name. — Scott • talk 14:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is personal information on the reason because the person who blocked me stated my real life name on the reason which is personal and private. It is possible to do on block logs. Even if I do go for a clean start, it will not resolve my issue because the block log is still there with my personal name on. Please if there is anyway I can delete it even if other admins agree with it and a discussion is made. Azarctic (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, revision deletion can only be used on personal information if it was revealed accidentally. Pretty much the only thing it's possible to do to completely separate yourself from a former account at your real name is a clean start. Sorry, I know that's not a great option. — Scott • talk 14:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:ClockBlock
edit Template:ClockBlock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Obtain a copy of my Deleted Article.
editHey User:Scott!
My article had been rejected yesterday. So, I wanna proofread it. So, can i obtain a copy of my article for it?<br>
Thank You.
ChessFan069 (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ChessFan,
- Unfortunately I'm not able to do that, for two reasons - firstly, it seems that you're writing about yourself, which we ask people not to do. Secondly, although you're clearly a promising player, you don't meet our general requirement of notability, which is that multiple reliable sources have to have discussed you in detail. Yes, you've been mentioned in newspapers for your tournament positions, but it's not detailed enough for us to have an article for you at present. So there's really not any point of me getting the text of your draft back because there's no way currently that it will be accepted as an article. Sorry.
- Kind regards,
- Scott. — Scott • talk 00:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
editHello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,