User talk: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[edit]
The 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[edit]
hey 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[edit]
Here 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)