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. |
Deleting ancient revisions at WP:CSD[edit]
Why are you revision deleting edits from 2005 at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion? The edits were vandalism, but they were quickly and correctly reverted nearly 20 years ago. I'm struggling to understand what benefit revision deleting them now brings, either at all or that outweighs the disruption spamming the deletion log causes? Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- You can't understand why it's good to remove vandalism from view in our page histories after spending nearly 20 years as an admin?
- "The disruption spamming the logs"... my God, stop being so melodramatic. It's half past two in the afternoon and Special:Log/delete already has over 1,500 entries today, of which 3 were me.
- This is absolutely pathetic. — Scott • talk 14:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Most vandalism does not need to be revision deleted, and this was no different - it wasn't offensive or anything like that, just run of the mill adding random characters to pages. You haven't explained why drawing unnecessary attention to 19 year old edits and unnecessary entries in the deletion log are beneficial to the project, and your attitude (especially when combined with your attitude at the recent DRV we both participated in) is not remotely that I would expect from an admin. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- So we go from "disruption spamming the logs" to "drawing unnecessary attention". Just flat out making up unquantifiable phantoms unrelated to any policy, because you saw "12:55 (Deletion log) [Scott (3×)]" on your watchlist and didn't like it.
It wasn't offensive or anything like that, just run of the mill adding random characters to pages
- correct. RD3: "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project." If you don't like that criterion, you can argue your case against it at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. — Scott • talk 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Most vandalism does not need to be revision deleted, and this was no different - it wasn't offensive or anything like that, just run of the mill adding random characters to pages. You haven't explained why drawing unnecessary attention to 19 year old edits and unnecessary entries in the deletion log are beneficial to the project, and your attitude (especially when combined with your attitude at the recent DRV we both participated in) is not remotely that I would expect from an admin. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)