User talk:Scott

Deleting ancient revisions at WP:CSD

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)

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)

Revision hide request

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)