Good evening. When I checked my edit history I saw that I had 1 reversion, but to my knowledge I had never been reverted. I think that I may have accidentally self reverted when editing "Registered Mail". I am really proud of my perfect edit quality, is there any way I can delete the revision to keep it perfect? Thank you R8cobra (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses Thanks! Could this be used? "RD6. Non-contentious housekeeping including correction of clear and obvious unintended mistakes in previous redactions, changes to redaction based upon communal discussion and clear consensus, adding information to the delete logs, and converting traditional selective deleted edits to RevisionDelete. (The action must not be likely to be contentious or controversial; consult if needed.)" R8cobra (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R8cobra Not only is it incredibly unlikely to be fixable---and even if it is, it's not reasonable to take the time to revision delete every mistake an editor will make---the copyright situation on Wikipedia is so your account can't be deleted. The edits you make have to be attributed. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)08:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses It's one error that I can reference, and I know how to avoid it in the future, revision delete only needs to be used on one edit in "Registered Mail" because it was my first time adding an infobox and it wasn't showing on the mobile app (even though it was showing on the website version). I think it's reasonable to request an edit reversion once. R8cobra (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R8cobra You might know how to avoid this kind of mistake, but being human, you are certain to make another kind of mistake, and another, and another. You'll have to forgive me for disbelieving that you'll only request a rev-deletion for a mistake just this once. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)08:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses True, I am human. However, now that I know that the undo button is actually the revert button, I don't believe I will make this error again. You don't have to take my word for it though, as I'm only asking for one revision delete. R8cobra (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R8cobra: It's worth noting that even if you manually revert yourself (edit the page and make a change that exactly undoes a prior edit of yours) it will still tag the old one as "reverted." It's also the case that having a reversion "on your record" doesn't even necessarily mean that you did anything wrong. Reverts happen all of the time across Wikipedia.
I do a lot of RC patrol and revert vandals, who often revert my reversions. My edits therefore show up as reverted.
If you ever make an edit someone else disagrees with, they might revert it, even if you ultimately are right.
People tag articles with {{copyvio-revdel}} to request redaction for copyright reasons. When I complete the request and remove the tag, it shows that their edit introducing the tag was reverted.
My suggestion would be to simply change your perception of the "reverted" tag. It doesn't mean you did anything wrong, and nobody else is going to interpret it that way, either. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the article DeepSeek AI and I noticed there are some glaring issues especially with some of it blatantly copying text from sources. Thought I would let you know as these probably need to be removed permanently. ImcdcContact16:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Imcdc: It looks like the article has been moved to draftspace for now. Do you have an example of text that was copied from a source? I did a cursory check and couldn't find anything blatant. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The article is no longer in mainspace so it isn't much of an issue now. However here are some examples.
"Deepseek is fully funded by High-Flyer and has no plans to fundraise. It focuses on building foundational technology rather than commercial applications and has committed to open sourcing all of its models."
"The DeepSeek-R1-Lite-Preview model introduces “chain-of-thought” reasoning"
"DeepSeek’s new model is available through its web-based chatbot, DeepSeek Chat, where users can experience the model’s capabilities firsthand. However, usage is currently limited to 50 messages per day." This one isn't a complete copy but its just the same text with a few wording changes.
Hey, so quick question. Would you be able to explain either here or via email why you revdel'ed an edit summary from an administrator as RD2 here? Given the reason you revdel'ed it, I think it's appropriate to question what kind of grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive edit summary an administrator is making that would require redacting the edit summary. EggRoll97(talk) 21:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97: The edit summary was generated by the software when Bishonen moved the page back after a vandal moved it to an egregiously offensive page name. Therefore, that page name showed up in the edit summary. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97: No problem. To clarify, the edit summary was Bishonen moved page (Redacted) to User:CFA without leaving a redirect: fixing move vandalism. There was no misbehavior on Bishonen's part, this is just what MediaWiki does when you move a page. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
