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 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•talk10:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
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•talk09:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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•talk14:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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•talk14:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello ,I’m reaching out to request your assistance in restoring the content of the previously deleted University of International Business and Economics article to my userspace.
I’d like to work on revising the article to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and would appreciate having access to the original content for reference.
Ahaha! I didn't expect that there would be any old-timers with pages from that group on their watchlist. 20 years later and Wikipedia drama really hasn't changed... 😄 — Hex•talk17:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
Hello, Hex. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
