User talk:RCSCott91

Last night I deleted what I'm pretty sure is a fabricated slogan from the Tupperware page, but you immediately reverted the change. I laid out a more careful explanation of why I think the slogan should be deleted in the talk page, so if you still disagree with this deletion can you clarify why? 2600:4040:2530:5700:78B3:505A:225D:732C (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. I am not certain how I made that mistake. I will self-revert. Thank you so much for bringing my error to my attention.

RCSCott91 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the alert. RCSCott91 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is best not to engage with non EC editors as per WP:ARBECR, they are limited to the making of straightforward edit requests only. It's also OK to just delete such comments. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. I'm pretty sure the person I replied to was a US far-right individual, given their comparison of the Proud Boys in America, which is not a proper comparison to the international complexity of Hezbollah.

I'll definitely keep that in mind in the future, especially before spending 10 minutes on a sincere reply to someone who didn't have the common courtesy to sign their comment.

Thanks!

RCSCott91 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brewster Kahle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that info. I was converting an already existing link but I will keep that in mind. RCSCott91 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot is there not a bot that already does the bulk of Disambiguation of pages with links? RCSCott91 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCSCott91 I'm not sure the bot can reply as it isn't a person, but it does have a talk page. I don't think there is such a bot, not even sure how it would work. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller It would just be a machine-learning bot. Looks like AI is one of the debated topics right now between editors so it might be a while before we get one. I have no doubts that a few of the Python coding editors have had experience with writing and supervising AI. RCSCott91 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Doug Weller talk 14:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! I received your note on why you reverted the edits I made to Friedrich Kunath's wikipedia page. Makes sense and am wondering if I can make the edits again assuming this time I don't remove any inline references ? Thank you! studiokunath

Studiokunath (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Studiokunath Of course. The edits actually looks good and they definitely made the article easier to read, as far as formatting goes. Tip: You can ping @ someone in a talk page to get their attention, that way you don't have to open up a new topic just to reply.

Let me know if you need any help, you did a really nice job, that's why I honestly, hated reverting it.

User talk page Topic Friedrich Kunath revert RCSCott91 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

got it thank you! appreciate the tip as I'm new to editing and pinging, learning the ropes.

one more questions for clarification if you don't mind -- I want to restructure the 'Exhibitions' section of Friedrich Kunath's page, so that it's listed chronologically from most recent to oldest show. Can I just copy paste within the editing mode to rearrange, which will change around the arrangement of the inline references, but not remove them? thank you again for all your help! Studiokunath (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to copy and paste within the visual editing mode to do that.

I normally copy and paste in the text editor when dealing with template format, sources, and any mark-up language.

In your profile settings, preferences, editing:

you can toggle on:

-Show preview when starting to edit

-Show preview before edit box

-Show preview without reloading the page

They are the holy grail of seeing what mistake you might have made before you publish.

RCSCott91 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Studiokunath I placed it on your talk page, but I am pinging you here, too.

Not accusing or anything but do be careful of any conflict of interest editing. I noticed your username. I am aware that WP:COI.

If you do have an association, the easiest way to avoid it would be to declare it in your edit summary and/or a general declaration on your user page. WP:DISCLOSE

Again, this is not an accusation; just take it as information if you don't have an association with the subject of the article you are editing.

RCSCott91 (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RCSCott91. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Elli (talk | contribs) 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the friendly fire! mftp dan ^oops 20:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens while fighting vandalism. Thanks for the notice. RCSCott91 (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundgarden being sludge metal... hilarious, that notion. mftp dan ^oops 00:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That just seems off. Reminds me of when one of my old professors used to joke, that bands like Green Day will one day be considered easy listening. RCSCott91 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user you are probably confused about when to use article talk pages and when to use user talk pages.

• Article talk pages are best for discussing content. For example, if you think that a point is over-cited in the article on the Bharatiya Janata Party, you should explain your point at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party. The advantage of this is that other editors who are interested in that article can see the discussion. They may have background knowledge that is useful. You may also find that the article talk page (or its archives) already discuss the issue you are interested in - though not necessarily in the terms you want. It is possible that by reading these, you can answer your own question, and you do not need to make a post.
• User talk pages are best for discussing behaviour. (See WP:BEHAVE.)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 You are absolutely correct, which is why I went to your user page since you made the edit. As opposed to being disrespectful by simply picking the best two sources of the 14 and rewording your addition Of approximately 2 sentences. RCSCott91 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What edit are you talking about?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You go to a user talkpage for that user's actions...overciting to almost a joking level.

I have enough respect for your edits to not change it, even if I would keeping the complete meaning of your words based on the talk consensus.

Literally, going through the edit history entry by entry to find who added it instead of changing it without care. RCSCott91 (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#The Political Position of the BJP, and read the request by Hidolo at 22:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC). It can then be seen that my edit to the article of 18:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) was done in response to that - not least because I said so in my edit summary.[reply]

If you think that the number of citations should be reduced - then state which ones you think should be be retained and why - but do this on the article talk page. Then make the edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm not used to it being that easy. I'm used to seeing people fight tooth and nail over every darn word. How refreshing. RCSCott91 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you add your name to a support or oppose list on an RfA, please add your name at the bottom of that list, not the top. (Also, your edit made changes to Asilvering's comment, please undo that.) Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I will undo and fix that right now. Thank you. RCSCott91 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 06:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Cup of coffee. In your nomination, you stated that the page (a redirect should be deleted because the page is duplicate title with only one letter case difference. This is often the exact reason why we have redirects. That is, someone who looks for Cup of coffee is likely looking for Cup of Coffee. By having the redirect, someone who searches for the former will find the latter. I hope this makes sense! Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Cup of coffee" was the result of a page move. If you will check my edit history from the last 24 hours you will see I have cleaned up the incoming links. Deleting the page will allow the system to create a natural redirect and avoid future confusion.

Wikipedia:Cleaning up after a move

RCSCott91 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where on that page it says you should delete the previous page title to allow the system to create a natural redirect? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. I was combining multiple policies in my mind.

WP:RDELETE

"If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves."

My apologies.

RCSCott91 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were you intending for the content at Cup of Coffee to be moved to Cup of coffee? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade The reverse, only one unique entry was in Cup of coffee, the rest were just things found in Cup of Coffee. Cup of coffee was originally the place for the sport idoim, after which it became the move redirect and then was used as a second disambiguation page for similar entries found in Cup of Coffee.

Deleting it would remove the edit history from most editor's viewing, avoiding it being reused as a duplicate disambiguation page.

Although I think deleting and remaking would avoid that, I failed to communicate my train of thought. RCSCott91 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand your train of thought. However, this is an unnecessary deletion. The guidelines at RDELETE are for what's called a round robin page move. This would be needed if you wanted Cup of coffee to be the primary disambiguation page. Because the page has non-trivial history, we might not want to just delete the page, and we shouldn't do a copy-paste move. Therefore, we'd do something like move Cup of coffee to Cup of coffee (2) and delete Cup of coffee. Then, we'd move Cup of Coffee to Cup of coffee, after which we'd move Cup of coffee (2) to Cup of Coffee. Does that make sense? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade It does. Thank you for the explanation. RCSCott91 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Very Polite Person/Saru (Star Trek)

It wasn't "imitating an article" or FAKE -- I truly have no idea what the claim is based upon. It was clearly (I thought) a draft article for a character.

In any event, your unnannounced move has left me utterly baffled and I don't want to clean up, so I'm just remaking them with a /draft preface and speedy deleting the whole present lot. I always draft in my own space, then move to article when ready. I guess I'll always stick the draft preface in front to avoid this kind of misunderstanding in the future.

How did you even come upon that draft? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Disambiguating links.

Please don't be offended, fake is not to imply malicious. Drafting is normally done in draft space and when done in user space, normally {{Userspace draft|date=May 2025}} or a similar template is added to let others know.

RCSCott91 (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TIL, thanks. I had no idea that template was a thing. Thanks! Your move just left super baffled, like, WTF are these redirects? Where am I? This is not my beutiful house, this is not my beutiful wife... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. FYI: You do nice work.

RCSCott91 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On very second thought I won't use that template and just will house stuff like this: User:Very Polite Person/draft/Saru (Star Trek) with that text up top. That template is bonkers distracting and I don't use AfC except once, to remake a previously deleted article at Christopher Mellon.

I normally just bang out drafts in a random user page, then move straight to Article once super ready/hits GNG if I'm not ready to finish--like how I did Spore drive this weekend.

I probably confused you with my own article moves to try and self-tidy...

And thanks!! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The template is just more eye catching. It has a minimalist one that looks like this...

This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.

This might be better for you. RCSCott91 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]