== Philadelphia Eagles ==
Do you really think [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Eagles&diff=6017371&oldid=6004511 my bot's edit] (adding a references section) was vandalism? If not, the next time you revert an edit as vandalism and then realize that that it wasn't, it would be considerate to undo your own revert with an edit summary saying that it wasn't vandalism. Otherwise, the record will always indicate that the user in question vandalized the page. May I have your permission to ask another admin to revdel the edit summary on your revert? --[[User:Auntof6|Auntof6]] ([[User talk:Auntof6|talk]]) 17:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
:Why would you apply revision deletion in this situation? That wouldn't be an appropriate use of the tool... [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 17:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
:The content [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Eagles&diff=6018481&oldid=6018480 here] is 100% vandalism and i'm sorry your bot was caught in the mess, however the sources are part of the vandalism and this is a global LTA creating a mess of ampol articles and BLPs. I wasn't implying you were the vandal but I do oppose a revdel as there is no basis for it based on [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Revision_deletion policy]. [[User:Chrissymad|Chrissymad]] ([[User talk:Chrissymad#top|talk]]) 17:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
::Reply to both: it would be to suppress only the edit summary, not the change. It could be done under option 5, as "Non-contentious housekeeping". I'm going to request it even though you object, but I will note this discussion. If the other admins say no, so be it. --[[User:Auntof6|Auntof6]] ([[User talk:Auntof6|talk]]) 18:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
:::That is absolutely not what the policy says/is for. It does not qualify under non-'''contentious''' housekeeping as it ''is'' contentious and has been objected to. I object strongly to this. [[User:Chrissymad|Chrissymad]] ([[User talk:Chrissymad#top|talk]]) 18:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Auntof6}} If you request it, I will be asking for your resignation or removal as an administrator, this is clear evidence that you're not fit for the role, Auntof6. If (heaven forbid) anybody actually revdels this, I'll be pushing for their removal forthwith. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 18:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
:::Yeah.... I'm gonna have to push back on you kinda hard, here... that would be a ''direct violation'' of rev del policy if it were used in that manner... And when I say "direct violation", I mean that the policy '''explicitly states''' that using rev del in this situation would be inappropriate use of the tool. That's not what [[WP:RD5|RD5]] is meant for... RD5 is only used when correcting a mistake in your revision deletion. For example: if I were to accidentally redact an edit summary on top of the revision text, I'd undo my redaction to the edit summary with RD5 and an explanation that I was undoing that mistake. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
