User talk:Cupper52/2021 Archive/January

Dhananjay Munde - wiki page

Why did you revert the changes on the page for Dhananjay Munde, and even called it 'vandalism'? There is no vandalism. There is a rape charge against him as of today, and I did not want to mention it just to be gentle. But let me add that information anyway to that page now. It is a big news item right now in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.235.121.85 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Note from Thick Records owner Zak Einstein

Hi. THICK Records owner here. The page is up to date and accurate. THICK Records continues to operate as a catalog only record label. All records are still available through ALL online streaming services. Further, the Thick Records Wikipedia page serves as a fantastic resource for historical data and a reminder to newcomers that there is an existing record company called "Thick Records" Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:DA00:50C8:65DB:9EDF:6F6D:DF66 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 17:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden redirect

Hello there, I wanted to let you know that my edit was genuine. It doesn't make any sense as to why Joseph Robinette Biden should redirect to the 2020 Trump campaign page. In fact, it was redirected like this by an anon for no apparent reason.

To be fair, as I mentioned in my edit, it could be a potential disambiguation page for Biden, Joe Biden Sr. and Beau Biden --186.84.88.223 (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Having coincidentally searched that phrase, I reverted their change. Was slightly surprised when this user - who has made a lot of edits - was the (second) culprit, but still I couldn't think of any genuine reason that Joseph Robinette Biden would redirect to Donald Trump's campaign other than trolling (and it should at least be marked if there is a genuine reason, which seems unlikely to me). 68.197.165.52 (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain this revert please?

Any why you did it without providing a reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R._Budd_Dwyer&diff=997615393&oldid=997606387 Had a bad day or something? Xiamatt (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle said it was vandalism so I reverted it. I did not have a bad day of course. 

–Cupper52^Discuss! 11:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Li Ang (writer)

Hi Cupper52, I just came across [1] revert, I'm not sure if this is vandalism since it looks like the real name of the writer is Shih Shu-tuan who writes under the pseudonym Li Ang. Can you check once? Also, thank you so much for your hard work in fighting vandalism everyday and making this a better place. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: Ok. And thanks for the shoutout! Cupper52^Discuss! 12:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cupper52! I put in a citation from the Gardian Newspaper. I also put the sentence into my own words as I know a lot about this because I did an A level in History of Art. I am trying! I think that I did cite my source though.

Hi Cupper52! I put in a citation from the Gardian Newspaper. I also put the sentence into my own words as I know a lot about this because I did an A level in History of Art. I am trying! I think that I did cite my source though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesKing2000 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary-less reverts are for obvious vandalism only

Hi Cupper52,

I came here from a strange unprotection request at Special:Diff/998657910, but this is more important.

Twinkle's red "vandalism" link is for reverting obvious vandalism only, not for good-faith disruptive editing, not for a general lack of verifiability, not for removing original research, not for removing copyright violations, and in most cases, not even for violating the neutral point of view. The list at WP:ROLLBACKUSE applies to the red "vandalism" link too, because it does exactly the same thing.

When other users message you about problematic reverts, responding to them is especially important when their concerns are justified. It is important to assure incorrectly reverted users that they didn't make a mistake and are welcome to Wikipedia. You made the revert decision; "Twinkle" doesn't tell you if something is vandalism. You're probably referring to the automatic classification of edits by ORES. While ORES has a relatively high quality, we already have a bot that reverts vandalism based on automatic classification: ClueBot NG reverts edits with a very high probability of being vandalism. Everything below that probability threshold is not reverted automatically, and manual help is required for all remaining edits. This manual help does not mean "reverting everything that is flagged by ORES, and then complaining about ORES when the classification was wrong". It means "taking responsibility for your edits and never blindly reverting based on ORES scores".

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Signature date

Are you aware of any reason why your signature date is off by a day? [2] Samsara 12:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC) @Samsara: Thanks for the message. I sometimes lose track of the date. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great job removing allegations sourced to tweets in a BLP. Chetsford (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Thanks for that! Have a good day!–Cupper52^Discuss! 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

John Weaver article

You reverted my revert of the John Weaver (political consultant) article. I thought my edit summary adequately explained my action. An allegation of sexual harassment is serious, especially in a biography of a living person. Is a single tweet from Twitter considered a reliable source for such an allegation? And even if it is, is it newsworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I just re-read the entire Twitter thread and adding the allegation to the article seems even more questionable. Please check out the "reference" given for the edit, is this really something that should be in a biography with NO other corroboration? Here's the entire tweet in question: "One day, he DM'd me and said he had "advice". He then proceeded to tell me how "hot" I looked and commented on my profile picture and my hair. He started calling me "my boy". I found it deeply uncomfortable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, question about why an article can be in Greek but not in English or other language. Thank you.

dear Cupper52 , if the article fails WP:NPLACE how comes it already is accepted in Greek version? Is it possible then that a topic/article can exist in one language and be legitimate there, but not acceptible in another language in wikipedia? Thank you for any clarifications Yorgoswikiluv (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Some bad nominations from you

I would like to tell you that you are not folloeing proper steps while nominating an article for deletion. You only spent 2 mins between this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000352686 and this nomination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000353072 .2 mins is not sufficient to do a proper WP:BEFORE and its many steps. So I want you to let you know this. Many articles are not complete, there is a lot of material to add but not enough edits from editors on Wikipedio. So the article content is seen lacking. Dont assume that a short article (Stub) means the person has not done much work or lacks coverage. We must search things. And who told you that elephants and dogs are not notable. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. So please follow the guidelines in future. Thankyou Kashmorwiki (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I will report your account

I found that you are just simply nominating some articles for deletion without following any guidelines. I already gave you a warning. Please be aware. I will report you to a admin next time. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki: Uh-oh, will I be at risk of being blocked from editing next time I do something like that again? –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There are other procesures rather than blocking. Hope you are aware of that Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

About your Recent Afd Nominations

Hello Cupper 52 , I saw ur recent Afd nominations and comments in afd nominations. Please make sure you have gone through all criteria and also don't nominate articles without going through. Make sure you have gone through WP:Before , WP:Delete and WP:GNG. Hope u understand what i 'am pointing out . Bestwishes Poppified ^talk 14:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify your statement

You said that elephants are notable here. Could you please explain what you meant by that. Wikipedias notability criteria clearly says a topic is notable, which means the topic can be anything if if has enougj coverage. Please dont make your own guidelines here Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

I noticed you've recently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kongad Kuttisankaran and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guruvayur Padmanabhan. Both seem to have several sources listed. It is generally suggested to explain why existing sources don't establish notability when starting an AfD. The nomination statement for the former also includes the sentence "Elephants don’t meet notability guidelines here", which is dubious. I see you've started other AfDs recently that have clearly met the relevant notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kei Uchiyama. Please make sure you've comprehensively checked for notability before nominating. You can ask me or see WP:Q if you have questions about AfDs. Thanks. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: The thing is, I vote good in AfDs I didn’t create like this but I am not as experienced at choosing which articles to nominate. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AfD - Thomas Delany

Hi there, please (re-) acquaint yourself with WP:Notability and WP:NPOLITICIAN before you make any future AfDs. Rgds, Spleodrach (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spleodrach: Got it. But I may take a break from creating AfDs. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you do take a break from AfD. Try using your time to edit and add to articles for a change!. Spleodrach (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I came here to make the same recommendation after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Delany and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duga Rijeka. You appear to have continued nominating articles for deletion even after being told that such articles clearly pass our guidelines. Please start listening to, rather than ignoring, advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I have done one more AfD on an article that has been tagged for WP:GNG now. It’s definitely more of a suitable choice–Cupper52^Discuss! 13:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you remove everything I added to Darin LaHood's wiki page? I realize it is controversial information, but it is REAL news and not fake. I cited videos of him speaking and his own press releases. I added information about his voting record. It was not vandalism or disruptive. You are trying to censor the truth.

Hello. Why did you remove everything I added to Darin LaHood's wiki page? I realize it is controversial information, but it is REAL news and not fake. I cited videos of him speaking and his own press releases. I added information about his voting record. It was not vandalism or disruptive. You are trying to censor the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterfly Jade (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Butterfly Jade: I sometimes make mistakes in reverting possible vandalism. Although your edits didn’t meet the requirements for vandalism, it was tagged vandalism in the tags page. –Cupper52^Discuss! 15:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sarafa Tunji Isola

Hi Cupper52,

Got your note. The update I made to Ambassador Sarafa Tunji Isola's profile is based on following sources:

1. https://www.prowlingeagles.com/a-profile-in-trust-service-integrity-the-untold-story-of-chief-sarafa-tunji-isola-the-new-nigerian-ambassador-to-united-kingdom/

2. https://punchng.com/envoys-list-buhari-posts-ex-ministers-to-uk-spain-emenike-to-us/

Those are the most recent information and the changes I made are true reflection of the recent updates.

Thanks for reaching out.

Regards, SEG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seunegunjobi (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Improper reverts tagged as "vandalism" (and related) need to stop now

I'm sure you must know what I am referring to by the headline above, since you've received numerous past posts about the issue. Plus I assume you got the ping to today's Teahouse discussion of your improper revert of a good edit, marked as "vandalism" in the edit summary, received by a new user, rightly concerned by your revert as vandalism. They also received your talk page warning about their supposed unconstructive edits, as have all users who you've reverted in this manner. This needs to stop. Right Now.

Reverting actual vandalism is a very useful activity. Reverting good faith, but misplaced edits (flagged as such and not as vandalism) is also a very helpful activity. Thank you for all your proper work in this area. But if even one new, potentially long-term, competent user leaves because they were reverted and warned in this manner (a known result, and just one underpinning for the prohibition on these edits), that outweighs all the benefits of your good vandalism reverts – and then some. This is not to mention that rollbacks are only to be used for vandalism, being considered the equivalent of marking an edit as vandalism by convention, even without that explicit word in the edit summary. Not too far behind are your edit-summary-less, opaque Twinkle reverts, that resemble rollback.

We all make mistakes, but, on its face, the frequency of these edits by you demonstrates there's a serious problem. In addition to the Teahouse user, on this talk page, I count:

• one;
• two;
• three;
• four;
• five;
• six;
• seven—

—talk page posts (above), all on aspects of this type of editing action by you. Knowing how relatively uncommon it is for users to overtly seek out the user that reverted them, and actually raise the issue at their talk page, these seven separate posts imply many, many more similar bad reverts. Indeed, I need go back only two days in your edits to find multiple reversions, explicitly marked as vandalism, that you had no business reverting under that flag: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

This trend in your edits has other branches. For example, this (now hidden edit) was highly ill-advised. You reverted the removal of potentially libelous, poorly sourced material in a BLP article – by someone who used an edit summary to flag the issue, and you opaquely, indiscriminately revert that, saying only: "blanking"? (Not for nothing: the result of proper, actual investigation was revision deletion to remove the edits from public view, that the IP had properly removed.)

Explanations for some of the above, like: "Twinkle said it was vandalism so I reverted it..."; and, "Although your edits didn’t meet the requirements for vandalism, it was tagged vandalism in the tags page", are entirely invalid as excuses; imply you think the issue is trivial; that so long as you are reverting lots of actual vandalism, it's okay that some innocent edits get caught up; and most importantly, that you are relying on flags placed by automated processes, without proper vetting. That is backwards. Automated processes must never be relied on; they always require checking by humans.

All this is to say, whatever you need to do to stop this from recurring—slowing down, making a self-imposed rule to always view the diff before reverting; changing some setting in Twinkle, I don't know—but it needs to happen to avoid consequences.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

But I have received helpful comments, including two thanks and one Wikilove. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And? Let me see if I can grasp the form of logic you're employing in that response, with an analogy. You regularly go to a local park that has cameras recording the activities taking place there. You littered 15 out of the last 100 times you were there. Someone who reviews the park's weekly footage stumbles upon you littering and, upon investigating, finds the other 14 incidents. They then send you a littering cease and desist notice. Your response to it is: "but I've gotten commendations from my community for other civic involvement". Do you think that response would be viewed as either relevant or in any way vindicatory?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, I'm Andrybak. An edit that you recently made to Template:Overpopulated category seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As it turns out, you have been adding unnecessary spaces in modules, draft talk pages, project pages, project talk pages, MediaWiki talk pages, and so on. Please stop adding unnecessary spaces to different pages with no clear reason for these edits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s because I’m trying to edit as many namespaces as I can.–Cupper52^Discuss! 10:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Then don't. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal test bed. Any more of this and I will ask for you to be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

GiantSnowman 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for the arcticle

Do you have any suggestions/stuff I should add so it doesn't get deleted? I want to make a stub or something for all of the species that don't have any, I felt disappointed when I was doing a project on an obscure species. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFirstVicar4 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheFirstVicar4: You could add references. For this, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources And I’m not request it to be deleted, I’m just proposing it. For more info on this, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Thank you.–Cupper52^Discuss! 18:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of an article on a genus is certainly not uncontroversial, so should not be done with WP:PROD. Please just familiarise yourself with Wikipedia by imporoving articles before getting into requesting deletion (by any means), which is simply a different word for proposing deletion. It seems that you are the one who should be reading policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi, is this username, Joshgreene supposed to mean something, Sorry I did not understand what you meant when you referred to this username. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Final warning

Per above, I have evidenced and explained at great length the grave problem with your reverts using the word "vandalism" for good faith edits (or using rollback and similar for them). In that regard, I have already explained that you must not blindly rely on dumb automated processes, that are incapable of making judgement calls – the fact that they flag an edit as "possible" vandalism, when it's not, is no excuse at all. It's only been a few days and yet I see this good faith edit and this good faith edit both reverted as supposed "vandalism".

I repeat, whatever you need to do to stop this needs to happen. Slow down. I'm sorry it has to come to this, but the next instance of this will subject you to some form of block from further editing, to protect the project from the serious harm these types of edits cause. I don't want to see that happen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for despite the opening discussion of this serious issue and the final warning immediately above, you have failed to stop reverting edits explicitly under the flag "vandalism" (or using rollback and similar that are only used for vandalism), for both clearly good faith edits and for others that are not clearly vandalism. Specifically, since the above, you've made the following two bad reverts of patently good faith edits: here and here; these are just two especially egregious examples; you have made numerous other reverts since my post above that probably should have been reverted, but that were not clearly vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Hi, why are you saying that the article on Steven Richter is written in an unclear way?

I would like to know more on how I can improve the article and not risk getting it taken down. Thanks (RRfeatures (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

Article tagging

Please review the clean-up tag template documentation prior to tagging articles. Here you tagged an article as only having one source, though the article consists of a single sentence. The template documentation states "Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality." In addition, the stub also includes multiple external links to the case review. The tag is completely superfluous.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

How does this need more sources? Drive-by tagging in this manner is not helpful, and I don't relish going through 2700+ edits to find more of the same. Please stop tagging articles for clean-up until you have a better sense of when it's required.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo, you're here too? Cupper, I just want to note, for the record, that you have not, as far as I know, linked User:Cupper52-2 or User:CupperSock. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nirmala S Maurya- wiki page

Hi Cupper,

Nirmala S Maurya- is my mother and I had corrected her spelling as it's Nirmala S Mourya. Need to change the title of the wiki page as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.104.181.238 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@103.104.181.238: Really? Is that true? –Cupper52^Discuss! 09:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)