User talk:Cupper52

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Post messages here. Anything inappropriate will be deleted by me.

NOTE:I will only make archives once per year.

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)

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?