X58075398

Unhelpful edits

You tagged {{Radical}} for quick deletion as an unused redirect to {{Radic}}. Then you changed a link from {{Radic}} to {{Radical}}. This is unhelpful. What are you trying to do? Kk.urban (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I meant that {{Radical}} is not used on actual article pages. X58075398 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Then why did you change a link from {{Radic}} to {{Radical}}? If it is used on any pages, or linked in templates, it should not be deleted. Kk.urban (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Because that's a template, not an article. X58075398 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, your edit to Template:Math/doc that substituted the radical template is not helpful either. The whole point is to show people how to use the radical template. If you don't have a good reason for this, I will revert your edits. Kk.urban (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Radic}}/{{Radical}} is the kind of template that should be substituted. So I did just that. X58075398 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it should be substituted. I don't see anything that says that. It definitely shouldn't be substituted on a page telling people how to use it. Kk.urban (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The point of the template is to include links to templates that people can use. There's no point of including a redlink. Kk.urban (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Really? I just changed it to match the name of the template. I thought that was obvious. But since you insist on linking to the template, then I'll just swap them. At least they'll match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X58075398 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The name of the template is {{Radic}} so it now matches, after your recent edit. Kk.urban (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, X58075398. When you revert a user's changes, like you did earlier, don't forget to leave the user a message on their talk page, especially when reverting vandalism or a test edit. You may find Template:User talk page warnings/table useful when doing this, to let them know that the change was considered inappropriate, and to direct them to the sandbox. Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 02:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to tell you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Edits by X58075398". Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

X58075398 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

@Enfcer: What the hell is this? I was going to move it after! Also, this was clearly NOT "vandalism". X58075398 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See my comment below. -- Operator873 ^connect 23:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Making a category name change like that without any kind of consensus, and do them bulk like that is a form of vandalism. If any of the other admins feel that I was wrong, feel free to reverse. Every refresh you had 5 to 10 more that were changed, so these also appear that have been done by a semi automated or automated process. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:vandalism clearly says "On Wikipedia, vandalism is when a user makes bad changes to Wikipedia on purpose."

This cannot be the case here because these aren't bad changes in the first place.

Also, the fact that this was done with an automated process (actually semi-automated) has nothing to do with this. You have bots like "ChenzwBot", but you don't block them for vandalism. X58075398 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ChenzwBot is an approved bot, and not relevant to this discussion. This is a major change, and done so without first obtaining consensus. So those edits are considered disruptive, and not allowed. I am not going to Wiki Lawyer with you. You have placed the unblock request, and another admin will review. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If ChenzwBot is not relevant, then why that last sentence "Every refresh you had 5 to 10 more that were changed, so these also appear that have been done by a semi automated or automated process."? X58075398 (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Automated edits are strictly controlled on this project. Bots even more so. Your behavior here furthers the perception you're here to enforce your will verses collaborating. The block will remain. I'd suggest finding a new hobby. Operator873 ^connect 23:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not the point. All the script does is replace [[Category:Basic English 850 words]] with [[Category:BASIC English 850 words]]. I could have done the same thing manually, it would just take more time.

This again shows that Enfcer is abusing their admin rights, only to push their PoV. X58075398 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, we do have approved scripts that do the exact same thing, but you have been making many disruptive edits and moves that clearly don't apply. For example, Basic is not spelt BASIC because it is a backronym that is intended to be written the same way as the normal word. Moving hundreds of pages for this invalid reason is more just the straw that broke the camel's back after all your disruptive edits and moves you have been warned about before. --Ferien (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)