User talk:PaToGnOmOn

Welcome!

Hi PaToGnOmOn! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Kmhkmh (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Broken

Hi there. Seeing a lot of your recent edits, I think you should take a look at WP:NOTBROKEN. Upshot is, redirects are fine, they're not broken, and they don't need to be and should not be fixed. Canterbury Tail talk 20:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again you still seem to be editing against WP:NOTBROKEN, and with this edit you also edited another user's comments. Do not do this, you are only permitted to edit another user's comment under very specific circumstances like vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 18:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought happy pumpkin was an unconstructive post. I wanted to improve the talk page. PaToGnOmOn (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was an unconstructive forum post, we're okay to have that removed, I was referring to the altering of the link in Walter Görlitz's comment. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken

Shortcuts

There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text. Editors should also not change redirects with possibilities like [[Journal of the Franklin Institute]] to [[Franklin Institute#Journal of the Franklin Institute|Journal of the Franklin Institute]], so that readers arrive at the more pertinent article in the eventuality that it is created.

Reasons not to bypass redirects include:

Redirects can indicate possible future articles .
Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.
Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links. (The Rdcheck tool is extremely useful in such cases for finding which redirects need to be changed after an article is updated.)
Intentional links to disambiguation pages always use the title with "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect.
If editors persistently use a redirect instead of an article title, it may be that the article needs to be moved rather than the redirect changed. As such the systematic "fixing of redirects" may eradicate useful information that can be used to help decide on the "best" article title.

Good reasons to bypass redirects include:

Shortcuts

It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g., {{US presidents}} at the end of George Washington). When a template is placed on an article and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template. There are exceptions to this exception: where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template.
It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint or tooltip that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading .
Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. This does not necessarily mean that the misspelled redirect should be deleted .
Links on disambiguation pages.
Radio and TV station call letters, since call letters given up by one station can be used later by a different station.
In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces in which subpages are common, any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move or merge should be updated to the new title for naming consistency.
Links on the Main Page, to avoid stealthy vandalism by retargeting high-traffic redirects. Main Page links that point to an article section should utilise a section link.

Moxy- 03:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You have already been warned for “fixing” redirect links. Please do not do this. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop "fixing" redirect links. The change of link you keep making here is absolutely not necessary! Jalen Folf (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification, you may be blocked from editing. Again, please see WP:NOTBROKEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits is not more necessary. There must be a reason why the article name is 2026 FIFA World Cup and not 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification. PaToGnOmOn (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. You have been warned multiple times about "fixing" links. Please stop! Jalen Folf (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize? Are you ignoring what I wrote above? PaToGnOmOn (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring? Other users like Moxy and Canterbury Tail above have also told you not to "fix" links to redirects yet you have persistently ignored them and continued to do so. I ask that you consider re-reading what Moxy has written and just stop. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have told you that reverting my edits is not more necessary and there must be a reason why the article name is 2026 FIFA World Cup and not 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification. PaToGnOmOn (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunately something I do not know, as my only involvement with footy articles is mostly reversion of bad editing. If you're still concerned, I highly advise going to the article's Talk page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is your editing better than mine? PaToGnOmOn (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lets make this very clear. There is general consensus at WP:ANI that continued persistent violation of WP:NOTBROKEN is considered disruptive and has on many occasions ended up in supported indefinite blocks for knowing disruptive edits. If you continue to make edits in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, you will be blocked. I can't make this any clearer. It seems to be mostly what you do, and it's not a benefit to the project. You've been warned many times so this is your final warning. Canterbury Tail talk 14:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it disruptive to change [[Gbagyi language|Gbagyi]] to [[Gwari language|Gbagyi]]? PaToGnOmOn (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me. You've read all the comments above, and the NOTBROKEN guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a change of the link and the link text remains the same. I do not see anything wrong with it but you should know this better than I. I have understood NOTBROKEN as it is not always wrong to avoid redirects. PaToGnOmOn (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were told quite clearly not to alter redirects, you've been informed many times and have said you have read the guidelines, but you continue to deliberately alter redirects. As a result I am temporarily blocking you to avoid further disruption to the project. You were very very clearly told that the next time you alter a redirect link that isn't broken you would be blocked. You deliberately have ignored this again. Since you are quite clearly showing indications that you have no interest in listening to what you're being explained, and are deliberately continuing the pattern, I have no choice but to block you. Since it's all you seem to edit it's an indefinite block. You are welcome to appeal if you wish, but until you promise to stop this editing pattern you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PaToGnOmOn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not believe that just changing a link from Suppression of dissent to Dissent and letting the link text remaining the same was disruptive but now I understand that it was. I will not do it again. And you seem to believe that I am that Gexajutyr type only because I avoid redirects. It is not enough evidence. You wrote yourself above that continued persistent violation of WP:NOTBROKEN has on many occasions ended up in supported indefinite blocks for knowing disruptive edits. PaToGnOmOn (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Obvious? Are you ignoring my reason above? Do you believe the users from all the other many occasions are my sock puppets too, Canterbury Tail? PaToGnOmOn (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t deny your request, someone else did. You’ll need to ask them for their reasons. But yes it’s obvious and there are a lot of reasons to know not just that you alter redirects. Canterbury Tail talk 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of reasons? Can you tell me them? Do you mean that it can not be a coincidence? PaToGnOmOn (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one will read this any further unless you make an unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PaToGnOmOn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You claim it is obvious and there are a lot of reasons. Can you tell me them? I will not fix redirects. PaToGnOmOn (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Also note that unblock requests should be made on your master account per WP:SOCKBLOCK. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]