User talk:Radlrb33

Drop me a message : ) else, see other comments here by me about relevant topics or editing practices, as well as general philosophy on Wikipedia.

Editing Restrictions

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that while using a different account (or even not using an account at all) you are still subject to the same editing restrictions. Editing restrictions follow a person, not any specific account they use. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! This has already been explicitly understood on this alternate user page. This being said,^[i] your input is appreciated. All the best. 198.204.66.129 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)^[ii][reply]

 Notes

i. edited - 198.204.66.128 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ii. Radlrb33 (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Vexillology (album) editing

The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vexillology (album) was to redirect the article. Please abide by consensus. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vexillology_(album). I am moving back, do not edit-war please. Radlrb33 (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't realize that AFD was from 7 years ago. Reviewing the version you had, it seems like it should be kept up. Apologies for any inconveniences. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good! Thank you, @45dogs. Radlrb33 (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vexillology (album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vexillology (album), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vexillology (album) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vexillology (deadmau5 alternate cover art).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vexillology (deadmau5 alternate cover art).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vexillology (deadmau5 album cover).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vexillology (deadmau5 album cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Please see edits accordingly, and do not revert based on edit summaries (basics) @JayBeeEll

@JBL, since you deleted this (c) dishonestly from your talk page to avoid scrutiny:

Putting aside whether 1 by @Д.Ильин represents vandalism, you need to see edits properly, at the very least. You do not revert me based on my edit summary only 2, you revert me based on what I edited in, or out 3:  I returned the correct representation of Ih on this particular image in question, and your revert afterward undid that (?). If I said something you think might be incorrect on my edit summary, you then talk to me. But undoing edits that were correct in content are not to be reverted, see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Bad reasons to revert. Radlrb33 (talk) 11:30 – 11:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radlrb33 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on some vandalism reverts I make

Today I reverted @User:Allan Nonymous for what I believe to be a vandalizing edit, X; I believe it to be obvious vandalism, per my edit summaries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans, I am allowed to revert "obvious vandalism". (In edit summary 1, I accidentally said "I am allowed obvious vandalism", I meant to write "I am allowed to revert obvious vandalism"; to clarify, as in my head I was writing "I am allowed [reverting] obvious vandalism".) In relief, the user has since returned the item in question that I believe to have been vandalized, XX; however, the point seems to have suffered from considerable mathematical syntax loss (to be adequately understood). This is as much as will do, for now (note that my revert was reverted by the user too, Allan, which means he doubled down; this, before he added most of the point back ~ i.e., I reverted the revert too (2), which led to him returning the point incompletely). Radlrb33 (talk) 23:26 – 23:54, 00:33 – 01:09, 05:43 – 05:46; 1–2 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The section is Topic ban violation. --JBL (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is in good faith, then wonderful! Else, it won't be taken seriously (even by yourselves). Different from you, I will not be removing your notices from my talk page. All the best! Radlrb33 (talk) 23:40 – 23:51, 23:57; 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I would like to emphasize, that I made the distinction of identifying the vandalism per the history of the user vis-à-vis his edit history in the article itself (and of course, as a span for other like-articles). That needs to be analyzed honestly, too (else you won't understand the nature of the issue, to take it seriously), and with regard also to past edit tendencies and agreed practices; before the only two user-agreed "Guidelines" – no one else explicitly agreed these were ideal, except only two users – were put in place in August of last year (regarding the relevant articles in question). Radlrb33 (talk) 00:00, 00:08; 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 3 days for violating your topic ban as listed at WP:EDR; "indefinitely topic banned from mathematical numbers, broadly construed.". While there might be disagreement as to what format to use, there is no question that this edit which you reverted is most emphatically not vandalism, and is not an exception to your topic ban under WP:BANEX. Further, continuing to edit the article to use edit summaries in an attempt to explain yourself isn't appropriate behavior. If you need to explain yourself that much, you should have taken it to an appropriate talk page.

You haven't been blocked for violating your topic ban before, so this block is therefore short in duration. However, future violations of your topic ban will likely result in considerably longer blocks. Whether you think you are "doing the right thing" or not is irrelevant. The community has decided this topic ban is necessary. With this violation, you are now proving the point.

Moving forward, I strongly urge you to avoid editing, mentioning, linking, or thanking edits to any pages within your topic ban. To remind you; your topic ban covers "mathematical numbers, broadly construed." There are millions of other articles on this project where you can devote your time. Prove to the community that you can edit in a collaborative way on this project, and maybe some day you can have this topic ban lifted. For now, that is impossible given this violation. Please, don't temp fate. Just stay away from numbers. It's not hard. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC) (I will also be blocking your User:Radlrb for the same reasons, as the block applies to you with all accounts)[reply]

Hey this is me, I wanted to respond to you directly. I'm just very surprised; almost every point you made is unfair, and inaccurate! 1) You didn't give me a chance to say, and you didn't inspect properly my point, that to understand the vandalism of Allan Nonymous, you need to see all the points he has removed, which has not been emphatically vetted as of yet, since over a year; so there is very deep questions regarding the strange editorial behavior from Allan, as well as other administrators in this EN Wiki that defend usurping and hiding of information; and this is sad because this makes me think that an appeal by me on the ban will likely not be heard, or maybe the chances won't be nearly any good (as there seems to be plenty of corruption). 2) Well, I did use my edit summaries in protest since others don't get in trouble for them, such as User:JayBeeEll, so to me that seems very hypocritical of you, I believe (if you haven't told him on it, as clearly my actions stemmed in part from his - and seemingly people are not interested in rebuffing him for those actions). 3) I think that me doing the right thing is relevant, since there are countless examples in history of "communities" voting or coming together on topics regarding specific things, whose actions were entirely against morality, and laws of the future (take for example, racism in America, where entire states voted for preserving racism; so black people in those "communities" were not listened to and considered equally, so naturally black people then should never have to abide to what they were told with racially prejudiced motives, right?). So the community isn't always right (here there is a desire to hide information they know to be essential intellectually and personally to them), and here in my ban, the entire community did not vote on it, only very few people; I suspect given the corruption going on, that most people that would have wanted to vote in my favor during my topic ban, did not out of fear of retribution, and was permitted by some clean editors to show the deception by members of the community. Me violating the ban then, did not prove this point of yours regarding your assumed community views on my matters, as you haven't asked everyone: it just means I went against opinions that are really, really, selfish and uninformed, given how abrasively Allan Nonymous is being permitted to keep vandalizing mathematics articles (by you, and so many other people). This is truth - and you won't see it until you actually, study all the things that Allan did, with an empathic open heart and mind. I will start amassing the diffs now of the removals since around 8/8/24, as clearly you are not part of the interested party to see this honestly, and without bias (you violated essentially, a consensus-seeking Arbitration sought by JayBeeEll here, which is striking because per policy you are not allowed to block unless it is obviously needed, and in this case it was not, as there is only honest conversation I wanted to have regarding the revert, yet that was silenced, too)! So, I suggest you really take a better look at my case. I won't be commenting on this any longer, on any page, until I have all of my diffs in hand and ready to make my appeal in the future. I needed to respond to you, however, since it is obviously the least that can be offered to me, as far as announcing my appeal officially ~ I will not comment further regarding my topic ban here.

Thank you!

Radlrb33 (talk) 01:49, 01:53, 01:55, 01:59; 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not someone else used long edit summaries in an attempt to communicate does not make me a hypocrite in raising the issue with you. Further, calling me a hypocrite falls afoul of our policy on no personal attacks. This is not a great way to attempt to convince someone to unblock you. Attempting to justify your actions as a great cause akin to the fight against racism in the United States is a non-starter; if you're here to right great wrongs you're in the wrong place. Attempting to justify your actions because the community was selfish again falls afoul of our policy on no personal attacks. Attempting to justify your actions as fighting against some great corruption isn't a reasonable basis to justify your actions. There is no great corruption, and if there is you certainly have failed to provide any evidence of this. Here's the simple fact; you continued editing 42 (number) despite your topic ban. Your edits did not constitute reversion of obvious vandalism. If I have to dig through a pile of diffs and archives in order to be able to properly assess whether something is vandalism or not, it's blatantly clear it's not obvious vandalism. As WP:BANEX notes, the key word here is "obvious". This edit from the same article is obvious vandalism. You were aware of your topic ban. Whether you think the topic ban was justified or not is irrelevant. The topic ban exists. You are forbidden from making edits to mathematical numbers, broadly construed. There are literally millions of articles on this project that you could choose to edit other than mathematical numbers. Why, if you want to be part of this community, would you try to dance on a pin and justify your actions as reverting obvious vandalism if only someone would dig through a long history of diffs, the community was suffering from corruption in applying the topic ban, and the community was selfish in supporting it? This is really simple. Stop editing numbers. That's it. Three words. Stop editing numbers. All this kerfluffle, claims of hypocrisy, claims of selfishness, claims of corruption, claims of fighting for a great cause, claims of me violating policy, etc. etc. etc. etc. ...and all you had to do was stop editing numbers. Nevertheless, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}.}} If you make such a request, I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your approach. WP:NOTTHEM applies here; you're blaming others. That's never going to result in an unblock. Insulting other people is not going to result in an unblock. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree... philosophically and empathically, on the foundational and moral basis of your points. I have the right to present my evidence as I see, and I will (corruption is rarely visible on the surface, to the inexperienced eye). Please stop commenting here, now : ) Radlrb33 (talk) 04:41, 08:11; 22:01, 22:03, 22:48 | 6, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Quotations

Wikipedia allows several ways to deal with problems in quotations. At Philosopher's stone I was following MOS:PMC "However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected." You may not agree with it, but that is the guideline I was following. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were no problems with the quote to begin with; I would suggest, to never do what you did to arcane or archaic writings and translations (when concerning magic, these are often poetic and allegorical); see my collective diff sum. You can surmise why (you may have known the consequences of this when performing this edit, given your time here on Wikipedia; if you don't then I suggest you do not edit old English or other old languages on articles, as you will be unaware of changes in nuances caused by disrupting old grammar rules or habits that well define meanings conveyed at the time, at least until you do understand this very easy concept). Radlrb33 (talk) 09:40, 09:45, 09:46; 10:48 – 10:51; 12:16, 13:05, 13:46 | 13 November 2025 (UTC)

E.g., if you edit old English expressions or old English translations, what do you think happens over time? For one, the historicity of our quoting is lost, and secondly, people will not understand how people spoke in the past. That takes away from historical accuracy. Never quote differently than how was originally expressed, from written or spoken words. That guideline is horrific ~ these altered quotations of old writing are not quotations anymore, by definition (leave it how the translators left it to make sure all nuances are kept, in this case into an old-style English from Latin) ~ and your use of it is concerning itself (how many people are using this "guideline" to make these "small corrections")? I suggest using [sic] to emphasize an error OR discrepancy in a quotation, per "modern standards of writing". Thank you, however and I raise an eyebrow at you for this ;) Radlrb33 (talk) 10:05 – 10:09, 10:16, 10:17, 10:39, 10:57, 10:58; 13 November 2025 (UTC)

To go full circle, since my answer did not entirely give fruit to the ideal scenario, here. When meaning is really differential to modern expression when quoting, then add a note, which explains the meaning of the quote, even word-by-word if desired. <3. Vice-versa, as well; in this case, I would suggest emphasizing that the "quote" is being translated first, insofar as the wording or expression being modernized or altered into a contemporary "grammatical equivalence" (yet not phonetic many-a-times), where the original expression is then noted (i.e. in a note). Radlrb33 (talk) 06:05, 07:33; 14 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]