User talk:RadicalOne/November 21-30, 2009

Usurpation

It should work. User Radical Two was created on 11/19, meaning that it was created when you tried to log on again. "RadicalTwo (Created on November 19, 2009 at 21:47)". See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=RadicalOne&group=&limit=25. Try logging in as Radical One again. -- Avi (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works now. Thank you very much. RadicalOne (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; enjoy! -- Avi (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous reports to WP:AIV

I realize Kboffice is technically vandalism only, but with only one vandalism it's not really appropriate to jump straight to WP:AIV. You have to warn first; only if they ignore the warnings do you jump to WP:AIV. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but keep an eye on him. Most accounts like his do turn into repeat offenders. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we should try to assume good faith. The one edit they made, while in horrible style and replacing existing, better content, was not unambiguous vandalism. If their first edits were to start inserting racial slurs into random articles, or attacking editors, then WP:AIV might be appropriate, but even then they should have at least one warning. This could easily have been a misguided attempt to improve the article (it looks like a copy'n'paste job from another website to me, but that's neither here nor there). They haven't demonstrated bad faith, so please give them a chance. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the subsequent edits to the talk page aren't really constructive. As I noted, this wasn't unambiguous vandalism, so don't bite the newcomers applies. Getting angry and/or aggressive just antagonizes people that may not know any better. Please remove everything but the initial, valid warning from their talk page, and give them a chance to show their colors one way or another. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry to get preachy. I'm a bit of an idealist and like to give people the benefit of the doubt. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being rather the opposite. I think my temperament from other websites - YouTube, for example - is seeping into my reactions here. When most responses one gets from others are some form of attack, it tends to put one into a sort of "defense mode", a mindset not easily and quickly disabled. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good god! You need to stop reading the comments on Youtube. No wonder you have a jaded view of humanity! It's the home of more loud and dumb people than any other website on the planet! :-) (okay, maybe 4Chan has more, but you get the idea) Anyway, no harm no foul. Cheers for the vandal fighting in general. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Seriously though, it is a good place to release one's music, hold debates, and the like. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 23:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Badelt

Dear RadicalOne,

While your efforts to maintain the integrity of Klaus Badelt's page are appreciated, by none other than Klaus and his team (of which I am a representative of) in this case you must allow my upcoming changes to remain. This is Klaus' official wikipedia page. By that, I mean to say that it is the ONLY one linked to his full and legal name. The information on the page is old, out of date, and in many cases incorrect. Although we understand that Wikipedia is open to editors and open-source, Klaus is being misrepresented on this page. We would like kindly to ask that you allow us to make all further changes from here on out. If you are worried about the poor editing, I am willing to allow us to work hand in hand. But I, and Klaus, will not allow false information to stay up when it is directly linked to his name on a very high profile web page. Kboffice (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to ask to

A) How he is misrepresented by the article, and why violating Wikipedia policy - as copying from another site would do - fixes the issue;
B) Prove you are who you say you are, and why that makes your edits automatically valid.

For the record, I am an enormous fan of Badelt - why do you think I watched the page in the first place? - and intend no harm at all, but before sweeping edits can be made they must be properly cited and follow Wikipedia guidelines. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To your questions:

A) Misrepresented because some of the facts are strictly not true and hear-say
B) I can prove that I am who I say I am but I don't see a way to prove it this way

If you are an enormous fan of Klaus we would appreciate if you could help us to update Klaus' page while following Wikipedia's rules. Kboffice (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not actually answered the questions. You need to A) provide proof of these "fact errors" and also explain why you think claiming to work for Badelt holds sway, when it does not. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 04:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you a pretty obvious fact that answers your question A: Klaus Badelt was born June 12, 1967 and not on December 13, 1968 as mentioned on Wikipedia. Just as one example. B) You asked me if I can prove who I say I am, and I can. Even though, according to Wikipedia guidelines (as you pointed out), that does not make my edits automatically valid. Which I already understood the first time you told us. But wouldn't you think that working for Klaus would give me the ability to point out the mistakes on the current page? By now we offered you twice to work with us on improving Klaus Badelt's page, but you keep attacking and offending us. I would like to know how you can prove that the facts on the current page are right, because I don't see proper evidence. Kboffice (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bull. See your talk page. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 21:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal warning

This is not vandalism. Please be more careful not to issue vandalism warnings to good faith editors. If there is any doubt at all that the edit might be good faith, do not accuse the editor of vandalism, even if you still undo the edit - and even then you should write "rv good faith" or some such in the edit summary to make it clear. SpinningSpark 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, geez. I failed to see that it was just paragraph splitting. It looked to me like a lot of content deletion. I have left an apology on her talk page. You now see my with my tail between my legs. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 03:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for this beautiful userbox. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I am happy to see that it is a success. If you like it, you may like some of my other ones. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 00:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I already had a look at them, and I like quite a few of them. Problem is, I have to restrain myself, or I end up like you. ;) BTW, since you do interwiki template programming, I'd value your input on template:BabelBoxCommons, it's my first attempt at doing somthing usable with templates. Paradoctor (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC

Like me? That is probably impossible; you have no idea how...unusual I can be. ;) Anyways, I'm glad you like them.

I do interwiki template programming? Are you referring to my "custom talk templates"? Those are not actual wikimarkup templates; they are just text code. I don't know how to make and use actual templates. That said, what I can say about your template is that I like it. It doesn't actually apply to me, but I like it. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooops, my sincerest apologies. I just realized that I confused you with Willscrlt. I looked at his page about an hour before I stumbled over yours, and mixed up the two of you in what I jokingly call my brain. Time to call it a day. I still like your boxes, I double-checked. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rsvp to Radical One

This was the first time i ever donated a piece of information to Wikipedia. I understand as a novice my mistakes and in the future to not repeat them. Im retired know (nearing 50) and have some time on my hands . Im no way computer literate so mistakes can be frequent and unitentional. Im a musician(piano, saxophone, oboe). My major in college was film and cinemtography with a minor in history. As you saw im a Planet of the Apes , King Crimson, and film score buff. My likes go much beyond that. Im very knowledgable in many things and very humble(joke). RadicalOne , im in agreement with what you said and I have alot of things in common with you. Spelling was never my strong suit even though I did well in writing courses(lazy I guess). If their is a different way of adding my two cents please let me know. I will be contributing a nice contribution within a month(Im waiting for my pension monies and such), so be patient. I love the fact that we the common folk can add information to the various topics and can see that the "staff" has a huge workload. Please contact me with what i can do to add info easier. I don't understand all the computer gray boxes on the user page and this page. Please accept my apologies if I did anything subversive. Thankyou very much , John Mermigas. pota68@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apesfan (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Your edits were certainly helpful, it's just that they were coded improperly. To see why, check this differential edit here. Notice how all the scores are listed like this:
*''[[Title of film article|Film title]]'' (Composer)
The breakdown is as follows: The "*" denotes a list item; it is represented like this:

Text

It keeps each score on its own line. The two apostrophes denote italics, coded for by ''apostrophe pairs on either side of the text''.
The [[ and ]] enclose a link to another article; in this case the film. As film articles tend to be titled things like "Name (Year Film)", a piped link is used here. What is before the syntax character "|" is the article title, and the text after is the displayed text. So, for example, the code
[[User:RadicalOne|RadicalOne]] would link to my user page ("User:RadicalOne"), but display as simply "RadicalOne", like this:
RadicalOne
So, in short, the table of code segments is as follows:

Code	Function
*	Creates a "bullet" in a list
''	Opens the italics; everything from here is italic
[[	Opens a link; everything from here is part of it
\|	Separates the two halves of the piped link, as outlined above
]]	Closes the link; no text after this will be linked, unless another link begins
''	Closes the italics; no further text will be italicized without more apostrophe pairs

As an example, your addition of the score to the Planet of the Apes - certainly a useful addition - would be coded like this:
*''[[Planet of the Apes (1968 film)|Planet of the Apes]]'' (Jerry Goldsmith)
and would display like this:

Planet of the Apes (Jerry Goldsmith)
A complete guide to the code - "Wikimarkup", as it is called, can be found here. Once you understand the coding necessary for your edits, please by all means go and try again. (You may also want to preview before saving; for that, click "Show preview".) Thank you.

-RadicalOne---Contact Me 15:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antimatter Article

Hi there...I was the one who did the paragraph splitting on the Antimatter article. You apology is graciously accepted - I honestly didn't even realize that there was a problem! I was writing an essay for my Modern Physics class on the viability of antimatter as a fuel, and while doing an outline of the points I wanted to make, I figured that 'Fuel' section would be much more readable with smaller paragraphs.

Please, please consider it a non-issue; if I were in your position looking at the revision page, I probably would have thought a chunk of the article disappeared too. No more tail between the legs!

My edits on Wikipedia are usually few and far in-between, limited to grammar, spelling and style, with the occasional page linking. I'm by no means a technology n00b, but I deeply respect (and I daresay am a bit intimidated by) the hierarchy of Wikipedia and don't venture beyond this comfort zone.

I had, at some point in time, created a Wikipedia account. Unfortunately I can't remember my username or password...does age-related forgetfulness creep in around your mid-twenties? I should probably create a new account but my contributions are so tiny in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps when I've finished my Physics degree I'll have more time to edit on Wikipedia so that recreating an account would be more worthwhile.

It's amazing how much I rely on Wikipedia to get information on almost anything. I so grateful to people like you who work tirelessly to make sure that Wikipedia maintains its high standards.

P.S. I'm a girl, BTW. ;-)

P.P.S. I've glanced at your user page and see that we share similar interests. Good grief, I thought I was the only one who thinks it better to call the Moon 'Luna' and the Earth 'Terra'!

190.213.60.60 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am greatly relieved to see that there are no hard feelings about this. My edits - until recently - were also few and far between; I only really started using this account a few months ago. And yes, even now I find the Wikipedia hierarchy intimidating.

I am a university student - aerospace engineering, to be exact - as well; I know all too well how much time that in itself devours each day.

"I thought I was the only one who thinks it better to call the Moon 'Luna' and the Earth 'Terra'!" So did I; I am pleased to see my judgment was in error. ;)

-RadicalOne---Contact Me 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]