User talk:Radlrb/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Escapades (Gaspard Augé album) has been accepted

Escapades (Gaspard Augé album), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 09:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Hitro! It was a pleasure, and a great learning experience as well. Radlrb (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Equilateral triangle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallel. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguated. TY Radlrb (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hendecagon

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Hendecagon, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The hendecagon tessellation is not original research. It is known to tessellate space as I showed - I found no image easily accessible on the web which I could post. So, I uploaded one I created on my own. Radlrb (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You need a published source — a mathematics journal article or book — not just "I found it on the web somewhere". See WP:RS for what is acceptable as a source on Wikipedia, and what is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A. Not all points in wikipedia are sourced - specifically the guidelines say that unsourced material that is generally well accepted is okay to leave unsourced: "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed," from the article "Wikipedia:No original research." B. I've been editing here for some time (even before making an account), so I know I need to source my points; as I said, I believed it was well documented. Also, I don't believe I "saw" it from some random, poorly sourced place. I know to keep my points well substantiated. Thank you for your input. Radlrb (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There's lots of badly-sourced cruft that needs removal. Especially in the tiling/polyhedron articles. Looking around and seeing piles of it is not a good reason to make even more piles of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Obviously. We have plenty of work ahead then, don’t we. That being said, some naturally logical points should not need sourcing, like "a square has four sides,” or "A:B whilst A:B:C means A:C." Here's a kind reminder: stop being facetious and condescending, it doesn't look good on you, especially as a Distinguished Professor. You don't want to be distinguishable in the negative sense. As in, also, you came here to respond in my Talk page but so far have decided to not respond in yours...and suggesting I'm adding "piles of un-sourced material." Or, do you want to add more depressing cruft to the already-filled disgusting destructive cruft that already exists in the world? If you want people to take you more seriously, you need to be kind-hearted. Maybe you don't care what others think unless they are in your level-field of research or higher. Remembering, that lifting others on a road you also walked on is what is truly commendable. Thank you, too, for your contributions to mathematics. Radlrb (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Reborn (Kavinsky album)

When you attempted to nominate this page for deletion, the MfD tag was malformed and the MfD nomination page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Reborn (Kavinsky album) was never created. As such, I have removed the tag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, for some reason the original title of the Draft article was not what it should have been. Can you inform me of what the original title of the article is, so that I can nominate it properly. Thank you. Radlrb (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessary now, I've redirected it to an article on the same topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. Radlrb (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 24 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 36.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguated. TY. Radlrb (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Page movers can move their articles into mainspace—this isn't against Wikipedia's rules. Please do not edit users' talk page archives

Hello. Firstly, please do not edit users' talk page archives, as you did here. I only just saw this. Post to their proper talk page. I don't know why you thought to edit the latest archive for my talk page, but that's not where you post new messages for users to see.

Secondly, it is not against "Wikipedia's rules" to create an article in your userspace, and if you have page mover rights, move it over a mainspace redirect yourself. Users without page mover rights can work on a userspace draft then ask for it to be moved at WP:RM/TR. At any rate, it appears you've learned this now.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, regarding this, I created the article in my userspace and moved it over, therefore did not see the notice that a draft existed for it. Apologies if my process made it seem like I was disregarding any of your efforts. If I had seen it, believe me, I would have contributed to your draft. I regularly contribute to other users' drafts and move them into mainspace myself. Thanks. Ss112 00:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned (and apologized) that for some reason I could not leave you a message directly on your talk page, so I had decided to edit your archive so I could leave a message - it was either a misread of the buttons from my end, or an internet error - though I did search thoroughly. Yes, I'm still learning plenty on Wikipedia, so my apologies again, I know that can feel like a blatant intrusion and it was not my intention; however it's not too big of a deal I feel, and hope. Maybe it can exist as a piece of error in history where you helped someone out. Yes, I learned that you can move pages directly once you have at least 10 edits and are confirmed/autoconfirmed. I guess, I was disappointed since I put an effort in making the article and was planning on making an extended article on it from the efforts Kavinsky put in, the marketing ideas behind Reborn, and other things. This being said, you explained to me that you did not know there was an article already being generated, and that is fine, I can understand that. Usually when I make something new I try and see if it already exists, maybe that's something that you can take away on your end, even as an experienced editor of Wikipedia. Thank you for reaching out. Radlrb (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the changes you made to the article last month. I outlined as much in my edit summary just now, but several important things to bear in mind:

• The alt= parameter should always be present where an image is, even if not filled out, per MOS:ALT and Template:Infobox album.
• The genres you added (besides synthwave) were not sourced, nor were the recording dates. These need explicit citation otherwise they are unsourced and contentious.
• We should no longer use hlist templates in the infobox; we list using bullet points per Template:Infobox album.
• Primary labels (the label[s] the artist first released the album on, and/or the labels they're signed to in their home country) should be the only ones present per Template:Infobox album#label. Astralwerks is the US distributor for Kavinsky, not one of his primary labels.
• Please observe logical quotation. You changed the punctuation placement, even including placing commas inside of italic markup around publication names, which disregards WP:LQ. Sentence fragments taken from quotes should not have punctuation placed inside of the quotation marks, nor should punctuation be present inside of the quotation marks around song titles if it's not actually in the title. Either way, please read the linked guideline.
• Always spell featuring out—it should never be shortened to "feat." or "ft." in the track listing.
• Do not cite Discogs as a citation. It is a user-generated source per WP:USERG and is listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID as well.

Thanks. Ss112 01:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Good points. I'll find the source for the dates of production, which I found online. I appreciate your input, and my apologies once more. Radlrb (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

177

All content in an article should be SIGNIFICANT. We do not go around adding lines to the start of every biography of a person, saying that they have a head on which there are two eyes, because it is not specific to that person. Similarly, we should not go around adding lines to the start of every number saying that it is even or odd, because it is not specific to that number. You are adding junk content that does not improve the encyclopedia. It does not improve the understanding of what makes 177 notable as a number, which requires "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties". The properties you are adding are not interesting. They make the article look less notable, because they hide the interesting content. Stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

So then no number can be cited as a Blum integer, or no number can be cited as a 60-gonal number? Why ever reference any number with these properties then? Then no number will ever be referenced as a Blum integer, or 60-gonal, or any -gonal then. My additions make that number more notable. I will seek mediation and further commentary from other editors. Your reverse of my edits amounts to vandalism, or appropriation of articles by you. You don't own Wikipedia, David. you reverted edits from tens of people who have a say as well on what goes inside this Wikipedia. Radlrb (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The first half-dozen or so Blum integers may be notable as Blum integers. Blum integers are a notable property: they have their own article and are marked as nice in OEIS. But that does not mean that being a Blum integers is significant for all infinity-many of them. As for 60-gonal numbers, no, that is not an interesting property at all.

And, just so you know:

Your recent editing history at 177 (number) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

—David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a copy paste, I'll do so for you too. Radlrb (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI

If you are going to make a report on ANI, please follow the directions at the top of that page. Your edit to that page has been reverted. Singularity42 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I did, I happened to accidentally click submit before I added content. Radlrb (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like its fixed now. Singularity42 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Radlrb (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours for persistent personal attacks. Don't call fellow editors "psychopathic" in edit summaries (or anywhere).[1] Your suggestions that "saying "golden ratio-loving scholars" is something like saying "black-loving whites", or "Mexican-loving people"[2] or has anything to do with the prejudice you have experienced in the US for being Latino[3] is incomprehensible. David Epstein has asked several times at ANI for diffs with evidence of those serious accusations, as have other people, with no result. You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC).

I feel it is incomprehensible to you, even though it's quite commonplace to bash the spiritually minded as insane, which has been done for millennia. If you haven't experienced deep prejudices - I did in childhood in general, through elementary school, middle school, and later high school, and then a general abandonment for my beliefs by my best friends at the time and my own family - then you are not able to comment on the matter, since you lack the emotional background for it; and not in an incompetent sense as was thrown around in the ANI, but with a deep disconnection from the form, and weight of the matter at hand. An example of proper inclusive word choice use, say. So you cannot know what can trigger people. From my end, these are past traumatic bleeds, that spilled over here. So my apologies, still, I accept that I crossed the line, in the way I responded to the insensitive remarks. Yet, I still hold the moral mandate in the matter, that is certain, against really almost every single point that was discussed in the ANI, inclusive of those I chose not to answer to. If you really want an opinion on the matter, ask other spiritual folks that have an affection for the golden ratio, and ask them if they see those words that were used as offensive. I think you will get a positive response.

Best. Radlrb (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)