User talk:RadicalOne/December 2009

Continent

Hi RadicalOne,

I do not understand why you removed my quote from the "Continent." I've posted an exact quote and source,(including title and page number), I've put it into "History of Concept" Section, and yet you've deleted it , just because it happens to be written by a religious person who lived 1000 years ago. I think what you are doing is obviously bias and motivated by your religion (which maybe hate religion), and you are therefore vandalizing wikipedia. How is this different from quotes by Eratosthenes? He may have also been affiliated with a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.226.49 (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've never even edited that article! You can check the revision history on that.

I would never remove a quote just because it was spoken by a religious person; If it was applicable to the subject matter (and valid, cited, etc), I would leave it. Before you make an accusation such as this, prove that such an edit was made! -RadicalOne---Contact Me 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at that IP's contribs shows that that user has never edited that article either. I see no overlaps between pages you've edited recently and pages that IP has edited, so something's wrong here. Aurora Illumina 02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Troll? -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I noticed the IP's contribs; the last edit by the IP before the edit to this talk page was twenty days ago. Aurora Illumina 03:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[re-indent] Interesting. That's a considerable length of time, though by no means huge. By the looks of it, he's been adding pro-Judaism comments to articles...what's interesting is I have removed such a comment - but it was to Pleiades (star cluster) and from another IP. Even more intriguingly, that IP has edited Continent, and in the same sort of manner. Is this a case of one user owning a dynamic IP? -RadicalOne---Contact Me 03:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The two IPs seem to share interests, as the pages shown in the contribs do overlap. This may be the same person, maybe on two different computers, and probably made a mistake and referred you to the wrong article. Aurora Illumina 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It could well be the same person - I'm dubious of two computers, as all IPs within a household tend to be the same - but either way, his edits are still crap. Rather reminiscent of something I would get one one of my YouTube accounts. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Well, it does appear that the IP is dynamic - another edit of the same type was made to Pleiades (star cluster), by yet another IP, but notice the fact both addresses to edit Pleiades, the aforementioned one and this one, which was discussed earlier in this thread, share the "74.74.2*" as their first three - of four - numbers. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 17:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has been two weeks since this topic started. Do people tend to wait this long before coming back and editing again? (My watchlist isn't very big, so I don't catch much of this type of behaviour myself.) Aurora Illumina 18:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the revision history of ITER. The actions of the IP (62.68.something) there make it clear that when someone is motivated by something - and the edits to ITER are of a similar POV-pushing nature, if with a different motive - they will indeed. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

But that section was not about the geological evolution of Mars. It promoted a single, highly suspect theory about Mars originally being a double planet. If the article is to have a section on Mars's geological history, and it should, we should start from what the established sources tell us. Serendi^podous 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A double planet?! That is ridiculous. You made the correct choice in deleting it.-RadicalOne---Contact Me 22:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aldebaran

Someone is actually reading this article? Great! I apologize for making so many changes at once. The article was (and still is) in such poor shape that it seems much needs to be done at once. As you can see from the article history most of the recent changes have been made by me. Anyway, I owe you some explanations (I didn't put this in the article talk because I don't think anyone else cares): 1. The SOHO starbox image is very hard for users to interpret who are not already very familiar with the constellation. The SOHO image does not clearly identify the star or its position in the constellation. The constellation diagram is redundant from the Taurus article but it clearly shows the position of the star, especially its position relationship with the Pleiades asterism consistent with the article's introduction paragraph. In addition, the copyright status of the SOHO image is in question as it originates somewhere from the SOHO ESA program and their copyright terms are usually too restrictive for this wiki (and it is marked for deletion). 2. The starbox information that I removed for the secondary star I had earlier added myself, before I found that the 'B' star has not yet been proven to be anything more than an optical double. Including this information in the box at this point is misleading. I also noted the secondary's status more clearly in the 'Double star' section. 3. The rest of the changes are minor cleanup. Please let me know if you have issues with any of these proposed changes. Aldebaran66 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I have no knowledge of constellations - indeed, I find the need for the idea of stellar pictograms rather childish - but have little trouble interpreting the image, so therefore the image cannot rely that heavily on the constellation. Also, I contest the deletion nomination; SOHO is a NASA/ESA joint venture, just like Hubble, and all Hubble images are public domain unless otherwise stated.

2. If that is the case, perhaps the infobox can be split into two sections, with the "main" one focusing solely on Aldebaran A, with a secondary infobox (stylistically mirroring the main one) with the data on Aldebaran B in the 'Double Star' section.

-RadicalOne---Contact Me 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

62.68.174.243

"Recent" at AIV generally means within the last few minutes. This IP hasn't edited in several hours, and indeed the last two edits were apparently uncontroversial ones to another article.

If the edits are libelous, then report them to the BLP noticeboard. If this is an ongoing pattern, go to AN/I. But for now it seems to me that the "stop or you'll get blocked" warning actually worked. The name of the page, after all, is Administrator intervention against vandalism, not Requests for Blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I will wait until the IP makes the edit again - which I am sure it will; it is likely the only reason the edits have stopped is that the user is offline - but I wish to make one comment. If the edits are viewed and treated differently simply because they were not caught and reported in the "recent" time constraint, there is a fault in the evaluation process. Moving on, I would like to go to this "AN/I" - what and where is it? -RadicalOne---Contact Me 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted, you are certainly within your rights to re-report if he goes online and starts in again. AN/I is "Adminstrator's noticeboard/incidents" the main source of drama, it's at ... WP:AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Word of warning: AN/I will likely just refer you back to AIV, for this situation. I'd suggest waiting until the IP inserts the material twice in quick succession, and then promptly post to AIV (I did it that a few days back, and they got a 24-hour block; block duration will only increase if they ignore the multitude of warnings). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the IP will do that; not only is the problematic user sporadic in timing, I suspect that they are clever enough to avoid "obvious" vandalism behavior. Compounding the problem, the vandalism is not always caught in a timely manner, but rather hours after the act. As you can see above, WP:AIV generally ignores such reports. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the IP has a history of making strings of edits to ITER, and of being oblivious to Wikipedia conventions and policies. I doubt they'll deliberately mask their attempts to push their viewpoint in the future. Post to AIV after a chain of edits (preferably with an editor other than you reverting at least once in the chain, so that you don't appear to be edit-warring), and any admin checking the history will see the pattern, see the warnings, and impose another block. Regarding edits to other pages, the IP edited Ericsson cycle in the past, apparently out of genuine interest in the topic, so I don't find their edits on the 29th out of the ordinary. All this does is make a request for a long-term or permanent block infeasible, as the user is demonstrating that a) they're _able_ to contribute, and b) they aren't a single-purpose account.

If you don't feel like bouncing this back and forth to AIV, consider putting in a request for semi-protection for ITER (to prevent IP-based edits to the page). Semi-protection is given when a page has _both_ a large fraction of edits being either vandalism or vandalism-removal, _and_ high enough traffic to make manual vandalism rollback impractical. I doubt ITER would qualify on the second point, but feel free to try if you like. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I considered that option, and even looked into the request, but I feel it will be rejected due to the fact the events fail the "many vandals" criterion. You may wish to refer to my post to WP:AN/I for a full description of the issue at hand. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)