User talk:Radiodef

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Radiodef! Thank you for your contributions. I am Binksternet and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gain stage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DAW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 16:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Corrected. All my love for you. Radiodef (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey, no problem. : ) Radiodef (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Owl City
Hi man,

Thanks for supporting me on this one and opening an edit war discussion - I don't know how Walter sees his edits as justifiable but hopefully the admins will get involved soon as this can't go on.

Regards, Sam. Samcooke343 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, I suppose. As an outside observer I felt the need to step in. Walter's most recent reverts seem like a rather blatant WP:IDHT to me. Keep in mind that I notified you of the discussion because they may also scrutinize your own edits; however, as I said, there appeared to be a consensus on Talk:Owl City to support the most recent edits that you made. Radiodef (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

AutoTune
How are you guys so fast to take down silly edits? Is there an army of edit checkers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.153.72 (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have an account, you can add articles to a "Watchlist" where any new edits show up in real-time. Please don't add such disruptive edits. I saw your other edit was in good faith and mixing bad edits with good edits is a sure-fire way to spoil a reputation here if you intend on contributing otherwise. Wikipedia doesn't care if the vandalism is silly, it's still deconstructive. Additionally, if you were to create an account to make legitimate contributions, users with CheckUser rights can find your edits made as an IP. Radiodef (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize. Out of curiosity, why do you have the AutoTune article on your Watchlist? Are you paid to police Wikipedia? I ask because I've long wondered how Wikipedia maintains such high-quality articles. It's a pretty amazing feat, considering they are publicly generated by mostly-anonymous people on the internet. And we know what we get when we take a typical person and give them anonymity and an audience. 75.110.153.72 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody's paid except I assume the people that work for the foundation that maintain the servers. Auto-Tune is one of about 500 articles that I watch in the audio/music space. I contribute to this article space out of personal and professional interest which I think is fairly common.


 * Maybe about half of the vandalism on WP gets reverted by bots like User:ClueBot NG which helps but the rest is reverted by users. Reverting disruptive edits is just something everybody does. Any time an edit is made, it is likely to be seen by maybe 2-20 people over the course of a couple hours, depending on the article subject. Regular edits need to be reviewed too and the collaboration is why the articles tend to be good quality. According to the Wikipedia article, there are 77,000 active users. Radiodef (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insight. Sounds like the reason the quality is so good and the corrections are so quick is (unless it's something easily automated) because of a lot of people just doing it for the enjoyment of doing it. It's pretty amazing. 75.110.153.72 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Irony
Thanks a lot for the template. I knew there was one somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Myrvin (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, the section looks good so far. Radiodef (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lo-Fi Music
Hi. I saw the change you made to lo-fi music. I was going to be a jerk about making the change, but you have good intentions. Are you in State College, PA by the way? Because if you are that is a very odd coincidence as the band Beer Pussy is also from State College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.169.201 (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2014‎ (UTC)


 * I Google searched the name and did not find any hits, even for local bands. In any case, an obscure local band does not belong on a list of notable artists. If it's a real band, I have certainly not heard of it. Radiodef (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You do realize that many famous artists are obscure in their lifetime? Just out of curiosity - how many of the bands listed on that page have you heard of?  Shouldn't the actual quality of the band be a determining factor.  If we allow popularity to be the only determining factor of whether an artist is deemed worthy then the 21st century will be remembered as one of the most uncreative ages in all of humanity.  I am sure I can look up articles on Britney Spears, Justin Bieber etc. - all simply because the only metric being used is popularity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.169.201 (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2014‎ (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia actually has guidelines for what belongs on it and what doesn't. Those other bands have been on labels, have had lots of press coverage, etc. WP:NOTE Radiodef (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to say thanks for your help with the Waves Audio article. Cheers Beakermeep (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Standard Notification
--Jorm (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm dropping this here just 'cause I gotsta. Don't be afraid; everyone gets it. (Though I actually haven't, which is weird. Someone should get on that.)--Jorm (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Radiodef (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sound Logo project
VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)