User talk:McGeddon/Archive 10

No
the short answer is - no. I just know of them through my work Picknick99 (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about some photos taken 35 years ago! As for the Nicholas Whittaker page, if you check the history you will see it wasn't started by me anyway. Picknick99 (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As a journalist I know lots of people - they are neither family, friends, colleagues, clients or employers. I know Sean Bean, Uri Geller, Steve Harley, Janet McTeer, Sean Pertwee, Melanie Hill, Martin Amis, Will Self, Phil Collins, Wayne Sleep, Derren Brown etc etc. Are you seriously suggesting that any attempt by me to edit them in Wikipedia is a conflict of interest? That would be taking COI to a very illogical conclusion. Picknick99 (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, the answer to your question is no, and I am quite happy for you to take a look and edit as you wish, providing that you yourselves are being objective and using commonsense rather than deliberately looking for minor infringements just to enjoy the pleasure of scoring points. I entirely support the Wikipedia policy of objectivity, but only if it used fairly and consistently and not as excuse to harass well-meaning contributors. I have made contributions in my own time and for my own pleasure (rather as one might sit around doing crosswords just for the sake of it). To suggest there is some ulterior motive is an insult. Writing for Wikipedia is supposed to be a pleasure, not an obstacle course in satisfying the pedantry of anonymous people whose sole motive seems to be in casting aspersions on other contributors. Picknick99 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you ever pause to consider how consider how poorly and stressed your harassment makes people feel? How petty your ferreting about on the internet, checking websites and drawing all the wrong conclusions? This is Wikipedia, not a court of law. You have plenty of suspicions, but nothing that would be regarded as irrefutable evidence. Picknick99 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that I am feeling stressed and I have a headache and I also have to work. Maybe you can spend all day in Wikipedia, but I can't. I have read the COI guidelines more than once. I would be grateful if you would specify exactly what you think that COI actually is. Knowing the people I write about? That is a pretty tenuous COI really, you may as well say someone who likes in London shouldn't write about London for they are certain to have a biased viewpoint. You could also say that, to continue with the London example, professional copywriters could add bits that show London in a good light. Isn't that a COI. You could say why should a golf enthusiast write about golf when he/she so obviously loves the game and may know some of the stars who play it. The permutations of this COI are endless. Taken to its logical conclusion, half the stuff on Wikipedia is written by people who have a biased interest in the subject they write about. I have read dozens of examples on here. And while I have no wish whatsoever to make this personal, there is something about the tone of your messages which is somewhat brusque - hence the stress it causes. A polite discussion would not have the same effect and would elicit a much more willing response. If you want a reply to this then you will have to wait Picknick99 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to imply that you are impolite, that isn't the case at all. But honestly, I am not an EMPLOYEE on Clout Communications. That was put on there as a favour by Greg Day, who I knew in the 1970s and whose career I have followed. It was his attempt to give me something extra to add to the CV and his suggestion that I might want to edit some Wikipedia pages too just to keep my hand in. He suggested one or two people who would not object if I used them as a guinea pig. But the research was entirely mine from the internet, the British Library and the British Newspaper archive. It's the inference that I work for Greg Day that causes offence, I am a journalist and presently writing an article about dead people - but I haven't been paid by the deaf people for supporting their cause, an more than I was paid by any of the other people I have written about. You could say that I have a conflict of interest with the deaf people since I like those I have spoken too and I am writing a piece to promote their cause. If you look at the Daily Mail website you will find me on there and could draw the conclusion that I am an employee of the Daily Mail, but I am not, anymore than I am in the pay of Greg Day. Picknick99 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply
Dear McGeddon

I have no connection to the person in question. I am an intern at the South Africa arts and culture council, i have been tasked to factually update the wikipedia pages of prominant South African artists. I am confused why you keep changing my hard work. Nothing i am writing is factually incorrect. I understand that my formulation is not 100% but rather than deleting my hard work could you rather help me make corrections. I would really appreciate it!!! This is not a competition, i am only trying to display to the world information that is correct and flattering to promote South Africa artist.

Kind Regards

Thandi Moyo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thandi moyo (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited other articles because you keep changing back my changes and i'm stuck on Mccreedy!!!!! Please can you put it back how it was yesterday and then we can discuss the issues one by one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thandi moyo (talk • contribs) 09:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mcgeddon, much appreciated. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thandi moyo (talk • contribs) 10:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Clout Communications
Just to let you know I have disassociated myself from Clout Communications. People are apt to draw too many false connections. Picknick99 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Resigns
I've decided to resign from Wikipedia altogether. It's a waste of time. I have spent half the day creating two particles on the 5th and 6th Viscounts Bolingbroke - and now they are nowhere to be seen. Life is a lot easier writing for the newspapers - at least one gets paid! Picknick99 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks
thanks, I shall look again. obviously they are works in progress, I just thought it odd that the earlier ones had been done, but no these two who were both controversial, so plenty of references to comePicknick99 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem gambling
Hi, you´ve recently have undone some editing on the article slot machine. I believe that how slot machines interact with humans it´s a very interesting and documented point of view, i´ll be glad to talk about as i´ve mentioned on the "Talk" of the article.--Euroescritor (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mc, first sorry for reverting the edition, i didn´t see your comment on the talk. You could leave for some time the link, and i´ll be adding this specific to slot machine info to problem gambling, therefore, the link would be relevant. The golden goal would be to add more meaninfuly, in the article of slot machine the relation between slot machine and humans, and the obvious problems of such a relationship. Sorry again for forgeting the links to the relevant info. I promise to add the following link´s info to the relevant articles.

The links are this:
 * http://news.ubc.ca/2013/10/29/scientists-reduce-behaviours-associated-with-problem-gambling-in-rats/
 * https://uwaterloo.ca/gambling-research-lab/
 * https://uwaterloo.ca/gambling-research-lab/publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroescritor (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A Beautiful Life (2008 film)
I think you cut out too much of the plot and review. What makes this film so notable are the details of how every part of the movie was panned, from plot to acting, to direction. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Personally I would find plagiarism a far worse offence than any others. I have just been on the Wikipedia page about Dennis Wheatley looking for some info. I couldn't see it - so I Googled for another Dennis Wheatley page. Looked at it and thought straightaway - "Ho, I just read this EXACT same paragraph on Wikipedia! These people should at least have the grace to paraphrase and restructure Picknick99 (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Harassment
As I read the Wikipedia guidelines, Harassment is regarded as far worse than any perceived COI. To quote "to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." - which is exactly how I feel. Picknick99 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

COI
This is my statement When I first took an interest in Wikipedia I scratched my head for subjects to take on. During the process of Googling old friends and acquaintance - as everyone does - I discovered that an old friend Greg Day was now running a PR company and I looked up one or two of his clients. Seeing that one or two - Kevin Howarth, Simon Rumley, were not mentioned on Wikipedia I thought that I would have a go at tackling them. I could have contributed to many other pages - and have - but I wanted to be the initiator of a page that no one had tackled before. Not long afterwards Greg Day got in touch and mentioned that he had seen the pages. He said "how would I like to be an associate of the company" and - being a journalist and always looking for extra bits on the CV - I said why not. I then went on and edited Alan Jones and Hayley-Marie Axe, never thinking that any conflict of interest was involved. I still do not think that any COI was involved since a) I was never paid to do it b) I was never requested to do it c) I was trying to make a statement and not advocating or promoting anyone's career d) Writing and researching Wikipedia is just a hobby, end of. If that is so then you may as well say there is a COI over my edits of the Bolingbrokes and the Somervilles to whom my connections are no less nor more than the Howarths and the Rumleys - random topics of interest. That does not constitute a COI. Picknick99 (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Liquid Nitrogen
I am sorry, but I do not see your point in removing my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruto9181 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

COI
whatever you think best. I wouldn't mind, but this "policy" seems to be applied in a random fashion and would only be fair if it was applied universally. Are you seriously expecting me to believe that the editors who originate pages about commercial product don't have some vested interests and/or COI. One would have to suspend disbelief to take that line. I have read not one but dozens of articles that do a wonderful job of promoting commercial interests. I guess it's one law for the independent editors and another for the corporations. Thus was it always. Rather than picking on people like me and making mountains out of molehills it would serve Wikipedia better to weed out the real abuses by cynical commercial interests rather than the perceived ones. Anyway, I do not own the pages discussed, so people can do whatever they like. I'm sure Jimmy wales never intended Wikipedia to become such a bear pit! Picknick99 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Stange Behaviour By Editor McGeddon
I am not sure how such a simple process of factually updating a wiki page has turned into what i can only describe as a strange obsession by a person calling themselves McGeddon. I have no idea what this persistent person who i can only describe as an INTERNET TROLL's motives are. I have been asked to update prominent south african artist wiki pages with factual information that is flattering to the artists therefore promoting South Africa. If that is a crime then i apologise but the fact is i have no connection to the artist apart from the country i live in and the love of art. In response to the Thandi Zambo and Thandi Moyo, they are both me, I couldn't remember my password for Zambo, which is my maiden name, so i made Moyo, which is my married name. This strange person McGeddon, who obviously is a very empty person with nothing in his life is harassing me and vandalising all my hard work. I see he does this to everyone, it's probably because he has no power in the real world. Anyway i am moving on from this project and i will have to change my username when i look at other south african artists to update their pages to save myself from harassment from this TROLL. I admit i am not an expert at editing wiki pages but instead of assistance from this McGeddon he choose the vindictive route flexing his technical knowledge. He must hide behind his computer and live out his useless existence. Regards Thandi Moyo (nee Zambo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thandi moyo (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Clout
I am more than happy for that to be done; as I've said before I have no vested interest and feel that I have run foul of the catch-all COI regulations which don't seem to allow for commonsense. I have got so many other things to do and when editing Wikipedia stops being a pleasure then all I can say is that it's a sad day indeed. So I won't be doing anything apart from maybe looking at my Walter and Jane Somerville pages, one of which has already attracted attention. To say that one of the world's leading cardiologists is not notable is crassly ignorant and extremely insulting. Picknick99 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Liquid Nitrogen
I mean in classrooms when students learn about liquid nitrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruto9181 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Liquid Nitrogen
Hmm...I see. Ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruto9181 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Howarth
Hi, as I have said, I have disassociated myself from anything to do with Clout and have no need to be acquainted with any developments. Picknick99 (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation style
Please do not use bare URLs as citations. They are subject to link rot and are unrecommended. Please use the citation style instituted by the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

De-prod
I de-prodded this one. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan
Hi, I've filed another case at Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Packaging History
Not sure why you are removing valid links to useful resources? You appear to have a history of over zealous editing without actually spending much time looking into the links or changes. Please stop this attitude as you undo peoples good work and rob people of useful resources.The link I provided led to a page that featured an interactive timeline filled with key events in packaging history. This happens to come from a company, one that has led the packaging industry in the UK for twenty years, which apparently makes it untrustworthy and purely out for commercial gain. If we discredit thought leaders of relevant industries then I am afraid that your information will rapidly grow rotten and outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBoon11 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum
I've seen your message and since it doesn't specifically mention reductio ad hitlerum I'm going to remove that bit from the article. 86.40.143.109 (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've actually been here for years but thanks anyway (officially I'm retired, I felt that editing with a username made me a target for ideologues). 86.40.143.109 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing the Best Cited Links?
McGeddon, I am surprised that you are removing some of the best cited links on the pages you edit. Encyclopedias are supposed to have external information to keep them well updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Spencer Krendel (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, "McGeddon," which probably isn't your name, please just leave it alone. It is allowed: re the rule you cited.
Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Spencer Krendel (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Category Gambling / Problem Gambling
Sorry for the edits, i´m creating the new category problem gambling, but it belongs to category gambling, so bad for the dup--Euroescritor (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * About the Whisky -> Alcohol problem, yes i do believe that there´s also a relationship but it´s out my scope right now. Wikipedia loves how objects or organizations interact with humans and in particular anything that affect their well being, a bit anthropocentric yes, but interesting still.--Euroescritor (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Elite articles
In the Frontier: First Encounters and David Braben article, the Gametek lawsuit thing contains incomplete information. AFAIK, the lawsuit was settled out of court in Braben's favor, because Gametek released the game prematurely, why isn't this mentioned anywhere? This half information is damaging Source here: http://www.gamesinvestor.com/downloads/Playing for Keeps Great British Games IP.pdf

Also the sequels are hardly visible in the main Elite article and are easily missed, most people don't even know they exist or that they are related to Elite, that's why I added them the top. If you move them to the bottom I suggest we should make an Elite series article.

Also about the reddit links, I added them because I saw also saw them in other articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerbal_Space_Program#External_links

I wonder why you didn't remove that either. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw you incorrectly stated that Elite: Dangerous was already release, but it's not. It's still in development and will be released at the end of 2014. Please inform yourself on the subject before changing things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperspaceCloud (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello
I am sorry I am new here, wiki is very mix ) I want to make article Unity 3D in Armenian , but I understand after your message that I change english post ) Can somebody tell me how to start? So I look russian article I change to, can you write how made that article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardan Meliksetyan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you, my hero!
Are you an admin? Did you really give User:Parrot of Doom a WP:3RR warning? Because he needed it. He has a problem with "owning" articles, being explicitly uncivil, and edit-warring. I am not squeaky-clean myself, but I'm trying to do better. I've run afoul of him and it really discourages me when he reverts my good-faith edits with rude, dismissive, or insulting Edit Summaries and refuses to discuss them seriously on the article's Talk page.

Ben Culture (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 

Block evasion
I concede that I am a sockpuppet of The Abominable Wiki troll. Gegerages (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Lindsay Birthdate
Hi McGeddon! You took down my edit of Nigel Lindsay's birthday (1962) because you note that is it is unsupported. True.

But it is also true that the current birth date information (1969) is unsupported also.

In fact in the edited contributions Nigel Lindsay himself has posted at one point to say "I am Nigel Lindsay. I was not born in 1969"

I know he was born in 1962 because I know people who were in the same class at school with him - and they were all born in 1962.

However as neither this nor the incorrect 1969 date can be verified - maybe it would be best if all birthdate information was taken from Nigel Lindsay's page to prevent misleading and unverified claims being made?

ps IMDB also gives an unverified birthdate as 1969 - but this is undoubtedly following wiki's incorrect information.

Zhiaotan (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Warwick
Thanks for your pointer. I have mainly been trying to repair some of the references as there was criticism of the accuracy of some data, which was due to links being down. Any suggestions as to how to do this otherwise would be very useful. KWcyborg (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI
After your suspicion... Sockpuppet investigations/Foodyfanatic The Banner talk 10:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Multi sensory cooking
I looks like it is really an active school: Ultraviolet (Restaurant). Even with sources to confirm it. The Banner talk 10:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

E-Learning - Section "Further Reading"
To: User:McGeddon The external link (shown below) that you have removed, links to a book which teaches critical skills for online self-learning to students. I think thats relevant for the section "Further reading".
 * Become an iMature Student, Raghu Pandey, 2013, ISBN 978-1-4921-5697-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithewanderer (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon commented "Linking to an Amazon sales page for a book goes against WP:ELNO." Point taken. Please advise how to link to books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithewanderer (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Harassment
McGeddon, Please stop harassing me, what is wrong with you!!!!! Are you dong this because i am black? Thandi moyo (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 14:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Is "Internet Maturity" all about "Digital Literacy"
To: User:McGeddon Dear McGeddon, I strongly yet humbly advise you to consider the following points in my defence of creating a separate article for Internet maturity:

- "Internet maturity" is applied to both - individuals and organizations. Whereas "Digital literacy" can only be applied to individuals.

- All the sources provided under "References" section are reliable ones talking about the points discussed in the article.

- It is justified if you remove the external links in the article, but instead of redirecting right-away, you should let other readers decide after reading whether it should be merged with digital literacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithewanderer (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon wrote - "Can you point to any sources that discuss the concept of "Internet maturity" specifically by that name?" Reply: Sure. In addition to the references i shared in my article, following are some more links which talk about Internet maturity of organizations and Internet maturity of individuals:

Internet maturity of organizations

 * http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=381804
 * http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/Export-Assistance/Building-Export/Internet-Marketing-Unit.html
 * http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/imported/presentations8/mulligan.pdf
 * http://webpagesrus.net/articles_maturity.htm
 * http://www.anticlue.net/archives/hospital-web-sites-in-the-news/stages-of-inter.htm
 * http://www.atinternet.com/en/documents/the-maturity-model-social-media-marketing/
 * http://www.slideshare.net/vtrhoads/web-maturity-models
 * http://www.coyotecommunications.com/outreach/online3.html
 * http://prosperosworld.com/countrys-internet-maturity-linked-economic-performance/2012/
 * http://www.itpro.co.uk/609781/social-networking-to-drive-internet-maturity
 * http://visualizing.org/visualizations/web-maturity
 * http://www.assessmentmaturitymodel.org/other_maturity_models.html

Internet maturity of individuals

 * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=iMature
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Mature-Online-(for-Tweens)
 * http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/raghupandey-2066503-students-become-internet-mature/
 * https://www.gartner.com/doc/623333/uk-insurance-consumers-internet-maturity
 * http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-internet-maturity-level-test

I now hope you would now agree that scope of "Internet maturity" is much larger than Digital literacy. It deserves to be a separate article.. or at least readers should decide after reading that article whether it should be merged with digital literacy or not.--Ithewanderer (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Issue of reliable secondary sources outside Raghu pandey's book
Hi McGeddon. I will have to rest my case because that's the max i can do to convince you on the following point:

- Let readers decide whether this article should be merged with digital literacy or not.

Without being sarcastic, i admire your adherence and sincerity. But the baby just got thrown out with the bathwater :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithewanderer (talk • contribs) 05:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello
I was just trying to help wikipedia but i don't know how to do, because previous references are with numbers and when i put reference than it shows without Number. can you please tell me how can i give reference with number ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad Seeker (talk • contribs) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

you are brainless
how do you spend sooo much time in wikipedia? dont u have to go to work and do things to earn money and spend time with ur family?? how can spend sooo much time in wikipedia are u middle school guy??? how old r u??? --Thandi moyo2 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa
Hello. I watchlist the Burj Khalifa article and have a couple questions.

I have noticed you have been removing the claim that architect Fazlur Khan invented tubular design. Recently you have reverted here and here with the edit summary WP:BLOCKEVASION.

Is there something amiss with the claim itself? In addition to it being inline sourced, for example, the claim is also stated in other related articles where no one contests it. (at the Fazlur Khan article itself and at Tube (structure))

Or, are you simply reverting because of the block evasion and because that's standard procedure in dealing with block evading sock puppets? That's fine though I do not see any mention in an spi for, so there is no obvious evidence other then the edits themselves.

on the other hand, is listed at Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan as I am sure you know. Which brings me to the other reason I dropped by. Currently his latest edit is standing at Burf Khalifa and is hidden from watchlists by an administrative action, FYI.

Thanks for your time and efforts and hope you can clarify all this for me. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  13:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

barrel roll
hi. thanks for thanking me. but by now i am unsure again if i understood what a barrel roll is. i am thinking about removing the diagram again.... does it correctly depict a barrel roll? or is this rather another roll???. cheers. --Lommes (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous Premium Beta is actually Alpha 4
Keep in mind that Premium beta is a misnomer, it is actually between alpha/beta more closer to alpha as it's feature-wise the same as alpha 4, with bug fixes and an extra ship and station, but far from feature complete. The real Beta 1 is going to be released July 29, so to avoid confusion I changed it to pre-beta, but you might have a better solution. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Flying Saucers in the Moon
GREAT!!!

189.58.122.148 (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Flappy Bird source
My source was just as reliable as the other references on the Flappy Bird article. Two references on that page are tweets by Dong Nguyen, and four citations link to one referenced article, a Rolling Stone interview of Nguyen by David Kushner. The source I provided was a tweet from Kushner's Twitter that was retweeted by Nguyen on May 16 (the same day Kushner tweeted it) which you can see is the second-to-last tweet on Nguyen's Twitter page. Unless you can prove that this is not a reliable source, I will be adding the information and source back to the page tomorrow.

Papa Mama (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Change to Baby boomers article
Hi McGeddon, I've received your email Hello, I'm McGeddon. Your recent edit to the page Baby boomers appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC) When reading the Baby boom article I found the text "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of 'baby boomer' is from 1970 in an article in The Washington Post.[9][dead link]"

As I am a happy user of the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0.0.2) I try to verify the info and find (baby n. Compounds 2.) two uses of the term baby boom, one in 1941 and other in 1967 before the original 1971 appearance

As I should not cite this paragraph textually for copyright reasons, I must use the same way the first writer used "'According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of 'baby boomer' is from ... in an article in ...[link]" substituting the old items with the new ones. The first writer used an internal academic link www.oed.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu probably not being aware that the general public has no access to it.

Moreover, I find in Google Books the proper link, from 1941, so I am able to substitute the original dead link from the 1970 with a new working link from 1941.

So, returning to your email, you say "Your recent edit to the page Baby boomers appears to have added incorrect information". On what grounds do you say it is incorrect? I give a link to a number of Life Magazine you are able to read in Google Books. The term "Baby boom" was effectively used in a 1941 article you can read in the given link. We are in the baby boom article and it is a link to an appearance of the term previous to the one cited. So the information is good. The only possibly incorrect information is the attribution to the OED of the finding. "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of "baby boomer" is...". But for copyright reasons, I cannot go further. The only thing one can do is go to the OED and verify it. I have done that. Have you done so? What edition have you used? On what grounds do you feel enabled to revert to a previous text which disregards a -probably new finding- of a previous use? I suppose the first writer (who, by the way, did all the hard work) used a previous ed. of the OED than I did.

I try to be extraordinarily respectful with Wikipedia, and I felt confident enough to make this little correction. Nevertheless. you have felt confident enough to say this info is incorrect without citing a reliable source. You ask me to cite a reliable source. I did. This link (1st paragraph, 4th line and again at the end of page 73) is, I think, a reliable source. And yours? Where are your sources? Where do you find my information is incorrect? If you believe your information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page.

I could omit the attribution to the OED, which is of secondary importance in this article, but the merit is theirs, not mine.

As I wilfully defer to the preeminence you attribute to yourself, you can correct the Baby boomer article as you like. You can even say the first use of the term is from last month. But, poor Wikipedia! Are you really an admin?

Jorgemelis (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Change to Tourism Article
Hello - This was my first edit to Wiki and I see my change to the toursim page was reverted. Could you help in understanding what the issue was so that it will help me to keep this in mind for future edits.

Appreciate it.

Kennesaw State University Links
The link that I included was supporting evidence of the candidacy of a politician. The trend toward removing external links limits the credibility of any encyclopedia. References outside of itself build the credibility and legitimacy of any source of information.

blackmouth cur
I realized after posting the social media sites they were disqualified, but could you clarify why the three webpages http://www.blackmouthcur.com/ladner's_bmcs.htm, http://www.curtladnerblackmouthcurs.com, and http://lhladnerblackmouthcurs.com could not be referenced? I can duplicate the information from the websites, but that would create problems I believe with other breeders who may feel the Ladner's are monopolizing the Wiki page. If it would be easier I can create a historical person page for LH Ladner. He contributions to the canine world and to the general breeding of dogs is well respected by many through out the South and among many across the United States. Sorrycur (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)sorrycur

Ramil Garifullin
I noticed that the tag of bad translation appeared immediately after adding my unsuccessful transfers (a few sentences), and before that in a few weeks this was not a problem. Overall, the article is translated by a professional translator--Irek Minnullin (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent Link Removals.
Hello McGeddon, Thank you for leaving a message regarding some links I inserted. I am new to Wikipedia, and the changes that I had made to the "security seal" page were made to support the fact that most of the content on this page is in fact out of date. The new ISO standard 17712:2013 that I made a reference to was published on 14th May 2014 which requires all High Security Bolt Seals and Cable Seals, Container Seals to be certified to that new standard in order to be compliant with other regulations such as C-TPAT guidelines.

The external links I provided to Mega Fortris Group supports the new standards as they are a global security seal manufacturer who have tested all of their high security seals to the new standards.

To conclude my updates to the content and the external link references were to give viewers the most up to date information. If I have made a mistake please advise on how to do this in the correct manner.

Kind Regards, Pperry1808.Pperry1808 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)--Pperry1808 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ramil Garifullin
Hi McGeddon! Today were biography added some proposals that fail translation and you immediately put the tag on the translation? If I remove these additions, the tag removed?--Irek Minnullin (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The initial language of this article was English. . The translation is correct. I hope for your help and prompt.--Irek Minnullin (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your attention to the article. Perform all tags : posted subst:Duflu | pg = Ramil Garifullin | Language = English | Comments =. Translation is corrected, but are waiting for assistance. Hope for help. Beforehand grateful.--Irek Minnullin (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Image of trollface on Troll (Internet)
I'm not sure if this image is valid fair-use there. Please join. DMacks (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

HTMLGIANT and Crowley article
Look at the large number of Wikipedia articles that cite HTMLGIANT. How is it not notable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=htmlgiant&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go

2601:1:9280:271:FA1E:DFFF:FEE3:1FFE (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9280:271:FA1E:DFFF:FEE3:1FFE (talk)

Regarding that IP at Number of the beast
See Sockpuppet investigations/Themainman69. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
JMHamo (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Kerplunk
Hi. I see you recently undid my edit. However, some of the sticks in Kerplunk are blue. Google it if you don't believe me. Thisismyusername V (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Shall I revert your edits then? Thisismyusername V (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Fazlur Khan obsession
( may also care to note.) Do you think that and  may be more socks of  ? Note both doing pointless edits on July 25 - presumably to make themselves auto-confirmed. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, edits by 180.149.31.166 and 180.149.7.242 also seem pretty strange. Graham 87 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You might also want to take a look at edits by and  where they edited the Skyscraper article a few days ago... another Aalaan block evasion? (Should I have added this to the SP investigation even though it is archived?)  Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really worth it, it's already been noted in a past SPI that Aalaan is using IPs in that range, among others, to evade his block instead of simply requesting an unblock. There's no point in blocking them as they're shared IPs that he's only ever using once; it's just a matter of watching the articles that he's evading his block to edit, and reverting those edits. (In this case it was just a failed attempt to make a new version of the Fazlur Khan article at "Fazlur Rahman Khan" the way he wanted it, but thanks for cleaning up the now-unnecessary redirect.) --McGeddon (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Color
I'm disappointed with your closing of the discussion I was TRYING to have, with some other editors saying some particularly stupid things. Unfortunately, everybody who read it seemed to misunderstand what I was trying to achieve. I'm not sure about your position, but nobody has convinced me I was wrong in trying to raise the issue there. It is not my goal to disrupt Wikipedia, but to make it better. I wasn't trying to be confrontational. (At least one other editor certainly was. I hope that wasn't why you hatted the thread.) My proposal was a little radical. I do that sort of thing. Hatting the discussion prevents Wikipedia from improving in the area I was addressing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NerfersUnited
This user has been creating non-notable Nerf articles such as Nerf Longshot CS-6 and Nerf Recon CS-6, as well as converting the redirect N-Strike into a full article, despite several warnings posted on his Talk page. - Areaseven (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for any Inconvenience
Hi, McGeddon! I'm sorry for editing your talk page. I've also stopped editing the page Nerf Recon CS-6. Also, I don't know about the discussion of N-Strike last year, because I'm only new in Wikipedia. Also, I regret recreating the page N-Strike, after thinking about it. Sorry again for any inconvenience.

-NerfersUnited

P.S.: I didn't create the page Nerf Recon CS-6, as Areaseven mentioned on your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerfersUnited (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi McGeddon, I was going to cite a case for a reference. Is it better to put in the case details, or is it fine just to use the link? The link is a government site, so it should be fairly stable over time. Do you know if there is any custom/preference? Thank you. Danh108 (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
I do not understand why I will get blocked when I am just citing my edit. I was told by Param Mudgal that I have to cite my edits that is the only thing I am doing.

see below:

Hello, I'm Param Mudgal. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Param Mudgal (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anissa F (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 August 2014‎

Fan-based gameplay videos in articles
Are fan-based gameplay videos that demonstrate certain game mechanics allowed in articles? HyperspaceCloud (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

IPs and bots
IPs are never bots. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What if the bots edit while logged out, like a few of them did sometime ago? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm probably wrong then. You could ask at the technical help desk or Wikipedia talk:Bots. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, should have done this earlier, apologies. Bot owners' noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem Doug. Thank you for finding the thread. It is similar to incidents which had happened some time ago. Similar threads had also appeared at AN at various times, such as this for example. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where the IP was softblocked with a notice to login to use the bot. They can still edit from their account, just not logged out. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess to prevent socking by the bots. A sign of artificial intelligence perhaps. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Re article tags
Hi McGeddon, Given you never got consensus on your COI story, it would be appreciated if you could remove both tags you have put on - as you know, like most people, I don't appreciate being wrongly accused or the way you sought to take advantage of the old statements on my user page. I was also interested in your view about me changing my user page - I left my old entry there for the sake of open ness. You have taught me that it will be misconstrued - far better to do something like you have with your user page, and keep everything concealed, but not it's probably too late for that. If it helps you understand, I would estimate I knew less than 2% about the Brahma Kumaris when I wrote the entry that has you concerned, the remaining things I have learnt have been from reading a wide range of RS as part of the editing process.... Anyways, if I change my user page I don't want you to then suggest I am trying to hide the COI. thank you for your guidance Danh108 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * McGeddon, that response was not up to your usual good standard...unless I'm wrong, User:Truth is the only religion was reinstating the tag that you put on (and I removed), and no consensus is clearly no consensus. If anyone was alarmed by your COIN post, they would have commented. The concern on the talk page relates to content, not my editing or your allegation, so it doesn't support your action. Please remove the tag or acknowledge you are fine for me to remove it.
 * I will change my user page - at the very least it will help you understand how I don't fit the pigeon hole you are trying to put me in - I would ask that you try and be open minded though. It's not so nice for a fairly inexperienced editor to have someone trying to build a case instead of being objective....Cheers Danh108 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry...I was overlooking the comments of the editor your are relying on for support....there are historical reasons for this. It was incorrect for me to say all the comments relate to content. I apologise.
 * If it's okay with you, I feel like we are about to start going round and round, and I think you would also prefer I go and edit rather than go on with this. The COIN you raised was unfair, and you changed things like 'enjoys meditation' became follows BK meditation. If an editor is doctoring his/her evidence, rather than being objective or fair minded, I think it's unwise for me to feed into that. I would be very wary of the editor you are taking support from though....they look so much like this one who was probably a sock of this one and this one....anyway, when time permits that is a separate issue and something for me to raise on ANI. Thanks McGeddon, Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bit hard to accept it was an innocent mistake when there are numerous misrepresentations in your COI report, and when you are so actively skeptical about my intentions...however I am prepared to assume good faith inspite of the evidence. However in future, please be really careful as it's not nice to be on the receiving end of a report full of misleading information, especially when I have directly told you that its not the case. I will revert the tags you have reinserted for 2 reasons:
 * 1. I don't believe it's my responsibility to post on COIN - you are the one with something to prove, not me (but please by objective).
 * 2. I am not aware of any policy that allows consensus to be artificially constructed out of talk page comments that were never directly addressing the COIN issue, particularly when you relying on an editor who has already been reverted for vandalism and just hacks into RS content doing bulk deletes supported only by wild accusations.
 * RegardsDanh108 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the point where we disagree is over what you have called a "clear personal connection", and your belief that this prevents me from discharging my duty as a Wikipedian. I say this lacks good faith, because you've reached this conclusion prematurely based on assumption rather than evidence, and inspite of there being substantial evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure why you are giving so much attention to me when I'm not even that active on the article.Danh108 (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

tldr but I'd also like to add, I don't think the article is very well written at present. It's full of flowery or vague writing.

I cannot even really understand or follow the comments above. Much like the article now, it all just seems to be a distraction from the facts. What is he saying? Is he a follower of this religion or not? If he is, why can't he just say? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Re Brahma Kumaris article
Hi McGeddon, I can help but think your old friend Marriage of convenience has re-incarnated here, only now they are trying to carry out their same agenda one piece at a time rather than all in one edit - the lede drawn from leading encyclopaedia's mainly got removed because it was "written by a follower". I guess that's an improvement on their earlier edits. While these are their first edits, they are using tags and Wiki language like someone with experience. Makes me wonder why they are not using their previous account. Any advice/suggestions? Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi McGeddon, thank you for your post. I will read the policy again - it's partly because of that that I put this message up when I started editing on Wikipedia. I could have easily concealed this information if I wanted, and am certainly aware after a year and a half of editing the 'real life experience' is totally irrelevant to writing a good article. But the edits I reverted were ones deleting RS content. If you see me editing in a problematic way or not using RS, I am really happy to get your feedback/cautioning. BTW, should I be writing here or back on my talk page to reply to you (or it doesn't matter)? Danh108 (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi McGeddon, not that it relates to your conduct/editing- no complaints there, just an unrelated disagreement :-). I have posted on ANI here and thought it good to inform you. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership and advocacy
Hi McGeddon, there has been some intemperate discussion at Talk:Landmark Worldwide recently, alleging inter alia that unspecified "Landmark Advocates" have suppressed legitimate balance. And that "This article appears to have some very committed guardians that are intent on making certain no real non-favorable material gets into the article."

Since you have removed spam from the Landmark article a couple of times earlier this year, it is not clear whether or not you are one of the (unnamed) implied miscreants!

Could you take a look and let me know if you see any way to get this discussion back onto a more constructive tack?

Also I'd be interested in your take on whether the NPOV tag which has been put on the article is justified, and if so what changes should be made to restore neutrality? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response on my userpage - I've already asked them to name usernames, and to be specific about improvements they'd like to see to the article, but no constructive answer in either case. DaveApter (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Trail blazing/Way marking merge
Hi, I'm puzzled as to why the merge banners were removed. I thought that the merge should take place. Did my withdrawal of the name change proposal confuse you? Also I thought the question as to whether the terms way marking and trail blazing were synonymous was resolved. Rwood128 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
Hi, You asked whether I had any connection to the Ducere Foundation. I do not have any relations connected to the Ducere Foundations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anissa F (talk • contribs) 23:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My Bunraku edit
My reasoning for the See also is that Banraku is in the Uncanny Valley. Most other puppets/animation probably fall outside of the valley. --  :- )  Don  14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Onion
Hi, you've just reverted a change I made on The Onion page. Can you explain how it was "original research or novel syntheses of published material"? I only attempted to describe what one source had done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicydumpling (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough, I suppose it was my 'personal interpretation'. I just thought it was ridiculous someone would cite an article which also casually discusses details of a homicide. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.227.58 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

problem user? (re Aliens)
Hi, I've seen you've left comments on 76.6.164.239's talk page about making unconstructive edits on the "Aliens" article. I noticed as I was reading it and saw what was to me weird usage of male pronouns to describe what was a Queen alien, ubiquitously considered female by most people. I believe if we consider gendering the Alien as incorrect, we should be using "it" before using male pronouns (it just comes of as strange when reading the article)

looking at the history sees 76.6.164.239 do many other such edits. Changing "young" into "baby" etc. I am just a barebones wiki-gnome but maybe some sort of intervention? I don't know how these things work (a so many strikes and you get a ban for so and such time etc.) but it seems to me looking at this history page and the user's history that when it comes to the Alien page, 76.6.164.239 isn't going to back down --CatCat (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for looking into this. yea the baby thing was just an assumption of mine based on the this person also changing pronouns oddly. as for level 3 I think there is a fundamental communication problem with 76.6.164.239, only the day after your revert, there were new edits (you might have noticed) thank you looking into this matter :) I'll continue my gnoming :) --CatCat (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing infobox with some companies of the article
Hello sir. There is a missing infobox something got attention of Gaijin Entertainment company. So add this infobox for complete information and expand it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryancyriel (talk • contribs) 08:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Landmark Worldwide
I have posted a Request for Comment at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide You may be interested since you have discussed this subject in the past. DaveApter DaveApter (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

actor brian murphy/zippy from rainbow
Sadly you removed my entry from both wiki entries. Just how do you citate something that was common knowledge at the time (1970s/80s)? There was nothing libelous in what I said, it was just an interesting tit-bit of info which linked the two entries. I am 43 and actually met the great man myself a good 20 years or so ago at the BBC. He just laughed when I said Zippy was based on him.

If people are going to police wikipedia and remove such tit-bits of information that liven it up and make it stand out from the norm from a typical Encyclopedia then it will be all the poorer for it.

I stand by my update and would like it to be reinstated, but if I run into this much bother then I don't think I will bother to contribute to wiki anymore.

signed

Ooey, A 43 yr old londoner who has knowledge of both Rainbow/Zippy/the Actor Brian Murphy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.136.54 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ok - read your reply. Will find something to validate it when I get back from holiday in a few weeks. But, seriously, If you are a UK resident and are of my age you surely must know what I am talking about. Perhaps you wern't an avid TV watcher, I don't know. All I know is that I have spent about ten times longer to try to justify my entry than actually make it. This is a sorry state of affairs. I could understand if Brian himself thought it slanderous and asked for it to be removed, but he hasn't. I would probably think he'd be quite pleased to know that one of the most popular/cult TV characters was based on him. I sure would be.

85.211.203.55 (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous header and ref strip
I reverted your edit, because it stripped some important recent sources, like IGN and the main features that define the game in the header. If you give me some time I will strip the ref in the headers, except the strongest in the coming day. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Geopolitical Information Service
The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result.. See also User_talk:Ronhjones Ron h jones (Talk) 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
I am lucky to find this TV show. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No true scotsman
I note that you are an enthusiastic reverter of the "No true Scotsman" page. (I am sure that this is a job that is needed). You reverted my change. I think this is an excellent example and should stay staying. What would have to happen for that particular example to stay in as a good example. Be quoted in a newspaper? Be quoted in a Philosophy Magazine? Be quoted in a philosophy book? Mike Young (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Couple of questions
Hi McGeddon, Seems we are out of luck with anyone wanting to give an opinion (except for our mate Truth....his views are clear!). I wanted to ask: 1. Any thoughts on this? ;and 2. The campaign for the International day for the Elimination of violence against women in Australia is called "White Ribbon Australia". On Wikipedia "White Ribbon day" is the album of some music group - I'm not sure if there is any connection regarding the subject matter. Do you think it's useful to create a separate page for the Australian based movement (otherwise the content I want to add will be too dominant on the main UN related page). And if you think 'yes' to this, is it going to be okay to use "White Ribbon Australia" given how close the name is to this music groups album. Thank you :-) Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Suspect new editor
I have a feeling that the editor Jogil9630 might be yet another of this group of suspicious editors. Just seems too similar. Mabalu (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Complicity
Thanks for patching up the broken grammar I left behind, looks like I didn't read far enough into the sentence when changing around the pronouns. Cheers! 124.148.151.211 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reputation
Thank you McGeddon - that's really kind of you to say. I don't know why, but I prefer to try and stick with this account for now - but it's good to know for the future. Probably a bit of a shame you aren't open to possibility you could be wrong about the COI. I acknowledge that Wiki policies and procedures could be different to the models I work with, in which case I could be wrong. But at the moment I feel you have me pigeon holed and aren't giving a fair assessment. If your interpretation was correct, most people with specialist knowledge or expertise would be unable to edit, plus if you were consistent with your view, you should tag the COI on the Elimination of violence and Community Legal Centrepages. Still out of respect for you and because I do feel a bit of WP:Own towards my hardwork, I've been keeping a distance from much direct editing at the moment. There will always be different opinions and ways of constructing this topic. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm So Sorry
I'm sorry that I didn't write the reliable source in the 2048 (video game). I was fixed it and you can check it again if you want. Thank you. September 19, 2014

Old Habits
Dear McGeddon,

You seem to know your way around the block better than I do, so I'd be glad to read your opinion of my editing if you'd like to e-mail me it. :)

Duxwing (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Chat Hour
Hi McGeddon, It looks like you proposed the deletion of this article with the reason of no secondary sources but the article has references from the wayback machine (archive.org) and also Alexa. Why don't you consider these websites secondary sources? According to wikipedia, the use of wayback machine is encouraged. I believe the wayback machine is a more reliable source than many web articles. Also, Wikipedia needs an article on Chat Hour and this should be a start page for more articles to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackiwick (talk • contribs) 10:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. The written article was mostly about the history of the website. So, I believe the Wayback Machine page is a better source than any articles since you can just take at a look what really happened. Isn't that more evident than what other articles might tell you? Regarding WP:WEBCRIT, Accorrding to Alexa, Chat Hour is ranked #91,626 in the world and #670 in Albania. Shouldn't that be enough for a website to be well-known? I've seen articles about websites with lower Alexa ranks on wikipedia. So, it seems very subjective which site is more well-known than others. Shouldn't more people decide if Chat Hour is worth being mentioned? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackiwick (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of link to pokies reference
Hi McGeddon. Just received you message that you removed my reference link because you didn't think it was appropriate? I was actually searching around for pokies vs slot machine terms use after I read that blog post on a actual casino site. It seems like the Australian use of the term pokies gets misconstrued quite a bit, and thus I thought that the blog post from a casino site clarifies nicely the difference between the two most common uses of the word pokies. Thus I thought it would work well to help further explain that slot machines are refered to as pokies by Australians and New Zealanders. I honestly don't understand why it is inappropriate because I havefound no other sources online that explain this difference.

Anyway, thank you for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokkies (talk • contribs) 09:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Re alleged COI
Hi McGeddon, always good to get your feedback. As we discussed earlier, a COI arises if the personal connections (which we all have to various things) interferes with our primary duty, which is being a Wikipedian.
 * If an editor does a 'blanket deletion' of content that is RS based, surely the appropriate remedy is a 'blanket' re-instatement of the RS content. The only concern they raised on the talk required 2 digits to be be changed in 2 places in the article, not the deletion of 4,000+ words. I actually support them in this, but I know I will get reverted if I change it - the other editor is right that the RS (that I have) doesn't support it. Admin User:JohnCarter provided me with lots of RS when I started trying to edit and that has formed the basis of my education about this group, and a lot of the article. He didn't treat me in the way you are. Nor did the other admins who have helped when the 'advocacy group' (or however you want to describe these editors - please forgive me if I have used the wrong wording) got banned from editing.
 * I do apologise if I have done something to offend you. It was not my intention. Have a good day Danh108 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * HI McGeddon, sorry just saw your message to me yesterday...I am a bit delayed in real life at the moment. Thanks for trying to get some sort of consensus though. It all works better if the rules are being followed. Will look closely when I have a chance. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * HI McGeddon. I can't agree with you continuing to act without consensus. I assumed you put the tags because you finally got some favourable response to the COIN....but actually, there was no change and you just stuck the tags back in because you felt like. It seems out of character for an editor of your calibre to behave in this way. However I agree the best way forward is to get an independent opinion as we must respect we have different views on this. I messaged an admin who has seen a bit of the history on this page. Hopefully they will have time to look into this. Regards Danh108 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just reflecting McGeddon....I wonder if you had considered, if the person you are seeking support from on the page for your COI theory....I wonder if they made full and frank admissions about their real life connection to the subject matter, their past years of editing Wikipedia and the various things they've done....I wonder if you be troubling the person who is being quite reasonable and upfront with you, and backing the fellow who has now reinserted for about the 8th time his bulk deletion of RS content so that he can change a birth year....anyway, no hard feelings. Take care and enjoy the rest of your weekend. Regards Danh108 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks McGeddon. I don't think I need consensus to exist. You need consensus because you are putting forward a proposition re the COI. For me, I don't agree, so it's 'business as usual'. Wikipedia doesn't require me to get consensus for/prove my innocence. So I am not acting without consensus. But apart from reverting under WP:BANREVERT I'm not doing much as I can see you've fixed your position and don't see any benefit irritating you. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi McGeddon, I was interested in your view about the repeated accusations of Tagteam etc. I have been ignoring because the previous account did the same thing. However the other 2 editors have answered - is there some etiquette I should follow in this regard? Answer on ANI or just ignore? Cheers Danh108 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi McGeddon, I was just thinking about messaging you to see if an IP address check could be done against User:Marriage of Convenience but it looks like that might not be necessary. I will probably put another proposal to ANI soon. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * btw, if you think there are other areas on Wikipedia I would be useful, you are welcome to suggest - I was thinking Wikipedia is just about digging through RS material and adding content, but I see there is a whole lot more that can be done (and that work is slow going and really limits the range of areas I can contribute). So suggestions welcome. Thank youDanh108 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

BKWSU
The edits I did, or rather the problems I addressed, are so obvious that it is difficult not to admit they are fair. For example, the paragraph of links to their retreat centres and a blogs, numerous self-published references, unreferenced stuff, outdated citation requests, fluffy language etc etc.

I think I asked you if the BKs discussed all the stuff the added first. I did not get an answer to that question. Really it is for them to justify how they can re-add it.

But let's also be honest. They are working as a team and are being coordinated off Wikipedia what and how to do so. Where should I report that? Again, I am not getting an answer to those questions.

What should I do? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here. Firstly, acting as a team. Secondly, being coordinated from off the Wikipedia by other members of the religion.


 * I have asked the question several times now and they refuse to answer. I'll wait and see what they say on the Admin page.


 * I have no problem with reasonable, impartial improves but not working from the BKs' version. It's a mess. There are too many problems with it. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Then you are seriously misinterpreting what I am doing, and negatively so. As far as I can I, I have discussed my changes and they are according to the rules and yet the BKs have not. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the chat on the talk page as it is only relevant to that topic and not personal. I disagree with you, I'm trying to rescue the page from all the undiscussed and often unreferenced development, and merging all neutral or genuine developments in.


 * When I see one of the BKs revert all the new work and re-introduce factual errors or advertising, and then another one of the BKs put in a complaint, I think they are just working as a team together. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not make dishonest statements in your summaries. Please note, I have actually noted the changes I made, they are clearly grounded in the rules of the Wikipedia and there is are no factual errors in them, unlike the version the BK adherents keep reverting to.


 * It's strikes me that it should really be them you are are reporting for reverting and that you are not justifying why you are erasing all changes and reverting back to a version with clear factual errors.


 * Thank you. --13:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth is the only religion (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you McGeddon for keeping an eye on this article. Long term solution to fixing this article lies in contribution from experienced editors like you. I have no doubt that TITOR will return as another sock sometime soon given the history of this article and best solution lies in getting this article to shape by likes of you and other experienced editors Changeisconstant (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Deja vu BKWSU
Hi McGeddon, While it's probably too much to expect you to follow the talk page, it would be really appreciated if you could scrutinise edits to the article over the next couple of weeks. It's really a shame there isn't a 'proper BK editor' so that it would become clear edits are a very middle road position. Hopefully you will eventually feel it's good enough to remove the tag. But still, Lucy/Januarythe18th/Truth does generate an atmosphere of suspicion with his conspiracy theories and that influences people - even JBW's comments I find remarkable as they so influenced by an editor who worked solely on combat, allegation and hot air....so it is definitely a potent strategy, but not very ethical. All I can do to protect against this is keep inviting extra independent eyes on the article, exactly as I did last time he was blocked. Hopefully misguided sympathies won't allow his next incarnation/s to start editing again Cheers Danh108 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Post-it note update corrected with additional published citing DRAFT
Hi McGeddon, thank you for correcting my edit. Before I repost it, can you please let me know if this satisfies your deletion of it? Best, LeannJordan

In 1973 Alan Amron had invented the first ever Press on repositioning, reusable sticky memo note pads, see the original artwork and the original mailings sent to 3M in 1974, and 3M executives were given several samples by hand that same year. Litigation was quickly settled when Amron received a check from 3M just weeks after his filing the attached infringement action and complaint in New York Federal Court. As per the attached Court Dockets. Press-on Memos was what Amron called his invention in 1973 – 3M called it Post-it Notes in late 1974.

Additional citing of blogs and Reuters news stories on Amron Press On / Post it notes published — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeanJordan (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 October 2014

Amron invention claims

Thanks for asking the question, but it looks like you went ahead and posted the content anyway. I've cut it and explained why at Talk:Alan Amron. I notice every edit you've made to Wikipedia since 2012 has been related to Amron - if you have any personal or business relationship with him, I'd recommend reading WP:COI before making any further edits to these articles. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Amron invention published and important publicly known facts cited

Thank you McGeddon,

Yes, I did repost it back up only after I received other Wikipedia editors in sandbox, who suggested how best I should post it.

Yes, because I only comment in Wikipedia on what I fell I have knowledge of. I am an aspiring inventor myself.

I noticed that you have over the years a special interest in editing 3M Post-it notes Wikipedia page posts. Can you please disclose here how and if you are in any personal and or business contact or relationship with 3M, Post-it notes or any one affiliated with or for them?

I didn't know of and or about Amron before 2011 when I read of Amron inventions in published reliable reports, and so I reached out to connect with Amron on LinkedIn.

I read in 2012, when I first cited on Wikipedia about Amron inventions, the questions and discussions that the Wikipedia community had on Amron and the Post-it note "claims". Now in 2014, 2 years later, I found these new published facts on Amron Post-it notes claims, so I cited them. Certainly I waited long enough to cite these additional published important facts to Wikipedia.

I feel as an aspiring inventor myself, after reading about Amron the inventor and all his accomplishments, and then reading the outrageous claims of how 3M invented the Post-it notes, it was something that the additional publicly known and published facts be noted (cited) about.

There is no denying that Amron had a factual published and known public records roll in the Post-it notes history, and as Wikipedia is a source for that important encyclopedia published known public facts and information, what better place for it to be documented.

I would appreciate it if you would correctly edit my Amron Post-it notes simple paragraph, that you have so quickly each time deleted without corrections (with all the research effort that I put into it) back up on the Amron Wikipedia page ASAP.

Thank you,

LeannJordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeannJordan (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no way for me to "correctly edit" your paragraph because Wikipedia require reliable sources for all content, and your suggested content has none - as explained (to you?) two years ago at Talk:Post-it_note, court documents and press releases are not reliable sources.
 * I'm happy to reassure you that I have absolutely no personal or professional connection to the 3M corporation or to Post-It Notes as a product. --McGeddon (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon thank you for that, but your Not entirely correct, they are not all from the a MarketWire press release, (see the updated citing post below) and most press publications and news organizations use only creditable press releases and gathered information, and companies such as Yahoo Finance and Reuters News Wire publish only those that they believe to be reliable sources. See other NOT FROM A PRESS RELEASE more recent 2013 and 2014 blog and publications that I listed that talk about Amron inventions and include discussions on the his Post-it note. I would appreciate either you correct what I posted, or post it as I wrote it in the same speed in which you so quickly deleted it each time. Amron has in fact invented the Press-On Memo pads and the facts and public information on it is readily available on line.


 * Press-on Memos were invented by Amron in 1973.        repositioning, reusable sticky memo note pads, see the original artwork and the original mailings sent to 3M in 1974, and 3M executives were given several samples by hand that same year. Litigation was quickly settled when Amron received a check from 3M just weeks after his filing the attached infringement action and complaint in New York Federal Court. As per the attached Court Dockets. Press-on Memos was what Amron called his invention in 1973 – 3M called it Post-it Notes in late 1974.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeannJordan (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 October 2014‎

Thanks mate.
I will figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyourbasesrbelongtous (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon and Orlando Figes
Hi McGeddon - I'm struck by your restoring of the edit by 88.110.78.183 on 5 October which is clearly a statement of opinion by 88.110.78.183 and not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.160.85 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Instagram
Hi McGeddon, Im not sure what lead you to believe that my contribution was a test. Yes I am new to wikipedia and am trying to contribute as a project sought by my professor. Please leave me tips to avoid this problem in the future as I further my interest in the Instagram page. Icanbeyourromeo (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lifesigns (band)
I nominated this article for speedy deletion because there is not a single reputable reference. The band's own website does not count -- anyone can create a website. Has there been no external press coverage of this band? If not, it's probably not notable enough to appear in wikipedia yet. You can take down the speedy nomination again if you like, but then I will open a deletion discussion, which won't go away just because you remove the tags for it. If you believe the band is truly notable, the best way to protect the article is to find some references to prove it. ubiquity (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)