User talk:McGeddon/Archive 11

Gumball COI
Hi McGeddon, of course I want my contribution to be as neutral as possible. Please let me know if there is anything else that I need to make the page as successful as possible. Thank you. EgumballCA (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request a new username to "Content Supervisor at eGumball." How do I accomplish this? EgumballCA (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

RE Star Nosed Mole
Hello there McGeddon. I'm referring to the change I made on this page. I've been studying this animal in biology and my professor stated that they have "11 pairs of appendages" and in total have 22. I will also give you links to other websites in the reference section. As a result, I have change it back. If you still believe you are right, just place a message in my talk section. Thanks.

Thanks a lot for your welcome cookies 😂 I really appreciate them. Thanks a lot for your help and advice as well, I shall be using it to help me better myself as a wikipedian!

Brahh (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Guidestones
Thanks. School and account blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello McGeddon: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  16:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

In reply to: Promoting Wayne Fromm
" Hello, AlainMichelParis. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Selfie, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject."

- No, I do not have any close connection to Wayne Fromm. In the Selfie article, you will notice in my addition that I used an external link (patent number) generated by an appropriate Wikipedia template which leads the reader to the European Espacenet database which also points to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See section "Also published as: US7684694 (B2)" on the Espacenet page. This alone is enough independent and reliable reference that proves the patent.

Therefore, I will be most grateful, if you could reinstate the statement that you deleted. Thank you for your understanding.

no true scotsman - pinker
Regarding this, can you specify the page(s)? Thanks Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. It's because I have that ebook and a ctrl+f of "scots" or "porridge" doesn't return results. But of course it could be a matter of editions. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the article you used as reference just copypasted the example from here. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Image suggestions?
Hey there, I saw you removed an image from the article Think of the children.

Do you have any other suggestions for some images that could be used to illustrate the article? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me know if you think of anything? Maybe how about those same words in another shape that's not a speech bubble, like just a square? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh Biswas
Hey !! I am administrator of Rakesh Biswas Article, i don't know the problem with this page why ??its always get deleted by providing original references sources and its always show speedy delation , Kindly check the original references and Popularity  and Save this article to re publish. Thanking you !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wekipediaaccounts (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out WP:OWN. I'd like t point out as is the article is rightfully tagged as a csd. You need reliable sources seperate from the source that demonstrates clear notability and it defintely doesn't do that at this point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

My Talk: page
Sun.Nov.9.3:25am PST Richmond CA

Good morning McGeddon, I believe I may have contacted you about getting started on Wikipedia and vaguely remember someone saying they had posted something to my talk page. Thank you for the support.

Sincerely (EcoEconomist (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC))

Thank you very much for continuing the RfC
though in truth I don't really know what to do at this point. I've made my case, and there isn't that much else to say.  Serendi pod ous  14:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

M.e
I've left him a message. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove advertisement tag on Nixie (drone) article
Hello McGeddon,

I did my best to rewrite the Nixie (drone) article in a more neutral tone and added a few more references (there are quite a bit more articles on this topic now). Would you consider removing the advertisement tag if you think the tone is now acceptable? If now, please suggest the necessary changes. Thanks in advance for your time! ~Zina~ (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Horner for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Horner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paul Horner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urammar (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 November 2014‎

Bootstrap question
Hello, I was wondering if you could explain your reasoning for this revert? You said that the events were based on the information in the notebook but it doesn't appear that it would be that way, at least not with the way that section is currently worded. It says "Over the years the predictions of the notebook come true, allowing this person to become wealthy enough to fund their own research". If the events were "based on" the information in the notebook then how can they be predictions of the kind that can make someone rich? I'm assuming the kind of future information that would allow someone to become wealthy is of the sport's statistics or lotto number types. For example, whichever horse is destined to win a race is not going to be affected by someone in the audience with knowledge from the future on which horse wins the race. So how can the events be based on the information in the notebook? If the information in the notebook is just a record of things that happened in the world, then only the information is based on the events but not vice versa. Empresschild (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem and thank you for the warm welcome :) I just noticed that another edit of yours included the removal of a paragraph that I thought was valid (about Shakespear's plays) along with grammatical changes. Since there was no explanation for the removal of the paragraph I wasn't sure if you removed it by mistake but I was wondering if you could review that change as well. Empresschild (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Knights of Momus
Hi, I'm Xcia0069. McGeddon, thanks for creating Knights of Momus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Useful article but it needs more citations to be trustable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Xcia0069 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

MONTY HALL SIMPLIFIED
Thanks McGeddon for the promptness, your commitment for Wikipedia and the courtesy for explaining the revert of my edit. My only contention is if an addition explains a stated fact in a cogent fassion, that can be understood more easily by the readers, one should not classify it either as a matter of opinion, or some 'research'.

Wikipedia gets progressively richer by better expression, not by administrators stifling expression of fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passingon (talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 November 2014‎

Thanks! How did you find that rule?
Oh, that's some nice information: the rule that you showed me about outdated models and whole technologies! Well, the reason that other iPhones (besides the 5S, actually) were still described that way (in present tense) is that I hadn't gotten to them yet. But I think I actually like this idea better, as long as it solidly applies to all models of other current technology, like computer- and peripheral models and vehicle models, etc.; as well as to completely phased-out whole types of technology, such as the telegraph (already in present-tense) and the wire recorder (mixed). I don't see why it wouldn't apply to them too. In fact, I discovered a category listing that links to other outdated models, and the overwhelming majority of those articles are also written in present-tense! But then why didn't the Wikipedia designers (or super-admins) make this rule specific to all kinds of technology and models rather than just video games and their consoles? And what would have to be done for one or more authorities to change that to include all still-existing models and technologies?

For example, if you were to stumble across an article like... oh, say... the 1927-1931 Ford A and the 1932 Ford models, or the computer programming languages Altair BASIC and Microsoft BASIC (and maybe I'll find some others a little later), then what would you say should happen to them (or even what would you do to them)? I think I know the answer, but I want to see exactly what you would say.

And how do you revert multiple edits at the same time? Does going down to lower ones in the history revert everything at that level and above? Or is it just everything that that user had done from that level and above? I thought I had seen an instance where a reversion was done to something lower but it didn't affect more recent editions. What do you know about this?

And might you also know an admin. who would back us up on applying this rule over all technologies and models? How does an editor locate and contact administrators besides by reporting someone?

SummerFunMan (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I've just sent you a thank-you note through the edit history, will you please copy that from wherever it shows up to you and paste it here (just for my curiosity)?

SummerFunMan (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I found the videogame guideline by searching through Wikipedia's non-article pages. The videogame WikiProject is just a bunch of users who got together to decide how to write videogame articles - it looks like they just came up with the present-tense rule by themselves rather than basing it off of any wider policy; the WP:TENSE you quoted was similarly just a consensus of editors (admins and not) deciding how to write about fiction. It's entirely possible that there's no actual agreed guideline for what tense to use for technology in general.
 * If you click "View history", navigate to an earlier version of an article and click "edit", you'll be editing that old version and will override all later edits if you save it. There's more explanation at WP:REVERT - if you play around with some test edits at User:SummerFunMan/sandbox I'm sure you'll get the hang of it.
 * Teahouse is a good place to ask questions, I'm sure somebody there could tell you if there was a policy about past tenses, or what to do about it if you wanted to get some support for unifying the tenses on all outdated cellphone articles. --McGeddon (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Just in case you decide that you'd like to post follow-up responses on my page instead of here, would it be okay for you to rethink that and for us us to please just keep the rest of the conversation here?

So if you reverted my present-tense editions on iPhone5 and then I liked the explanation that you gave, then would you be willing to back me up in some other editions (the examples I listed above, plus some others [not only is Microsoft BASIC and Altair's, but the one from Apple too]), adjusting them (or restoring them) to the present tense, the same way as the overwhelming majority of those articles found by linking from Category: Obsolete Technology are? Thanks for your response on my talk page. But would it be okay for us to please keep the rest of the conversation here?

So if you reverted my present-tense editions on iPhone5 and then I liked the explanation that you gave, then would you be willing to back me up in some other editions (the examples I listed above, plus some others [not only is Microsoft BASIC and Altair's, but the one from Apple too]), adjusting them (or restoring them) to the present tense, the same way as the overwhelming majority of those articles found by linking from Category: Obsolete Technology are? As of yet, when I asked you what you would do to those other articles, you hadn't given a response regarding those. So... what do you think? Will you go by and enforce the same thing to those as you did to iPhone 5?

Also, did you see the thank-you message that came as a result of my pressing "thank" in the history? Just as a matter of curiosity, would you not mind please posting that here?

SummerFunMan (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I got the thank you: it looks like this. I'm not planning to change any other articles. --McGeddon (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me what the thank-you looks like. Well, if you were so interested in making sure the iPhone 5 article was written in present-tense form, even to the point of digging up that rule for me, then why would you not be interested in adusting other articles to meet that same standard (or at least to back me up if it comes to someone else disputing it)?

SummerFunMan (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So... you're just gonna ignore me now? I thought you were friendlier than that. Why? SummerFunMan (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Somebody trying to convince me that I might actually be interested in doing something that I've said I wasn't interested in isn't my idea of a fun conversation. --McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW WP:COMPNOW (which applies generally to all computing articles) addresses this too. ViperSnake151   Talk  14:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good catch. --McGeddon (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding this time. But, ,

1. I doubt you would only communicate in a discussion that was fun for you, because of this: Aren't there many discussions here or in other places that involved you that are either a. not fun (just neutral), or b. even negative, but that you still communicated in anyway? You're not trying to tell me that all these other discussions you've stayed part of were "fun," are you?

2. I actually wasn't trying to convince you that you might be interested in doing something that you said you weren't interested in doing; I was only asking you a curious question about why you were only interested in adjusting the one article but not the others. So would you please be willing to say why, if you were interested in changing just the one article, that you were not interested in also backing me up on other articles in either a. changing some of the others, or b. at least reverting someone else's reversions of my fixes on the other articles, backing my fixes up with consensus (like what can happen with so many other edit disagreements, and would be nice if someone would finally generate consensus with me)? Or will you at least say why, if you are not interested in fixing the others to match or backing me up on my fixes to the others, that you were interested in changing the one that you did?

SummerFunMan (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you're still learning how this place works. A lot of Wikipedia - particularly reversion of inappropriate edits - operates on the very small scale, where editors will have a range of WP:WATCHLIST articles they keep an eye on, and if they see somebody make a bad edit, they'll undo it. They might check to see if the same editor has made the same mistake on other articles, but they probably won't spring into action and spend the rest of the day hunting down and fixing that same type of problem across the whole project: to some extent there's an assumption that somebody else will catch the problem. This doesn't mean that the editor was wrong or insufficiently confident about their initial revert.
 * If you think I was wrong to make the revert, then I'd be happy to discuss that on a relevant article or project talk page. WP:COMPNOW seems very clear, though. --McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal abuse?
I turned on my PC this morning, to find that you had requested protection for my talk page after scores of personal attacks. I missed all of this, and the edits have all been deleted, so I don't know what was being said. Are you able to enlighten me? Did the attacks include specific threats? Were they obviously from Runtshit or JarlaxleArtemis, both of whom have regularly targeted me? Thanks. RolandR (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Dead links
Hello, I'm just tried to fix the dead link with related source. Why are you deleted it ? It's dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelfahrenheit (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Anmol Andore
Thanks for your view - it's borderline, I agree. But it will soon become apparent if the user really intended promotion and he won't get a second chance. Deb (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Shadow people Scientific explanations
I gave 4 references in that:
 * Chatterjee, Rhitu (September 20, 2006). "Illuminating the Shadow People". Science Now. Retrieved 13 April 2010.
 * Wiggins Arthur W. Wynn Charles M. (2001), "Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction : Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins," National Academies Press, ISBN 0-309-07309-X
 * Ohayon M M, Priest RG, Caulet M, Guilleminault C (1996), Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations: pathological phenomena?, The British Journal of Psychiatry (October 2006)
 * McKellar Peter (1957), "Imagination and thinking: A psychological analysis," ISBN B0007DES76

What is wrong with that?

FYI, IMHO, The modern folklore section is not scientific and should be removed - It is so misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.56.211 (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Learn more about me on http://www.lukecole.name and http://www.coletek.org - and my personal experiences and thoughts on shadow people - http://www.lukecole.name/blog/2010/07/17/shadow-people-the-dark-figures-after-waking-from-a-dream/

That shadow people movie is so wrong... And the wikipedia page should not just talk about that... This shadow people thing has been around alot longer then that damn useless movie... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.56.211 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it has to do with quantum reflection... Maybe not, no one does much research on it. And will never do research on it, when they read wikipedia and see it is just about a silly movie... This is real thing that needs to be studied...

Regarding "hallucinatory edge-of-vision figures" vs "shadow people" as spooky paranormal hat-wearing monsters - these figures are not edge-of-vision!!! They are directly in front of you... You clearly have no idea what your talking about. And yes some of these figures do appear to where hats. I understand this sounds odd, and I've personally be studying the odd issues since I had my first experience over 14 years ago. I'm a robotics engineer with two degrees, so I'm no nut job. This "shadow people" stuff is something important. It maybe hallucinatory, but the case studies are so similar it (e.g. hat people) and none of it is edge-of-vision... Anywayz.... I guess you will just ignore this comment to, and not reply, so "shadow people" stay in the "paranormal" and monsters section.... Typical silly person... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.56.211 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Heber Harper
Heber Harper does not qualify as a BLP because he died in 1969, as the article says. DS (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Lego Group
This is my evidence for the change I made, which I'm going to add to the relevant page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.137.194 (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Regarding my edits to the article "Christmas Truce", thanks for bringing the Manual to my attention in the matter. To say it "explicitly" rules out the "th" suffix, however, is presumably not to say that the manual has been carved in stone. I think so historical an entry as the "Christmas Truce" of WW1 is of sufficient import to warrant an exceptional regard for context. See, for example, under the heading "Fraternisation", there is reference to the "10th Battalion". You might argue thet that is an actual title and is therefore exempt from the manual's "explicit" ruling out of the use of the "th" suffix - but then I might fairly argue that the very subject itself over-rides all precepts of the manual - the context warrants exception. Let me know what you think. Mark  Dask  22:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rummy World
How come Okey is on the 'See also' but I can't add Rummy World which is also a tile-based game similar to Rummikub?

Selfie Page
Stop removing my pictures from selfie page please. It's for my project and you don't own that page. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceDignity (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your message
All my edits had an edit summary clearly explaining the rationale for changes I made. As I believe you have mistakenly reverted my work without attempting to understand what I have done, I am restoring my edits. I also disagree about archived references always being acceptable substitutes for sources or that defunct organizations must be written about in the past tense. You are welcome to locate alternate sources for content which I delete. Your 17K edit summary reference is also unclear to me. Gollymemolly (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It was 1.7K and not 17K. Please recheck for yourself. Gollymemolly (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The 2005 deadlink is obsolete, superceded by the 2008 report which is retained in the article. Gollymemolly (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's current India Against Corruption article is about a Jan Lokpal Bill campaign run by a clutch of people briefly known as "Team Anna". The section I edited is about the "India Against Corruption" organisation which has some sort of content dispute over the article. See WP:LTA/IAC,, etc. Gollymemolly (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Placebo Effects
You deleted my addition about placebo effects of commercial actions, commenting that it is "arbitrary and minor study from a full history of 200 years of placebo." Allow me to respectfully strongly disagree. This so-called minor study received the prestigious O'Dell Award (that rewards research papers having the most significant long-term impact) as well as several other major awards, because it has changed the conception of placebo effects. Both this paper as well as another one by the same authors from JAMA have been very influential with regard what we know about placebo effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heshacher (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

VPN block
Greetings McGeddon,

As of 9:45 am PST (US) I use a VPN for work everyday. I am not using it right now. It appears you initiated a block (?) on me, or maybe it was a bot. Not sure I'm barely a week old on wikipedia and so far it has been anything but professional with wiki people. THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION ON WIKIPEDIA. I share with you so if you did put the block up you will understand the VPN. If you did not take such action please let me know and I will pursue other options. Thank youNigelCovington85 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize that talk pages are public, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

National Report
Dear Mr. McGeddon, You've blocked my account from posting. I use a VPN service for work which should address the issue of my IP address. The current IP address is not going through the VPN. *NOT FOR PUBLICATION* Your information is wrong and you need to get your facts straight sir. On November 22, 2014, Wikipedia opted to merged Paul Horner's account with the National Report, something the company objects to. In fact it seems careless not to have contacted the company to advise us of such a major change. Mr. Horner was a freelance writer and one of many who worked for the National Report. He was fired this month by the company for cause. Next issue I have is why would wikipedia have allowed the merge to occur in the first place? Mr. Horner has never been an official spokesperson for the National Report. Any claims he's made otherwise is dishonest. Any claims made by Mr. Horner of having worked for us as a "Lead Writer" is a lie. Mr. Horner during an interview he did with the Washington Post originated from his mouth. Mr. Horner failed to inform the company of said interview and he is not nor has he ever been a spokesperson for the National Report. The only two spokespeople for the company are Allen Montgomery (founder) and Nigel Covington (co-founder). See National Reports staff page for more information. . Most writers generally use pen names for their work. ALL DATA CONCERNING THE VPN IS PRIVATE AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION ON WIKIPEDIA.McGeddon (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelCovington85 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Earth Anthem
It seems from the past few edits of Arpita 321 that the user is selectively targeting Abhay K and Earth Anthem by him. Another Animesh 12 tried to promote somebody's else anthem without any success. May please take note of it. Preniac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preniac (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe yes, if you look at the past edits of Arpita321 and Animesh31, they are selectively targeting Abhay K's Earth Anthem because Animesh31 did not succeed in promoting some Waugh's world song and SAARC Song. There is something more here than meets the eye. Look at their past contributions. All they have done is to target Earth Anthem and SAARC Anthem. PreniacPreniac (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
I think that, perhaps, the IP editor might have been reverted when the basic claim being made is now supported. N2e (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hipster page
Hello, I undid your changes and reverted them back to the way they were. They were in no way promotional. They tackled an aspect of the topic that the wikipedia article had not touched before--specifically, the types of style that are considered to be "hipster".

If you believe some or all of what I added is inappropriate or not relevant, we can have that discussion. I'm happy to collaborate to produce a better edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMDennis (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What?
Please translate this because i can't good speak english! Text in polish language. Posłuchaj człowieczku, nie wiem o co ci chodzi. Na wikipedi nie ma artykułu dla jednej najmniejszej rzeczy. Idą twoim tokiem myślenia mógł bym usunąć ci połowę tej strony poniewarz nie ma do każdego słowa przypisanego artykułu. Jeśli masz jakieś wątpliwośći co do xtem to poszukaj sobie informacji na stronie Pentagram Scrypt (www.pentagramscrypt.ugu.pl)! Śmieszycie mnie, usuwacie wszystko co zobaczycie!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stillalivelong (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wi-Fi health risks
Hey dude, stop removing my information or I'm going have you blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunshineAwake (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

He removed my post too in Georgia Guidestones Talk Page, I must add there was nothing offensive in it or anything, I didn't do no wrong. I don't know what's his problem... where am I gonna post my opinion on wikipedia if not on Talk Page, maybe he rather prefers that I edit the whole article by myself haha (178.222.213.184 (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC))

Global account
Hi McGeddon! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

K7L
Just FYI, the behaviour you noticed on Streisand Effect article is a common MO for this user. That's all, have a good day.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

/* Happy NewYear! */
Happy new year and thanks a lot for improving OpenStructures.Lagoset (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Selfie Stick
Not clear why you removed my addition. Several publications have referred to selfie stick as a narcisstick - NY Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune. I referenced the NY Post because they were the first. --E bailey (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hey, i made the edits i could, but i wasnt able to change the spelling, of the title of the page, so maybe you can fix that. welp i did my best for now.

Docdemort (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 

Removal of reference to superstitious in post
Hi McGeddon, You removed my reference to superstitious in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_(book)

Superstition is defined as the concept of "one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events". 'The Secret' advocates that thinking about something causes it to happen, which by definition is one event happening without any natural process linking it to the perceived cause.

Regards,

Commoncencus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commoncencus (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guiding Principles of Flag Design
You deleted the detail of the principles (→‎Principles: per WP:QUOTEFARM, we shouldn't copypaste the whole thing - no suggestion on the site that the document is not copyrighted) and replaced with a summary of their contents. Thank you. I'm new but will learn. Should I queriy this with the authors and request that they clarify copyright status with a view to reinserting the detail of the principles or is page noteworthy enough without them? Ahmedd69 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Second (and third) opinion
Hi McGeddon, I was interested to get your thoughts on this text. While I appreciate your points about COI, it seems no one is going to fix the errors in the article, so I have prepared a draft for one section. i will message Greywinterowl as well. Regards Danh108 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous - Offline "Controversy"
I'm really only normally a reader of Wikipedia and I don't get involved in the editing side of things. I only have an account so I can look at edits and see the parts being changed around if I think they might be reasonably important. The Elite: Dangerous page has been changing so frequently that I've actually noticed it happening. So I've become interested in what's happening there. As you seem to be the most moderate of those involved I was wondering if you could explain some things??

Could you explain why the page keeps having the controversy section separated and then re-merged? I'm trying to follow the logic in the history and it just seems to me that there is a group of people trying to paint the game in the best possible light (surely that counts as conflict of interest or something?) despite the many citations relating to issues with the development and the offline problem.

I have seen a few edits that looked like an opposing group (who seem to not be very happy with the game devs) are doing nasty edits as well. But overall I just don't see why that "Controversy" section isn't kept separated out as it seems to be a different enough matter from "Development" that it warrants it's own section.

Is there a way to lock out those people obviously involved in the edit-war (Hyperspace being an obvious first choice as it's difficult to see him as impartial in the matter)? Wtf4photography (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, as already noted in the [|Elite:Dangerous talk section], I'm an early 'backer' and current player of the game, quite happy with it too - I made previous contributions to the article before registering with Wiki (as a mere IP address). Although a 'happy camper', I was surprised to see no mention of the offline thing in the article recently, and saw no reason for it, or the refunds saga, to go unmentioned. They've certainly caused a ruckus in the game's 'community'.


 * As a bit of an old geezer, I still find it surprising that video games seem to generate views of such strength that no perceived criticism can be tolerated. User:HyperspaceCloud seemingly wants the article to give misty-eyed approval for the latest instalment of his/her favourite series. I gather the accusations of slander were pointed in my direction (sigh), which is a little unfortunate. As of this morning, they're still reverting edits that evidently upset them.


 * By the way, thanks (to everybody) for tolerating my Wiki-noobiness: normally a reader of course rather than an editor, and the whole environment is a little daunting for us relative newcomers. --Splodger999 (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)--Splodger999 (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If I may lend my perspective on the situation. There is quite a bit of emotion around the issue of offline removal and the true scale of the issue.  Obviously one side is interested in making it the most important thing and will exercise hyperbole to emphasize their point.  The other side of the coin are those (and I really hesitate to use this term but it seems to fit the bill) fanboys that will actively gloss over anything that ruins their rose tinted view of the game.  In my own personal opinion and having read all of the citations I've come to a conclusion that there is not sufficient information to make a judgement either way and as such a completely neutral approach to the representation should be taken.  i.e. no attempt at extrapolating numbers or impact one way or the other.  I have been involved in a particularly contentious section of the article that I have researched and discovered exterior ulterior motive for having it as a reference and as such have raised it's validity as a question.  In my opinion, taking into account as much information as I have been able to garner, there is a particular element to the discussion that has relied on the reputation of the source over and above the quality of the content to validate.  This doesn't sit right with me as these things should always be approached with a solidly neutral and absent of emotion view.  Regarding the Controversy/Development/Offline discussion I perceive there to be a move to keep the 'issue' to the fore without consideration for structure and neutral representation (I'm sure this is not intentional but it seems to have played out this way).  I think that a neutral and non invested eye to the situation would be greatly appreciated. Just my two penneth. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi McGeddon - just a note to say the recent IGN review I added to Elite:Dangerous is 'longer term', as for weeks it was a 'review in progress' with no score. The reviewer has only updated the thing (after playing for a month) and scored it in the last few days, but has kept the original date of the article for reasons known only to them. Cheers. --Splodger999 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Update: they posted a vid version of the review dated 12th Jan 2015 - the actual final review date. --Splodger999 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No title
Hello. Mcgeddon. it seems you have been changing my things. i would not recommend doing that. You are not the leader of wikipedia and should therefore keep your large nose out of other peoples buisness. No one cares what you think. block me and i will simply make another account. goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanthelonewolf (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No title
Hello McGeddon! Thank you for helping me with citation reminders. I have added all the necessary citations to the texts. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshall.niles (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Duke of Atholl
Hi McGeddon: could I ask your help? Herebelow is an article improved with COAs etc (but I can't figure out how to do the gallery bit)! Help!! Thanks: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 January 2015‎
 * Thanks yours M Mabelina (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Murray
Hi Mcgeddon: Yes I noticed you wiped out my careful amendments. All my info is very well sourced so let me cut'n'paste his entire pedigree from Burke's Peerage for the avoidance of any doubt - this was the principal point of reference as mentioned in the article - anyway you'll see in a mo... M Mabelina (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoops - wisely Burke's have encrypted their online info. It can be seen in hard copy in Burke's Peerage 2003 edn (or you can refer to www.peerage.com which altho it doesn't have the same credibility in terms of name and reputation, in this instance the info accessible there is largely plagiarized (altho not as detailed) from Burke's - qv: http://www.thepeerage.com/p2254.htm#i22535 - many thanks - anyway let me reload the facts & if you still have cause to dispute them we can discuss. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there User:McGeddon - I note your latest ref Al Murray's political connections, so let me explain (although this would be too long-winded to put in the main article). I am also a distant cousin of Al Murray so am not just trawling through the family tree. We all meet up from time to time and over the years through the people we meet and family discussions that are had a vast amount of political knowledge and acumen is acquired - whether we can remember it all is another matter! It is relevant to anyone standing for Parliament to know something about politics hence Al Murray's routines on political satire etc... Please advise should I need to elaborate further - many thanks indeed. M Mabelina (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. there are a wealth of connections on his mother's (Thackeray) side too (but I thought the article would become unwieldy to go on about them) ....
 * PPS. this may interest you too, qv. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30829089 not that I had in mind to include it in the article (unless you think otherwise)... Thanks
 * Gd mrng McGeddon - thanks for your further attention to the Al Murray article but it still doesn't read quite right. I appreciate dealing with current events can become vexed but may I suggest it should read: Murray's family has had many political figures in history (delete including grandfather Sir Ralph Hay Murray - he was a diplomat - applicable in previous wording tho); also, above where it reads "was of Scottish nobility and married into the von Kuenburg family, aristocrats from Austria" after the change in stress of the article those Austrian aristocrats were Counts of the Holy Roman Empire (of which I know Wiki likes to keep a record) so should that be mentioned somehow? Anyway thanks again & let me know how to resolve swiftly. Best M Mabelina (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. also "Murray is in remainder both to English and Scottish peerage titles, including..." would read better as well as being more accurate! Hope of help - await yours - thanks
 * Without having to disclose the whole caboodle (of our family history, as you requested initially - we're 5th cousins btw so hardly time to have vested interests between all), I trust the latest improvements satisfy editorial standards - I am more than happy to assist but these discussions are becoming somewhat protracted to say the least. Basically Murray does have political know-how & I would think it should be made clear how this comes about (alternatively dumb down the article). Please advise M Mabelina (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Political connections
Hi McG - if I were to say "calm down dear" (as PM David Cameron did once - you should know where) it clearly would have the opposite effect. So what to do? You have clearly got a bee stuck somewhere, so let's leave it - although I have to say your interference only serves to bastardise information "what was presented proper"! Why? M Mabelina (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be so blunt but I can't see how to get through to you (unless you'd like to speak by 'phone which might be easier?).

Death threats
I thought rev/del sufficient here, no reason that Admins shouldn't see that. Several accounts have been blocked including a sleeper I found. Seems to be Long-term abuse/Malusia22. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Good luck
Good luck with trying to get anywhere productive with Mabelina's editing. I have been battling against her eccentric editing for several years. She takes no notice of the MOS and other editors and just continues to edit according to her own idiosyncratic ideas of what is correct ~ which very frequently are far from correct. She especially has little understanding of contemporary capitalisation principles and is constantly capitalising common and generic nouns but also sometimes not capitalising words which ought to be. She can be very exasperating. Anglicanus (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

My Apologies re Oxfam Edits.
To clarify - seems there may have been some misunderstanding, on my part, re your Oxfam edits - I thought you simply reverted the material - which prompted me adding the discussion edit on the talk page - seems I overlooked, at the time, you moving the material to the "works" section - my apologies for my part with this - it was not at all intended - Thanks again for your help with all this - it's *greatly* appreciated. Drbogdan (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dead link spam
When you see accounts that are dead link spamming, like Pixelcreativetr, you should report them to AIV instead of UAA in the future, since it's obvious black-hat spamming, and AIV has a much faster response time than UAA. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Another dead link spammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McGeddon

McGeddon stop spamming dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.85.117 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at First video game. Please don't post multiple dead links after final warning!'' 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Rolf Hind - your proposal for deletion
Dear McGeddon. Rolf Hind is one of UK's most famous performing artists, no need to look very far to find out about it. I referenced his personal website in the article (which is a work in progress). By the way, this might look like my first article on Wikipedia, but I am not a beginner. I simply cold not reinstate my older identity and I mostly edit in French. All the best. User talk:Seraphin lampion — Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Barcodes
Hi McGeddon, I recently tried to add some new info on one of the inventors of our modern day Bar Code. I mistakenly used some phrasing "one of the first" that required a second verification source which I understand. I then edited the statement to just say, "While working for Pitney-Bowes Alpex, N. Narasimha Murthy received 3 patents on the Bar Code, PATENT # 3,700,858 - February 24, 1971 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,700,858.PN.&OS=PN/3,700,858&RS=PN/3,700,858

PATENT #3,731,064 - July 28, 1970 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,731,064.PN.&OS=PN/3,731,064&RS=PN/3,731,064

PATENT #3,761,685 - May 24, 1971 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,761,685.PN.&OS=PN/3,761,685&RS=PN/3,761,685" and sourced the US patent office to verify this factual statement. I am wondering if this statement, regarding patents on the Bar Code also requires a 2nd source?  If you visit these government links of public record, you will find the product, abstract, company, date and Mr. Murthy's name verified.  If you could provide me with any further advice on how to have this fact published, I would very much appreciate your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houseofhoofyfoot (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 December 2014‎

Reference Errors on 30 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Internet screamer page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=644881745 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F644881745%7CInternet screamer%5D%5D Ask for help])

Cranes (beverage)
Thank you for doing the revocation for Cranes (beverage). I was unable to find the ad for Cranes. I was looking for the name of the company to add to the article. Notability may still be an issue, we shall see.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

hash oil
Hey you tampered with my editing on the hash oil page. The parts I deleted were facts misrepresented and taken out of context. I have a background in chemistry. If you want to contribute to the page fine. Please do so. I would appreciate it if you let my project be. I am not even close to finished.

forallofx@hotmail.com

Please feel free to contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.12.101 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamleys
The reference to show that Gamleys is trading again is from their website www.gamleys.co.uk. How best should I reference this, as it is not an article? == — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.194.182 (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Link is totally relevant with wikipedia page
My website http://goprohero4.github.io/ is based on GoPro Hero 4 Silver edition. Wikipedia needs to have a link like this so that visitor can get into that link and directly buy that selected product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techstalks (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Viruses
You have recently edited the page [| List of viruses], and seem to have a handle on the structure of Wikipedia. I'm a brand new user looking to submit my up to date taxonomical list of viruses that is currently living in my sandbox. If you could point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! Bervin61 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Images at Think of the children page
Greetings, User McGeddon. I just happened to be at the Think of the children page seeking to crib the blockquote2 template I remembered seeing there and noticed two glaringly non-germane Talking Head images were gone. I checked the page's history and saw that Cirt had removed them "per Talk". At the Talk page I saw you were the instigator. Since you did not make the edit, there is no link at the History page to send a thanks, so I am doing it here. Those images had glared at me for some time, but given how assiduously Cirt keeps after the page I was disinclined to engage on them. Instead, I ended up in an unrelated back-and-forth with Cirt over various copyedits, which ended up in a productive collaboration and mutual respect. After that I moved on, and thus was gratified to see the images gone today.

I can sympathize with Cirt's continuing desire to break up a wordy page with more germane images. It's a shame a bright panel from the Simpson's animation isn't fair use. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian Goose
Edit: small animals is suffice.

Dear McGeddon,

I saw an Egyptian goose go from an empty stomach to a full stomach in an instant. I noticed how territorial the Egyptian goose is, especially when the weather is cold in Benelux region EU. After seeing how the wings of the Egyptian goose fold tense against the torso to suffocate the animal inside the stomach, I had no words.

I do not have a picture of water birds eating other water bird offspring, but I seen it and had a conversation about it with a local. Check images: (1) the Egyptian goose walking with its offspring on a cold FEBRUARY in THE NETHERLANDS, (2) this image of the locals I had a conversation with.

(1) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Iw6mot96u9SjMyWW9ieHFwMlk/edit?usp=docslist_api

(2) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Iw6mot96u9WEpLZHExNG9Ua0U/edit?usp=docslist_api

Thank you,

Seb — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebNoLife (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong reCAPTCHA example images
Hi, You left a message in my user talk page and I replied. Since I don't know whether you will automatically be notified, I'm letting you know. Thanks Teo8976 (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

My blogs
can you explain why adding my personal blogs on spam list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozguncel (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sisyphus Shrugged
Hi, McGeddon. I added the novel Sisyphus Shrugged to the Sisyphus page because there was already a link to a page about a novel featuring Sisyphus. Links to works featuring references to the mythological character seemed fair game to me. If you're saying there's a difference between reference and a commercial site, that's fine, but could you please say that? As of now, I'm just guessing that's your reason. Rpeate (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, McGeddon. I won't put the link back up, because I feel sure you'll just take it down again, which is fine. But I note the issue is not as clear-cut as you make it sound. Wikipedia's own guidelines offer two different views:

1. " . . . In line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked."

2. "Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. 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. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link."

It also says, "When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." I would do that, except I doubt you would defer to another editor who decided in my favor, so I will let it drop for that reason. You may rest assured you have saved Wikipedia users from having to suffer something I think might benefit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpeate (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I already said I won't post it again. I will defer to the first position stated, because it is not worth it to me, and because I may not have understood the purpose of Wikipedia. That said, there is no reason to assume you are always right. I consider the matter closed, and you should feel pleased that you prevented me from sharing my work. Rpeate (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it?
Hi McGeddon, I really don't understand you. I raised these in January on the talk page, got your comments, left it there for others to comment, then made the changes. The other changes were very minor things I observed at the time - for example [this recent edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=prev&oldid=648191031] was partially incorrect as the piece is pulled directly from source. The other edits were minor improves with rational explanations in the edit summary. If you were of the view that the draft section I intended to insert should never happen, why didn't you raise that a month ago when I was discussing with you and asking your advice? thanks Danh108 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even based on your assessment of my relationship to the subject matter, which as you know, I maintain is incorrect, however leaving that aside, the section you referred me too allows me to edit when using the talk page process. Otherwise what will happen? You are just chasing all the editors away from this page until the troll comes back and you befriend him/her again? Danh108 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi McGeddon, thanks for your comments/explanation. I do value/appreciate the amount of time you give to keeping Wikipedia up and running and I am conscious not to waste too much of your time educating me. One challenge your suggestion poses to me is that at the moment we are the only people passing much comment on the article, so I felt answering the only concerns you raised would constitute consensus? Plus you are quite switched on. I would say you err on the side of caution, which is good, so I considered that passing through your feedback was enough - wouldn't having you screen additions is an adequate protection against bias? cheers Danh108 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I get what you are saying. My hesitation is that neither of us have had much luck getting people interested in this topic, I guess because the group is quite small...still, you are suggesting so I will give it a try and see. I was looking at the history and noticed one change was made by you.....can I ask why the piece about the India President got inserted in the beliefs? It just seems really out of place as that is a "real world anecdote/report', not part of the groups belief's....it doesn't fit the structure/logic of the article. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * hmmmm....but first I need to try and drum up an audience from somewhere so I've got someone to raise it with :-)....apart from the occasional "cult" commentator, and the other occasional editor who deletes the whole controversies section :-D....anyway, one never knows their luck on Wikipedia - maybe this time there will be someone with heaps of experience on small religio-spiritual groups just wanting to cut their teeth on something new :-). Cheers Danh108 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you could point me in the direction of the Wiki-projects pages. I'm not that good at finding my way around...sorry to be such a beginner....a hyperlink would be ideal :-) thank youDanh108 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation Added
Hello McGeddon, Thanks for your feedback. I have re-edited the Selfie article after adding proper reference for the same. Wilellie (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fanack
Hi, you've marked my added link https://chronicle.fanack.com/egypt as spam. The above link is relevant to the general Wiki page of Egypt. Meaning the url adds value and links to a non-commercial page with independent in-depth information.

Did you check the url before marking and removing it, why not adjusting the text?

Regards,

Vincentbarnhard (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, your advise is most useful.

I support the Fanack Foundation and know a couple of its editors in Egypt and Palestine personally. I do believe the website adds value to Wikipedia but you're right I should have made the contribution sound less promotional. I will follow your advise and check your link and will only add future links with article names instead and/or contribute to the WIKI articles.

Vincentbarnhard (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 03 March
Please do not change content from MonkeyParking page on Wikipedia. I am one of the founders and you are currently describing the app in a wrong way. Update your info at the app website. Thank you. (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but in any case you are not describing MonkeyParking in the right way. MonkeyParking is a mobile app that help people park their car in other people parking spot, but you are describing it only from the "on-street" point of view (which is suspended). I ask you to update this description and don't lie. Thank you. (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"if there's anything else out there about how the app is being used today" the app website, the iTunes store description, the app blog... do you need anything else? (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Al recently report about MonkeyParking. For example "http://www.neontommy.com/news/2015/02/la-monkeying-parking-apps" in which the app is described as "Monkey Parking, an app based in Italy, allows users to turn their driveways into metered parking spots. An individual with the app looking for an open spot can pay the owner of the driveway a flat rate to park his or her vehicle for a set duration of time." (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Spam Link
Hi,

I just converted a bare URL reference to a proper reference at the article Sim box. Check the revision here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_box&oldid=650119432 which clearly shows that the link was already in the article even before I converted it to a proper reference. Next time I will be cautious to follow the links to see if Spam or not. Aha... (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Bentworth road
Hi McGeddon. The article Bentworth road I created yesterday was only a start. Since your review, I have tried to address your concerns by adding more contents and references into the article to improve its remarkability. Do you mind reviewing it and let me know your feedback. If possible, please consider remove your proposed deletion. Thank you.L0001d (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

PRS
Hi, you marked a few links I added as spam. Can I ask why? The links I supplied are actually of better quality (subjective, I know but even) than some of the links I seen on the pages. Paranormal Research Society is well known and well respected site with a lot of new information about paranormal and haunted places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.162.26 (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry about the change in robotics page
Let's revert to the revision 650183430 edit by 24.73.169.18, as I'm the teacher who ask them to do some contribution(as school assignment) to the Wikipedia about robotics topics, I'm very sorry about that, I'm not aware of the WP:INSTRUCTORS guideline. My original idea is try to ask them to contribute to the Wikipedia. Sorry again. Is there any quick way to revert? Thanks. Ollydbg (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki.damsel
Hi McGddon, I did not know what Sock puppetry. I read it for the first time when you posted it to my page. If I violated any policy, I did so, unwittingly, I promise to educate my self more on the community policy and abide by them in the future. Thanks - Wiki.damsel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.damsel (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi MaGddon, thanks for the response. I went to the requested page and verified it that I, unwittingly, violated the stated policy, that I did not know about before. Is there anything else you need from me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.damsel (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Adam Blair (entrepreneur)
Thanks for your comments on the Adam Blair page I created. It's my first so I'm not very good!

I've had another read through the WP:GNG guidelines and whilst I agree with you that Blair isn't very notable having had no main media coverage. I did find lots of different motorsports websites all corroborating the details posted. I've added a few more references to a few more of these websites.

Is that enough to prove that the information is legitimate?

After doing some research on him(after getting some of his earphones) I was surprised that someone who'd started so many companies wasn't listed on Wikipedia so I added him, is there anything else that can be added to make it comply with the requirements better?

I appreciate your input :-) Mcopestake (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

speedy
prizes are not among the types of things that can be deleted by speedy A7. Please read WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD   DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Shiteshsachan (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Username Shiteshsachan Shiteshsachan (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Request to recover "Java Secure Coding Practices" Hi MaGddon, I have rights to publish that content as per OWASP "Content is available under a Creative Commons 3.0 License" and this license clearly states that "I am free to copy and redistribute the same content" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. Please do not delete the page. I will add reference section in bottom of my page.

Blocking all editing
Hi McGeddon, As your suggestions haven't resulted in any response, are you prepared to accept that your own scrutiny is going to be sufficient to allow: 1. The insertion of the draft section you gave feedback on; 2. Relocation of the text misplaced in the beliefs section I don't think the intended affect of the COI policy was to stop all editing, otherwise it would state that. The more this article can be less of a stubb, and can be built up with some fairly safe non-controversial RS, the less vulnerable it is to the random attacks? Interested to know your thoughts in this regard. Danh108 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi McGeddon, was it oversight or conscious decision not to respond? Cheers Danh108 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad it was an oversight :-) I did leave a message on a project page as you had suggested. It was a bit like your COI inquiry....I'm not sure the project pages get much attention, so my post has just hung there. With such a small group, it's hard to find people with expertise/familiarity with the RS. I respect your sense of caution, as it may be a subject area you aren't that confident on. I have spent so much time researching content since I first started editing here that I do want to get some result from it - not that finding and reading so much RS was time wasted. Reading WP:COI, I couldn't find "non-trivial", only "non-contraversial". Was that in the policy? Cheers Danh108 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Audi India
Respected, You are taking me in a wrong way as I am not promoting any particular website. I am also a Wikipedian so I did what I thought beneficial for Wikipedia. As I know I was providing a good information to the readers. Please re-check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit.srivastava.vns (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Okk... thank you so much for your response. Actually I am new here so I don't have any idea. I am so sorry for any inconvenience from my side and I have added them because I personally like those website and used to read from them. In near future, I will try to give my best and to serve Wikipedia in a better way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit.srivastava.vns (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey McGeddon, need your favor, hope you will help me. Actually I was new here so I made some back to back mistakes. Please remove those websites from the SPAM list. I will never add useless links now. I want to prove myself here as a better contributor. Hope you will give me a chance. Waiting for your positive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit.srivastava.vns (talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Warning from "McGeddon"
May I ask politely why you messaged me with such vehement aggression, McGeddon? Regarding the Jason Isaacs page that I am helping to edit: I happen to be a relative of his and therefore removed some inappropriate and false information. How did that lead to you then sending me a "Warning"? Please do respond as soon as you are able to; I found your message quite disturbing and would like to know the reasoning behind it. To reiterate: as a relative of the actor Jason Isaacs, I know for a fact that he has no children and that the Jewish Chronicle article cited is a humorous one and not a verifiable source. Therefore, my edit was entirely justifiable. Again, I would like to know precisely why you did that. I can refer to you to the telephone number of a first degree relative of Jason's, if that helps you. Best wishes, Jubby. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.157.208 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Walking After U
On its talk page it says its prod was contested by Brilliantradience, however in the history of the article it seems to me that it the prod was removed by GrahamJQuirk. Am I missing something? &mdash;George8211 / T 19:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for that. &mdash;George8211 / T 19:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mobile marketing link
Hello!

Thanks for your message that a citation I added to Mobile marketing was removed. You said that it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sorry about that! I'm just getting my feet wet and trying to do small edits. I read the external link guidelines over a few times. I thought the link I chose would be ok because it was a .org, but was the problem that it was also a blog? Or that it was a subjective take? I suppose it was also kind of speculative, looking back. Sorry to pester! I just want to make sure I understand so I don't make the same mistakes in the future. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofaSubmariner (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from Mexico
Hi McGeddon, is very complicated a relation between immigration with Etnic group, Mexicans are a people mixing with many races, Mexican is a nationality but aren't a Etnic group, in Spanish Wikipedia we make this changes in all articles about immigration. See ypu nest time. --Marrovi (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Comments
McGeddon: The link to a git source repository is perfectly fine, since it was a publicly available source-code. Many existing Wikipedia articles also do provide such links, for example, see "These tools include the open-source CACTI cache simulator[40] and the open-source SimpleScalar instruction set simulator." in CPU_cache article. As per your suggestion, in future, I will discuss on talk page before editing a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newwikieditor678 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Enzo
We find two secondary sources to demonstrate where the term is from. Links: http://fj.qq.com/a/20140707/049065.htm http://baike.baidu.com/view/13325929.htm but they are in Chinese, is that okay?

Thelartman I was trying to re-add a long standing relevant link to a website that was removed recently for no good reason.

What gives?

Enzo

Enzo
Hello, we will revise our language soon and try to find the the primary source for reference 1. However, since the original account of the another of the comic is now blocked, we may cite it from another similar source. Another issue is about the keyboard man and keyboard warrior, actually in today's China, keyboard man contains the characteristics of American keyboard warrior, so when we first edit this page, we take no consideration on distinguishing the two concepts. Shall we try to analyze their similarity and difference in Keyboard man page? Best regards, Enzo

Escape room games
Hi McGeddon

I'm not affiliated with any company in the genre of real escape games.

I added some links and have edited a few over the months as this page appears to me tp be extremely biased.

Why are some companies mentioned and not others? It would make sense to allow all or none or as a compromise the most noteworthy. I added Escape Hunt as they seems to me to be the world's l;largest and I have played in several of their rooms worldwide. They are a professional company whereas many who have clearly listed themselves on this page are less so in my opinion as they simply self promote. For example. why are you allowing a shambles self promotion of Adventure Rooms Canada? Its a single franchise amongst many worldwide. According to their sites many other companies are franchising worldwide so why allow this one and not others to write on the page?

Thanks and look forward to understanding how the page can be fair to all.

--SImonAsia--} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonasia (talk • contribs) 09:34, 8 March 2015‎

YCan't
Hey McG, got any thoughts for who this guy is a sock of? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, just spotted your Maelbros SPI. Never mind! Good work reigning it all in, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello McGeddon
Wikipedia is completely new to me. I have submit a page call kuppiya. and with in few hours of my submission someone had edit the page you have check my page and comment as said my page is not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained. I am unaware about this details.. can you please guide me in this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakzee (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

James Morasco in Toynbee tiles article
Thanks for your good work and research on the Toynbee tiles article. Just to be clear: someone contacted Clark DeLeon of the Inquirer in 1983 claiming to be a social worker named James Morasco. This person has never been matched to an actual person with that name and occupation. The only person by that name living in Philadelphia in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s was not a social worker, but a carpenter in the Chestnut Hill neighborhood who died in 2003. This Morasco was contacted by Worgul, etc., and his wife/widow insisted he was not connected to the Toynbee tiles. Best, CCS81 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagging of Kuppiya
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Kuppiya. I do not think that Kuppiya fits any of the speedy deletion criteria I request that you consider not re-tagging Kuppiya for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Banks (singer) page
You are reverting edits without due cause and persistently re-inserting unsourced and controversial information. Please at least have the courtesy to explain your reasons for reverting very legitimate edits such as removing unsourced content and providing citations. The Probability Wizard 17:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Probability Wizard (talk • contribs)

Paul Banks (singer) page
Your edits on this page are very suspicious and appear to be motivated not by a desire to create a quality and accurate page. You are persistently reverting legitimate edits and reinserting unsourced information without due cause, explanation or prior discussion. Please be courteous and at least post a talk page discussion prior to reverting these edits.The Probability Wizard 18:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Probability Wizard (talk • contribs)

Carrie Morgridge
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I have added a few more sources to this article and deprodded. Not sure if she'd pass an AFD and for sure the Foundation itself needs an article, but I think she's a bit beyond PROD at this point. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Rollback
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMcGeddon granted] the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like that might save me some time. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleting of signatures
Why is there a problem of deleting my signature in Toothbrush article? --Dragan (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :-) --Dragan (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that I want to remove my signatures in some way because of my privacy. I'm considering vanishing my accounts, but I think that will not remove/replace my old signatures in talk pages. What is your opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing --Dragan (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK than. Thank you. :-) --Dragan (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Do it. I'm introducing myself more to vanishing and found this sentence: "Note that your signature (on user talk pages, article talk pages and project discussion pages) will not be changed, and will, by default, be redirected to your new user name." It seems I or somebody else need to change those signatures in my old interactions manualy despite vanish because they represent my real name. As you see I changed my current signature but it not work retroactively. --Dragan (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. It seems we are getting to the goal in one better way. Thank you for your help. :-) --Dragan (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the EatSeeHear page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=669235689 your edit] caused a URL error (help) and an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F669235689%7CEatSeeHear%5D%5D Ask for help])