User talk:McGeddon/Archive 6

Panavista
Hi! I'm the author of the website panavista.eu that has been removed from the Bristol Wiki page. I'm sorry, as a newbie, I did not realise that there was a discussion about the issue of removing this link. Panavista is a work of love, intended to document and inform visitors about this amazing city, its only content is 128 panoramic pictures of Bristol. It seems to me that my site is highly informative, it has proven to be very successful and has no commercial purpose. Please, please reconsider your decision, I am contributing a large amount of visual information about Bristol that complements this Wiki. Is this not the spirit of the web? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.160.67 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider my site
Hi McGeddon,

I'm asking if you could please review and reconsider my website (http://www.xxxx.com) for inclusion in the External Links section of the Harry Houdini article. You deleted the site on July 21 because it appeared to be an "Amazon/Ebay affiliate site." While, yes, I do include Amazon links on my site (as do almost all the other sites in the links), I want to assure you I have absolutely NOTHING to do with Ebay and, as a rule, only report on auction news after the auction has closed. I also report on all auctions -- online and otherwise -- that feature Houdini memorabilia, props, and posters. My site's mission statement is stated on the Home page:


 * There are many terrific websites devoted to Harry Houdini, but I have yet to find a source for what’s happening in the world of Houdini TODAY. That’s why I created HOUDINI LIVES. Here I track all the latest book and DVD releases, auction news, and general whatnot related to our favorite MASTER MYSTIFIER. I hope you enjoy.-John Cox

I do think this site is a unique source for Houdini information and a valuable link (and I think many Houdini collectors and experts who frequent the site would agree). I would also encourage you to look at the history of my own contributions to the Houdini article to see the level of my commitment to providing accurate up-to-date information on Houdini.

Thank you for the reconsideration (I've also pleaded my case in the Houdini discussion section). I hope you decide in my favor. :) --Zencato (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo copyrights
All photos taken by me as i an ex military, the fashion picure was taken by me of a well known romanian tv fashion model. many regards zatoichi1564 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zatoichi1564 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Linking to Pink Floyd
Right, sorry about that. Makes perfect sense to me. I'm very new and just learning the ropes around here, thanks for the starting links.

SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your enlightening comments at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keeps making the same points about: 1) His attempts to distort facts unsupported by sources, and then subsequently his continued refusal to present alternative sources to back up his POV, and 2) His attempts to insert his POV for the passive voice into the article, which would degrade the article's quality and make it a confusing read instead of straightforward. The discussion is simply dragging on and he is not comprehending his disruptive behavior on the talk page - further input would be appreciated. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I started a WP:RFC, at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Steorn
Who do you work for? Are you associated with Wikipedia as an employee, subcontractor, or other agent relation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.16.18 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My research finds about stoern that I posted on wikipedia were reverted b/c they were considered vandalism. However, my research demonstrates that there is real questions concerning stoern, e.g. the expert they rely on is not an expert in the field they claim, they provide no list of other experts. As such, failure to list such fact lends legitimacy to Stoern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.61.224 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 July 2009

So, you say that my research has to be supported by someone else. This seem odd, because Stoern makes claims that are not supported by scientist it hired--but you are more than willing to allow them to post. If they are supported by scientist the scientist will not give their name because they do not want to be part of the controversy. Moreover, I only repeated what is on the University of Alberta website as to Ian MacDonald. Lastly, the concept that I have to have another person to agree with me is not a safeguard against anything--The Bush adminstration leaked to NY Time and then stated don't believe me believe the NY Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.61.224 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue, granted I did not explain myself, is that the news paper article which cites Ian MacDonald as an Engineer is used to support that Stoern had a jury of scientists and they came to some conclusion. Assuming, the engineer was a typo, then we are at a family doctor issue. True it is my opinion that it is odd to have MD (which it is not clear that Ian McDonald is associated with Stoern) to lead a jury of scientists concerning the working of a perpetual motor, but it is also the opinion of Stoern that the scientists on the jury had the wrong/not enough data, but you allow that to be posted. Which is not supported by independent source--double standard. If I playing a scam then I would always claim in vague detail that the accepted standard is confused/wrong/misinformed or if I knew a little more than the general population I would play on their ignorance. I am more than willing to read the rules of wikipedia if and only if double standards are not applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:68.126.61.224 (talk • contribs)

I noticed that when I did put the web page link you continue to block my revison. So, if I follow the rules you still block me. Do I have to send you money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.61.224 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say this as it is impossible to prove a negative. Moreover, there are no indication anywhere that there is another Ivan McDonald at the University of Alberta--a fact you do not want to admit. Also, how would anyone prove that there is no nor has been a professor by the limited use of websites.

Your editing is not base on objective values but that of a person with a purpose--to save Stoern

Sir there is more proof that you are basis toward Stoern as you allow the 420 scientists quote about the jury where you objected to my facts about the Ian MacDonald. My guess is that you have been told to lay off your creative editing and have resorted to this mild form of procedural frustration.

Dude, if your editing is in fact an attack on the truth and your motives are hide the truth, then it is only proper to question your motives.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Hi. Just wanted to say sorry for escalating this whole thing, but I don't have your patience. Well done for the way you've handled it all: I think you've been a model editor and Wikipedian. All the best. GDallimore (Talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for your comment, I have responded on my talk page Spritebox (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Response
Time for me to go to bed, I think. ;) Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
Thanks for your advice on my Catan edits. Obviously I am a new user so I appreciate the feedback. I will hold off the absurd levels of detail in the future! Cheers, --Jeff Grimes (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative calorie food
See Articles for deletion/Negative calorie food. Fences &  Windows  23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of World domination


The article World domination has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article is strictly original research. No evidence is given that any of the real historical information is related to the topic of "world domination." No references are given for fictional "world domination", or that it has even been discussed in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Steorn
I've reverted your reversion; WP:MOSNUM plainly provides that a number that begins a sentence is to be spelled out (that is, it should be noted, a style guideline that is obeyed in most academic writing). If I've missed something relevant, you should, of course, feel free to revert me once more, and you will, I trust, accept my apologies. Thanks, 68.248.234.20 (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Life on Mars refs
Thanks, nice of you to say so. You are welcome. Police,Mad,Jack ☺ 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks Spritebox (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 and WP:NOPRICES
Hi there McGeddon. I noticed you swiftly reverted my change to the PlayStation 3 article, and rightly so I see, after reading WP:NOPRICES. I was previously not aware of this policy, so thanks for enlightening me in the process. If you are so inclined in keeping this policy upheld, please also have a look at and do something about this in the Xbox 360 article as well. KodakYarr (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Talk:Twilight -Thesevenseas 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:New Earth Time -Thesevenseas 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:New Earth Time -Thesevenseas 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Avast, thee yellow-bellied sap-sucking knave
Ahoy, me hearty! Re : Stop pullin' me wooden leg, Jim me lad, I'll bet thee a quart of Old Navy that it's a joke by the from the user who added the 'quote'. Best away now, tide's a'turnin', Qwfp (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was in a very silly mood yesterday afternoon. I think we're both agreed that even Wikipedia articles on the most light-hearted subjects can and should keep to the same standards as the rest of Wikipedia, but I can now also appreciate that jokes that are funny for one day a year must get a little wearing if you watch the article all year around. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the "Simple Simon (solitaire)" entry
Hi!

Thanks for editing the Simple Simon (solitaire) article! I really like the changes, even though I wrote most the original text. Shlomif (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

List of zombie novels which you contributed to, is currently up for deletion
FYI. Ikip (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * would you consider changing your opinion to just prune, because the closing admin will just see "delete" thanks in advance. 09:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Concrete Thrown By Tank
It's partially my own observation, but I'm certain I've seen a link somewhere that says it. *sighs* I need to start keeping better track of all the random pieces of information I find. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

im sorry im new did not know it would f it up sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0900 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Derren Brown - the events
Hey thanks for cleaning up some of my edits and improving the tine of this article. I think it is shaping up well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Confusedmiked (talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pictogram
How do I make it plural? Cheers, Xme (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't move a category, according to the message I get when I try. Could you move it? Then I will change the name in the other places as needed. Thanks. Xme (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Page protection question
Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. When I declined the request at RFPP, I noted that the article had only been vandalized by two IPs in the past ten days. Since there are a relatively small number of IPs causing the problem, the best thing to do would be to warn the IP (with an escalating level of warning as necessary) every time you have to revert the IP's edits. After three or four levels of warnings have been ignored by the IP, it can then be reported to WP:AIV for blocking. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Claire Maclean / Bill Hicks
Apologies, it was amusing at the time. Normally I'd be first to jump on such nonsense, so somewhat hypocritical. Thanks for putting a stop to it! Mongoletsi (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Will be slow reverting
new IP, same edits. Geoff B (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:94.196.161.165
Re. User talk:94.196.161.165

I'm not the same person that made those edits; I'm a very experienced user who, prior to logging in, happened to hit on this IP address. Of course, IP users change frequently.

Your comments to that new user were quite bitey; their 3 contribs were obviously good faith edits, and it's important to welcome new contributors. I'm sure that they were just trying to help. Ah well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.161.165 (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you return the Woo woo page?
I'm not sure why you think that a broad category shouldn't be left on wikipedia. There are, I'm sure, thousands of examples of broad categories. I am thinking of the Kingdom Animalia. Woo woo is a word that doesn't have an equivalent in meaning or in popular usage. I was not trying to create a discussion of each topic, I was essentially making a "list page". "List of topics considered bunk by scientific consensus, but still popular among certain segments of the population" just doesn't have the same ring as Woo woo.
 * Something I am interestesed in knowing is in this "(diff) (hist) . . Skepticism‎; 09:07 . . (+1,234) . . TheThomas (talk | contribs)" from my watchlist, what does the "(+1,234)" refer to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks + question
thanks for the note on my page about Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. I understand now that parts of my edit were inappropriate because they were original research, but was wondering if summarizing a movie fell into the category of original research or if it was more like quoting or paraphrasing... essentially, if I want to summarize parts of a movie, in a factual way, such as the story in The Meaning of Life, should I cite some website or can I just do so in an ipso facto type of way? I understand that any commentary or opinion would be out of place but am wondering if I need to source factual summaries or even quotes taken directly from the movie itself. Thanks!Makeswell (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blossom Goodchild
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Blossom Goodchild. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Blossom Goodchild (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on McGeddon...
"In classical philosophy, skepticism (or scepticism) is the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations."

or

"[1]Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[4] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[5]"

It's an easy choice. Between these two, which would you say is more likely to be what a person is searching for; an obscure reference to an ancient philosophy and a group of philosophers so well known that they lack even a wiki article OR the actual daily usage of the word in all realms of public conversation? It sure sounds erudite, but it conveys no useful information. Come on McGeddon...do the right thing. --TheThomas (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice
I cited a comment you made regarding behavior by Pedant17, at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. As you are more familiar with that particular situation, perhaps you could say something about that, at the ANI thread? Cirt (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Attack
Please keep your comments to the STEORN discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 November 2009
 * Given your responses to date, I will only post to your user page when I have a formal warning template to post, or a response to a comment you've left on my own talk page. Hope that's okay. --McGeddon (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Licence/license
Don't worry, I was about to make exactly the same mistake myself... GDallimore (Talk) 10:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Edit to Top Trumps page
Hi, why exactly did you revert my edit to the Top Trumps page about the use in Top Gear? It was used in the episode. Check on BBC iPlayer. There is nothing wrong with the information. Can you please either explain why you did so or put it back then as I don't understand. Thanks, &#91;&#91;User:Solar Dragon&#124;&lt;font color=&quot;red&quot;&gt;Solar&lt;/font&gt; &lt;font color=&quot;blue&quot;&gt;Dragon&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Solar Dragon&#124;&lt;font color=&quot;gold&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93;) (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Coloured Hats
In reply to your message: yes, there are redirects from Yellow hat, etc. to Six Thining Hats. I think the options are to provide a generic disambiguation page for coloured hats (my solution) or to put in loads of little redirects for hats of various colours, which IMHO would be unmaintainable.

But I stand to be educated! Neuralwarp (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry Hill Citation?
Do you have any citations for Harry Hill/Hall? I've reverted last change. Norfolkdumpling (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why remove external link on Non Sequitur?
Just curious why you reverted back the external link I provided to the Non Sequitur entry (youTube overdubbed Star Trek). I reverted it back, and I'm sure you'll redact my reversion. Rest assured, if you do, I won't revert it back again, because I'm really not committed to Wikipedia's policies and don't want to participate in yet another edit war, but curious as to why it's not kosher. It is a much better example of what a non sequitur is than any of the examples given in the article. StrangeAttractor (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. It just seemed like the juxtapositions of straightforward surrealism, rather than a specifically useful example of non sequitur. The lines aren't "following" anything, they're just playing off the expectation of what a Star Trek character would normally say, without any build-up. Surely there are better (and more copyright-friendly) examples out there. --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I really disagree with you. Very little of the content was related to Star Trek itself.  If I was teaching a class and wanted an example of the term non sequitur, I honestly can't think of a more pure example than that video.  Yes, the humor comes from watching familiar Star Trek figures deliver ridiculous lines, but the content of those lines is not (with a few exceptions) derived from Star Trek at all.


 * With all due respect, on the discussion board for that entry, and in your response to my question, you position yourself as an expert on the subject, but I find myself doubting your expertise. Your use of the term "surrealism" is not accurate, for example.  The video I linked to is not an example of surrealism.  Surrealism relies on unusual juxtapositions, yes, but not nonsensical ones.  Surrealism (historically) was deeply influenced by a contemporary (Freud-inspired) fascination with dream imagery.  It attempts to create unusual meanings by juxtaposing unlikely combinations of objects or images within a unified, coherent scene, in order to create a meaningful, but unsettling impression on the viewer.  In other words, surrealism is about conveying meaning.  The purpose of a non sequitur (or rather its purpose as a literary device) is to thwart the audience's expectation of an ordinary, meaningful response with a nonsensical one.  In short, surrealism is about *creating meaning*, and the non sequitur is a device used to render a dialogue *meaningless.*


 * On the copyright issue, you at least make sense to me. However, the video is a short series of excerpts -- a collage of clips spliced together and with entirely new dialogue for the purposes of humor.  Although it is not a satire in the literary sense of the term, it is certainly satirical under the terms of "fair use" in copyright -- it makes deliberate use of Star Trek clips to subvert them for humor.  I don't see how this can possibly be viewed as anything but fair use.


 * Probably I should have started this conversation with you on the discussion board for the article, but nonethless, I am interested in your response. I frankly don't see what gives you unilateral right to delete a reference that is not spurious, and guides the reader of the article to a useful example of the subject. StrangeAttractor (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not claiming any "unilateral right" or positioning myself as an "expert", I'm just removing one link that I didn't think was appropriate, once. We're all on the same level here. (Another editor has removed the link again since, and you're right that this would be more usefully discussed on the talk page of the article.)
 * The Star Trek video clearly attempts to set up some running jokes and characterisation, so seems closer to "unusual juxtapositions" than "does not follow". Surely the purest video example of a non-sequitur would be a clip where one character says something, and another character says something strange that deliberately doesn't follow on from it? But even then, it'd be more useful just to quote that in the article rather than link to a video clip. --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok... so what if some of the dialogue were quoted in the article instead. I really do think you haven't listened to it carefully -- you say "Surely the purest video example of a non-sequitur would be a clip where one character says something, and another character says something strange that deliberately doesn't follow on from it?"  That is exactly the case with the video.  Really, almost every single line has virtually nothing to do semantically with the line that precedes it, but is delivered in a fashion to make you think it might (*might*) have some coherence or relation to the actual ST-TNG characters.


 * So do you think it would be a fair addition to the article to quote some of its dialogue as an example? (I will choose well.)


 * Also, do you think I should cut and paste this entire conversation to the talk page of the article so that anyone else might weigh in?


 * BTW, I have *nothing* whatsoever to do with the creators of the video, and no vested interest in it, and I do not think it is most hilarious thing I've ever heard in my life*** (although I do think it is LOL funny, a rare thing in itself, at least for me). And though I've long been a fan of the Star Trek franchise in all its permutations, I am not even remotely a fanatic. (Never attended a convention, never watched all episodes of any of the series, except *maybe* by accident the original).


 * ***Either Monty Python or The Marx Brothers would probably qualify for that honor, masters of the non sequitur themselves... but honestly, nothing as pure as the video I'm waxing on about. The most other pure example that comes to mind is some of the work of the dadaists... but it's not funny.  The Dadaists weren't really about funny.  (That WWI artists' movement was about single-handedly destroying the entire art tradition of Europe in the most humiliating, ridiculous manner possible.) StrangeAttractor (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

linkfarm at Anxiety?
A bunch of the external links on Anxiety were added 2 months ago (21 November ). Should they be deleted? Links to generally informative sites often seem to be tolerated as long as they are not obviously self-serving, and web sites of non-profit organizations would seem to fall under 'sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources' as sites which may be considered for inclusion. (The category 'links making up for the fact that the article in its present state is not fully comprehensive', and an article like Anxiety can probably never be fully comprehensive, seems not to be called out explicitly in the guidelines but maybe it should be.) Is your objection to the length of the list of links or in the nature of the links? I'm asking you for your views (and links to any relevant discussions elsewhere); I'm neutral. --Soiregistered (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mornington Crescent
I am not sure if you have understood the point of my edit. My amendments were not "my" joke as such; the whole Mornington Crescent thing is a joke. The whole idea has for (30? 40?) years been that there are no rules to the "game". I accept you may have known this and removed my edit anyway. Perhaps you would also go into a dictionary of computer terms, and remove the entries for "Loop" and "Circuitous Reference": "Loop: see Circuitous Reference" "Circuitous Reference: see Loop"

If Wiki is so po-faced that it cannot accept this sort of thing, then no doubt the Father Christmas page, if there is one, will be telling children that Father Christmas does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.121.230 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Iceland (supermarket)
Hi, can you please state your opinion on the talk page? Thanks. LikeTreasure (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. Since I was the one who originally deleted the link from the article, I didn't want to be the one to do that on the talk page also. It needed doing, though. Thank you. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Snopes article
On the Snopes article, I (now) understand what the phrase is saying, but at first, I thought it was saying Snopes.com is the best source for debunking urban legends. Sorry. mynameinc (t|c|p) 02:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC), who is open to fish slapping.

Speedy deletion nomination of Highway Products (Oregon)
A tag has been placed on Highway Products (Oregon) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bonewah (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of Go Daddy Intro
Hello. Back in March/April we had a discussion about the intro on the Go Daddy entry and didn't come to a conclusion for getting the tag removed. Recently we've updated the intro to more accurately summarize the content and are looking for people to review/remove the tag. ParsonsRep (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Aesthetics
Acknowledged. Also, Pyxzer (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Meme
I find the definition of meme is very confusing. I'm trying to summarise it neatly with a simple phrase. Something like 'an infectious idea'. Please help if you can! Flxjx (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your helpful reply. I totally agree with your points. I'll leave it to you to ponder a easier definition for us simple folk! Flxjx (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For Godwin's Law revert [] -- was thinking same thing but wanted to avoid WP:OWNership slippery slope. Gerardw (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mitr (proposed deletion)
Hi This article has gone through many changes from its original.Many references included and citation also has been included. If any issue still there which does not follow wikipedia policy. please discuss here Thankyou--122.160.109.124 (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)122.160.109.124 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Its an information not a advertisement
I have fulfilled whatever said by wikipedia people, first they were emphasizing on its reliable source, to fulfill their demand some good reliable sources has been included but still they are considering for deletion. Its a information that this platform is providing, why it is different from others and Its like a new experience for software engineers they can get something out of it. Its not a advertisement. Please look it into it once more. it has gone through many phases its size has been reduces from its normal to half. It is having capability that it is supporting other plaforms which were found rare in earlier platforms.Company's name has been included once (wherever necessary). so i don't think its a advertisement. Thankyou--Nandssiib (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

welcome
hi there, why did you welcome me to wikipedia? I've been here for a long time 190.55.214.70 (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For the update on the information/guidelines on Jack Bond (director). Discovering2010 (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
hi, i wanted you to do me a huge favor PLEASE

islam has 6 major denominations. but only 4 are mentioned in the purple template box at the bottom of the 'islam' page

i would like you to add the other 2 called Salafi, and Quranists.

here is a link for salafi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi

here is a link for quranists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran-only

could you pleeeaase do this for me. i've been trying for ages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

i've already done that with no success

i am new to wikipedia and dont have a clue

could you do it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re. Rock-paper-scissors
Thanks for reverting to a better revision. I was going to do it anyway. Merlion 444  13:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Self external link
Hi, I linked to the blog rather than the original source because there are a number of factual errors in the original source. AceOfBlasé (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now emailed the British Centre for Literary Translation alerting them to the wrong dates on the link you added. AceOfBlasé (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for continuing to participate at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal. I just took another look at the most recent disruptive editing by - and all of it seems to be changes related to removal of the words "is" and "was", etc. Cirt (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I should start a 2nd RFC, on the exact same thing, at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal? Cirt (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will give some more thought to this... Cirt (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, you have a good idea of not doing a wholesale revert, if possible - but like I said, I did check through the entirety of his disruptive editing and found that it is pretty much all about removing "is" and "was", degrading writing quality of the text, and inserting big amounts of whitespace and spacing that is not necessary. I found it hardpressed to find much that was constructive in any regard, unfortunately. :( Cirt (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppetry
Hi there. I made an account for myself and a fellow co-worker, and realized it was a violation of your terms and conditions. I blame myself for this mistake, as I only browsed the TC, and would like to know how to deactivate one of the accounts. Thanks for your time and I'm sorry for the troubles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoodEats (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Help
Thank you for you answer on our page, we have been having a hard time figureing out how to edit without getting into trouble. We've been blacklisted twice by the same person and she has never explained why. If we knew why we wouldnt do it but after the first time we were trying to figure it out on our own because she wouldn't answer us then when we asked her about the paragraph she blacklisted us and wont answer us. Is there anyway you can help us? Thank you 17:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To my dearest informant
As it stands now,I feel that I need to apologize. I'm dreadfully sorry, I'm a serious noob here at Wikipedia. This was my first article, and I was super-protective about it. Mastado (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim Tam Slam
Thanks for the reversion. Could you let me know how I nominate a page for deletion? On the basis that it is the WORST. ARTICLE. EVER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.155.83 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My talk page - I don't know what you mean
Hello,

I don't know what you mean here:

]Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. --McGeddon (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any edit conflicts, or clogging or other errors? Is there a problem with the wikipedification?

Thanks! 99.150.255.75 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Goofing off
I'm glad you were willing to indicate that it is a US-Centric term. If you were to go into a British pub and talk about "goofing off", you'd be laughed at.--Base and Spoiled Female (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In a British pub, people would just say "a lazy fucking wanker".--Base and Spoiled Female (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Outrageous Betrayal
You had previously commented in dispute resolution during a Request for Comment at the article Outrageous Betrayal. Please see Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could you say those things? You seem to have a better handle on that particular issue than I. :) Cirt (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You had commented in this RFC, that you thought it might have been a better idea to have a User Conduct RFC specifically on, as opposed to a content RFC on one particular article. Based on the reactions of , I fear that unfortunately you may be correct, and that these (two) RFCs on the matter will not bring resolution with regard to this user's behavior. If a User Conduct RFC were to be started with regard to Pedant17, would you be able to certify the basis for the dispute? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

not reverting far enough
Not good enough huh? Ok. I have to confess to checking recent changes in a shameful current bout of Work Avoidance Behaviour... and haven't really concentrated when the recent edit has seemed... okay-ish. Thanks for the heads up. Will check it out. Seascapeza (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcoming message McGeddon. I have been using Wikipedia for so many years now, but never edited before. Thought it would be nice to give something back by editing or adding pages in my spare time. TaleTreader (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

re Pedant17
Perhaps you think it might be best for me to draft up a prepared User Conduct RFC first, to work on it in a subpage of my userspace? And/or also I see that you do not have email enabled, if you do that in Special:Preferences, I could email you a draft. Cirt (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Information
I based the title and information placed on the other wikipedia entries, trying not to promote the book, but to inform people of its relevance to 2012. Could you please let me know how to construct this in a way that is satisfactory to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenout1 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 15 March 2010
 * I've pointed at the editor's talk page that as a self-published book it shouldn't be included unless it say hits the NYT best seller list. I think there are other books in that article that don't belong there, I removed one but don't have time for a few days to check the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Church of Satan
Hi, you may want to keep an eye on Abuse_response/75.2xx.xxx.xxx, raised some time ago. Cheers Ash (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Time Cube
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Time Cube. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Time Cube (6th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To the remover of my content, please respond to this
My contribution has been removed by David J Wilson with the comment that i didn't quote a reliable source. Even though i mention the exact location of the source in the Bible. Could you please explain to me why you say that i did not give a reliable source? Is someone claiming that the Bible is not the main/only piece of evidence that Christians claim teaches us about the existance of God? So how is this not a reliable source when discussing Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.195.191 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 February 2010

Good points re:Lexulous entry
Good points. IN fact I did, in my last reversion, say that the editor should discuss on the Talk:Lexulous page. Nightspore (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

True that. But would they know to check their talk page? Or that it existed? (Genuine question: I don't know what if any process there is by which an IP-newbie would become aware of messages on their talk page.) Nightspore (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the Whuffie Page
Thank you for your comments on my edit. I don't really mean to spam the page or use it as a soupbox. While the stuff I added may be considered advertisement but it's related to the page. Anyway, it's quite difficult to define the boundary between advertisement and legitimate information(any wiki guidelines on this?) Maybe I will return to this page when the website has become more notable. Thanks. Georgewu1 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Ashes to Ashes
Hello McGeddon, long time no chat. I just thought I would let you know that Ashes to Ashes series 3 starts tonight at 9:00PM on BBC1, so that you are informed because obviously as I'm sure you can appreciate the Ashes to Ashes pages will have more traffic than usual. Police,Mad,Jack ☺ 16:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello McGeddon. I am trying to find a cast photo of the Ashes to Ashes main cast for a photo on the List of Ashes to Ashes characters page, like the picture on the Life on Mars one. I tried to do it individually with the photos off the individual pages but I would have to make them so small it would look silly. I have found what I think to be a suitable photo on the Ashes to Ashes website in the wallpaper section which has all the cast in it. Without seeming like I'm taking a liberty, would you mind uploading this photo? Its just that I dont mind admitting that I dont really know how to do it or if the copyright law is ok with it being uploaded. Thanks, I hope you dont mind me asking. Police,Mad,Jack ☺ 12:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and by the way, I would have asked the user who uploaded the LoM one but they have not edited for a while. Police,Mad,Jack ☺ 12:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

n.o.i.
busta rhymes, snoop dogg, and ice cube are converts to nation of islam which is different to islam. is it okay if i delete these from the converts to islam list?Jigglyfidders (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot Article
Thank you (for the point about using 'preview'). That's a fair point, I'll use that in the future.

'''Are you an admin? There is a serious problem with this article (Bigfoot article). Can you take a closer look at it?'''

1) Aggressive reverts for over a year with no higher review. 2) Extreme bias in the opening paragraph. 3) Completely false quotes of a famous scientist (Jane Goodall). We really need an Admin to look at it.

69.171.160.147 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One More Question
Thanks for your response on my user page.

I have one more question for you over there (would appreciate getting your thoughts).

Sincerely,

69.171.160.147 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
for upholding my right to clear away from my talk page messages that I have already read. I have bookmarked the achiving feature and followed your suggestion of defending a proposed change (a minor change of verb) in an article's discussion page to sidestep a fruitless edit-war. NigelHarris (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the permission of the person who owns the website to write about this technology. What should I do to get the page back on wiki?
Amit kdin (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you read
I'm pretty sure you read the same article on Derren Brown about him being not banned in casino's. Well there is also a very credible source saying he is (The Times). So we don't just get rid of it, we give both sides. That's how wikipedia stays neutral. I did not put back the heat crush.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Divine Comedy lead section
As you put the tooshort template on the Divine Comedy article, I thought I'd best ask your opinion as to whether it would be appropriate to remove it. I've added to it, but I'm not sure whether I've added enough. -- Bobyllib (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- Bobyllib (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

English words with uncommon properties
I noticed that you rightfully revered an edit on English words with uncommon properties with going berserk (which I would have), so wanted to ask your opinion on the small effort I did to add list pages of the words actually in wiktionary that score highly. Nobody has expressed interest in it, so I take it that it is useless to the community despite actually being objective and I am not sure if to delete the modifications or to improve the program (removal of abbreviations) and finish it. What do you think about it? Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I opened an AfD regarding an article you tagged, Articles for deletion/Short-short story‎. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the Reference Desk
Since I seem to be messing things up more than helping, I think I will stick to just reading Wikipedia and gaining knowledge out of it. If I used the Reference Desk in asking questions they would probably consider me bothersome--so I won't. Anyway, thanks for the advice. Sincerely--Rujacgeh (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

heat shrink
HI,

First off, I apologize for not logging in when I reverted to a previous version of this page.

On September 23, 2009, "Shaddack" re-wrote this page, citing several pages on buyheatshrink.com as sources for the information. Shaddack has never, nor does he/she currently represent buyheatshrink.com.

Over the past 8 months, both you and "SpinningSpark" have made many modifications to the page and left the footnotes and citations to buyheatshrink.com on the page. Now, all of a sudden, it's considered "blatantly commercial reference sources". I assure you that we did not solicit any links to our site within wikipedia.

That being said, if somebody takes information from a source to make a page on wikipedia better, isn't it only right to give "credit" to the source?

The current page even says now:

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)"

I personally have spent countless hours researching and writing the text on our website. As the owner of buyheatshrink.com, I'd appreciate it if you're going to use our information that we get the credit for it.

I've posted this same text on spinningspark's talk page as well.

Best, Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buyheatshrink (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have opened a thread at Talk:Heat-shrink tubing which is where this discussion should take place so all interested editors can take part.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tim Tams
No, this is the first I've mentioned it outside of the group of people who were actually there at the time. So I have a question. How verifiable does such an unimportant thing have to be? I clearly remember it, but I have no idea how many others do. It seems to me that this is how information like this gets lost when those that remember things themselves are not allowed to tell their story. Julianelischer (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic telepathy
Please do not revert edits citing "original research", I've written the entire 90% of the article at present. I am gathering the references for that particular sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.241.179 (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * McGeddon, I do admire your patience, but it may be best to just let the AfD run its course rather than trying to respond to spurious personal attacks from someone using an ever-changing anonymous IP address. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. See you around, hopefully on happier days. GDallimore (Talk) 21:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sampling
Oh great God of Wikipedia, I pray to you to stop removing what is (I believe) a proper addition to the article "Cheating".

Sampling is a new term for the above mentioned... the article addition provides (or at least it did until you took it down) a summary of the idea as well as a citation.

No COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaine5 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC) -	Hi yes i was aware that wiki pages aren't meant for discussions and should be properly editied and proof read rather than just make a horrible looking blemish on the page like i did but i'm new to wiki editing(not reading though!) so i didn't really know how to handle it but i am glad you told me exactly how to handle the situation.

-	Another quiery i have which i may or may not have entered somewhere on the site(I FORGET) is that there is an actress on both wiki and imdb and she has 2 seperate pages as 2 seperate actresses..... the name is Laura Allen/ Laura Harris so if you know how to merge the pages that would be great, otherwise i feel the process to be too tiresome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinner458 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Twist Ending Contribution
Hi yes i was aware that wiki pages aren't meant for discussions and should be properly editied and proof read rather than just make a horrible looking blemish on the page like i did but i'm new to wiki editing(not reading though!) so i didn't really know how to handle it but i am glad you told me exactly how to handle the situation.

-	Another quiery i have which i may or may not have entered somewhere on the site(I FORGET) is that there is an actress on both wiki and imdb and she has 2 seperate pages as 2 seperate actresses..... the name is Laura Allen/ Laura Harris so if you know how to merge the pages that would be great, otherwise i feel the process to be too tiresome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinner458 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's okay to center image captions

 * Don't revert due to no consensus

There is nothing in the Manual of style or the Wikipedia Policies stating not to center image captions. There is also no rule against centering image captions in Manual of Style - Captions.

Per Manual of Style - Captions:

There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption

1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious. 2. is succinct. 3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article. 4. provides context for the picture. 5. draws the reader into the article.

Different people read articles different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through for other interesting information, looking especially at pictures and captions.

Examples of articles centered image captions
Examples of articles centered image captions that I did not center:
 * Mount McKinley - First and second image captions are centered
 * Yellowstone National Park, same
 * Crater Lake National Park, same
 * Everglades National Park, same

There is no consensus to leave everything identically in Wikipeida articles, which discourages innovation and improvement. Having to obtain consensus for minor edits that clearly improve article quality isn't in the guidelines or Manual of Style.

Please read:

96.41.164.58 (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Be Bold in editing articles
 * Don't revert due to no consensus
 * Assume good faith
 * Wikilawyering
 * Wikipedia:Gaming the system

T.O.E.
Hi, I'm sorry if what I wrote on the Theory of Everything page struck you as offensive/vandalism. That doesn't really sound like something I would do, and if you were offended I am genuinely sorry because that is not what I meant to do at all, I was just trying to contribute to this wonderful website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.6.206 (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok now, it's common knowledge that wikimods sit at their computer waiting for comments n such like this, and have no outside life, and read these within seconds of them being posted, so why aren't you replying? making yourself look like you have a life by not replying right away isn't gonna work, you're a f****ng wikimod dude, you do not have a life, I'd be willing to bet money on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.6.206 (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jusst in case you don't have it watchlisted....



 * I was just trying to let you know that there had been a response at Talk:Heat-shrink tubing. But I'm not surprised you didn't understand, that was one seriously cocked up edit.  Not only did I forget to sign, not only did I link the article instead of the talk page, but I did not even link the right article!  Must have been drinking at the time.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  09:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification
As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Profession
Thanks for your interest in this page, and I can see why (so as to avoid the disambiguation page) that you have separated the Webbs into Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb. Although this may suit the Wiki links it is unfortunate that the intended nuance is lost. Sidney and Beatrice Webb were true collaborators and their being known and referred to as the Webbs was both intended and of course, in their day, flattering. That was why I chose to use that collective name. When I have a few minutes, if you have no objection, I shall restore it, and open a small page entitled the Webbs so as to explain this. Salisian (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Inedia/Prahlad Jani
Hi McGeddon. I happen to agree with you and Escape Orbit about the synthesis being attempted on the video analysis. I have put these two articles on RFC and reported them on the original research noticeboard. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your PM. I've replied it on my talk page. -- Nazar (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Avocado
Someone keeps putting references to ostriches on the Avocado page, but the IP address isn't the same so it would be hard to track down.

Concerning the deletion of an External Link in the page Short story
An external link added to the article Short story was deleted. I disagree completely. The link would add much knowledge on short fiction to the interested wikipedians. It is a master's thesis by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães from Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. The thesis adviser was professor Thomas LaBorie Burns, PhD. Much of the information in the article was taken from this thesis, therefore it does deserve to be in the list of External Links from the article.

Fludd's work in perception
I really feel Fludd's work in perception is important to be mentioned because he explains perception comprehensively. Alan347 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger effect - handling of Darwin & Russell quotes
Re discussion at : I believe I have a rough draft of a solution, but still feel like such a WP newbie (in the relevant policies at least) that I'm sure it could be improved. See paragraph 2 of the introduction, and for the version at in case somebody who shall remain nameless (OK: Michael C. Price) dyspeptically reverts my recent edits. ;-) Yakushima (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

headings should not be wikilinked... should they ?
Hi McGeddon, how are you ? It is okey with me if Holy Spirit is not wikilinked in The Holy Spirit and Christian teachings section in the Efficacy of prayer article since it is wikilinked in the very start of the section (even though I still don't do it as a general policy). I do like it without the wikilink in that section. Thanks, God Bless you Alan347 (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your reasonable arguments on the talk page of the Christopher Hitchens book "god is not Great." I have added arguments of my own, in several places, to support those you have made. RobertAustin (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming you wanted this, congratulations! RobertAustin (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal, I think most regular editors can get the userright. --McGeddon (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Embedded list of saw players
I was attempting to comply with the guidance of WP:LSC which applies to embedded lists as well as stand alone lists. Hidden comments within an article to advise editors on how to manage such a list is against the MOS: guidance. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Handel Lee notoriety
Lee is a celebrity restaurant developer in China and very high profile attorney beyond that of an average businessman. His notoriety is a result of his projects which include purchasing the old American embassy Beijing Legation Quarter and his projects on The Bund which modernized Shanghai. He is featured prominently in forbes magazine. --Dunx209 (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Niko Bellic
Ok Niko speaks serbian but he is from croatia or serbia) I mean that sounds so queer and its not even funny what u talking about. When niko and roman are from croatia than roman would say:Your english is better than my croatian but he didnt he said:your english is better than my serbian,what means he is from serbia) I mean u can write that niko is from japan i dont care because everyone know, that he is from serbia. And go right now to this side gta.wikia/niko bellic.com and read what there stand. And the english Wikipedia is the single side where stand that niko isnt serbian,go to wikipedia germany or russia and read what there stand,there stand that he is from serbia.So stop with the lies niko is serbian if u want or not,u cant change it (Dont make u look so stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia45678 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
To the extent that this is a collaborative project, thank you very much for caring as well as for your assistance in cleaning up the Prahlad Jani article of synthesis. Without your input this would have been an exceedingly difficult and unpleasant task which could potentially have lasted much longer. I really appreciate your efforts. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Thanks for your message. I replied on my talk. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks for your message at my talk page. I've replied it there. Since your approach has been generally less offensive and more constructive than that of Dr.K., I'll also mention to you that what disturbs me in that article is not so much whether the issue in question would or would not be kept in the article text, but it's the frequent imperative requests for me to stop various things, like 'stop editing…', 'stop commenting…' etc. This feels very oppressive. I never claimed my edits to be perfect and I usually expect that their form and rendering would be amended by other editors. I try to add useful information and raise points, which are important as per my feeling. It makes me feel bad when people start attacking me and pushing me out instead of constructively amending the article information. Your editing style was generally in accordance with my better expectations, while that of Dr.K. not so much. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied
On my talk. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

and again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

another. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Deadhorse
Yes. Given the current set of references and Wiki Policies this argument seems to be a WP:DEADHORSE. Congratulations! ;) I was trying to protect the neutrality also hoping that some more experienced users would find the Wiki Policies to support my side of the argument (as I stated before, my own knowledge of Wiki Policies isn't that deep). But now it's my feeling that at least given the current initial data there does not seem to be any hope of keeping the video description, even if it's only dating and direct quotations from the subtitles... Thank you also for your last edit, it adds a bit to the neutrality of the article tone. -- Nazar (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hi McGeddon. I filed a report there. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 11:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice.
Okay, I will edit the link posting to explain the relevance. The issue is reliable sourcing on the several Wikipedia articles that cite an author who is now the subject of an academic integrity investigation. I appreciate you letting me know that I should have provided more information with the links, which I will now do with an edit. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Another life

 * I feel to be one step of being indefinitely banned ; I did appreciate our exchanges even if we disagreed ; I shall regret most of my recent edits have disappeared including this fully deleted one : "User talk:88.106.151.183" where we were talking together --ONaNcle (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember saying anything on an IP talk page beyond correcting your message that their edit had been "deleted by a robot". If there was some later response by you, feel free to continue the conversation on my talk page, or at Talk:The Mousetrap (particularly in the "last will" section, if you were keen for anonymous IPs to respond on your behalf). --McGeddon (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in robots deleting entries ;-))) may be one day... My main concern is to bring my tuppence about fulfilling queen of crime's last will.
 * Please tell me, before I start dozens of similar exports, what's your personal feeling about this : http://fr.aleatexte.wikia.com/wiki/The_Mousetrap_unsploil --82.224.88.52 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) aka ONaNcle who begs you to answer here on your personal talk page.
 * What am I commenting on? The fact that it's a copy of the article with the "Identity of the murderer" section deleted? That would be textbook WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." --McGeddon (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only today, you're doing a great job on this specific wiki but you didn't answer about the different rules of this Italian one where you'll not find a mere spoiler around the Mousetrap ; anyway, as you appear to have no other objections, I resume my task to build versions unsploil (bad spelling intentional to give an easy access through Google). --82.224.88.52 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The different-language Wikipedia projects operate under different policies - perhaps Italy's Wikipedia has no spoiler policy, I'm not familiar with it. I'm not sure what you mean by "build versions unsploil", but please keep WP:SPOILER in mind whenever you intend to remove or obfuscate information that could be considered of academic interest. --McGeddon (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks of lot about your useful warnings ; I take the risk anyway... saying to myself it's gonna be easy to delete all my stuff if it appears legally too complex ; I mean it is risky because even if the GFDL licence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_adaptation allows translations and (here) adaptations, I'm not feeling that confident whether my twenty lines deleted are too much or not. --82.224.88.52 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I really don't understand what you're proposing here. If you want to see some sort of spoiler-related change to the Mousetrap article, I'd suggest discussing that change on the talk page and seeing what support it gets. If you're suggesting a wider change to the English Wikipedia's spoiler policy, Wikipedia talk:Spoiler might be more useful. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You look at ease in those talk pages... not me because (see above) most of my talks on user pages are either removed or erased... not to mention my misunderstood edit summaries...
 * When you say I really don't understand what you're proposing here I do agree that I may be nebulous in theory but let me guess that you'll find my work in memory of Agatha Christie more obvious in practice after linking to http://fr.aleatexte.wikia.com/wiki/Spécial:Modifications_récentes where you'll notice they use http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CVN to fight vandalism and, during all those years there, I very seldom worry (exception today with User Vega Dark) about reversions unlike you do yourself here on the main wiki. --82.224.88.52 (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're obliquely announcing that you're going to make spoiler-free versions of the article on a Wikia site, then that's obviously fine. Have fun. --McGeddon (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Croatia
Hy!! I deleted around a dozen of pictures, but it seems to me to hard to choose the ones to delete from the sections culture and geography. Is there any way to preserve them all under the wiki policy? Cheers! Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth Merger Discussion
Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of Cryptozoolgy Articles
A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01   talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here:, and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronk01 (talk • contribs)

Online rich-text editor
You do know that it is really discouraging when "elitarian" wikipedians simply remove content added by less-frequent wikipedia-editors, right? Yes, the "Examples of Rich Text Editors" should probably be completely moved to a Stand-alone_lists, but such list pages are usually created when a smaller list in a standard article grows too long. Hence, instead of removing the content I just added, I suggest we create a new page called List of rich-text editors? Until we have enough content for a Comparison of rich-text editors page, the list page could also hold some comparative information, including the blog reviewing the nine RTEs. / Rasmusscholer (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seventh Seal
Great work on settling the "Seventh Seal" issue. Looks good to me - appropriate balance but still including the Cinema Insomnia bit. I hope this settles it and that DixieD also appreciates your thoughtful compromise. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Discussion
Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler.

Many Thanks

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Daryl Brohman
do you even know who daryl brohman is think before you do!!!!!! DARYL BROHMAN IS THE BIG MARN search on googleYB 10:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WHGO
Curious as to why you're trying to remove everything I add to this article. You tried to remove the whole block of text, which was sourced; and when I added an extra ref, it was meant to confirm that the station was broadcasting MS Sam outside of the stream. Cody574 23:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing of Chris Ryan
Hello, I think some of the information you have taken from the Chris Ryan article is completely unnecessary. The 'Name Controversy' section clearly stated that it is not definite information and that it is under dispute. I think the people reading about Ryan have a right to know the knowledge that there is controversy surrounding his true identity. Please justify why you deleted this important vital section of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KScott9806 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Ok thank you for clearing that up —Preceding unsigned comment added by KScott9806 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill Granger edit summary
Hello, was directed at a multiple vandal. Apparently I deleted your edit as well while cleaning up! Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)).

Ninja article
Okay, so I noticed that you reverted my edit on ninja. But you said it's low quality. Isn't that kind of rude to me? Endofskull (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Grist (computing)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Grist (computing), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Grist. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Prahlad Jani
Please check Talk:Prahlad_Jani. thx. -- Nazar (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at User_talk:Nazar. thx. -- Nazar (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Candy style guide
Most of the candy style guide is based on what is shown on other pages, but the floating style of the wrapper is something that I did after noticing it on some other types of articles. The reasons for using it across the candy section mostly relates to the things like copyright and fair use (pictures must be a low resolution, so having it there that way helps to comply with it, even if the actual wrapper picture is never more than 800px wide). Other reasons for doing it can include that wrappers are generally the only type available; there is no equivalent of a Euro Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, for example, only imported Reese's Peanut Butter Cups from America or Canada. Any time there is a variant packaging (UK) it is shown in the usually shown and mentioned in the article (Kit Kat, Mars bar, Milky Way). Wrappers generally have a style life for five or ten years, and since I've taken almost all of the wrapper pictures at this point, I've made an effort to have them all be up to date. It's also hard to have older wrappers just to show older wrappers because it's pushing some of the reasons for declaring a logo, copyright image fair use and all that.

Evan-Amos (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with consecutive vandalism edits when using STiki
Hi McGeddon, if you find consecutive vandalism edits, don't use STiki to revert them; use another vandalism tool instead. I just had to do this revert to the sky article. Graham 87 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hi McGeddon. This is to notify you that there is a report at ANI where you are mentioned. It does not concern your actions but you may or may not wish to comment. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 05:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oat Bran (cutting and pasting)
Sorry, that's the first time I've done a cut and paste - consider me sufficiently reprimanded :-) I really just put it in there as a temporary placeholder until I could find more scholarly references and write my own paragraph.  I'm probably not going to have time until after Thanksgiving, so I'll just make a note in the discussion that the article needs info on oat bran, and pass the buck for now... DrHenley (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)