User talk:McGeddon/Archive 7

Keep Calm
It was neither a "one-off" nor a "joke". Indeed the image is being taken up rather a lot on Twitter and Facebook. It isn't a "Keep Calm and Eat More Pies" sort of thing. It's an actual political statement. Just FYI. -- Evertype·✆ 19:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Ta. (A gallery of derivations would be lovely though.) -- Evertype·✆ 10:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

oops....
I did feel this inexplicable sense of foreboding as I spammed those templates - now I know why.... &#x262D; &emsp; мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 12:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV report
Hi - thanks for reporting at AIV. I marked your report as a content dispute because of the pattern the user has shown over the last few days of consistently reverting to his edits. He has not broken WP:3RR at that article, but if he does you can report him at WP:AN3. Sorry, and thanks again for your vigilance. :-) Krakatoa  Katie  23:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)



--Nuujinn (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Good to see you back
Nice seeing you back. Best regards. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing your own blog
Hi! Yes, I understand that and wouldn't have cited a link if I didn't feel it was relevant, and then again only because two or three other articles on my site have been included in references/related reading by others. Did you find the page in question unrelated or not adding sufficient value to the wikipedia page in question? I'm new to this and would love to contribute meaningfully, given the right guidance. :-) Sidkhullar (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand. BTW: I have written over 500 articles on food, have written apart from those for newspapers and magazines, am quoted in the papers fairly regularly, have been featured on television, radio, newspapers and magazines in the context of food and also advise food brands on a few subjects, apart from working on my first book and cooking for about 20 years. That's alright though. My short stint in trying to contribute back to Wikipedia ends here. Sidkhullar (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

FF Author URL's
Hey - good edit. I agree completely. There's a great deal that still needs to be cleaned up. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On Titan, fair enough. There's a LOT of opinion in there which I'll remove, and try and find a cover image that can be added. What we really need is some commentary about the text (which is where most of the FF books fall down: just not notable). I'll tinker and let me know what you think. Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Videogame links
To be honest with you I overlooked this link and accidentally made it a redlink. The purpose of changing (computer game) to (video game) is for disk space conservation and to cancel unnecessary redirecting. Of course I have left some (computer game) links alone because I've checked that changing them otherwise misleads a user to a game created in the 21st century which is far from what the user is looking for, due to the shared definition of the same game name. If there's anything I've linked you don't fully agree with, feel free to edit it as you see fit. I am glad to be of assistance. And by the way, I've fixed that Nitro link error. Deltasim (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

V&A category
hello there,

yes that is true, however the article itself also describes many more things than simply just the museum, doesn't it? In which categories in your opinion should the article be listed and which categories the category? Gryffindor (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case create a new category, such as here Category:Asian objects in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Why the article should be in the category of "Asian museums" but not the category itself does not really solve the problem IMO. Gryffindor (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your objection was that the V&A article should be in the Category:Asian art museums, although the category should not be, correct? The problem is that both things cover more than just the Asian art collection. You can solve that problem by creating a new category that is more specific and tailored to the main category. In that sense, the Category:Asian objects in the Victoria and Albert Museum solves the issue, similar to "Category:Asian objects in the British Museum". You cannot however double-list two categories of the same thing. Gryffindor (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your advice about picture
Hi, you said write if I had questions about a picture file. I'm trying to use "png" files instead of "jpg" files for diagrams. I uploaded a diagram for this article Lateral inhibition. My question is: I'm not sure if the file is a png file. I made the diagram using a Linux-based program called "GNU paint". But it didn't say which format to save it to; rather, I just listed the extension as "png". Is there a way to know if the diagram of the three neurons is an authentic png file? And am I doing this right? Thanks in advance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Update -- I found a program that saves images to png files (which I think works). Still not sure if the uploaded file is png or not but in future I'll try to upload diagrams in png format when I can.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Viking Joe Bobolaubos
Viking Joe Bobolaubus is a viking, orginating in 2010 the drawing of Viking Joe, was originally supposed to be a mock of another students classmate created somewhere in Fall River, Massachusetts. Since its initiaL creation Viking Joe drawings have sparked Talk amongst the internet as a new meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusteban (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
Do you have any guidance about this editors tactics Davdevalle (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you made a comment (June 15 2011 now archived) on Slim Virgin's version of the David Icke wikipedia entry about the usefulness of unarchived threads and that there is no value in blanking the talk page every 10 days. I too can't see the sense in this. Who does this serve? It destroys any chance of evolution of a Wikipedia page being conducted by the wider Wikipedia editorial community. I believe it is a deliberate tactic more in keeping with the corporate method of befuddle and dishearten the client and in consequence demotivate continuing with the engagement in the exchange. Most contributors will drop out of the editorial process as any point or discussion has to be start again and then again the same tiresome circle of exchange such that the page gets stuck in the autocratic fantasy and proprietal editor. There is no progress.

I believe this is against the spirit of the consensual evolution of the Wikipedia project. Davdevalle (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture edit
OK, I'm sorry, made a mistake with the edit. Will do a rewrite of parts of the lede later. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Coffee
You removed this as "...Ad-heavy trivia/dictionary site...", but I don't see a lot of ads, and it seems like visitors to coffee would find it useful. Although I could be wrong. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Googling the definitions it uses, it seems to be a pre-existing (and possibly public domain) list of coffee terminology which the site owner has arranged in such a way to have a separate page and a large Google ad for each definition. It's subjective, but I'd say that this met the "objectionable amounts of advertising" of ELNO. I'll see if I can find the original document somewhere. --McGeddon (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When I go to the site, I get no ads, except a tiny little bar the same colour as the whole page, and with a smaller font. But, yes, it smelled like it was lifted from somewhere. I actually searched a string from it at wikipedia to see. :) I trust your judgement. Leaving it out is fine with me. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Travelwatch entry
I got a comment on my talk page that the work I had done on the TravelWatch entry was likely to be deleted as it had been cut and pasted from a website.

It was not. I based the work on some non copyright material about the history of TravelWatch which I have in hard copy. In order to do the entry I paraphrased this material not because of Wikipedia guidelines really but more because I am a two fingered typist and did not want to just transcribe a complete text -I summarised. Also since I made my main entry there have been several other edits by other users which have improved it further, and it would be a real pity to loose their work as well.

I repeat, I did not cut and paste; I dont know of a website with this info on it. I was using as my source hard copy, which I paraphrased. Daithidebarra (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Groundwater Treatment
Hi McGeddon, It was nice to get your feedback. But I wanted to point out that the work added in the "outside link" section is actually a review work done from 360 research papers. The document is published after thorough review process of 4 expert reviewers in the field of soil & groundwater treatment. This paper neither upholds any agenda of mine, nor I am going to benefit personally from it. But from my experience, I have observed that these review papers actually exposes the user to the latest technologies & research carried out in that specific field of study --Soumyadeep2208 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

London Travelwatch
-- Alarics (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

F This quote
Hi! About the "F this" quote - there was a morsel of info that was useful too.

He didn't just aim a cookbook at young men just out of college, but he also believed that doing the task would be "fun" and "challenging" - I think those details need to be kept too

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Corruption revert
Thanks - I meant to remove it all but missed one there. Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

SODIS important information
Hi, I am an Italian boy and in this period I am reading many informations about water purification systems that could be useful for many people who haven't got drinking water. I added the new section "warning" in the voice "SODIS", but you deleted it because there is the "cautions" section. But you didn't write it in the other place, you simply deleted it, so I writed it again to see what would be happened and LeadSongDog deleted it again, without writing it in another part. Why? Is it a "false" information? Isn't it an important information? I'd like to know what will happen now. I wrote it again in the section "cautions". Have I got to look the page every day to see what happens? This is what I wrote: "It is important to check the material of the bottle, because some plastic materials, if exposed to the sun, release chemical substances in the water that could be dangerous for humans' health or even carcinogenic. A solution could be to use a container that has the upper half in plastic, so that the light can pass, and the lower half in another material that isn't dangerous." I'd like to know if you think that it isn't true. If you think it is true, you will understand that it is VERY important, so I'd like to know what will happen now, if I have to check every day that it isn't deleted and to write to all the people of Wikipedia to convince them that it is important of if someone will check if it is true and then will check that it will not be deleted. Thank you! --93.151.154.142 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm sorry, I didn't noticed that the information was already discussed! I wrote that because I read about generic substances that could be released in the water, I found in particular "Bisphenol A": maybe it is not the case of the PET bottles, but this could be useful for people that doesn't know about "Bisphenol A", and it could be useful to let the people know that there could be risks also for other substances. I am looking for many informations on water purification systems for volunteering pojects, I am not an expert, so I read about UV lamps to have drinking water, I thought it could be better than SODIS, but now I am realizing that SODIS could be more important: both of them could be very useful, UV lamps are more rapid, but SODIS could be useful where there isn't an UV lamp. I "attacked" strongly the SODIS method becouse I read about toxic subtances and I thought it could be dangerous. Now I realized that it was already discussed, so it is all right. I'd like to know if you all could be interested in discuss about this outside Wikipedia, an exchange of informations about water purification systems. I am interested in this, I read on WHO's website that UV lamps could get drinking water with a cost of 2 dollar cents for 1,000 liters of water. OK, maybe I am doing something "illegal", but I am looking for people interested in sharing informations about drinking water, for example, it is very encouraging the fact that with an UV lamp and, for example, a sand filter you could get drinking water very easily. I don't know if I could ask you to discuss about this outside Wikipedia, but I am happy for now that you can see that I writed that information because it is VERY important.
 * I wrote this to you 3 that I met in this discussion.
 * If it is not possible to discuss about these systems outside Wikipedia, than I hope that I will write something else that could be useful to get drinking water, and so we could meet again and collaborate for drinking water. --93.150.52.156 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Igomaa
Hi, just to let you know that I have removed the AIV listing. There's good contributions from that account, despite his latest edit (and the ANI thread seems OK). Perhaps you should talk to him? -- Luk  talk 09:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Removed external link on "Turkish coffee"
Hello McGeddon, You recently removed an external link that I had added to the Turkish coffee page over a year ago-- www.turkishcoffeeworld.org. Your reason was as follows: "amateur/aggregator blog"

The website is an educational resource for information about Turkish coffee, and I believe that it qualifies as an external link for this article. While some of the content is aggregated (and properly sourced, in the manner than a blog would generally repost content) it also contains original material. Furthermore, I cannot find a portion of the external links guidelines that disqualifies a source due to the inclusion of aggregated material (beside that of an actual search aggregation, of course).

Although the website functions primarily as a blog, it is controlled and published by a recognized authority in the Turkish coffee industry. The owner has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Here are a few of these sources: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/18/business/fi-coffee18 (news article about subject in Los Angeles Times) http://www.turkishcoffeeworld.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/press/beanscene/beanscene.html (article in Beanscene Magazine, the largest coffee magazine in Australia with global circulation). http://w10.gazetevatan.com/pazarvatan/haberdetay.asp?hkat=1&hid=12872&yaz=G%FCncel (Turkish newspaper article about subject, article in Turkish)

In addition, it functions as a non-profit entity, void of evasive commercial advertising (there is only a text link to the owner's commercial website). I would like for you to please revert your decision. If you still believe that the link is not suitable for an external link in the article, I would appreciate it if you could clarify you reasoning behind the decision (and what changes the site owner can make if he would like his site to be included in the article as an external link).

Thank you for your cooperation. I appreciate your concern for the legitimacy of this article, and I look forward to working with you in order to solve this issue. Kadikoy91 (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"About Testament Of Sherlock Holmes
Hiya there, just asking you to help me make a page about Testament of Sherlock Holmes game. This game is one of the most anticipated game based on many reviews in XBOX magazine. I made many pages about it but this creep just keeps on deleting it for many random reasons. I've made a lot of research about it and I know my pages were relevant and not supposed to be deleted.

You've gotta make this page, and i can be of assistance, a lot of gamers are pissed seeing that Wikipedia is late in making game pages. Testament of Sherlock Holmes is a great upcoming game and many wants it on Wikipedia, like Batman Arkham City

Godzilladude123 (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

THANKS man, i'll try my best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzilladude123 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Starchild skull

 * Im new to editing in Wikipedia, and I'm learning the protocol as I go along. As I mentioned in the revision history, the odd nature of the skull requires definitive proof before we can say things such as "established as human". Human DNA recovery is the only conclusive find in both DNA tests mentioned. The second test was indeed unable to recover nuclear DNA, which makes it impossible to conclude human-only origin. This is despite the second test being conducted by a professional ancient DNA lab using improved equipment and methods. The first test was conducted by a forensics lab designed to deal with much younger DNA samples. It would be incorrect to say that DNA test established it as human (assuming this means human-only origin), when one of the tests mentioned in the article wasn't even able to recover nuclear DNA. It would be more correct to simply state human DNA was recovered from the skull, since this is indeed what occurred in both DNA tests mentioned in the article. TongueD (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

About Price.jpg=
Hey man, how can i change the name of the image you want me to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzilladude123 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Third-Party
Thanks man, and hey, i need some time to get a third-arty needed for the article. So don't delete the article yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzilladude123 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Quentin Letts rfc
The user, McGeddon who reported me has edited out my contribution consistently now for over a year. The user McGeddon raised an RFC which received no real response and then choose to raise it again. The discussion we have had I believe has been conducted fairly and without any rancour. He deemed it an edit war after his most recent removal where he made a comment in reponse to one other user's cursory comment, he simply removed it. I responded to these comments and then undid his removal. He undid this action of mine WITHOUT A COMMENT. Surely the point of an RFC is to gain more opinion and not simply remove it after a cursory comment agreeing with one side of the discussion?

I admit I am new to editing Wikipedia and have few contributions. I apologise but I did not intend to do activate the WP:3RR. I believe I was following good practice in good faith for making an interesting contribution to this article. I think the matter important but of course if the contribution is to be deleted then I want to hear specifically why concerning this case and not simply editorial tactics that apply generally to most cases. To delete in the light of the actual topic being about digital deleting warrants interest of itself but becomes more narcisstic than what I am being accused of by user McGeddon, ie it is simply about someone 'mentioning' their wikipedia page. It is not that at all. The topic which Letts has an opinion about occurs here because Digital preservation and Aritificial Forgetting are relatively new phenomena and a dynamic encyclopedia is obviously one place where matters arising are going to be played out. It was not my intention to end up here in such a dispute and discussion! The suggestion that I start an entry on artificial forgetting so the Letts page can stay 'clean' and delete the archives of his opinions is odd. I find the encouragement of 'vigilence' misrepresentative of the actual exchange.. I see though I am barred from doing any editing as it will be WP:AN3. I am not sure if it is solely a content dispute, it is a matter at the heart of what is an archive and the function of encyclopedia due to the tactics being employed. Whoever has an opinion about artificial forgetting is interesting here. The support I offer for Letts opinion on AF is one of causitry, without precedent, and not merely theoretically or general. Because Wikipedia can source audio archive and direct sources then the function of secondary sources for veracity is not as important as it was. The use of secondary courses as POV for interest in the controversiality of Letts opinion is not what is being said. I have reported from a NPOV. Arguments involving secondary sources in that use are not on the mark.

I welcome and indeed encourage debate and discussion about the contribution but I have not heard a good argument I agree with against including the content and the value of Lett's opinion on artificial forgetting. The user McGeddon has made some good points, which I believe I rationally countered, the consequence being an improvement of the initial entry. However the use of bureaucratic editorialisation and wikipedia rules without meeting my arguments rationally implicitly supports an authoritarian approach. This, as an editing principle is a tactic to be carefully examined. I do not think McGeddon is intending such nor do I accuse him of it. I have learnt a lot about using Wikipedia about the whole matter from his 'vigilence' and care. But I do think although there is an argument about 'content' I do not think it simply a dispute. Davdevalle (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiohead
Also, if you're so intent about removing a source that's considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, then you at least need to put up a cited source from the past decade that refers to this band as alternative rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.194.254 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to undo the following revisions to the College Hunks Hauling Junk wikipedia page
Hi McGeddon,

You made several edits to the College Hunks Hauling Junk page following my updates yesterday. Some of these edits were definitely in error and do not reflect true and accurate information regarding the company. I am going to undo the following revisions you made to the page and I would greatly appreciate it if you would reach out to me for more information if you need further clarification than is provided here.

Also, one other thing you may be able to assist me with. Our CEO Omar Soliman, is NOT the former president of Egypt, and yet I can't find a way to make it so that his link does not connect to the wrong persons wikipedia page. I would like to make it red until the time that someone is able to create a page for Omar Soliman the entrepreneur, CEO and Co-Founder of College Hunks to reflect correctly who is at the helm of the organization.

removed Category:Moving companies of Canada using HotCat - College Hunks is legally allowed to sell moving franchises in Canada and is in the process of preparing to open several of them.

removed Category:Moving companies of the United States using HotCat - College Hunks offers moving services across the United States, and is certified as a ProMover by the American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA)

company's official website does not appear to use the "and Moving" suffix - ''Again, College Hunks offers moving services across the United States, and is certified as a ProMover by the American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA). The commonly used and correct way to represent the College Hunks brand as a whole is to refer to it as College Hunks Hauling Junk and Moving. There is no reason that a companies correct name must be reflected directly in the home page URL of it's website''

moved College Hunks Hauling Junk and Moving to College Hunks Hauling Junk over redirect: Moving it back; official website is still calling itself "College Hunks Hauling Junk" - Same as above ChrisTheHunk (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Parsons
I couldnt give you any proof of the Nicholas Parsons auction simply because it had all gone, but have since found a ref to it here http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article6289093.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaplain (talk • contribs) 10:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Why are you erasing my editting, it came from a reliable source, if you said that Michael's people confirmed that he wasn't a Muslim, give me a link to prove it. Also isn't his brother Jermaine Jackson who confirmed that he already converted to Islam, he is among "Michael's people" right? It's not a rumour until there's a news telling about it was a rumour! Give me a link to prove it! --Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Two of your link are broken and unreliable. The nydailynews.com may be true but is it even reliable compared to two other major news report from telegraph.co.uk and dailymail.co.uk. Come on!! --Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry on
Hi there

Not sure why you have deleted my comment regarding trade mark.

I would also like to add the link to the e petition

http://keepcalmcampaign.co.uk/index.php

Many thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet me 2007 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well
Re. your message. Pragmatically speaking, the edits where still removed. Beyond that, do I click the vandalism warning button? Do I take the time to post a detailed analysis on the noise input- ie will the benefit of doing so benefit the project more than getting on with the next vandalism check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 August 2011

About Swat
From the Paramilitary article linked:

"A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military, but which is not considered part of a state's formal armed forces."

"Depending on context, paramilitaries can include:
 * Police forces"

And from the no-knock-warrent article:

"The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky [1]. Raids that lead to deaths of innocent people are increasingly common; since the early 1980s, 40 bystanders have been killed, according to the Cato Institute in Washington, DC."

Swat teams are paramilitary by definition, nature, and action, as readily verifiable through other canonical articles and general common sense, Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.205.76 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 September 2011‎

Brazil (film)
As you were the first to revert the anonymous editor, can you please weigh in on the talk page as to whether this is a fantasy film, please? Thanks! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pontardawe
Apologies for inadvertently restoring the list of Pubs. My intention had simply been to remove the night-clubs - an edit conflict I suspect. I have restored back to your last good (no pub list) version. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 10:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Tamara Toumanova
Hi, the user 88.211.44.71 and his puppet Biographyspot were blocked previously for the editwarring. After he was unblocked he again deletes sourced information and pushes criticized POV. 85.141.14.195 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

consciousness
Hi -- I have no problem with removing the Turing picture, which has licensing issues anyway, but the dog picture was carefully chosen and was there for a very specific reason. Dogs are virtually the only animals that will make eye contact with a human (as the picture shows), and it is nearly impossible for a human to interact with a dog without having a sense of interacting with a conscious being. The caption was perhaps overly cute, but I would like to have that picture there in some way, if at all possible. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2011 (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, 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) 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you for your contributions to The Age of Stupid. (",)  See WP:Tea.  99.109.126.95 (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No-Shave November
Hi there,

I see you just cut a bunch of jokey bits out of No-Shave November. Just thought I would let you know that I nominated it for deletion. I was undecided whether to go the route I did or cut it down, and thought it was better to let folks more accustomed to those kinds of decisions think it through. Didn't want to step on your toes in the meantime. --some jerk on the Internet   (talk)  16:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tammet sources
Can contrary evidence from Wayback Machine (which archives site content) be used as a verifiable source for inclusion in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.144.125 (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding reliable source. The "creator of the work" is Tammet. The work itself is a website - his old website. Wayback Machine evidences content on his site, in 2001. The contents confirm Tammet studied and used mnemonic techniques. Can I mention this in the Tammet article under Foer's speculation, and cite the verifiable source. 188.29.181.135 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For helping a fellow out with Pillow Pets!

Bulldog73 talk da contribs  go rando 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 

Political Bias on Wikipedia
You should be aware of impending consequences as a result of deleting/hiding my comments on the Discussion Page of the Wikipedia entry on Evan Davis, and then blocking me from further edits. I am currently writing a piece for a national paper (to be published shortly) on the politics of Wikipedia editing, and how in particular certain political biases now operate. Although compiling instances of this in terms of anecdotal (indirect) evidence has not been difficult, obtaining primary examples (directly affecting me) has proved rather more elusive. Until now, that is, since you have inadvertently provided me with just the kind of illustration hitherto lacking of political bias on Wikipedia. It is my intention not just to name you and others in the forthcoming article, but also to detail the bias evident in the very language used to dismiss someone holding a different political viewpoint, then to delete/hide the latter, and finally to block its expression. Such bias is clear from the way deleting/blocking a different political viewpoint is dismissed as – among other things – “a rant”, “off-topic”, “stop playing silly games” and “delete rubbish”. This despite the fact that the case for the inclusion of a political context to Evan Davis’s career in the media, made by me and another contributor to the Discussion Page, went unanswered by you, notwithstanding its obvious relevance to an understanding of his current media prominence. By contrast, deliberations about Evan Davis’s sexuality (intrinsically more offensive to the subject of the Wikipedia article), an aspect which as I pointed out concerned no one but him, were left intact on the same Discussion Page. In short, a laissez faire approach which underlines the point I’m making: that your objections were to comment about Evan Davis’s politics, not his sexuality. I had intended to complain about your role in all this to Wikipedia, but this won’t now be necessary. When my article appears, I am confident that you will be called upon by the most senior people in the Wikipedia hierarchy to account for your actions in this episode. 14 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.226.2 (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Babe, the November profile purging was a wholly significant and important event in faceparty and, in particular, for Gossip. It is a fact that it is. Are you a paid up member of this site?

Mamoths (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 

A stiff drink

 * Cheers! --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Newcastle United
Thanks for the note, but please look a bit more deeply into things before templating the regulars. The changes being made by the IPs are effectively vandalism (I did protext the article last week to prevent it and was about to do it again if the IP reverted again). Cheers, Number   5  7  12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did leave the IP a message with an explanation of the edits (i.e. long standing consensus that sponsored names are not used), but they removed it, tried to make a contrary argument and reverted again. However, I have asked for someone else to revert them and semi-protect the article. Unfortunately this often happens when clubs get new sponsors for their stadiums... Number   5  7  13:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla
Your defense of DIREKTOR is unwarranted. Under similar circumstances, I have had my posts deleted by other editors and I know that can be done on Wikipedia. Why do you defend the actions of this troublemaking editor? Read the posts and see the context before you raise your mighty hand. DIREKTOR is well known for starting fights and then threatening to report people. He himself has been reprimanded for doing this. Do some research. Djathink imacowboy  19:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * McGeddon, I appreciate your views and they are correct. Please do not feel that any anger is directed toward you in this. You have explained yourself well, and I know you are right. The exchange will be kept on my talk page to remind me. I can be a grizzly bear at times. Accept my apologies for the gruff tone of the posts. Djathink  imacowboy  20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * McGeddon, I appreciate your views and they are correct. Please do not feel that any anger is directed toward you in this. You have explained yourself well, and I know you are right. The exchange will be kept on my talk page to remind me. I can be a grizzly bear at times. Accept my apologies for the gruff tone of the posts. Djathink  imacowboy  20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

image syntax
it is valid! Abc123456person (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC) ok. Abc123456person (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

BOGEYMAN
Look this is a crap article on an old fashioned term and I added something of interest. You are an arrogant bunch and this is the death of Wikipedia. I gave several times significant financial contributions but I am wholly cured of my enthusiasm and hope that my kids also stop wasting their time on it.

Threatening with the Bogeyman is an old fashioned educational concept, folklore, that is now often used in a symbolical way. The surprising thing to normal, not nerdy people is that it still has this acute meaning in the anglosaxon culture, broad, from India to the US. Of course NO ONE, except ASOK, will confuse golf jargon with this archaic concept. Anyway, I have other things to do than trying to stop others from contributing with phoney arguments, I do not need to try make myself sound important.

you just go on and kill wikipedia, like that bearded self important 'founder' that still thinks he has to impose his petty ideas on the community, thus stifling it. It is a pity, it was a great idea, but now the nerds have taken over. Shame on you. Go and do something useful with your life, instead of breaking other kids toys and feel smug about it. Or you could try and train your eyes and develop a sense of humor. Never mind, hopeless case.

If you were serious and constructive, you could have created a separate paragraph, recent uses of the term, or Bogeyman in art and literature. No, you are just destructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.103.123 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely spot on, 87.64.103.123 (talk). As other comments on this page confirm, this particular user is intervening in areas he knows nothing about. Whereas most ordinary persons would regard the criticisms on this page as a badge of shame, he probably thinks of them as a badge of honor. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands, enabling him to act in this way, which suggests that he may indeed be what we think he is: a lonely thirty-something who, not having anything to say, prevents others from doing this. A sad person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.217.191 (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave the poor guy alone and go be pathetic wasters somewhere else. GDallimore (Talk) 22:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Risinghill School
What is the problem with you people blocking my edition of Risinghill? It is not an ESSAY -just TRUE facts about Risinghill school. I should know, I went there with my older sister and brother. Wikipedia is a free site and if you people cannot maintain this without begging - then clear off. 195.191.66.226 (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

REF: User:DIREKTOR

 * Must be confusing, dealing with an idiot like me. In case you haven't already noticed, I accidentally deleted all the posts from User:DIREKTOR. In any event, aside from extending some help to another editor in trouble thanks to DIREKTOR, I'm not paying this any attention anyway. Sorry I messed it up - but then, you never replied either way. Djathink  imacowboy  09:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I clicked the talkback link when you posted it, but didn't see anything to reply to at the time. Let me know if you need any help with clearing up your talk pages, or anything else. --McGeddon (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
How is this vandalism? Unless there is something I'm missing the user removed one word, and didn't break any links, and conserved meaning (unless you honestly think that 'collectible' is going to make a difference understanding the article). Please review WP:Vandalism ( and WP:BITE. Of course if I'm  missing the obvious just WP:Trout me... Cheers!  Crazynast 11:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect warning
This edit for which you left this warning was incorrect. This was clearly not vandalism. You should undo your warning and let the user know for the user's sake, and should review the relevant policies on using rollback and template usage. Cheers. Thorncrag 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This man
This man has vandalized my edits on the sockpuppet page. Halp! Kfcdesuland (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Apology
I am sorry for incorrectly mentioning the legendary BBC commentator David Coleman as being 'late' on the Colemanballs page. Quizman1967 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The late Christopher Hitchens
I restored the page to the way I left it and started a discussion on the talk page. You’re welcome to join the discussion as a consistent policy is needed. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR on Earthenware
User:109.70.140.167 has reverted on the article Earthenware for the 4th time in 24 hours without any discussion on the talk page where consensus is that all the terms are in common use and should be included.Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

wat
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Edward George Honey, you may be blocked from editing. McGeddon (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) wat wat wat wat Kfcdesuland (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

book burning
There are several grammar mistakes on that page, maybe you could show fairness by fixing them up too? 8digits (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Pirates of Penzance
Thanks for your edits! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate links
Hi

I appreciate your guidance on the type of external link present in this article.

I saw http://www.flexitimeplanner.com/Flexi-time-policy.aspx in the same category and assumed that this type of commercial link was deemed appropriate in an article so strongly associated with business practice. The link I inserted is to a free web resource that allows users to experiment with the concept of flexitime use and calculation.

As I say, thanks for your guidance. I'd be interested to know why the www.flexitimeplanner.com/Flexi-time-policy.aspx is considered appropriate. I have mended some of the other dead links on the article.

best regards Archer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer767 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

3D Secure
Fair enough, I realise that my addition to that article counts as original research in some ways, but I saw it more as straight deductive reasoning. If someone requires that a password has certain types of characters, it means they are able to see what characters those are in order to check they conform with those conditions, which means they are necessarily being sent in the clear at some point. Good password handling uses hashing, which means that only the originator of the password can ever know what it is, the client will only ever see a hashed value. It just follows inevitably that any service stipulating types or lengths of passwords are not as secure as a hashed system. However, it could be a localised requirement, so I'll let it drop. It is an awful system though, which is, ironically, less secure than nothing at all. Cheers. Crgn (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for welcoming me. I am yet learning the basics of editing. If you have an e mail address I plan to contribute a couple of articles from a book I have written that is yet unpublished. I want to give you a read only link to "The Seventh Trumpet" which is all about the vision of the prophets Daniel and John from their books (Daniel and Revelation). I am planning to expand the wikpedia article on "The Beast (Revelation) or create a new one. Basically, "The Seventh    Trumpet" details all of the meanings of the visions of the prophet Daniel with cross references on all of the visions of John concerning the beasts they saw in their vision.  I am excited, but am also wary of a possible backlash as the article that I am thinking of identifies the beast as the Roman empire resurrected in the Holy Roman empire and the European Union.  It is critical also of the Roman Catholic church.  Your advise on this matter will be highly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

sis_norman my e mail address: bro.norman@gmail.com

Sis norman (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 

INDIGO IS NOT A COLOR!!!
It's just a dark blue!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.97.12 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Adman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adman 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/Adman 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

reverting Pinterest page edit
I believe the two links I added to the Pinterest page for Juxtapost and Gentlemint were very relevant, seeing as these are the main direct competitors of the Pinterest service whose page I edited. Wikipedia's guidelines for links say, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article." Without those external links, the Pinterest page reads more like an advertisement and is less informative for consumers. I am not in any way affiliated with any of these companies. I am a longtime user of Wikipedia and I have been making minor edits for 4 or 5 years. Thanks for your reconsideration. User:Sisyphustkd (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

questions
thanks for your prompt response on the armadillo article...i still have some concerns about the article though, can i address those with you orrrrrrr...what???? some of the information contained therein doesn't seem right...and yes i can probably come up with RS to refute info...thank you..oh i am assuming good faith and all, honestly...im just new and enthusiastic...thanks again!Ruraltexas (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Musée du Vin
Hi McGeddon! While cleaning up the translation you flagged on Musée du Vin, i noticed that the article (same goes for the french wiki) repeats itself a lot and in some ways is like an advertisement ("most prestigious wines", "many prestigious events", etc.). Just my opinion — benzband  ( talk ) 14:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Always read before writing.
When an article clearly says what sources were used, and what source citation supports what part of the article, you don't take those statements off and in the very same breath replace them with a notice that says that it's unclear what sources support what. That's just plain silly. It's not article improvement. It's the direct reverse, in fact. Also remember that citation links are not footnotes, especially in an article that has actual footnotes. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of commercial references
Where is the policy on this? It seems really trivial to remove a reference about a commercial product because it's on a commercial website. Attys (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Larkin_(writer)
Att: Ms or Mr McGeddon In forwarding a link to my Wiki page to a prospective associate I was shocked to find that it had been badly hacked on 13th February. In delving further it would appear that you are the vigilante responsible. Your recent edits are misleading and turn a fact-based page into nonsense. The original page was created a few years ago by Pamela Gardiner. The original article was well-researched over several weeks and I had to supply confirmation of interviews and articles to Ms Gardiner, in addition to her asking me if the facts were correct. She was most courteous and helpful and has kept the article up to date.

I have never met Ms Gardiner; I am not related to her in any way. I have communicated to her by email or post. All I know is that she is an academic, a school teacher and a freelance Editor.

Not only have you succeeded in destroying her meticulously researched article, but also your irresponsible and hasty hacking has introduced factual errors that are not only wrong, they are ridiculous, inaccurate and potentially damaging.

I have written to Ms Gardiner expressing my amazement at how you can be allowed to trash what has been a stable and painfully accurate article for several years. I am awaiting her reply as I do not know if she is aware of this travesty.

I cannot think of any reason to destroy a stable and established article unless this is a personal issue.

I sincerely hope this is not the case because I have never met you, and have only your name as the culprit. I also hope there is not a personal issue between you and Ms Gardiner. If there is then you should not be allowed to continue to have freedom of editing, as you are clearly acting in a malicious and unprofessional way.

Given that your hatchet job took approx 3 minutes (between 11.08 and 11.11 on 13th February, and given that I am an experienced Editor, I know that no responsible Editor could do such a task in such a short time. It is insulting that in three minutes you have removed work that took Ms Gardiner many hours over 4 years.

Whilst I find it hard to contain my anger, this is not about self-promotion. You simply should not be allowed to delete facts that are all substantiated and taken from either published interviews, reviews or radio broadcasts and not words from a random publicity company. Your deletions have stopped any chronological continuity and in doing so have created a mess. In my letter I have asked Ms Gardiner to look into this and to reinstate everything you have chopped.

If you disagree I am prepared to speak with you by telephone or email, and in turn I will seek an explanation and an apology for your behaviour. My email is listed on my website, I anticipate a quick response please. 81.149.153.166 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw this comment and looked at the article. The edits look good to me, were the result of perhaps an hour's work (not the 3 minutes you ascribe it), and I think an excellent job of tidying the article has been made.
 * McG removed unreferenced excessive praise and cut back on purple prose ("the twilight world of the travelling fair", LOL!). I am not sure how you could suggest that factual errors have been introduced since I was not able to identify any new material in my review of the edits.
 * Since you clearly have a conflict of interest, and I feel you are unlikely to agree with my support for McG's edits, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography for a third opinion from an uninvolved editor experienced in biographical articles. Perhaps you would be willing to accept their view on the matter.
 * Then, perhaps, you will be the one to offer an apology for your unfounded and diatribic attack on McG's rewrite of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 18:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, given your accusations of malicious behaviour, I have taken this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography myself. I am also copying this to the talk page of the article in question (Talk:Colin Larkin (writer)) and suggest further comments be made there in order to secure them in one place. GDallimore (Talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Babbacombe Theatre History
Hi McGeddon,

The General Manager at the Babbacombe Theatre, who also provides the website copy, at my request for the history sent me the text I submitted. How can I pass to you confirmation of this? will you need an email from her? Her name is Sharon Waring. If you need the Managing Director's (Mr Colin Matthews) permission I can get that too. If you're still unhappy with this I'll ask her to change it, but it's hard to rewrite history!

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theatrefan2011 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your response and all your help, I'm still new to editing so it's very helpful to get all your feedback. I think it would be easier if I had a go at editing the text, I don't think the theatre would be too happy for their information to be used by anyone! Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theatrefan2011 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Colin Larkin and Btoe.com
Many thanks for reverting most if not all the factual inaccuracies you introduced to this article. My only comment would be to indicate that re- point 4, I did not assume a date that Mr Larkin began working on his latest venture because when he first responded to my email almost 4yrs ago, he stated that he had spent 'many years' working on something called 'Best Things On Earth' and had consulted experts from many fields including film, games, apps and books. This as far as I am aware, had nothing to do with the date he ceased his involvement with Muze, which was why I did not jump to the conclusion that it had anything to do with that date.

Re-4b I have no idea why Btoe.com is now listed on the Spam blacklist and since I have not been operating 'several other accounts'. An accusation I find quite frankly insulting. All of my edits that concerned Btoe have been entirely open and in many cases I have sought clarification on discussion pages as to when it is appropriate to add the information about an artist's 'Btoe rating' to other articles. As other rating sites are used in articles (Metacritic and GameRanking sites are often included) I assumed that since Btoe was founded by the person who first came up with the idea of ranking albums by the popular vote and who had a well established reputation as an expert in the field, its ratings could also be included when relevant. Several editors advised me that Larkin's website was not 'as well established' as these other sites, a point I agreed with at the time. For that reason when the number of views on the Best All-Time Album reached 30,000 I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the ranking of albums and artists had now become better established. Am I correct in assuming that you know something about how this reputable website ended up on the 'spam blacklist'? If so, in good faith, perhaps you can explain it to me and advise me as to on what grounds it can be removed from this list? I think you have assumed many things about me that are simply not true (chiefly because of some kind of problem you had with someone called Arthur) but I am more than happy to forget that and I am hoping that now it is clear to you that I am not affiliated with Mr Larkin or his interests and that I have not been operating several accounts we can start afresh :>). Pamela Gardiner (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. As I have stated, the users logged as Melanie and George are adults in this household, I have never heard of any of the Arthurs the sockpuppet accusation linked me with and I have no idea why I should have been linked other than through my interest in Btoe which I came across because I have worked on Colin Larkin's wiki page and researched his biography. But would reiterate here that I can't see the difference between Best Things On Earth user rankings and any of these for instance:

GameRankings Metacritic Edge Eurogamer Famitsu Game Informer GamePro GameSpot GameSpy GamesRadar Perhaps you can explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela Gardiner (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 March 2012‎

Need help with dispute on Houdini page
Hi McGeddon. You have been helpful to me in the past with the Houdini page. I wonder if you can click on over to the Talk page and help out in a dispute re some recent revisions to the Aviation section. I think it's pretty clear the user making these revisions is throwing the whole section off topic and out of balance. I've tried to rewrite it, but he just reverts it back, and no one with authority or Wiki expertise is stepping forward in this. Here's the link to the disscussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Houdini#Aviation_section_should_be_reverted Thank you. --Zencato (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Merges, proposed by User :Rich Farmbrough, Internet Addiction Disorder
Possible merges, proposed by User: Rich Farmbrough Balypu (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of games with concealed rules for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of games with concealed rules 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/List of games with concealed rules 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombie articles
Hi - You recently participated in a move proposal discussion regarding articles about zombies and zombie pop culture archived at Talk:Zombie. That proposal was not approved, and a new discussion is taking place at Talk:Zombie (fictional) that is narrower in scope, and concerns only whether the older Voodoo and newer Romero zombie pop culture should be included in the same article or whether it should be separated. These are articles that receive a lot of hits, and should probably get more input than just the two editors having the current discussion. I'm flagging all old move discussion participants regarding the new discussion, and your input would be appreciated. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The PMOG, the thenethernet down for good this time?
I am coming from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Nethernet I believe the innovative search-better-with-fun service is gone for good, about in October 2010. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.333823703303829.84766.100000286053944&type=3&l=e61b3f7099 (Some screenshots and links.) Justin's video performance tho is charismatic. It may eventually be replaced by Nova_Initia irc://irc.nova-initia.com/nova-initia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.54.98 (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Keep Calm and Carry On.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Keep Calm and Carry On.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about Contributing
Thanks for being my mentor in this. Don't know if I'll actually become a truly helpful contributor, but I would like to.

I have some thoughts on a couple of articles in Computer Security. Small additions, perhaps. My first idea was that since editing is freely available, one might just dive in and add some comments in a way one thinks improves the article. But now I realize I'm just being verbose. There are any number of places one might put the additional thought, so lots of consideration for organization appears to go into an encyclopedia in the end. Otherwise, I suppose good articles would tend to grow and bloat with more and more side issues that someone thought should be mentioned, until they become unwieldy and actually less useful due to their weight.

Now, I think that groups have grown up that manage topics and sets of articles as a group. Groups that hopefully contain enthusiastic experts. So, I'm trying to figure out how to properly ask the group what they think of a paragrpah, then it can either go away or get edited and included under the watchful eye of someone and in that way be more likely to actually improve Wikipedia. Is there a good way to figure out who to talk to about computer security with ideas? I see the group WikiProject Computer Security and just posted a "peer review" page. Don't know if that is a way to get started or not. Thanks. MarkGoldfain (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you've shown some interest in the reductio ad Hitlerum in the past
You may want to comment here: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard so that your point of view may be heard as well. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ...
... for this. I hope it sticks: I've been reverted on similarly sensible edits of mythology articles, but I'm hoping people are now realizing the pointless accretions these pages suffer. davidiad.: 12:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

ice cream
Actually, in the commentary of the DVDs' (HF, SotD) the flavours are cited as references of the genres. But, for the third flavour, we just have the "second-guess". (Cause of my Engrish, I would not change the phrases, if you can do, it's probably better)--Louisbeta (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You Very Much!
Thank you so much for the Friendly Welcoming. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome
That was very kind of you. No good for no one now (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Spinning pinwheel
Hi. I've dropped a note at Talk:Spinning pinwheel which explains things. Hope that's OK. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Jason Isaacs
Yes, hello to Jason Isaacs. :-) 72.244.200.185 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * and hello to David Morrisey...Hiding T 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lermode
Hi, McGeddon. I appreciate your comments, I honestly do, and I can see that you and I today have been collaborating fruitfully. I did gloss over where the IP stated he only listens to Kermode's radio show, and so have struck it out from my talk-page comments. That said &mdash; and this is something I've seen at sites for people's favorites bands or favorite movie stars &mdash; it is extremely easy for pages such as these to become fansites unless objective, non-fan editors are vigilant. I get the feeling from your comments that you, admirably, share this concern. And, certainly, the tone that you and my old colleague Hiding take is collegial and constructive, as opposed to the defensive, antagonistic tone of the anon IP. I thank you and Hiding for being so very good at keeping things civil. With genuine regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Honesty, I thought I was being conciliatory and collegial, and I did strike out my comment after you rightfully pointed out I had glossed over something, so I'm not sure calling me a mastodon is the most constructive tack at this point. But it's OK: I understand that on the article's talk page with, I'm discussing things with editors who, quite forthrightly, identify themselves as fans. I hope and trust you can imagine how difficult my position must be, when, as an objective, disinterested, neutral editor, I'm seeing content that reads like dust-jacket blurbs, and fans, good-faith though you are, genuinely can't see how this material must read to non-fans.


 * I appreciate your polite approach, and that you, Hiding and I have collaborated well on some of the concrete biographical stuff like birth date, etc. I have to admit, though, I'm just about ready to cut my time-and-effort losses, throw up my hands and say, "Well, OK, this article is protected by fans and that's just the way it is." I have no hard feelings &mdash; I know, with absolute certainly, what good and conscientious editors you and Hiding are in general, and what high standards and knowledge you (and I hope I!) always try to bring.


 * I'm going to go make one last point at the talk page. Please believe me when I say that overall it has been very good to work with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And the latest discussion at Talk:Mark Kermode make me feel like a terrible cynic. I appreciate (though am embarrassed by) the fact that after seven years, I'm still learning. With thanks and respect, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Starchild Skull
you need to do better reading and obviously better listening within your research. most of your information on Starchild Skull is not accurate, therefore you should check their website again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.197.121 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "their" website would be, but I reverted you editing the article to say that the skull was a product of an "extraterrestrial-human fart", so I think I'm probably okay. --McGeddon (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Jaffa Cakes
As per your latest edit to the article, it is factually correct to state that Jaffa is in Israel relating to Jaffa Cakes as a current product. To remove mention of Israel is just to ignore the elephant in the room. Deckchair (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

FROG (fragmented hidden objects puzzles)
I've seen this item on some Hidden Object game websites and was wondering if you could do an article (or an addendum) on it, I didn't see this subject on Wiki, so I'm assuming this is a new description going around.

Here's where I've seen it in the comments section: http://www.bigfishgames.com/download-games/19265/dark-parables-the-red-riding-hood-sisters-ce/index.html

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azztec21 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Afraid I have no real idea what you're talking about here, or why you chose my talk page to say it. You probably want Requested articles. --McGeddon (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Social Media Link
Hello, I added my site as a resource for social media tools. Was not meant to spam but I keep this list updated weekly with many new categories as social media continues to changes Gamification, social curation etc which your wiki page does not include. I do not know of another page covering all the categories I've listed and have had quite a few folks ask for me to post on other sites. This was not meant as a spam but a resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imz3r0c00l (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 October 2012‎

thanks
Thanks for the fix on Brian Blessed's page. It is so weird that I didn't get an edit conflict message because when I checked the edit on my watchlist it definitely showed the edit that put in American. I think it was nine months or so ago that I started noticing that edits could cross without the conflict message but I had only experienced it on talk pages and message boards like ANI until now. Oh well just one more thing to keep an eye on when I edit. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

World UFO day
Hello McGeddon, I see you've altered the World UFO Day story, as you can see I am collecting sources from the internet, though I wasn't finished yet, these sources suggest that the original and latest date of World UFO Day is July 2nd. The sources include the original

July 2nd by WUFODO now: http://www.life123.com/holidays/more-holidays/july-holidays/look-up-in-the-sky-its-world-ufo-day.shtml http://www.delconewsnetwork.com/articles/2012/07/02/entertainment/doc4ff2041057bf2399847960.txt http://mufonoc.org/index3.htm (MUFON is the biggest international UFO society)

Original date and first World UFO Day: http://www.internetarchaeology.org/saufor/worldufoday.html

Can we change this information?

Draek 12:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Bazalgette
Your work on the Peter Bazalgette article was good, I'd intended to do much the same, but the Evening Standard reference hadn't been written at the time and so I headed off at a tangent trying to get a specific Money Week article whitelisted. The second reference probably didn't add anything, except to show that the joke wasn't new. Which brings me to a discussion point - if Money Week was the original source of a joke that has since been repeated, shouldn't it be the reference? The answer is academic, as I don't know who first conceived the quip, but I'd like to know your thoughts. Wikiwayman (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Nphar
I left this over at ANI, thought you might have something to say. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thermography EL
To you..., to me no.... is more, i think is a reference page, but as you want... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.110.95 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your page was a list of products with little "€4995!" stars on them. WP:LINKSTOAVOID discourages linking to "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". --McGeddon (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the welcome and links, McGeddon! Double the thanks regarding the Dolly article - very good eye and impressive display of patience. Lesson learned on my end. Wieldthespade (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hive Game - Your removal of the championship references
The annual Hive tournament, sponsored by BoardSpace.net is recognized by Gen42 games, the publisher, and John Yianni, the designer. A reference can be found at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2655/hive. Why did you remove it?Rmingersoll (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:HashashinvsKnight.jpg
To quote WP:F7, the first of the two reasons for immediate deletion is "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a Non-free logo tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately." The thing with the logo tag is that virtually all images to which it applies are good examples of fair use (logos need to be used to identify their owners), while "promotional" like this one can encompass virtually everything. As such, it doesn't really apply in this case; the best way to go about it (as in almost any other situation) is to use the replaceable-image tag. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for cleaning up my references. This browser has an outdated version of java or something and the citation buttons not working so I have just been adding the basic link. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Nerf article update
Let me start off by saying that there is some information that is inaccurate, primarily the acronym for NERF, which currently "non-expanding recreational foam". for further details regarding this change, please read over the talk page. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerfmaster8 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nerf article correction
First of all, i would like to thank you for correcting information in the article by removing an inaccurate statement. Since encyclopedic content must be verified and the statement removed was not confirmed, it should be noted in the trivia or some where in the article that the acronym was false rather than simply removing it. Nerfmaster8 (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! Sorry if getting involved wasn't your intention but I feel like you were somewhat involved in the discussion. I made mention to you in the dispute, regarding how you removed some of the remaining bias language in that section while you copyedited the article. Feel free to disregard if you do wish to be a part of the dispute anymore. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Nerf acronym
Do you know if the "non-expanding recreational foam" has actually been explicitly debunked anywhere?

I base my answer to your question on the inventor's website. He makes no mention that the previous acronym was correct, but listed a different reason for what Nerf was named for. Since the statement was proved wrong but still a lot of the Nerf community still wrongly believes the acronym, it would be in the best interest to note the misconception in the article. The source would be the inventor's website. Nerfmaster8 (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me
If you are threaten me with block for adding links, please remove the whole wikia concept template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikia and bann all these users who has done similar actions please, and don't attack me. FPSFAN321 (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What about this for instance, this is of course allowed... but when i try add links they get removed within minutes Amazing!. FPSFAN321 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok i understand your point of view. FPSFAN321 (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Eagle Eye (disambiguation) - captialization question
should the disambig page be Eagle eye or Eagle Eye? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion on iPhone 5
I'm trying to get consensus on proper summary words and whether or not to allow inclusion of author's own opinion outside his field of expertise. Can you chime in? Thank you.

Here

-Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please
The things i put on websites are true & please stop taking stuff off every thing i have been putting on Wikipedia so far are always getting deleted stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.143.70 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)  (edited by Marcus Ollivier)

white elephant gift exchange wiki page
You asked me to provide sources, and yes a blog isnt the best source, but you didnt post a source originally at all. Whos to say that your article is correct. The original instructions you provided create an infinite loop, so I attempted to fix it. Dont remove my contribution just because it challenges something you think is true but which many other "blogs" dont agree with. I would leave your instructions if they didnt create an infinite loop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyn414 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies
Reverted the edit without properly reading what it says *rolls eyes* --BurritoBazooka (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Much Obliged
Thanks for the clean-up over on the short story page. It reads a lot better now. Could you tell I spent all last night reading Faulkner? EarlWestheimer (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Gabbroc (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the your advise to visit welcome page
Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits. If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page. Changes to controversial topics and Wikipedia's main pages should usually be discussed first.

Remember – you can't break Wikipedia; all edits can be reversed, fixed or improved later. Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!

Donate – Wikipedia is free to use, but relies on donations and grants to do so. Please consider donating using the Donate to Wikipedia link on the left to help with the project's running costs and expansion.

I already visited that page before your advise, for your kind information I have no intention to use Wikipedia as an advertising source or "soapbox", I added it for the reason as YOU failed to notice it. Thanks for being SO KIND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert212 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit
If you could copy-edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Koas, I would very much appreciate it, and I could then use it as a guideline for further articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tallest Tower (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sitcom edit
I simply added other genres to the "See also" section. A "talk show" is a television genre in and of itself. Either way, isn't labeling it as "unconstructive" a bit strong.173.0.254.226 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. No biggie. More than anything, I was just a little taken aback by "nonconstructive editing." 173.0.254.226 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the confusion. Actually didn't realize you were one of those users who habitually cleans up after bad faith or trolling edits, making sure things here at Wiki are tidy. Your hard work is appreciated. :) 173.0.254.226 (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)