|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved.|
- 1 Change to Baby boomers article
- 2 Change to Tourism Article
- 3 Kennesaw State University Links
- 4 Nigel Lindsay Birthdate
- 5 Kevin Warwick
- 6 FYI
- 7 Multi sensory cooking
- 8 E-Learning - Section "Further Reading"
- 9 Is "Internet Maturity" all about "Digital Literacy"
- 10 Harassment
- 11 ANI-notice
- 12 Hello
- 13 you are brainless
- 14 Burj Khalifa
- 15 barrel roll
- 16 Elite: Dangerous Premium Beta is actually Alpha 4
- 17 Flying Saucers in the Moon
- 18 Flappy Bird source
- 19 blackmouth cur
- 20 Ramil Garifullin
- 21 Recent Link Removals.
- 22 Ramil Garifullin
- 23 Fazlur Khan obsession
- 24 Image of trollface on Troll (Internet)
- 25 HTMLGIANT and Crowley article
- 26 Gender stuff
- 27 Regarding that IP at Number of the beast
- 28 Talkback
- 29 Kerplunk
Change to Baby boomers article
Hi McGeddon, I've received your email
Hello, I'm McGeddon. Your recent edit to the page Baby boomers appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
When reading the Baby boom article I found the text
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of "baby boomer" is from 1970 in an article in The Washington Post.[dead link]
As I am a happy user of the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 220.127.116.11) I try to verify the info and find (baby n. Compounds 2.) two uses of the term baby boom, one in 1941 and other in 1967 before the original 1971 appearance
As I should not cite this paragraph textually for copyright reasons, I must use the same way the first writer used
"According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of "baby boomer" is from ... in an article in ...[link]
substituting the old items with the new ones. The first writer used an internal academic link www.oed.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu probably not being aware that the general public has no access to it.
Moreover, I find in Google Books the proper link, from 1941, so I am able to substitute the original dead link from the 1970 with a new working link from 1941.
So, returning to your email, you say "Your recent edit to the page Baby boomers appears to have added incorrect information". On what grounds do you say it is incorrect? I give a link to a number of Life Magazine you are able to read in Google Books. The term "Baby boom" was effectively used in a 1941 article you can read in the given link. We are in the baby boom article and it is a link to an appearance of the term previous to the one cited. So the information is good. The only possibly incorrect information is the attribution to the OED of the finding. "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of "baby boomer" is...". But for copyright reasons, I cannot go further. The only thing one can do is go to the OED and verify it. I have done that. Have you done so? What edition have you used? On what grounds do you feel enabled to revert to a previous text which disregards a -probably new finding- of a previous use? I suppose the first writer (who, by the way, did all the hard work) used a previous ed. of the OED than I did.
I try to be extraordinarily respectful with Wikipedia, and I felt confident enough to make this little correction. Nevertheless. you have felt confident enough to say this info is incorrect without citing a reliable source. You ask me to cite a reliable source. I did. This link (1st paragraph, 4th line and again at the end of page 73) is, I think, a reliable source. And yours? Where are your sources? Where do you find my information is incorrect? If you believe your information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page.
I could omit the attribution to the OED, which is of secondary importance in this article, but the merit is theirs, not mine.
As I wilfully defer to the preeminence you attribute to yourself, you can correct the Baby boomer article as you like. You can even say the first use of the term is from last month. But, poor Wikipedia! Are you really an admin?
Change to Tourism Article
Hello - This was my first edit to Wiki and I see my change to the toursim page was reverted. Could you help in understanding what the issue was so that it will help me to keep this in mind for future edits.
Kennesaw State University Links
The link that I included was supporting evidence of the candidacy of a politician. The trend toward removing external links limits the credibility of any encyclopedia. References outside of itself build the credibility and legitimacy of any source of information.
Nigel Lindsay Birthdate
Hi McGeddon! You took down my edit of Nigel Lindsay's birthday (1962) because you note that is it is unsupported. True.
But it is also true that the current birth date information (1969) is unsupported also.
In fact in the edited contributions Nigel Lindsay himself has posted at one point to say "I am Nigel Lindsay. I was not born in 1969"
I know he was born in 1962 because I know people who were in the same class at school with him - and they were all born in 1962.
However as neither this nor the incorrect 1969 date can be verified - maybe it would be best if all birthdate information was taken from Nigel Lindsay's page to prevent misleading and unverified claims being made?
ps IMDB also gives an unverified birthdate as 1969 - but this is undoubtedly following wiki's incorrect information.
Thanks for your pointer. I have mainly been trying to repair some of the references as there was criticism of the accuracy of some data, which was due to links being down. Any suggestions as to how to do this otherwise would be very useful. KWcyborg (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
After your suspicion... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Foodyfanatic 10:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Multi sensory cooking
I looks like it is really an active school: Ultraviolet (Restaurant). Even with sources to confirm it. 10:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
E-Learning - Section "Further Reading"
To: User:McGeddon The external link (shown below) that you have removed, links to a book which teaches critical skills for online self-learning to students. I think thats relevant for the section "Further reading".
- Become an iMature Student, Raghu Pandey, 2013, ISBN 978-1-4921-5697-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithewanderer (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
McGeddon commented "Linking to an Amazon sales page for a book goes against WP:ELNO."
Point taken. Please advise how to link to books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithewanderer (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Is "Internet Maturity" all about "Digital Literacy"
To: User:McGeddon Dear McGeddon, I strongly yet humbly advise you to consider the following points in my defence of creating a separate article for Internet maturity:
- "Internet maturity" is applied to both - individuals and organizations. Whereas "Digital literacy" can only be applied to individuals.
- All the sources provided under "References" section are reliable ones talking about the points discussed in the article.
- It is justified if you remove the external links in the article, but instead of redirecting right-away, you should let other readers decide after reading whether it should be merged with digital literacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithewanderer (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
McGeddon wrote - "Can you point to any sources that discuss the concept of "Internet maturity" specifically by that name?" Reply: Sure. In addition to the references i shared in my article, following are some more links which talk about Internet maturity of organizations and Internet maturity of individuals:
Internet maturity of organizations
Internet maturity of individuals
I now hope you would now agree that scope of "Internet maturity" is much larger than Digital literacy. It deserves to be a separate article.. or at least readers should decide after reading that article whether it should be merged with digital literacy or not.--Ithewanderer (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Issue of reliable secondary sources outside Raghu pandey's book
Hi McGeddon. I will have to rest my case because that's the max i can do to convince you on the following point:
- Let readers decide whether this article should be merged with digital literacy or not.
Without being sarcastic, i admire your adherence and sincerity. But the baby just got thrown out with the bathwater :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithewanderer (talk • contribs) 05:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I was just trying to help wikipedia but i don't know how to do, because previous references are with numbers and when i put reference than it shows without Number. can you please tell me how can i give reference with number ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad Seeker (talk • contribs) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
you are brainless
how do you spend sooo much time in wikipedia? dont u have to go to work and do things to earn money and spend time with ur family?? how can spend sooo much time in wikipedia are u middle school guy??? how old r u??? --Thandi moyo2 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I watchlist the Burj Khalifa article and have a couple questions.
Is there something amiss with the claim itself? In addition to it being inline sourced,  for example, the claim is also stated in other related articles where no one contests it. (at the Fazlur Khan article itself and at Tube (structure))
Or, are you simply reverting because of the block evasion and because that's standard procedure in dealing with block evading sock puppets? That's fine though I do not see any mention in an spi for 18.104.22.168 (talk · contribs), so there is no obvious evidence other then the edits themselves.
2pacshakurr (talk · contribs) on the other hand, is listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan as I am sure you know. Which brings me to the other reason I dropped by. Currently his latest edit is standing at Burf Khalifa and is hidden from watchlists by an administrative action, FYI.
hi. thanks for thanking me. but by now i am unsure again if i understood what a barrel roll is. i am thinking about removing the diagram again.... does it correctly depict a barrel roll? or is this rather another roll???. cheers. --Lommes (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Elite: Dangerous Premium Beta is actually Alpha 4
Keep in mind that Premium beta is a misnomer, it is actually between alpha/beta more closer to alpha as it's feature-wise the same as alpha 4, with bug fixes and an extra ship and station, but far from feature complete. The real Beta 1 is going to be released July 29, so to avoid confusion I changed it to pre-beta, but you might have a better solution. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Flying Saucers in the Moon
Flappy Bird source
My source was just as reliable as the other references on the Flappy Bird article. Two references on that page are tweets by Dong Nguyen, and four citations link to one referenced article, a Rolling Stone interview of Nguyen by David Kushner. The source I provided was a tweet from Kushner's Twitter that was retweeted by Nguyen on May 16 (the same day Kushner tweeted it) which you can see is the second-to-last tweet on Nguyen's Twitter page. Unless you can prove that this is not a reliable source, I will be adding the information and source back to the page tomorrow.
I realized after posting the social media sites they were disqualified, but could you clarify why the three webpages http://www.blackmouthcur.com/ladner's_bmcs.htm, http://www.curtladnerblackmouthcurs.com, and http://lhladnerblackmouthcurs.com could not be referenced? I can duplicate the information from the websites, but that would create problems I believe with other breeders who may feel the Ladner's are monopolizing the Wiki page. If it would be easier I can create a historical person page for LH Ladner. He contributions to the canine world and to the general breeding of dogs is well respected by many through out the South and among many across the United States. Sorrycur (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)sorrycur
I noticed that the tag of bad translation appeared immediately after adding my unsuccessful transfers (a few sentences), and before that in a few weeks this was not a problem. Overall, the article is translated by a professional translator--Irek Minnullin (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Recent Link Removals.
Hello McGeddon, Thank you for leaving a message regarding some links I inserted. I am new to Wikipedia, and the changes that I had made to the "security seal" page were made to support the fact that most of the content on this page is in fact out of date. The new ISO standard 17712:2013 that I made a reference to was published on 14th May 2014 which requires all High Security Bolt Seals and Cable Seals, Container Seals to be certified to that new standard in order to be compliant with other regulations such as C-TPAT guidelines.
The external links I provided to Mega Fortris Group supports the new standards as they are a global security seal manufacturer who have tested all of their high security seals to the new standards.
To conclude my updates to the content and the external link references were to give viewers the most up to date information. If I have made a mistake please advise on how to do this in the correct manner.
Hi McGeddon! Today were biography added some proposals that fail translation and you immediately put the tag on the translation? If I remove these additions, the tag removed?--Irek Minnullin (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am very grateful for your attention to the article. Perform all tags : posted subst:Duflu | pg = Ramil Garifullin | Language = English | Comments = . Translation is corrected, but are waiting for assistance. Hope for help. Beforehand grateful.--Irek Minnullin (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Fazlur Khan obsession
(@Sawol: may also care to note.) Do you think that Zorozro (talk · contribs) and Qesadila (talk · contribs) may be more socks of Aalaan (talk · contribs)? Note both doing pointless edits on July 25 - presumably to make themselves auto-confirmed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, edits by 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 also seem pretty strange. Graham87 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Image of trollface on Troll (Internet)
HTMLGIANT and Crowley article
Look at the large number of Wikipedia articles that cite HTMLGIANT. How is it not notable?
Regarding that IP at Number of the beast
Hi. I see you recently undid my edit. However, some of the sticks in Kerplunk are blue. Google it if you don't believe me. Thisismyusername V (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Shall I revert your edits then? Thisismyusername V (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)