User talk:McGeddon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:McGeddon)
Jump to: navigation, search


Fazlur Khan obsession[edit]

(@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 180.149.31.166 and 180.149.7.242 also seem pretty strange. Graham87 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You might also want to take a look at edits by 180.149.8.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 180.149.8.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) where they edited the Skyscraper article a few days ago... another Aalaan block evasion? (Should I have added this to the SP investigation even though it is archived?) Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Not really worth it, it's already been noted in a past SPI that Aalaan is using IPs in that range, among others, to evade his block instead of simply requesting an unblock. There's no point in blocking them as they're shared IPs that he's only ever using once; it's just a matter of watching the articles that he's evading his block to edit, and reverting those edits. (In this case it was just a failed attempt to make a new version of the Fazlur Khan article at "Fazlur Rahman Khan" the way he wanted it, but thanks for cleaning up the now-unnecessary redirect.) --McGeddon (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender stuff[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, McGeddon. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kerplunk[edit]

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)

Re Brahma Kumaris article[edit]

Hi McGeddon, I can help but think your old friend Marriage of convenience has re-incarnated here, only now they are trying to carry out their same agenda one piece at a time rather than all in one edit - the lede drawn from leading encyclopaedia's mainly got removed because it was "written by a follower"[1][2]. I guess that's an improvement on their earlier edits. While these are their first edits, they are using tags and Wiki language like someone with experience. Makes me wonder why they are not using their previous account. Any advice/suggestions? Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi McGeddon, thank you for your post. I will read the policy again - it's partly because of that that I put this message up when I started editing on Wikipedia. I could have easily concealed this information if I wanted, and am certainly aware after a year and a half of editing the 'real life experience' is totally irrelevant to writing a good article. But the edits I reverted were ones deleting RS content. If you see me editing in a problematic way or not using RS, I am really happy to get your feedback/cautioning. BTW, should I be writing here or back on my talk page to reply to you (or it doesn't matter)? Danh108 (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi McGeddon, not that it relates to your conduct/editing- no complaints there, just an unrelated disagreement :-). I have posted on ANI here and thought it good to inform you. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Color[edit]

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

User:NerfersUnited[edit]

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

Help Appreciated[edit]

Trophy.png Help Appreciated
Hi

Got all your deletes on the updates I tried to make to some Wiki pages yesterday. This is (was) my first time on here so figuring things out I guess. (I can't even figure out how to send you a message other than this way??).

You said to "say it in your own words" which I'm happy to do, it just seemed to me that almost every other sentence in a Wiki article had a link or reference or Wiki is asking for more citation--I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems quite difficult to add original content as someone is always asking for proof.

I have added my own words on the "Dangers to the environment" on the Plastic Bags page. Hopefully this is acceptable? (And who gets to decide? Do you work for Wiki? Confused...)

I would like to make additions/edits to those other pages I did yesterday (and more) that you deleted. What do I need to do to add a quote by a famous person to another person's Wiki page? I can't say that in my own words. If I add the date someone or some organization did something, did I have to cite a reference or is this my own words? I would like to make more page edits basically so I can get to 10 and be able to post an article. TDickinson (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for any Inconvenience[edit]

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

-NerfersUnited

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

Quick question[edit]

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

Fan-based gameplay videos in articles[edit]

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

Re article tags[edit]

Hi McGeddon, Given you never got consensus on your COI story, it would be appreciated if you could remove both tags you have put on - as you know, like most people, I don't appreciate being wrongly accused or the way you sought to take advantage of the old statements on my user page. I was also interested in your view about me changing my user page - I left my old entry there for the sake of open ness. You have taught me that it will be misconstrued - far better to do something like you have with your user page, and keep everything concealed, but not it's probably too late for that. If it helps you understand, I would estimate I knew less than 2% about the Brahma Kumaris when I wrote the entry that has you concerned, the remaining things I have learnt have been from reading a wide range of RS as part of the editing process.... Anyways, if I change my user page I don't want you to then suggest I am trying to hide the COI. thank you for your guidance Danh108 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

IPs and bots[edit]

IPs are never bots. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What if the bots edit while logged out, like a few of them did sometime ago? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I'm probably wrong then. You could ask at the technical help desk or Wikipedia talk:Bots. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, should have done this earlier, apologies. Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#IP doing what looks like bot edits. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No problem Doug. Thank you for finding the thread. It is similar to incidents which had happened some time ago. Similar threads had also appeared at AN at various times, such as this for example. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Where the IP was softblocked with a notice to login to use the bot. They can still edit from their account, just not logged out. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess to prevent socking by the bots. A sign of artificial intelligence perhaps. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

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

see below:

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


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

Re alleged COI[edit]

Hi McGeddon, always good to get your feedback. As we discussed earlier, a COI arises if the personal connections (which we all have to various things) interferes with our primary duty, which is being a Wikipedian.

  • If an editor does a 'blanket deletion' of content that is RS based, surely the appropriate remedy is a 'blanket' re-instatement of the RS content. The only concern they raised on the talk required 2 digits to be be changed in 2 places in the article, not the deletion of 4,000+ words. I actually support them in this, but I know I will get reverted if I change it - the other editor is right that the RS (that I have) doesn't support it. Admin User:JohnCarter provided me with lots of RS when I started trying to edit and that has formed the basis of my education about this group, and a lot of the article. He didn't treat me in the way you are. Nor did the other admins who have helped when the 'advocacy group' (or however you want to describe these editors - please forgive me if I have used the wrong wording) got banned from editing.
  • I do apologise if I have done something to offend you. It was not my intention. Have a good day Danh108 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership and advocacy[edit]

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

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

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

Also I'd be interested in your take on whether the NPOV tag which has been put on the article is justified, and if so what changes should be made to restore neutrality? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my userpage - I've already asked them to name usernames, and to be specific about improvements they'd like to see to the article, but no constructive answer in either case. DaveApter (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Trail blazing/Way marking merge[edit]

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

Conflict of interest?[edit]

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

My Bunraku edit[edit]

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

The Onion[edit]

Hi, you've just reverted a change I made on The Onion page. Can you explain how it was "original research or novel syntheses of published material"? I only attempted to describe what one source had done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicydumpling (talkcontribs) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)