User talk:McGeddon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

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)

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)


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)
HI McGeddon, sorry just saw your message to me yesterday...I am a bit delayed in real life at the moment. Thanks for trying to get some sort of consensus though. It all works better if the rules are being followed. Will look closely when I have a chance. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
HI McGeddon. I can't agree with you continuing to act without consensus. I assumed you put the tags because you finally got some favourable response to the COIN....but actually, there was no change and you just stuck the tags back in because you felt like. It seems out of character for an editor of your calibre to behave in this way. However I agree the best way forward is to get an independent opinion as we must respect we have different views on this. I messaged an admin who has seen a bit of the history on this page. Hopefully they will have time to look into this. Regards Danh108 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just reflecting McGeddon....I wonder if you had considered, if the person you are seeking support from on the page for your COI theory....I wonder if they made full and frank admissions about their real life connection to the subject matter, their past years of editing Wikipedia and the various things they've done....I wonder if you be troubling the person who is being quite reasonable and upfront with you, and backing the fellow who has now reinserted for about the 8th time his bulk deletion of RS content so that he can change a birth year....anyway, no hard feelings. Take care and enjoy the rest of your weekend. Regards Danh108 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks McGeddon. I don't think I need consensus to exist. You need consensus because you are putting forward a proposition re the COI. For me, I don't agree, so it's 'business as usual'. Wikipedia doesn't require me to get consensus for/prove my innocence. So I am not acting without consensus. But apart from reverting under WP:BANREVERT I'm not doing much as I can see you've fixed your position and don't see any benefit irritating you. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 08:43, 15 September 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)

Ok fair enough, I suppose it was my 'personal interpretation'. I just thought it was ridiculous someone would cite an article which also casually discusses details of a homicide. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

problem user? (re Aliens)[edit]

Hi, I've seen you've left comments on's talk page about making unconstructive edits on the "Aliens" article . I noticed as I was reading it and saw what was to me weird usage of male pronouns to describe what was a Queen alien, ubiquitously considered female by most people. I believe if we consider gendering the Alien as incorrect, we should be using "it" before using male pronouns (it just comes of as strange when reading the article)

looking at the history sees do many other such edits. Changing "young" into "baby" etc. I am just a barebones wiki-gnome but maybe some sort of intervention? I don't know how these things work (a so many strikes and you get a ban for so and such time etc.) but it seems to me looking at this history page and the user's history that when it comes to the Alien page, isn't going to back down --CatCat (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for looking into this. yea the baby thing was just an assumption of mine based on the this person also changing pronouns oddly. as for level 3 I think there is a fundamental communication problem with, only the day after your revert, there were new edits (you might have noticed) thank you looking into this matter :) I'll continue my gnoming :) --CatCat (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing infobox with some companies of the article[edit]

Hello sir. There is a missing infobox something got attention of Gaijin Entertainment company. So add this infobox for complete information and expand it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryancyriel (talkcontribs) 08:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Landmark Worldwide[edit]

I have posted a Request for Comment at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F You may be interested since you have discussed this subject in the past. DaveApter DaveApter (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your advice. Adamreinman (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

actor brian murphy/zippy from rainbow[edit]

Sadly you removed my entry from both wiki entries. Just how do you citate something that was common knowledge at the time (1970s/80s)? There was nothing libelous in what I said, it was just an interesting tit-bit of info which linked the two entries. I am 43 and actually met the great man myself a good 20 years or so ago at the BBC. He just laughed when I said Zippy was based on him.

If people are going to police wikipedia and remove such tit-bits of information that liven it up and make it stand out from the norm from a typical Encyclopedia then it will be all the poorer for it.

I stand by my update and would like it to be reinstated, but if I run into this much bother then I don't think I will bother to contribute to wiki anymore.


Ooey, A 43 yr old londoner who has knowledge of both Rainbow/Zippy/the Actor Brian Murphy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC) 

ok - read your reply. Will find something to validate it when I get back from holiday in a few weeks. But, seriously, If you are a UK resident and are of my age you surely must know what I am talking about. Perhaps you wern't an avid TV watcher, I don't know. All I know is that I have spent about ten times longer to try to justify my entry than actually make it. This is a sorry state of affairs. I could understand if Brian himself thought it slanderous and asked for it to be removed, but he hasn't. I would probably think he'd be quite pleased to know that one of the most popular/cult TV characters was based on him. I sure would be. (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous header and ref strip[edit]

I reverted your edit, because it stripped some important recent sources, like IGN and the main features that define the game in the header. If you give me some time I will strip the ref in the headers, except the strongest in the coming day. HyperspaceCloud (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Geopolitical Information Service[edit]

The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result.. See also User_talk:Ronhjones#Request_for_undeletion_for_editing Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm So Sorry[edit]

I'm So Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry that I didn't write the reliable source in the 2048 (video game). I was fixed it and you can check it again if you want. Thank you. September 19, 2014

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Hi. As for your revert, the sources are not only offline but removed from the whole Internet and from the websites that hosted them. There seems to be absolutely not a single chance to see them again. Psychiatrick (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am lucky to find this TV show. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No true scotsman[edit]

I note that you are an enthusiastic reverter of the "No true Scotsman" page. (I am sure that this is a job that is needed). You reverted my change. I think this is an excellent example and should stay staying. What would have to happen for that particular example to stay in as a good example. Be quoted in a newspaper? Be quoted in a Philosophy Magazine? Be quoted in a philosophy book? Mike Young (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)