User talk:McGeddon

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


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)

Hi McGeddon, I was interested in your view about the repeated accusations of Tagteam etc. I have been ignoring because the previous account did the same thing. However the other 2 editors have answered - is there some etiquette I should follow in this regard? Answer on ANI or just ignore? Cheers Danh108 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi McGeddon, I was just thinking about messaging you to see if an IP address check could be done against User:Marriage of Convenience but it looks like that might not be necessary. I will probably put another proposal to ANI soon. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
btw, if you think there are other areas on Wikipedia I would be useful, you are welcome to suggest - I was thinking Wikipedia is just about digging through RS material and adding content, but I see there is a whole lot more that can be done (and that work is slow going and really limits the range of areas I can contribute). So suggestions welcome. Thank youDanh108 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

BKWSU[edit]

The edits I did, or rather the problems I addressed, are so obvious that it is difficult not to admit they are fair. For example, the paragraph of links to their retreat centres and a blogs, numerous self-published references, unreferenced stuff, outdated citation requests, fluffy language etc etc.

I think I asked you if the BKs discussed all the stuff the added first. I did not get an answer to that question. Really it is for them to justify how they can re-add it.

But let's also be honest. They are working as a team and are being coordinated off Wikipedia what and how to do so. Where should I report that? Again, I am not getting an answer to those questions.

What should I do? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Firstly, acting as a team. Secondly, being coordinated from off the Wikipedia by other members of the religion.
I have asked the question several times now and they refuse to answer. I'll wait and see what they say on the Admin page.
I have no problem with reasonable, impartial improves but not working from the BKs' version. It's a mess. There are too many problems with it. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Then you are seriously misinterpreting what I am doing, and negatively so. As far as I can I, I have discussed my changes and they are according to the rules and yet the BKs have not. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep the chat on the talk page as it is only relevant to that topic and not personal. I disagree with you, I'm trying to rescue the page from all the undiscussed and often unreferenced development, and merging all neutral or genuine developments in.
When I see one of the BKs revert all the new work and re-introduce factual errors or advertising, and then another one of the BKs put in a complaint, I think they are just working as a team together. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please do not make dishonest statements in your summaries. Please note, I have actually noted the changes I made, they are clearly grounded in the rules of the Wikipedia and there is are no factual errors in them, unlike the version the BK adherents keep reverting to.
It's strikes me that it should really be them you are are reporting for reverting and that you are not justifying why you are erasing all changes and reverting back to a version with clear factual errors.
Thank you. --13:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth is the only religion (talkcontribs)
Thank you McGeddon for keeping an eye on this article. Long term solution to fixing this article lies in contribution from experienced editors like you. I have no doubt that TITOR will return as another sock sometime soon given the history of this article and best solution lies in getting this article to shape by likes of you and other experienced editors Changeisconstant (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Chat Hour[edit]

Hi McGeddon, It looks like you proposed the deletion of this article with the reason of no secondary sources but the article has references from the wayback machine (archive.org) and also Alexa. Why don't you consider these websites secondary sources? According to wikipedia, the use of wayback machine is encouraged. I believe the wayback machine is a more reliable source than many web articles. Also, Wikipedia needs an article on Chat Hour and this should be a start page for more articles to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackiwick (talkcontribs) 10:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The written article was mostly about the history of the website. So, I believe the Wayback Machine page is a better source than any articles since you can just take at a look what really happened. Isn't that more evident than what other articles might tell you? Regarding WP:WEBCRIT, Accorrding to Alexa, Chat Hour is ranked #91,626 in the world and #670 in Albania. Shouldn't that be enough for a website to be well-known? I've seen articles about websites with lower Alexa ranks on wikipedia. So, it seems very subjective which site is more well-known than others. Shouldn't more people decide if Chat Hour is worth being mentioned? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackiwick (talkcontribs) 10:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of link to pokies reference[edit]

Hi McGeddon. Just received you message that you removed my reference link because you didn't think it was appropriate? I was actually searching around for pokies vs slot machine terms use after I read that blog post on a actual casino site. It seems like the Australian use of the term pokies gets misconstrued quite a bit, and thus I thought that the blog post from a casino site clarifies nicely the difference between the two most common uses of the word pokies. Thus I thought it would work well to help further explain that slot machines are refered to as pokies by Australians and New Zealanders. I honestly don't understand why it is inappropriate because I havefound no other sources online that explain this difference.

Anyway, thank you for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokkies (talkcontribs) 09:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for the time you have put into editing this article and policing the chronic long term stalker. Danh108 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Deja vu BKWSU[edit]

Hi McGeddon, While it's probably too much to expect you to follow the talk page, it would be really appreciated if you could scrutinise edits to the article over the next couple of weeks. It's really a shame there isn't a 'proper BK editor' so that it would become clear edits are a very middle road position. Hopefully you will eventually feel it's good enough to remove the tag. But still, Lucy/Januarythe18th/Truth does generate an atmosphere of suspicion with his conspiracy theories and that influences people - even JBW's comments I find remarkable as they so influenced by an editor who worked solely on combat, allegation and hot air....so it is definitely a potent strategy, but not very ethical. All I can do to protect against this is keep inviting extra independent eyes on the article, exactly as I did last time[1] he was blocked. Hopefully misguided sympathies won't allow his next incarnation/s to start editing again Cheers Danh108 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Post-it note update corrected with additional published citing DRAFT[edit]

Hi McGeddon, thank you for correcting my edit. Before I repost it, can you please let me know if this satisfies your deletion of it? Best, LeannJordan

In 1973 Alan Amron had invented the first ever Press on [1] repositioning, reusable sticky memo note pads, see the original artwork [2] and the original mailings sent [3] to 3M in 1974, and 3M executives were given several samples by hand that same year. Litigation was quickly settled [4] when Amron received a check from 3M just weeks after his filing the attached infringement action and complaint in New York Federal Court. [5] As per the attached Court Dockets. [6] Press-on Memos was what Amron called his invention in 1973 – 3M called it Post-it Notes in late 1974. [7]

References
  1. ^ "Alan Amron invented Press-on Memo Records". Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 2011-2-23.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ "AMRON vs. 3M Litigation US Federal Court Records". US Federal Court. Retrieved 1997-12-10. 
  3. ^ "AMRON vs. 3M Litigation US Federal Court Records". US Federal Court. Retrieved 1997-12-10. 
  4. ^ "3M Settlement Letter Records". 3M. Retrieved 1998-2-3.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ "AMRON vs. 3M Litigation US Federal Court Records". US Federal Court. Retrieved 1997-12-10. 
  6. ^ "AMRON vs. 3M Litigation US Federal Court Records". US Federal Court Case Docket. Retrieved 1997-12-10. 
  7. ^ "US Patent and Trademarks Office Records". USPTO. Retrieved 1982-6-22.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Additional citing of blogs and Reuters news stories on Amron Press On / Post it notes published — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeanJordan (talkcontribs) 14:49, 4 October 2014

Amron invention claims

Thanks for asking the question, but it looks like you went ahead and posted the content anyway. I've cut it and explained why at Talk:Alan Amron. I notice every edit you've made to Wikipedia since 2012 has been related to Amron - if you have any personal or business relationship with him, I'd recommend reading WP:COI before making any further edits to these articles. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Amron invention published and important publicly known facts cited

Thank you McGeddon,

Yes, I did repost it back up only after I received other Wikipedia editors in sandbox, who suggested how best I should post it.

Yes, because I only comment in Wikipedia on what I fell I have knowledge of. I am an aspiring inventor myself.

I noticed that you have over the years a special interest in editing 3M Post-it notes Wikipedia page posts. Can you please disclose here how and if you are in any personal and or business contact or relationship with 3M, Post-it notes or any one affiliated with or for them?

I didn't know of and or about Amron before 2011 when I read of Amron inventions in published reliable reports, and so I reached out to connect with Amron on LinkedIn.

I read in 2012, when I first cited on Wikipedia about Amron inventions, the questions and discussions that the Wikipedia community had on Amron and the Post-it note "claims". Now in 2014, 2 years later, I found these new published facts on Amron Post-it notes claims, so I cited them. Certainly I waited long enough to cite these additional published important facts to Wikipedia.

I feel as an aspiring inventor myself, after reading about Amron the inventor and all his accomplishments, and then reading the outrageous claims of how 3M invented the Post-it notes, it was something that the additional publicly known and published facts be noted (cited) about.

There is no denying that Amron had a factual published and known public records roll in the Post-it notes history, and as Wikipedia is a source for that important encyclopedia published known public facts and information, what better place for it to be documented.

I would appreciate it if you would correctly edit my Amron Post-it notes simple paragraph, that you have so quickly each time deleted without corrections (with all the research effort that I put into it) back up on the Amron Wikipedia page ASAP.

Thank you,

LeannJordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeannJordan (talkcontribs) 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


There's no way for me to "correctly edit" your paragraph because Wikipedia require reliable sources for all content, and your suggested content has none - as explained (to you?) two years ago at Talk:Post-it_note#Amron, court documents and press releases are not reliable sources.
I'm happy to reassure you that I have absolutely no personal or professional connection to the 3M corporation or to Post-It Notes as a product. --McGeddon (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


McGeddon thank you for that, but your Not entirely correct, they are not all from the a MarketWire press release, (see the updated citing post below) and most press publications and news organizations use only creditable press releases and gathered information, and companies such as Yahoo Finance and Reuters News Wire publish only those that they believe to be reliable sources. See other NOT FROM A PRESS RELEASE more recent 2013 and 2014 blog and publications that I listed that talk about Amron inventions and include discussions on the his Post-it note. I would appreciate either you correct what I posted, or post it as I wrote it in the same speed in which you so quickly deleted it each time. Amron has in fact invented the Press-On Memo pads and the facts and public information on it is readily available on line. ----

References
  1. ^ "Alan Amron invented Press-on Memo Records". "Yahoo Finance". Retrieved 2011-2-23.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ "Post-it Notes Inventor Alan Amron Pens the Truth in New Tell-All Memoir". "Reuters News Wire". Retrieved 2011-2-23.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ "Who really invented Post-it Notes". "ESB Journal". Retrieved 2011-2-14.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ "Even god needs sticky notes". "Inside Nancy's Noodle". Retrieved 2012-2-27.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ Sports Blog "Amron embraces new concept for the NFL". "Z Smart's Blog". Retrieved 2013-9-27.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. ^ "First Down Laser Line Needed in football yesterday". "Sports Techie". Retrieved 2014-6-6.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. ^ "3M Post-it notes Press on inventor pens the truth". "Brides Best Blog". Retrieved 2011-7-6.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  8. ^ "Alan Amron inventor of Post-it Notes". "Technology Meet Ups". Retrieved 2013-10-28. 
  9. ^ Notes Inventor Alan Amron Pens the Truth in New Tell-All Memoir "Post-it notes inventor pens the truth". "Digital Media". Retrieved 2011-2-23.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  10. ^ "AMRON vs. 3M Litigation US Federal Court Records". "US Federal Court". Retrieved 1997-12-10. 
  11. ^ "AMRON vs. 3M Litigation US Federal Court Records". "US Federal Court". Retrieved 1997-12-10. 
  12. ^ "3M Settlement Letter Records". "3M". Retrieved 1998-2-3.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  13. ^ "AMRON vs. 3M Litigation US Federal Court Records". "US Federal Court". Retrieved 1997-12-10. 
  14. ^ "AMRON vs. 3M Litigation US Federal Court Records". "US Federal Court Case Docket". Retrieved 1997-12-10. 
  15. ^ "US Patent and Trademarks Office Records". "United States Patent & Trademark Office". Retrieved 1982-6-22.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeannJordan (talkcontribs) 19:14, 5 October 2014‎

Thanks mate.[edit]

I will figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyourbasesrbelongtous (talkcontribs) 20:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

McGeddon and Orlando Figes[edit]

Hi McGeddon - I'm struck by your restoring of the edit by 88.110.78.183 on 5 October which is clearly a statement of opinion by 88.110.78.183 and not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.160.85 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Instagram[edit]

Hi McGeddon, Im not sure what lead you to believe that my contribution was a test. Yes I am new to wikipedia and am trying to contribute as a project sought by my professor. Please leave me tips to avoid this problem in the future as I further my interest in the Instagram page. Icanbeyourromeo (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Gumball COI[edit]

Hi McGeddon, of course I want my contribution to be as neutral as possible. Please let me know if there is anything else that I need to make the page as successful as possible. Thank you. EgumballCA (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request a new username to "Content Supervisor at eGumball." How do I accomplish this? EgumballCA (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Lifesigns (band)[edit]

I nominated this article for speedy deletion because there is not a single reputable reference. The band's own website does not count -- anyone can create a website. Has there been no external press coverage of this band? If not, it's probably not notable enough to appear in wikipedia yet. You can take down the speedy nomination again if you like, but then I will open a deletion discussion, which won't go away just because you remove the tags for it. If you believe the band is truly notable, the best way to protect the article is to find some references to prove it. ubiquity (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


RE Star Nosed Mole[edit]

Hello there McGeddon. I'm referring to the change I made on this page. I've been studying this animal in biology and my professor stated that they have "11 pairs of appendages" and in total have 22. I will also give you links to other websites in the reference section. As a result, I have change it back. If you still believe you are right, just place a message in my talk section. Thanks.


Thanks a lot for your welcome cookies 😂 I really appreciate them. Thanks a lot for your help and advice as well, I shall be using it to help me better myself as a wikipedian!

Brahh (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2009/08/26/the-star-nosed-moles-amazing-appendages/ http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/201397/a-star-is-born http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32505/title/A-Nose-for-Touch/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Star-nosed_Mole

Guidestones[edit]

Thanks. School and account blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for figuring out the archiving issue at Talk:Manos: The Hands of Fate Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

no true scotsman - pinker[edit]

Regarding this, can you specify the page(s)? Thanks Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It's because I have that ebook and a ctrl+f of "scots" or "porridge" doesn't return results. But of course it could be a matter of editions. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the article you used as reference just copypasted the example from here. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


In reply to: Promoting Wayne Fromm[edit]

"Information icon Hello, AlainMichelParis. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Selfie, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject."

- No, I do not have any close connection to Wayne Fromm. In the Selfie article, you will notice in my addition that I used an external link (patent number) generated by an appropriate Wikipedia template Template:Cite patent ... which leads the reader to the European Espacenet database which also points to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See section "Also published as: US7684694 (B2)" on the Espacenet page. This alone is enough independent and reliable reference that proves the patent.

Therefore, I will be most grateful, if you could reinstate the statement that you deleted. Thank you for your understanding.