User talk:McGeddon

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 If you have an e mail address I plan to contribute a couple of articles from a book I have written that is yet unpublished.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)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Thanks for welcoming me. My two additions were basically more experiment than anything I felt really compelled to add. Now I will try not to continue to add things unless I am really clear that they are helping. Of course it is sometimes hard to guess what will help and what will not, since an article is generally written with an objective as well as being about a subject. I have almost no notion of how Wikipedia is actually managed, and that seems a fascinating question for me. I mean, do contributors ever get a title, rank, or position? Do the few paid employees of Wikipedia have special capabilities? etc ... Anyway, thanks again! MarkGoldfain (talk) 14:59, 3 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 Wikipedia: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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for the welcome message. :) TomHodson (talk) 10:01, 11 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)