User talk:McGeddon

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

Chimsnero Goldsmith[edit]

Hope you are having a nice day, please i will like to creat a page you previously deleted how can i do that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realonehqsource (talkcontribs) 12:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Help![edit]

Thanks for you response about real-life room escape. Since the facts on the site are outdated and partially wrong. We put a lot of effort to gather all the right information to share it with others. I'd really like to update the article with the correct information, but without correct source is pointless. What can we do?

SkyscraperCity redirect[edit]

We recently deleted the SkyscraperCity article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (4th nomination). The SkyscraperPage article has the same problems as the SkyscraperCity article. I proposed a merger with Skyscraper where both sites get a brief mention. Between these two sites, there are over 1,000 wikipedia link-backs. It seems reasonable to discuss a merge solution, rather than dismiss it out of hand. I considered an AFD for SkyscraperPage, but thought a merge might be a more conservative approach. With 1,000 link backs, its hard to dismiss these sites, yet I voted to delete the article as they do not meet WP:WEB. By way of disclosure, I have only passing interest in the article and topic area - not a hill to die on. Please answer here. Thanks. Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No response. Scrapped. Requested speedy delete on Skyscrapercity.com redirect. Wiki-psyc (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to message re: Paulo Coelho[edit]

HI McGeddon, Thanks for your message re my edit to this page. I've read through the guidelines and notes on citations, and reliable sources. In my edit i had included links to both FORBES.com and OBSERVER.com - both news outlets i believe to be highly credible sources. The notes I have made, are mentioning the content of these articles and the recent proof of events that have come to light.

I'll ask you now, whether, using the correct citations as stipulated in the guidelines will be sufficient for this amendment to the page to stay published?

Thanks so much, Bearandmoose (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Vel tech multi tech[edit]

I found this page also has some copy-vio from the colleges' website. Advised page creator, and other details, here. I also replied to their 'odd' talk-page edit here. Regards, 220 of Borg 11:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Chemtrails[edit]

It's not a conspiracy but fact. Fulely (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Bennett (mathematician)[edit]

Jonathan Bennett (mathematician) page is absolutely fine. It is not a duplicate page. Can you remove this[1] from my Talk page? UI1990 (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. :) UI1990 (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

But the original artist is someone else[edit]

....who has no article about him and one reference to a lyrics website. I've reverted your removal. Please take a bit of time and analyse before you remove a CSD tag. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gen (Actor)[edit]

Hi McGeddon,

I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Gen (Actor). I really don't understand why you added the speedy deletion tag to that article, as the article gave a very clear claim to significance and obviously shouldn't have been deleted under speedy criterion A7. The article was already tagged with the appropriate deletion tag, BLPPROD, so it will probably still be deleted, but please be careful when adding speedy deletion tags to only use them where they belong. Calathan (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of images[edit]

I understand that you think the image i've been uploading is defamatory, but i've had permission from the person himself to add the picture. Its content is correct for the subject im adding it to. Stop removing the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor Greenman (talkcontribs) 15:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brooks Bombers[edit]

Information icon Hello McGeddon. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3), or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Brooks Bombers. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talkcontribs) 00:33, 30 January 2016‎

Novice Contributor[edit]

Gee whiz, McGeddon. That was a bit harsh. I was trying my best, not attempting to create lists of external links. I did read the guidelines before trying this first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia, but I guess I just didn't fully understand. I wanted to give the celebrity cats their due and let users find as many as possible. So many have not been included on the Cats on the Internet page. I thought listing their awards and honors would be helpful so I included them, not because I'm endorsing Friskies, for example, but because they are the company that gave out the award. I provided the links because I thought I needed to include citations. I'm so discouraged now, I'm going to "vanish." And by the way, it was very confusing having someone else working on the article at the same time I was. When I went to review my work and saw yours, I was alarmed. I didn't know what was going on. That was frightening for a first-time contributor. Maybe you should at least wait for the writer to at least finish what they're doing next time instead of jumping in while they're working. Or maybe message them first. That would be better. Signed, vanishing vickie2552 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickie2552 (talkcontribs) 21:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I was going to add images of all the cats. Decided against that. Afraid I'll do something wrong. Don't want to waste my time. vickie2552

Shironeko[edit]

I just reviewed the Cats on the Internet article. I can't believe you erased the entire Shironeko entry. I spent an hour researching him and writing the article. Not until the end did I mention two or three commercial awards/honors. Prior to that, I told about what kind of cat he was, when he was born, how he got his name, how his fame started and spread. And I cited all that. Why did you delete it? I don't get it. You left most of Nala and Oskar. Why wasn't Shironeko acceptable? vanishing vickie2552 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickie2552 (talkcontribs) 22:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, McGeddon. I would reply with a direct message, but I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. Sigh. I was definitely writing at the same time you were editing. I just didn't know that at the time. When I reviewed my work, I saw someone else's and that really confused me. Then I went back to my work, finished it up and reviewed again. It looked like you were gone at that point and your work saved. I saved too and thought all was good, but then realized that my entry on Shironeko (a famous Japanese cat) was deleted. Sigh again. This is too time-consuming for me. I appreciate all the work you are doing to make Wikipedia what it is. I'm sorry I didn't fully understand the extent of the rules. I was honestly just trying to help. Adios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickie2552 (talkcontribs) 23:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Earth station[edit]

Hi, sir, as top level frequency management expert I would like to know for what reason you can NOT except a definition agreed upon in all ITU-language by 200 administrations, including US and UK. v.r. HHubi

1972 Cat Puma 340[edit]

Kawasaki? Your source, please.Xx236 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yoiking with the Winged Ones[edit]

You have put in a "clarification needed" in the article Yoiking with the Winged Ones. It is unclear what motivates that. This is a reference to a review. Do you want an interpretation of the review into the article? Is interpretation of reviews common practise? Could you please refer to examples where that is done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80m6an (talkcontribs) 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)