User talk:McGeddon/Archive 5

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



Just thought I'd let you know that, whom you have noted as a vandal, has now also been reported as a sockpuppet. --Keithpickering (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Or more correctly, as a sockpuppeteer. --Keithpickering (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I add something to be said to McGeddon..I have no idea what all this is about..Why did they erase everything I attempted to put on the IEV Media stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmorehead (talkcontribs) 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Welcome back, I noticed you havent been around for a while. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit of SFO it looks better now :) Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As we edit the Article Firearms Unit in unision now, I thought i'd let you know that I added a new section on Firearms Intelligence the CID unit. Regards Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 12:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know mate its in my watchlist too, which I use now too I was just telling you I added a section about the intelligence role of it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you from England? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate, i've seen your good editing on Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes related articles. Would you consider joining the project? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok fair enough m8 Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go at making it more coherent. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I had a go at it, maybe you would care to take a look see. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 12:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UNCLOS logo.gif)

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:UNCLOS logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Citations

Okey dokey mate, I'll ave a go at doing that next time =) Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because the new added sources cancelled them out mate. I wasnt just wildy deleting I swear Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you have replaced them would you mind going through them and doing the honours by doing footnotes and all the rest of it? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talkcontribs)

Ok thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talkcontribs)

Fanboy talk

Whatever man, if you want Wikipedia to join in on the cookie-cutter 'because the majority says so, it must be true' philosophy then I ain't got no problems with that. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kev Boy (talkcontribs) 13:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Firearms Unit

Good Afternoon McGeddon

How are you today then? Anyway as you know we have been editing Firearms unit and Specialist Firearms Officer in unision and I thought it would be cool if both articles had a picture but i'll level with you I dont know how to get a picture from one article to another the picture I have in mind is one on Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom if you could make sure it is ok to be tranferred please could you do that I dont want you to think i'm being lazy I just dunno how to do it and you know how to do most things on here. Thanks in advance Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks alot I owe you one. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and another thing I have brought this book [1] yesterday and it has reveled information I didnt know about like the old weapons the police used to use would it be worth including them do you think? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah i've decided to drop the idea the referncing would be a bloody nightmare. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation

Six revert warning by Using Second Alias Skittle/Mcgeddon

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Smarties (Nestlé). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolutio —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYBAN (talkcontribs) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please kindly stay out of my talk column. I question your judgement and integrity - Your opinions, viewpoints and/or corrections are not welcome.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYBAN (talkcontribs)

Welcome templates


Thanks for the information, it was cut and pasted from a text file, have added "</div>" to the end now so hopefully that should resolve the issue….

Regards, --Badgernet (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources

Thanks mate, the ones we have trouble with citing are in a book i'm reading would it be cool if I used the book as the cite? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a go at it, is that how it is supposed to be? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a bit of a mess of the spaces and stuff would you mind taking a look please? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see now, thanks =). Would it be appropriate if we removed the tag? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Note that I have already reported the sock-puppet and it was not investigated properly. No IP numbers were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Never expected IPs to be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't reply on your talk page because you seem to be switching between IP addresses. If you give me a link to the report, I'd be happy to look into whether it was investigated properly or not. --McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I made the complaints about sock-puppetry using the names Hulangu and Temujin123.
It was said that BLP concerns prevented an investigation. This amounts to admitting that a sock-puppet was being used. Many other excuses were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be talking about this, which was rejected as "Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP" - if you didn't provide any evidence, this seems like a reasonable response, and in no way "amounts to admitting that a sock-puppet was being used". --McGeddon (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
An administrator has described the autobiography as " a puff piece". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing your edits, I think you're confused about what a sock puppet actually is. A sockpuppet is where a person has several Wikipedia accounts and is using them in an abusive way. If a person creates a Wikipedia account and edits an article about themselves or their company, then it's simply a conflict of interest issue, and although it merits scrutiny, it's not a banning offence, and will be rejected if reported as a sockpuppetry. --McGeddon (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Firearms Unit, new section created

Hello McGeddon

Two paragraphs under "Organisation" I thought would be better suited to a "History" section so I went ahead and made one of them, just thought I'd let you know! Happy Editing! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have seen the full link name on other articles, and I was hoping to do that but I dont know how if you could please fill me in? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


I had reverted him before and I explained exactly why Firearm detail should not be present in the lead, but still he thought he knew better. But I will take your message in mind. Thanks Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also sorry for belated reply, I got dragged out shopping just after I reverted the users edits and got in about half an hour ago. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you review the labeled budgie image?

Hi McGeddon,

Would you mind stopping by the Graphic Lab and taking a peek at the labeled budgie image you requested? Thanks!— ʞɔıu 10:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible picture for Firearms Unit and Specialist Firearms Officer

If you would care to take a look at this picture, do you think it is suitable? [2] Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And this one as it is an Armed Response Vehicle. [3] Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism tools

Good morning. Could I ask what tool you are using to make notes such as this one about vandalism? There are a couple of minor problems with the way the tool is working but I'm not yet sure which part needs fixing. It does not appear to be the template itself. If you could drop me a note, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the escalation (even though the chronology was reversed) is to document the pattern of vandalism and, more than that, to document that the prior vandalism has already been checked and reverted. I've never really liked that answer because, as you say, the vandal hasn't had the time to see or react to the first warning yet but I don't know of any other process that meets the needs of the other editors reviewing the vandal's behavior. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange Cat

On the Firearms Unit article in the cat section there is one about Category:Vague or ambiguous time what does this mean? It seems to have nothing to do with the subjct. Is it vandalism? as when you try to edit the section it isnt there to edit. Please see to this. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, it just looked so arbitrary but now I know, thanks!. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Theory: by Robert David Clifford Wilkinson

This is Not vandelism. It's the solution. Stop erasing it because that is a cover up conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtron5000 (talkcontribs) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Alice Gomme

Just wanted to say thanks for that. I'd copied from the Chekov page, using it as a model, and forgot that the copy had overwritten the copied internet address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N p holmes (talkcontribs) 12:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolls are a dime a dozen..:)

How come we do not have Igor Chudov in the Troll (Internet) article? He got 1996 Troll award of the year his website Read this also The original group Maybe we should do a section on this? Igor Chudov and Bill Palmer Troll incident. Igor Berger (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You made a mistake.

Don't touch my talk page again. If I delete a warning that is no longer valid over a month ago, you shouldn't put it back. I assume you did so by mistake, but it would be better if you just stayed away from reverting user talk pages. I almost reported a bot because of this edit. Either be more careful, or leave the anti-vandalism community. -- trlkly 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(bold text added after the fact.) -- trlkly

I think you must have misread the page history; I didn't re-add any deleted warnings or revert anything. It was a bot, a month ago. --McGeddon (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is I blanked that section over a month ago, but it came back. I got a message yesterday saying there was a new addition to my talk page. You were the only person who edited the page this month, so naturally I assumed you were the one who added it back. Perhaps my blanking didn't take or some other technological problem happened. Either way, I'm sorry to have accused you.

On the other hand you did sign a response that I left unsigned. Sinebot does not autosign user_talk pages unless asked, and I don't appreciate you doing it either. I still think Sinebot sounds pretentious, and could easily be reworded. And I also think it's stupid to make people sign pages when it's obvious the technology exists for it to be done for them. Using the bot is only one method. It isn't that difficult to modify the wiki software to automatically add the tildes itself whenever a user edits anything in the Talk subspace. I'm pretty certain I've seen wikis that do just that. I'll post examples if I find them.

Anyways, if somebody intentionally doesn't sign their post, why should anybody add anything to it? Either way, you are still modifying the original post. And when it comes to my talk_page, if you sign any of my posts ever again, I will have to report you, as I have given full warning that I do not want you (or anybody else) doing this. Reporting somebody may not be the most effective solution, but it is the only recourse I have. I am not trying to be uncivil, I am just telling you what the consequences of your actions will be. You will effectively be violating WP:POINT, which I'm not sure you didn't do already. I can only assume good faith for so long.

-- trlkly 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty sure my previous comments had already indicated I didn't want anyone to sign comments for me. Apparently, that was not the case, so I added the appropriate templates to my user page. As far as I'm concerned, a user's wishes should override "standard operating procedure", in non-essential, not-quite-policy matters. You seem to agree with me.
As for the tilde thing, I don't edit Wikipedia often enough to bring it up at this point. But regarding the false positives: methods already exist to indicate that you actually don't want something signed. I would personally want a checkbox that says, "Sign this talk page comment for me", with it's default state set in my options. Using templates (including ~~~~) and bots is a bit clunky, in my opinion. We can do better.
As for wikis that automatically add information to comments, the one I'm remembering added info as soon as you hit the edit button, so you could easily remove that text if you didn't like it before submission. I'll look around for it.
Sorry for being so verbose. I have a hard time summarizing comments in 100 words. Anyways, I just wanted to add that I am impressed with your disciplined responses. You are a credit to the Wikipedia community, even if we happen to strongly disagree. -- trlkly 08:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
ETA: I just remembered! The YKTTW page at the (TVTropes wiki) does a good job, even with antiquated wiki software. -- trlkly

I wasn't so much upset that you signed my comment (I can always remove the template and sign it myself if I see it.) What bothered me was that you did it on the one page where I explained that I didn't like having my comments signed in that manner. You also resumed an old conversation that I didn't really want to talk about again, but I can't expect you to know that last part. The whole reason that conversation is there is because Sinebot (or its equivalent back then) automatically went back and signed a comment that I was already in the process of signing myself (I accidentally clicked Save instead of Preview) I left a comment in the edit summary that I "hated the autosigner", and somebody was curious why. It never really bugged me that much, and definitely doesn't anymore. But, because I thought you were being insensitive (by apparently ignoring what I'd said in the previous paragraph), I got mad enough to bring up my old arguments against the system.

Also, I rarely want to leave unsigned comments anyways, but I know how to do so now without any problems, if it ever comes up again. I add !nosine! to the summary and an HTML comment to the effect not to sign it, especially with the template. If the person ignores both of those, they'll probably still get an earfull, but I'll take into account that, since it is "standard operating procedure", it was probably added without thinking. I'll try to keep it more civil, though. What do you think of this, "Hey. I noticed that you signed a comment of mine. You apparently didn't notice the numerous markings indicating that I didn't want it signed. Please notice on my user page that I have opted out of automatic signing, which includes any use of that template. As I said in my post, anybody who really wants to know can look at the history. ~~~~"? -- trlkly 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to leave something, and as you mentioned, if they aren't ever going to see me again, they probably won't be reading my edit summaries. The point is not to get them not to sign the post I flat-out said I don't want signed, but to get them to pay attention to their surroundings before mindlessly following the rules. We have bots to do that for us. We humans, I think, should strive to be a little smarter. -- trlkly 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Iram and the Necronomicon

The necronomicon not only tells you where to find IRAM it also tells you details about the city and WHY the city was destroyed. In the bible it says, god destroyed the city because he was mad or something. In the necronomicon, it give the actual scientific proof that the city fell because the Limestone walls dried and cracked under the city after the water under the city was being used for 1000s of years. we may be talking about R'lyeh. What better place to hide the greatest secret of man kind! Not only is it in a SEA its in a SEA of SAND. And its BURIED under a CITY ! If the necronomion is completely fiction, then how did lovecraft know where the city is? Is he a prophet? Because he even says that the way to find the city is to follow the camel caravan paths and find out where they intersect. Thats exactly what NASA DID! they found the roads. they found a buried city, in the middle of the largest desert on earth, and they didnt even need to figure out what happened to the city, because the necronomicon did. It explains it rather clearly. And again to assume that there isnt something really important buried there is a denial. It could be R'lyeh for all we know.

The additions to the Necronomicon page site where Iram was found, but don't point to anywhere in any story that Lovecraft "predicted" this. This really needs to change, or else the section says basically nothing. - Vianello (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If Lovecraft was the first person to write in detail about how Iram fell, and how to find it, and was later proven to be correct, than that's certainly of interest. However, we need to find a reliable source (such as a newspaper or academic paper) that writes about it - we can't document it ourselves based on his novels and the NASA dig, as that would be synthesis. Have you got anything? --McGeddon (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh i think i understand, we just need a 3rd party that is reputable to reference stating that nasa found irem in 1980? (man this encyclopedia stuff is a pain haha, so you cant create new information yet you also cant cite information unless its backed up by some other source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EgoSanus (talkcontribs) 10:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Atcheavy and I have made a truce until the newspaper article comes out, that way we can settle its meaning one and for all. Solo30 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for telling me how to properly ues citations, and for you're tireless contributions to Wikipedia. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


I know it probably looked like vandalism, but I really was going through and putting the title in all the relevant places I thought it belonged. Got it though. TheRegicider (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


You removed information that needed to be mention. GoTLG 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Vandal warnings

The warning was appropriate, it was blatant vandalism. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do stop defending these vandals, you try having your hard work tarnished by them. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your right actually, I should observe the vandalism warnings. And yes that is why I didnt leave my signature so no attacks are brought against me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 09:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I will. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know the user has left? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a coincidence, he could have got bored with Wikipedia he could be ill he could be on holiday his computer may have failed to work. I could make more feasable reasons but I'm not going to just because he has not come back doesnt mean his never going to. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, i'll do it from now on. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake what the hell is the matter with you? He must watch The Bill to be interested in asking that question, and in all my years watching The Bill no story line has even slightly even minisculy implied/involved rape between Sergeant Callum Stone and Constable Emma Keane in fact Emma is now dead as of last night and Stone come well after she first appeard in The Bill. This question was not innocence it was someone trying to be silly on the page. If you watch The Bill you know who Callum and Emma are and none of the episodes have been sexually sugesstive between either of them, not even slightly. This user deserved this warning, my opinion. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that did come over rather rude towards you but that is basically the story, you have given me lots of chances to reform this but I truely believe this user deserved the warning, where as in the past many havent. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang about now, thats not the case and if you dont mind me saying so I think your wrong. I'm not going to bore you again with what I think because I'm sure I did that well enough above, but I did not issue a level four warning because I was worried about work (For reason see explained version above again), Your not stupid you know full and well what I have stated is true but I believe your doing this just to prove a point regardless of reason. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And for your information I am not scared of these vandals, if I was I would not bother to warn them at all. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, have a nice weekend. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hangman as a book cover

Hi. So you reverted three of my edits within less than half a day because—well, because, as you say, what I added was "trivial." I assume it did not violate any of the numerous Wikipedia policies. Would you agree that what is trivial to one person is a remarkable fact to another? As far as I'm concerned, if I wanted to have my way, I'd want to delete a whole batch of articles as "trivial." All the best to you in your capacity as Counter-Vandalism Unit member, <KF> 10:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: User page vandalism

Its fine mate, your welcome. damn vandals eh. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rm hungover talk in article

Fair enough - but if you take a look at the linked article you'll see that the inverse gamblers fallacy is nothing like what is described - any chance you could fix it? Cheers (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychic intro

The intro stated "....refers to the ability to perceive things....". The ability. That is blatant POV, a statement that an ability actually exists. I have added the word "claimed" to make the intro accurate, and give Wikipedia some semblance of being unbiased. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


By means of the existence of this article on wikipedia I want a dispute resolution on whether Einstein's view of relativity and gravity must be updated, to current established thought, on the same TOE page that wants to combine QM with General Relativity

In the very least it deserves an outdated tag for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Day of the Dead (film) Calendar

I was wondering why you orphaned the picture I put up comparing an image from the Gorillaz album to the opening screen shot of the movie. Given the excessive similarities in the two pictures as well as the fact that the same album samples music from the original Dawn of the Dead, I think it obvious that the band was emulating the opening screen of Day of the Dead. Also, you left the whole bit in the article stating how the two pictures are similar, yet removed the actual visual evidence from the article showing just how they are similar. Danielhalton (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008

Given that the Gorillaz have sampled music from other Romero Dead movies on more than one of their albums, it shows that the band are fans of his movies and that they knew exactly what they were doing with that image. Their picture has the month of October starting on a Tuesday and ending on a Thursday (just like in the movie, but obviously this alone does not prove the point) and all the days are Xed off with big, bold red Xs (it could have been just as easily black Xs, but they chose red, just as it was in Day). Also the calendar itself is not just a flip down calendar, but is spiral-bound and is pinned to a bare Concrete block wall (both of these being in the opening shot of Day as well). Literally the only difference between the two images is that the Gorillaz have Trick-or-treaters as the image on the calendar (as opposed to a field of pumpkins, albeit the most prominent trick-or-treater is wearing a giant pumpkin head) and where in Day it says "OCTOBER" in all capital letters, the Gorillaz' image says "NOVEMBER HAS COME" also in all capital letters. Honestly if they hadn't gotten Romero's permission to sample his work, the image itself would have been borderline copyright infringement. Danielhalton (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2008

Re: Chris Morris

I actually think it's a bad thing that the article is 'readable'. I don't mean it should be literally unreadable, of course, but I kind of think that the flow of the article should be constantly interrupted if it's full of speculative, unreferenced and questionable claims. It reminds people that they can't trust this information, much more effectively than those {{Refimprove}} boxes, in my opinion. The one at the top of Chris Morris has been there since August 2007 - they stay there for ages and people don't seem to pay attention to them; they read the article anyway and don't improve it. I think that article is in serious need of attention, and I don't think a box at the top makes much difference. Anyway, that's my opinion, readability should be interrupted if accuracy is in doubt, but please tell me if you disagree. I don't know if there's an official policy/guideline on this?

Also, I think inline 'citation needed' notes are useful because they draw people's attention to specific things; they help new users learn what sort of claims need sourcing.

BTW, you removed not just the fact templates, but also the 'who' templates (weasel words) and the 'clarify' templates and you have not replaced them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spandrawn (talkcontribs)

OK, I see what you mean. But I think there is maybe a case for heavy 'fact' tagging if a section template has been there for several months and it still hasn't been addressed. My point is it's good to make the article less readable to average users - not to frustrate them, but just to avoid misinforming them (and reflecting badly on the site). It's better that an article is unreadable (or even empty) than misinforming. Oh and I didn't notice you had reworded the 'clarify' bits - sorry. And I see what you mean about 'who' templates. Spandrawn (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've just thought of a better way: move the unsourced statements over to the talk page so other editors can gradually source them and put them back in the article. Avoids having unverified info on the article page, and also keeps it readable, and allows time for people's unsourced contributions to be sourced by other editors. I think I'll do that in future. Do you think that's a good approach? Spandrawn (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BiteFight (figured the talk page was going to be deleted)

Well I decided that it wasn't worth it as I just wanted to keep one of my first pages from going to waste, and I couldn't find any other sources besides this, so I'm DB-g7ing. ~Ttony21 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Journalisted - External Links

Hi McGeddon, Thanks for the conflict of interest note – we’re quite new to Wikipedia! We’re a not-for-profit website with links to all the journalists’ articles, information about them, web links, blog and comment information etc, and we thought drawing it to the attention of Wikipedians would be useful. If you’ve got any other advice on how we could do this, we’d really like to hear it! I’ll suggest our links on the relevant talk pages from now on. Best Journalisted Mert1651 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Reverting Copyediting

McGeddon, I feel we have had this conversation before. How many times do I have to ask for you not to stalk my edits, I know you will try and deny it but at the end of the day you do. No question about it, the user concerned with the copyedit blanked information which was not neceassary. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 09:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem, with this copyedit. Except the lead I think it would make more sense to have this:

Firearms Unit is the traditional name for the section in forces outside of the capital, while that of London's Metropolitan Police Service is called the Specialist Firearms Command, or CO19. Within the media it is sometimes compered to the SWAT units of the United States. A Police Officer cannot apply to the Firearms Unit without first finishing their two year probationary period with a further two years in a core policing role.[1].

Before the text about officers having to complete their probationary period before applying. Because it breaks the text up, and looks out of place. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 10:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


I know we dont always see eye-to-eye, but I appreciate you helping me with the firearms unit article. Thanks =]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Civility

Ok, sorry. The speed at what you come to my edits at makes me a little sort of bemused sometimes. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


I can see where your coming from with the ffdp card game, delete it for now just at least untill the website goes live, that website will contain all news reports and press cuttings as well as video's of the game being played in tornaments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nialljames (talkcontribs)

List of English Kangaroo Words

I completely disagree with your opinion that the entry should be deleted. Surely there is a place in the internet to archive a wiki collection of known English kangaroo words. They are rare and deserve to be listed. I have separated them into a different page/entry so that it doesn't confuse the readability/neatness of the article already. The sprawling list of words is outside of the main entry. In fact, they are not sprawling, but an archive of rare objects. By your logic, we should also delete List of palindromic places. Sorry for the flame, but people have spent a lot of time to collect all known kangaroo words for you to just delete them. I challenge you to come up with 10 new legitimage kangaroo words. If you can do that, then maybe you can delete this list. We have spent a lot of time on the kangaroo word wiki well before you ever came along and decided that our collective reference is just "sprawling". Powerslide


But I am a fan. Should the fact that one can just talk to him and that he's not unreachable like some big shot artist be a reason? I wouldn't do this if I wasn't a fan. It's what I do, I make fanpages. Why should wikipedia be any different? Someone even made one for Valensia. And there are loads of links to peoples personal fansites for Valensia, and they all know the artist (and the creator of this page as well probably) because he's only a small time musician, people have his home address and everything. And I am sure there are many more pages like that on wikipedia. I like what that last guy said, its not an advert cos then there'd be a pricelist. If you look at the criteria and compare it with pages about other 'famous' people, it's no different, in fact it now doesn't even have ref links, so if the argument would hold up, you're basically saying all artist pages on here are adverts, but of course they are not. It's called promotion. Be it informative or not; any page in any way about any artist, that also means on here can be seen as promotion. So should all artist pages be removed? I am just trying to understand the difference. in my humble opinion he's a man who deserves a place on here and so does his brother, for whom I wanted to make a page as well, who's a professor who studied the Holy Grail and knows all about legendes and lores. This is English History, British legacy, these men are historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoelpistina (talkcontribs) 09:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Flying Squad

Thanks for restoring that, I was having a bit of trouble. After bending the rules slightly to get unreferenced contributions included for a seemingly nice editor - how silly of me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT people from Great Britain

yeah basicly, it's to make a "less political" collection that's all. Kramer John (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: User talk:

Please dont just jump from the first warning, to a higher level without them vandalising after the first to your userpage. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done that before, and you still created about that. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing my Links

Why do you keep removing my link to an external energy drink review site? You let others post links and I looked at the External Linking Guidelines and rule 4 states that you should add: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

Please explain what I did wrong, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with anyone here, and I will gladly listen to anything you have to offer. AlexPBenes (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What defines an Amateur Site as you put it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexPBenes (talkcontribs) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for clarifying the notability of the WhatIfGaming website on PixelJunk Eden. I'm not sure if it was in response to my comment on the VG Project page or just coincidence, but thanks none the less. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Copyediting

I have reverted my revertion. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi... I see you warned User talk: ... they've made similar edits since then. (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wandsworth Police

Hi, thank you I am trying to clarify the WP article, without it becoming a blog on police powers. It used to be a simple site with no references to police powers. It is difficult not to add reams to counter the unecessary comments and documents posted thereon. TopCat666 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Nuisance

You are such a nuisance, cant you go and hassle someone else for a change. Everything you do is to ptove a point. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Own has nothing to do with it, like it or not you do it to prove points. And you know it, come on, since I've come here you've always been hiding in the shadows. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was a bit rash in calling you a nuisance among other things. I shouldnt have done, accept my sincerest apologies. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 13:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to say sorry. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing of WPP article

Thank you, it is a breath of fresh air that you have been good enough to edit impartially. At the end of the day the Wandsworth article is not rocket science, thanks for making it more straight forward and readable. Mowthegrass (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Typos

No, typos are not fine. I did not mean it to come across in that way, what I meant was is apart from the typos it reads well, some of the bits I'm sure your just changing for the sake of it, really. Or thats what it seems like sometimes, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind you cleaning up typos etc, of course I dont. I just dont like my edits being changed in a way contrary to the way I put them and the fact that most of it made sense in the first place. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew you was going to say that, its nothing to do with WP:OWN or not wanting my material being tweaked, you are quite predictable. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you say so McGeddon, if you say so. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi.. I've also left a message on Police's page. You're both starting to veer into edit-war territory, and I'm assuming neither of you wants that. Perhaps you should together find a disinterested admin to settle the issue? Just a thought, cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 15:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He does stalk me, this has been going on for some time. Any page I edit he edits, he is there. I find it strange that he would want to cyber follow me constantly, I have made him aware of this but to no avail. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly care who did what to whom or when or why. The issue at hand is the article in question, and you two need to sort out your differences. Prince of Canada t | c 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing about the RDPD is over, as far as I am concerned anyway. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What differences are these, I really dont understand? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for adding the informantion on the forthcoming book from Philip Glenister .(and wording it better !!) Regards (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not interfere between me and other users conversations, With the greatest respect - I do not want your opinions, or you getting involved. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Never the less, you still did a bit of the old routine. Plus dont try and get me to buy you did not know about the above, my talkpage is on your watchlist and chances are you come to see what was going on.Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversation is finished. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Ken Campbell

Your draconian edits to the Interview section have succeeded in restoring a dead link. Would be grateful if you could explain the logic of your revert. I'm very well aware that the caption to the picture is "not very encyclopedic." The man has just died. I"d be grateful if you could direct me to the relevant WP page so I can improve my caption technique. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to WP:CAPTION. WP services the biggest mass audience in the history of encyclopedias, so for that reason I favour captions that err away from the dead & dusty in the direction of the magazine-ish. The important thing about a caption, within reason, is to draw the reader in - particularly into the image itself. Most WP image usage signally fails to do this. I used to earn good money writing picture captions & coverlines; but I'm also a sincere believer in Kevin Kelly's dictum that "Nobody is as smart as everybody". If one punter reckons something don't work we can be pretty sure millions of others out there would react likewise. (Also occurs to me that "mellow" can be taken as a mealy-mouthed euphemism for drunk.) I hope you find my re-worked effort more acceptable. Wingspeed (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you were right in the first place. In this instance, better to let the photo speak for itself. My captioning habits must have got the better of me.
Also, just had the following email:
Tuesday 9 September 2008
Epping Forest Burial Park, Kiln Road, North Weald, Epping, CM16 6AD.
10:00 Tea and Coffee.
11:00 Curtain up!
Bring picnic to share.
Directions if coming by tube
Regards Wingspeed (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought at first you might be somebody from The Third Policeman. Or possibly related to the dreaded R.McGeddon. Perhaps we'll meet among the leaves :) Wingspeed (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, I think you ought to look closely at the way 91 addresses me. You will then see why I do not put up with his nonsense and the pedantic editing of the article. Even when he knows its the truth, as is the perfect example of our Unmarked Police Vehicle. We have had them since 1988! TopCat666 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point about Wiki rules, although they should not be used by 91 for the wrong reasons. I wish the article to reflect accurately and I have never seen the point of 91's adding all the legality to it. I have been prevented from reverting it back to it's simple form, so will continue to edit it. TopCat666 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


How did I do that? I certainly didn't delete the header myself, unless I edited Topcat's revision by mistake... My apologies either way. ninety:one 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Unclear

Yes, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 10:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you advise please?

Hi, I have several magazine articles on the powers and titles of the Wandsworth Parks Police. These are however not published on the web, can I simply cite them as references? If not would I be allowed to upload them onto Wiki and reference them? Lastly if I am allowed to upload them, is there a simple way of doing this? I a can scan the article(s) to PDF or Word. Thanks. TopCat666 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks, I have done it (probably wrong) Thanks again.TopCat666 (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Greetings McGeddon - Thanks for signing my comment on User talk:Smoothcee - don't know what happened 'cos the tildes were there, and as you can see on the history page, I went back to sign again and again nothing. Mysteries of hyperspace. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Yes, I had copied and partially pasted it. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BrettSpielWelt English.png)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:BrettSpielWelt English.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Police

Since when was it trying to reply to the editor above? See what is actually to be seen, not what you may think is the agenda. With the greatest respect, I find you are very very anal retentive. It just gets boring after a while Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Pictures

How would I go about copying over pictures fromt the Commons, to use on Wikipedia pages? When I go to edit this page, all I can copy is the cats. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats your opinion on that new page about the list of firearms? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Day of the Triffids

What criteria have you used to determine which items to remove from Allusions/references in other works? It seems a bit arbitrary. For example, I've never heard of the band Ash, which you kept, but I have heard of The Triffids, which you deleted. I think we either need to reinstate them all or remove the section all together. SilentC (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, not that fussed about that particular entry (they weren't that great a band!). I guess to each individual who puts something in a section like that, the allusion seems of importance. I personally think it falls a bit into the realm of trivia. Things like The Triffids, or the song by Ash should be covered on a disambiguation page. I don't know where you would draw the line with the rest. It could go on forever. Have a look at List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange, which goes on for pages with every little possible reference that somebody thinks they have spotted. Like this one for example: "In the Coen Brothers film adaptation of the book No Country For Old Men, the villain Anton Chigurh's Hair Cut is modeled after Alex's in the film." Not sure what value it all adds to be honest. But I'm too lazy to fix it up :) SilentC (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Delights

Hello. I am not affiliated with the external link that you have removed. I found it useful and thought others may also. It was an a-ha! experience to realize that other candies could have stemmed from Turkish Delight and I posted the external link in question because the author also came to a similar epiphany. I am perhaps not as versed as I should be with Wikipedia rules to be editing Wikipedia articles. However, I am just trying to contribute. Removing the link doesn't affect me personally other than to be disappointed that information is being kept from your readers. (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you Michael Palin's spokesperson?

Why are you trying to censor FACTUAL info about a member of his family, that he has spoke about about twice publically, to raise awareness of mental health problems? It is a part of his life and you have no right to censor it, especially when, in 1995, he became involved in the BBC's mental health week, knowing his profile would be enough to raise the awareness for people suffering depression and for suicidal people, in order for them to go and seek help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonshank (talkcontribs)

Solomon Islands skink

I think your 3RR warning at User talk:Mike Searson was unjustified. The discussion there already mentioned the warning I gave at User talk:Serrata and that I would support User:Mike Searson if things got worse. If you had read my message at User talk:Serrata you would have noticed my suggestion that Serrata could discuss the matter at Talk:Solomon Islands skink. -- Philcha (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Islands skink

It's on the talk page. I see it as trivia at best, except for the urine part as lizards do not produce urine. (their liquid waste matter is excess water...their urates are solid and in some cases expelled through the nose as salt similar to birds). The Satter reference is the only reliable source mentioning that it turns the animal's feces red. This user is interjecting this point with two unreliable self-published references. He has deleted 3 refs of published peer reviewed doctors with whom he disagrees, including the biologist who described the subspecies. Thanks for the intervention. This user refuses to engage in any discussion, I've tried several times with him.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, he's logging out and editing as an anon IP. This is getting ridiculous as it's taking up time I could be spending improving the article. Any advice for what step to take next? Thanks again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok...I did not know that. I just copied and pasted it from the 3RR page. I have stated my case on the talkpage. Thanks for the help.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Police vehicles in the UK

Well, most of the content is actually already on the page. And if it was not, most of that can be found on the Police van article, and as its linked. I feel it unnecessary because if anyone wants to find out more about the functions of police vans, they would be compelled to click the link. Also, very few forces allow that prisoners be transported in a car, due to the fact that just because someone is not resisting arrest does not mean that they will be like that all the way back to custody. I realise that some of the pages I edit, are on your watchlist. But you have to appreciate my point of view, because in all honesty it frustrates me, when I do something, and you basically "jump on it" so to speak, because everything I do, if you can, you will change or dissagree with it. Regards, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

White Tiger

What you did on the white tiger article makes no sense because most of what's written there has nothing to do with white tigers in captivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Life Talk Like a Pirate Scripts

Thanks for the advice. Should the Second Life scripts be in the "External Links - Multimedia" section along with the "Webpages Pirate Translator"?--Srnelson (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you Edward de Bonos spokesperson?

I've been putting in quite a bit of effort into fleshing out the six hats page and trying to make it informative and balanced. I am mystified as to why you are trying to sensor factual information that there is dispute over the origin of this method, and that that dispute has not been adequately resolved. These are facts that in no way prejudice the reality of who did actually originate anything, nor do they dispute who published what. I want wikipedia to provide a balanced and inclusive view of this important method, its origins and the issues surrounding them. I am inclined to get bored and walk away when you fail to engage me on a discussion page but cheerfully revert my edits, which I had alredy indicated in discussion I believed were balanced, and justified why. please engage me on the issue rather than simply reverting my edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovationbrain (talkcontribs) 08:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made some further comment about this - having again reviewed the guidelines I fail to see why the fact of the existence of this dispute could in any way be considered to violate the rules of NPOV, Verifiability nor is it original research the existence of the documents I have cited is clear and incontrivertable evidence that there is a dispute, it exists. this is the only fact I wish to record and to this end the existence of the two original references is a clear indication that this is the case, moreover, each can be a considered a secondary source demonstrating the existence of the other. I am not attempting to assert that either claim is true or false, nor to denigrate the system nor individuals in any way. I believe that you are really missing the point here and I would like you to tell me why the existence of a dispute is not sufficiently demonstrated by two people openly identifying and refuting each others views? all else is just commentary. since the case has never been brought to court and is unlikely ever to be so there is unlikely to be any third party reference to this issue unless in FBI archives which i have been unable to identify. Please provide me a sensible argument instead of clinging to a guideline that it is not clear how it applies, or work with me to create a form of words that identifies the issue without being biased or violating the guidelines.

I am not, have not, and will not assert that either party is lying - to state that people disagree is not to say that either one is lying - can't you understand this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovationbrain (talkcontribs) 12:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

White Tiger

That's much better, but why did'nt you just leave it as "White Tigers In The Wild"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

white tigers

The next heading is "Captive White Bengal Tiger Founders". Should'nt it be "Captive Bengal Founders"? or actually not all of the founders are Bengal tigers, so why not Captive Founders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I have both made suggestions and implimented them myself. Thanks.

Why you take away my cricket?

Why? Why? Why? (you take away my cricket) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04mckennaaa1 (talkcontribs) 10:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Convictions within the Metropolitan Police

- - The Met employes the highest number of convicted Police Officers. In a recent court [December 2007] case at Westminster magistrates the Crown Prosecutors decided that an assault case against another Police Officer Helen O’Mahony to be dropped after it emerged that the victim WPC Smith had HERSELF been arrested a year earlier and received two cautions for common assault and being drunk and disorderly at a club. A court employee was quoted as saying "It makes you wonder how many police officers have a previous history of offending.”

If you delete my article again I will report you!! (Jemthepen (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

OK I'll edit it, Here is the the source for highest convictions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemthepen (talkcontribs) 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: your report on

Thank you for your report on (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and you are encouraged to revert, warn and report inappropriate conduct. I have however declined to act on this report for the following reason:

Pictogram voting wait orange.svg Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. (the IP seems shared)

The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism might be a helpful read if you wish to improve your future reports. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 12:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: My revert on Police officer

Hello, sorry I reverted your edits, I did not actually mean to do that, it was the IP users I was trying to revert, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop overriding my decisions about material, stop butting in to things that do not involve you in the slightest way, you've done it before, and you will probably do it again, because my messages obviously do not get through to you - but its not for the want of trying. Please just stop interfering, you always get involved in other things that do not concern yourself. Learn from what I am telling you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits, just to prove a point. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


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

I requested the template to be restored so I get my edits to that page back, which should hopefully push my edit total over 100 and stop my lieing--Stereotyper (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Would I be able to archive the discussion?--Stereotyper (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Happy Halloween!

Have a good one! Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 11:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Concept Stores

Please be patient but you didn't get it right at all: Concept stores have not been invented by US-chains. Actually they have been created to build up an alternative for classical mono-brand boutiques and various (boring) departmentstores. They stand for a totally new, never seen retail structure with a never-felt shopping experience. They are multi-brand (thats why IKEA does'nt match at all!), they are innovative cross-sellers. Visit one, you'll understand. Don't juge before that. Is it necessary to establish a "Int. Concept Store Association" with scientific background to let them be mentioned in Wikipedia? They are not boutiques, nor are they departmentstores. They are Concept stores. --Axkey (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I have added some references on the (still wrong) boutique-page concerning concept stores. --Axkey (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

UK law enforcement agency categories

Hi, just a quick note to draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (law enforcement agency categories). We're setting out the UK LEA category guidelines there, and in particular whether to withdraw the "Police forces" categories and just use "Law enforcement agency" categories. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ninety:one 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hangover Square

Steve-O (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reverted Hangover Square back. My site is not a spam site nor is it a blog.

Could you stop please removing my edits. I will gladly provide justification for all my edits but it's going to take a while. "Bogeyman" is a published noir writer living in New Orleans. His name is not used out of an agreement. I will provide more information as necessary. If you continue to revert my work I will escalate this. thank you.Steve-O (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for saving the BernzOmatic page from deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed some links

after your note, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augicoins (talkcontribs) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your non use of edit summaries

It only felt patronising because you made it feel like that, I directed you to read the edit summary page, because you did not leave an edit summary, which is fair enough, I did not do anything wrong. If you understand edit summaries, surely you patronise yourself even more so, by not providing one, and 99% of your edits do not have one, according to your edit summary usage:

Edit summary usage for McGeddon: 90% for major edits and 98% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you

I noticed you failed to add anything to talk page of JD554[4]. Why? TheColdDick (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the warning. However, if you check my editing history on the article, you'll see that I haven't breached the three-revert rule. --JD554 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Three Revert Warning

As the old saying goes, the knife cuts both ways...If my work and edits (which have been the same for MONTHS and were universally approved by REAL fans) weren't ignored and butchered by those two individuals (JD544 and WesleyDodds) then I wouldn't be in this mess myself.

As you clearly pointed out, obviously I DO know my subject here and I will not allow two users whose sole purpose for butchering an article is the fact they are part of some "club" that goes around editing new articles weekly. That is why I haven't taken this to talk...I know the reason why they are doing it and it cannot be settled until they go away to mess up a new article next week. If they were actually improving the page I wouldn't mind...however, they are doing nothing more than ruining it. Their edits remove detailed and sourced information, updated news and album information and move properly placed paragraphs to improper sections. Not to mention, to make things personal, they have even went searching through the pictures for articles I've uploaded and challenged every one of them that I didn't properly fill out simply to spite me.

The way I see it, you should be placing these kinds of messages on THEIR talk page rather than mine. I added 98% of the information to the Morrissey page, spending days in the process, because I actually CARE about the subject...not because I'm in a club and Morrissey is this week's nominated edit. I won't allow them to butcher the article. TheColdDick (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply Help

Hi McGeddon,

I'm trying to get and its new sister sites for Torquay, Carlisle and York added to the external links for these towns but I seem to be having problems.

To give you a little extra background Simply Harrogate has been live for almost five years now and because unlike most other sites we dont charge for standard listings and links i.e. we try and make it easy for users to find all the websites for all restaurants, estate agents and other information sites etc its almost become a bible for the town...not just for visitors but locals too.

If you ask around the town you will see and I'm sure everyone here in Harrogate would agree it is a vital resource for the town now. Its in countless blogs recommended by people who have visited, indeed the East Coast mainline magazine recommended it not so long ago out of the blue.

I do understand you have a duty to exclude spam sites, indeed we are doing the same thing with the sites daily, but with all the time and effort put in to make these sites so useful with so much time given without charge, with our policy not to sell our homepages to hotel bookings agencies etc. I hope you will take another look and reconsider?

All the best


Allianceredfox (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

the clown in conway's cell automata

sorry I restored original release

Jean-claude perez (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Dennis Nilsen edit

Why, I didn't insult anyone. It is his birthday today. -- (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Kiritimati is not a country wrote "The country is in the world's furthest forward time zone, UTC+14.".... the country is Kiribati. -- (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Reff

Thanks for reffing that thing about the taser. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 11:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

related to fractal chaos suppressed reference

in article on artificial neural networks, related to holographic like neural networks I send you some references:

Pribram, Karl (1991). Brain and perception: holonomy and structure in figural processing. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0898599954. [ quote of « fractal chaos » neural network

J.C. Perez, « Digital holograms computers », in Neural Networks : biological computers or electronic brains - Les entretiens de Lyon – (directed by "Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon") - Springer-Verlag Editors 1990

J.C. Perez, Fractal Chaos: a new neural network holographic model, International Neural Networks Society (INNS) conference Boston USA in NEURAL NETWORKS international publication, 1988.

J.M. Bertille, J.C. Perez, « A spatio temporal novelty detector using FRACTAL CHAOS model », IJCNN conference, Washington, 1990, published by NEURAL NETWORKS (INNS).

J.C. Perez, Jerry Magnan, J.M. Bertille, « Global optimization with a lattice dynamic system », SIAM dynamic systems conference, Orlando USA, 1990.

J.C. Perez, De nouvelles voies vers l'intelligence artificielle (pluri-disciplinarité, auto-organisation et réseaux neuronaux), editor Masson Paris - 1988 and 1989

J.C Perez,Integers neural network systems (INNS) using resonance propertiesof a Fibonacci's chaotic `golden neuron', in in: Neural Networks, 1990., 1990 IJCNN International Joint Conference on Neural networks, Publication Date: 17-21 Jun 1990 On page(s): 859-865 vol.1 [1]

sincerely yours jc perez

Jean-claude perez (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Jean-claude perez (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


Nice boudin picture - good work! But can you add some info about the type? I guess its a French, regional kind? Tomixdf (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cite book

Hi! I have a little problem with the use of this template, further to your suggestion, in Charvet Place Vendôme. For some reason I cannot understand, the language field is not showing, the page field adds an unwanted "pp." and the quote fiels adds ".." If you have a moment, could you please let me know what is going wrong? Thanks Racconish (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A question on AWB

Hi, I was wondering what AWB is? Also, I saw that this link [5] was removed as an external link from an article, and I was wondering how that determination is made? I'm basically just curious, not looking for a battle or anything. It's a useful link it seems, so I'm wondering why it can't be included? Is it a general guideline? Based on blacklisted sites? Anything that's user generated? Thanks.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Games with concealed rules

Thanks for rv - ing the comments you made on my talk page. It was a long while ago, and I'm very impressed that you still managed to recall the details of the debate. Riversider2008 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Useless Patroller

A patroller cannot simply delete ppl added things. other ppl add because this is an open source. You must find proof to disvalidate it if you think it is not true! Like the one in Roti Canai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Barefoot Doctor

Hi McGeddon,

I'm new to Wikipedia and have noticed that my edits to The Barefoot Doctor's page have been changed.

Can we work towards a consenus between our posts that we are both happy with staying on this page?


Monocle-1000 Monocle-1000 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Barefoot Doctor

Thanks for your reply.

Please see my responses below and let me know what you think. Below my responses is a potential new piece for this section so please let work on this.

I'm currently working on sourcing all this properly


You changed "Russell" to "The Barefoot Doctor" in a number of places in one section. The rest of the article (and the Observer source itself) refers to him as 'Stephen Russell', which has a more encyclopaedic tone, particularly when we're talking about his personal life rather than his published work.

The article is entitled ‘The Barefoot Doctor’ and in the early parts of the piece it states ‘Stephen Russell, also known as the Barefoot Doctor,’ so therefore it is appropriate to use this name throughout the article.

Claiming that Russell has attracted "worldwide" acclaim for his work is maybe fair enough, if you can provide a source for it, although we should be careful not to use sweeping WP:PEACOCK <> terms when we can be more usefully specific about which countries he's well known in.

OK – I can provide more information on the countries he is well known in and edit this section accordingly

You switched to the US spelling of "criticized" - WP:ENGVAR <> says to use British spelling in articles about a British subject.

Fair enough

"However, these critiques focus on just one aspect of The Barefoot Doctor's work and it must be considered that a great number of people have benefitted from his teachings and practices." was original research <> - the source doesn't tell us that the criticism only focused on this single aspect, and it's your personal opinion that the benefit to his patients "must be considered". We should report what existing sources have said about him, rather than presenting our own assumptions or opinions.

I shall rephrase this paragraph in order to avoid using my own assumptions

I'm not sure what your "freely-given statement" and "he also freely spoke" edits meant, but the Observer source made no mention of the statements being "freely given", so it's inappropriate to make that assumption without a source to back it up.

The Observer source quotes The Barefoot Doctor so by default he must have spoken about these issues. This information would not have been coerced from him. Perhaps this should change to ‘issued a statement’

"In a special report in The Observer, The Barefoot Doctor was cited as a practicing psychotherapist which is not true." - it's not up to Wikipedia to point out mistakes in articles, books, films or anything else. If there's been some actual controversy over him being called a psychotherapist, feel free to quote and reference that, but if it's just an error in a single newspaper article, we shouldn't be writing about it.

OK - we can change this

"This article was published in The Observer, a British newspaper in which he wrote for 5 years, in January 2007." - this didn't seem to add anything to the article. We already mention further up the page that Russell wrote for the Observer. Am I missing something?

OK – as it is mentioned further up the page we shall not mention it again.

"The article highlights a number of regulations regarding the practice of talking therapists but all allegations made in this piece in relation to The Barefoot Doctor are refuted and on some points unfounded." - I summarised this to "...after five complaints were filed with the patient group Witness. He denied having made sexual overtures to patients in treatment.", which makes it clear which allegations were refuted. I don't see anything in the article that goes as far as saying that some of the allegations are actually "on some points unfounded"; if you've got another source that backs that up, you should mention it.

I’m happy to change this section, however, we must come to an objective compromise on the wording of this section because as it currently stands it implies The Barefoot Doctor is guilty of something when, from reading your sources, it seems does not seem that any allegations were upheld.


While The Barefoot Doctor’s interpretation of Taoism has attracted acclaim, it has also drawn criticism on its application to modern Western society. Some members of the mainstream medical profession, who consider the application of his practices to Western ailments to be unscientific, have criticised aspects of his practices.

In January 2007, Russell admitted to having sexual relations with a number of women who had previously been patients at his acupuncture practice after five complaints were filed with the patient group Witness. The Barefoot Doctor has denied having made sexual overtures to patients in treatment and these allegations have never been upheld.

A number of female users of The Barefoot Doctor’s site have accused him of sexually predatory behaviour, and he admits having become involved in "salacious" email exchanges with fans who had met him through his healing website. He has admitted that these emails were 'really stupid' but insisted the women approached him as a 'celebrity', not a doctor,’ in the sense that they were fans of his work, not patients seeking advice.


Monocle-1000(Monocle-1000 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)).

Blacklist article move

The page didn't have that disambiguation until I added it, and the disambiguation that was there was unclear. The sociology term might still be the primary topic but this will change in time. I do not argue that it needs to move but retain my point.

You also neglected to revert back or check for double redirectsScientus (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Picture of Dorian Gray

Regarding your "rationale" for your edit:

(rewording to remove scare quotes)

Quotation marks aren't used to scare, there is no such thing as "scare" quotes. They are used to:

A. Show that something is copied verbatim (to avoid plagiarism)

B. To indicate to the reader that the word is being used in a sense other than the normal or most-common definition.

Neither of those reasons are scary.Ryoung122 20:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about new entry Archimage

Hello McGeddon. I received your message, and I apologize for including "source of sentences." I've had to learn Wikipedia from scratch this past week and I guess I misread the copyright section. I thought the references were the key, but I understand the rules now. I have gone back and reworded the two sections with potential violations. Even though I made these changes, do you think my entry will still be deleted? If so, is there a way to reverse this now that everything is in my own words? Thank you for your help! TheMonsterMel (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


I've started an edit-warring report about him, in case you want to comment: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Timeshifter_reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_.29 --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your help, much appreciated. --Day of the Dead (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay i'll try to remember it this time!!! :). Question how do you get the album cover for the Day of the Dead (soundtrack)? --Day of the Dead (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay i'll do that when i'm finished working with the Land of the Dead article. --Day of the Dead (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


I put my contribution on User_talk:3lt3ponz3r to keep the contributions together, haven't seen you made a notice there already. --Cyfal (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


I've respected decorum. And I've created the new account as you requested.

But why all this unnecessary conflict? I understand that this online encyclopedia is meant to operate within certain rules and guidelines. However, isn't this supposed to be fun too? I mean, come on. For obvious reasons, there is a small spot in my heart reserved for this movie. And watching zealous fans add their own interpretations and spins on the film is very flattering. However if this online encyclopedic endeavor has any meaning, then I would imagine that it is supposed to be rooted in some modicrum of fact. I've retooled the page to satisfy the demands of brevity, moving content around more or less, so the reader is not beaten over the head with my contributions. I say it represents a fair compromise. Let's stick with it and make it work.Toomuchmedia (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I would prefer to keep the Genie in the bottle on this one. haha
Let me ask you this, then. If you are interested in keeping things concise, then why are you allowing a lengthy section that discusses the remake? Isn't there already another page that discusses this? Instead, shouldn't you be putting a link here redirecting people to the other page instead of cluttering that page with this info?Toomuchmedia (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

..What does "tangential" mean? --Day of the Dead (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave him and apology, but his getting on my nerves. I know his doing the best for the wikipedia but still.. --Day of the Dead (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Oops! Sorry. No, I didn't check it, I "assumed" ...
Thanks for picking that up. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Jon Gaunt

Hi McGeddon with regards to my comments possibly being 'libellous'. I think perhaps your overstating Wiki's place in the world? It is not an official organisation working to a world law.It is just an info board set up by an ordinary Joe and by its very nature the information is not set in stone and is not presented as gospel. It is there for people to use their head and make up their own mind. Once we get to the point where words on Wiki end up being disputed in a court of law (amongst the backlog of other human attrocities cases being presented) , then there is really no future prospects for the human race is there ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernod oxon (talkcontribs) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Barefoot Doctor - Work Section


Thanks for looking at the new content I added.

It reads well with your changes and probably works in better in the section you have placed it in. I will look for a citation on what you have flagged.

Let me know if you think any other contant needs further citations.


Monocle-1000(Monocle-1000 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)).

Irony thumbnail

Any tips on fixing that so the image can remain? Blue Wagon (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood and noted, but on a side note.. You do have to admit it fits the page really, really well. Lol. Blue Wagon (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, back to encyclopedic duties. Blue Wagon (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Sorry for clicking wrong button - 7 bubyon >t 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can happen even to admins with over 125k+ edits. (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Brooker article

Cheers, I'm always uncomfortable ref-ing blogs, but couldn't find any better copies knocking about and it was nearly bedtime. -- Fursday 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kensington runestone and the IP

I had not a clue what the IP was up to with that cite tag and hence I undid it, waiting to see what he meant. I think it was rather untowards of you to call my good faith actions "bad form" and hope you'll retract that. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"script-assisted date/terms audit"

Please review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction; de-linking via semi-automated script is presently prohibited while the case runs its course. best, –xeno (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they were informed. Not sure why the script wasn't blanked in the interim (perhaps because it can be used to fix the format of dates without unlinking them?). –xeno (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added a warning to this effect. cheers, –xeno (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For adding that unsourced tag. That's what I tried to do in the beginning but others kept removing it. Why would they do that? It's obviously unsourced and just someones opinion. (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey McGeddon, why do my edits keep getting reverted? (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Scotland Yard

Only absurd because you deleted the piped link, no need to label other edits work as that. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Wars...... What is this?

I am completely fatigued and confused after trying all day to upload some information about my husband's publications 'Hillimericks'and 'Homage to to Edward Lear' and add them as relevant information to the content on limericks. I am now being accused of being in an 'edit war' with Wikipedia. I have never used Wikipedia before and it is confusing. I thought I could just edit the information at any time. Yes, I should have read all the guidelines. But there are so many. Perhaps I could just add them to the bibliography. Has anyone any advice please?

Rusty —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. I am tired now but will keep trying. I noticed that someone from India had provided the link Newsmericks which led me to a Blogspot blog page. I was encouraged by this and I thought it would be appropriate to include a link via our blog page. It leads diIt is the title of 170 limericks written by the poet Simon R Gladdish and they appear in the book 'Homage to Edward Lrectly to Hillimericks and I thought it would be accepted by the Wikipedia mechanism. Hillimericks and Homage to Edward Lear are genuine, copyright publications. We are not trying to sell anything!! Merely provide information. The word 'Hillimericks' invented by my husband the poet Simon R Gladdish, is currently being considered for inclusion in the next Oxford English dictionary. Perhaps I'll try again tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirontaine (talkcontribs) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was extremely surprised by the tone of your comments. We are in exactly the same position as the man who posted Newsmericks. The only difference is that this man has written a dozen limericks and my husband has written 400 excellent limericks in 'Hillimericks' and 'Homage to Edward Lear'. My husband Simon R. Gladdish was educated at University College, Oxford and Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge and is a serious and well-respected poet. Nobody in the 21st century has done more to advance the cause of the limerick than he has as you would discover for yourself if you troubled to read his work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirontaine (talkcontribs) 22:31, 30 January 2009

Jon Gaunt

Please do not edit my contributions to the Jon Gaunt page without explaining why. Most specifically the line involving talkSPORT's claim not to have received any notice of legal action from Gaunt. Details of that claim can be found here: "A talkSPORT spokesperson responded to Gaunt’s legal action by saying: "Jon Gaunt's website states that he has begun legal proceedings against talkSPORT in response to the termination of his contract with the station. However, neither talkSPORT nor UTV Radio have received any such documentation either from Mr Gaunt or a legal team acting on his behalf" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

--Avner Strauss (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Regarding reversing the bold text for company names thanks for contributing , I was Hoping it would serve the page right since it is very relevant to the subject of police whistles and whistles alltogether .since whole the page of whistle suffers from being how to say in a polite way , poor and suffering from a lot of people trying to bake a cake. I thought it may behoove the subject if readers were refered to pages that have some accurate coherent information. I do not argue about editing and I do not feel I should but would kindly ask you to read the pages linking to manufacturers , makers, Types history etc. (tho some are still unfinished and should improve, since I am new to writing here... ) and reconsider , may be reverse back if you find right after reconsidering. I leave the matter to you . and respect what ever you decide. Cheers --Avner Strauss (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Cook

Following my attempt to ask you why you have taken down relevant information concerning who was behind this weeks unvieling of Peter Cook, I write to enquire why this subject was also taken down by you! Having investigated, I understand that I can indeed include the individual concerned as this is factual and certainly not in any way promotional. I welcome a debate on this!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


I see that you have conveniently chosen to ignore including the fact that Google offers over 3000 hits for a product thats only 8 days old.

I think people who do not have the competency to follow technological matters should be banned from such subjects. They may of course write about Dorian Gray, Barefoot Doctor and other such. The last time, it was deleted by a 17 year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijit8086 (talkcontribs) 07:25, 10 January 2009

I did include some sources of blogs of great authority. ,,, Stacy Reed etc.

But no problems, hang on.

We will soon have what anyone could want. And then I am going to ask you to write it. Ok with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijit8086 (talkcontribs)

I like your civics.

That is a good suggestion (Telecom group) - if I had known such a thing existed, I would have done it that way.

Well!, with all that dirt all over it now, I am not going to ask someone now. I am going to wait for real notability to happen.

It is a good technology and the right direction to take for an acknowledged blind spot in texting.

So it shouldnt take very long. You may like to keep this article on your watch.

best,—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijit8086 (talkcontribs)

Peter Cook

You've stated that adding the name of an individual who is documented historically as well as forthcoming press articles as having set up the campaign in the 1st place to have Peter Cook honoured as promotional??? Can you please explain this as it seems pretty unfair and unjust to be censored for adding something very much factual-Not promotional!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:33, 5 February 2009

How to Calculate the number of the beast

I begin to understand your policy of wanting published references. Once published then copyright infringement helps keep information from getting out. I sought to explain what was obvious in John's day but is totally lost to people of today. Since the number 666 is in Greek, a Greek Ionic gematria is to be found. Gematria of other languages, even if published, are working outside the rules of the riddle.

On another note. I have been unable to find a legitimate font that has a stigma. That has caused confusion to those uninitiated to differentiate a sigma in final form from the stigma. Theoofmopsuestia (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm curious as to why you felt the various references I gave for meeple being a colloquialism used in Carcasonne were inappropriate. -- SGBailey (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your reply on my talk page. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Barefoot Doctor

I noticed that you have edited the page and removed my link.

It seems strange that the majority of the 'Controversy' section is based on one article and any attempts to balance the content of this article are removed. Why is the section that you removed considered "ever-weaker"? What would I need to do to make this section stick?

It seems rather unbalanced to based this section on a single 'expose' style article with nothing to either back up the claim of The Observer article or to counter-act these claims.

I have recently in trying to gain a source for the fact that this allegations to Witness have not been upheld. This has been tricky because, as Iam sure you are aware, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. I have however recieved the folllowing email from Witness...

Thanks for your enquiry and good wishes. In the past when we received complaints our role was to support people when they decided to take them forward – we did not make complaints directly ourselves. With regard to the case you mentioned I am not aware of any further action that was publically reportable in that case.

Unfortunately we are not able to provide advice or support currently. However, you might be interested in the survivor group that has recently started, details on our website

I'm sorry we can't offer any public service currently.

Jonathan Coe


I would like to include the part of this email where Jonathan Coe states on behalf on Witness that they "are not aware of any further action that was publically reportable in that case". Could you pplease let me know he most suitable way to source this point. It may also be worth noting that Witness went into administration in late 2008 and is no longer offering any public service. An official statement about this can be seen at

I look forward to liasing with you to work out some ammendments to this section that will not br removed or edited - a consenus. I also look forward to your advice on how to include this new material. If we can not come to an amicable agreement is there an independent panel that can offer a final judgement on this issue?

Monocle-1000 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will look for a better source in relation to the link that you removed.

I appreciate that a personal email is not a reliable source and that is why I asked for your co-operation on getting what is an important point into a suitable format bearing in mind that Witness is now in administration and not offering any public services.

I will post further on The Barefoot Doctor talk page.

Monocle-1000 (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: gaslighting article

"Let me know what you think"

To be frank, I let you know what I thought when I reverted your changes.

You removed expansive chunks of valuable information from the article, namely examples of various types and forms of gaslighting. You reduced the number of examples, which helps no one, and also de-illuminated the fact that gaslighting comes in several different shapes and sizes. You made the wording of things less clear -- i.e. a 5th-grader who has no clue what "gaslighting" is wouldn't be crystal-clear on it after reading the article as you had it...and last time I checked, that's still the standard for encyclopedic and technical writing aimed at the general public. You made the lead-in a confusing example which was a "technical shell"...i.e. an example with no specificity, composed of confusing terms which aren't conducive to beginning an understanding in a person with no background on the term. The article as I had it was accurate, made sense, provided several specific examples which - due to being archetypes in popular culture - are understandable to the general public, etc. etc. etc. -- in short, it provided more information (better), was more detailed (better), was more specific (better), and was more understandable to persons having no familiarity with the term whatsoever (better). And because it was better, I reverted it to that. Nuberger13 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mosquito Group

Dear McGeddon,

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. I was writing my reasons for adding the link to mosquitogroup on the discussion page, but my computer crashed before I was able to save it. Rest assured that I have no connection whatsoever to mosquitogroup or anything else related to the Mosquito product. I am just a resident of North America who thinks that North American sources deserve a voice in Wikipedia, even if the pages are about UK products. Even though I have made edits in the past where I added this link, I have also made other edits that were valuable.

I saw that someone posted on the discussion page that they consider the link to the mosquitogroup a commercial link to avoid, but I disagree with that assessment. In fact, I think if the manufaturer's UK site is compared to the North American site mosquitogroup, the UK site is much more obviously designed for a commercial purpose - to sell a product. After all, they even have a shopping cart on their site to sell their product internationally. And they seem to have much less media coverage of the Mosquito then the mosquito group site.

Anyway, I will write my further thoughts about external links on the discussion page.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me and reading my response.

--Purpleblue1 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi McGeddon,

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to explain so clearly why you resized the picture. It is much appreciated.

The expanded caption's an improvement, too.


Dinoceras (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again,

No, I had no idea that it had any margins.


Dinoceras (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gene Hunt

I've re-removed the external links that you re-added to the Gene Hunt article as none of them provide any additional infomation beyond what is already in the article, therefore they violate links to avoid. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I saw your edit summary. I thought I'd just drop a note here anyway since I was effectively reverting your edit. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Go Daddy

We have responded to the Go Daddy page being flagged for COI and tone on the Go Daddy discussion page. We'd like for you to participate in the discussion. Thank you ParsonsRep (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Example creep"

You reverted my edits on E-Prime. Could you please explain why you consider me listing a few words as "creep"? An example of "do; does; doing; did" exists but you removed the word in has; have; having; had. In order for these lists to look consistent, you should not remove having on your revert.

Also, the list "I've; you've" does not completely represent every scenario. This is because the 've at the end of these signifies have. But I added two apostrophized endings "'d" and "'ll" in "we'd" and "they'll." This more completely shows that E-Prime does not forbid "'d" and "'ll". I just want to insert two different contractions: 'd and 'll, to show that E-Prime can tolerate them. I did not "creep" by adding every variation, such as we'll, they've, I'll, he'll, she'll, he've, she've.

Looking at your writing, you do not even know anything about E-Prime and you do not practice it. I see no reason for you to aggressively revert my legitimate edits. (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Keep Calm and Carry On.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Keep Calm and Carry On.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Derek Jameson

I forget (or don't know) if you prefer replies to be kept all in one place or prefer it in your own user talk. Users seem to be about equally split on that.

Thanks for the changes, nice to see someone actually working on it! It seems to me that as soon as I edit an article someone else will edit it (either a vandal or a good editor like yourself), yet if you put it on a discussion or whatever well you might as well ask the cat. I must admit I was in two minds over the list style but more than anything was just trying to tidy it up a bit and make it consistent.

Thanks and best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


i submit an image and i thing the license is worng or something heeeeeelp!!!! --Sistemx (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Go Daddy Intro

On the Go Daddy discussion page we have provided an intro we feel will assist in removing the flag about the intro not adequately summarizing the article. As you're an active user & contribute to the Go Daddy page, we'd like for you to participate in the discussion. ParsonsRep (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script


I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script to remove the autoformatting or linking of dates or other functions; I hope you have found it useful.

This is to let you know that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, McGeddon. You have new messages at COMPFUNK2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom

I have found the appropriate page numbers and added them to the text, so the things challenged are now referenced with the correct page numbers. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)



I saw you removed a new game variation I had entered in the "Mafia (party game)" page, on the basis that it was not referenced. The variation is an orignal form of gameplay, there is no where to reference it to. Also, it is not the only variation on the page that does not have a reference attached to it.

If I want it to stay up there, what needs to be done?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash86 (talkcontribs) 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ROF Ayclifffe/Aycliffe Angels

Sorry about that, bit of a d'oh moment on my part than any kind of opinion, wasnt intentional more a case of editing with lack of sleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraggle81 (talkcontribs) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi there,

Sorry to be a pain, but I noticed you have edited a number of parts to the powers of PCSOs/Police. I notice that many of these edits seem to be based upon assumption, rather than fact? Could you provide evidence for these amendments?


--leopheard (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Of course stupid me ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bristol page

Ok, no problem I won't try and add it again. Steve Nash - G0UQT (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You have removed my external link from the bristol page, was there a problem with it?

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Steve Nash - G0UQT (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Ryan

A fair stance you have taken on the Chris Ryan article, but if you remove the reference to Armstrong's MM, shouldn't also also remove the MM itself from the article? Without that reference, there is no evidence that either Armstrong or Ryan won the MM. - Mr Pillows (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The source for the MM is the one you just removed. - Mr Pillows (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ashes to Ashes characters pages

We have that same problem again with Police,Mad,Jack vandalising pages with wholesale removal of cited information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MileyDavidA (talkcontribs) 21:33, 14 May 2009

I was not vandalising at all. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[Traffic warden]] ==

Sorry, rolled back your edit to traffic warden. Thought I was removing vandalism. Sorted it out now apologies - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Milkybar "graffiti"

Hi! I'm sorry for my mistake. It was stupid of me! Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Of course, it was not intentional, but my careless mistake. (Sigh). Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Angus Deayton

Thanks for explaining to me about the use of my edit on Angus Deayton; I fully appreciate that this could be registered as original research, although could you explain how this is original research? Because I would like to be sure that I don't make the same mistake again while also understanding more about the matter. How could I improve on the edit so that it isn't classified as original research? Thanks again for the explanation, McGeddon. Kenny Wyton (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


Hi...I appreciate your feedback and hoped this might help clarify my thinking a bit. I noticed that on the bottom of the rubber duck section there were people on the external links who were promoting places to buy ducks. I added us to the list not so much as to get people to buy ducks from us (most people go to these other sites anyway who buy from us) but rather felt that it would be useful for people to see the official home website of the company that pioneered this whole new collectible, celebrity rubber ducks.

I tried to intentionally just write one or two sentences about our work without having it come across as salesy with all the PR such as top 100 gifts by Entertainment Weekly, featured on Tonight Show and hundreds of other media outlets around the world, etc., etc. I felt that the body of work we have done and the way in which we are able to now create some of the most intricately sculpted and painted rubber ducks in the world was worth of mention. I didn't want to mention too much about this, but rather just to let it be known that there was a company that had put a whole new twist on the classic rubber duck by doing a whole line of celebrity rubber ducks. BEfore us, no-one had really ever done rubber ducks as promotions or do character likenesses as rubber ducks. We have been at this for over ten years creating this artform. I tried to just present a few factual lines which I hoped fit in with the rest of the article. Anyway, I do look forward to hearing your feedback. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebriducks (talkcontribs) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre

Hi, Why do you have a problem with me changing Ben Goldacres Wikipedia profile? I'm making a totally valid point, all I'm saying is that psychiatry has been around for over 200 years and still no biological test. In other words there treatment is based on a "hypophisis" and is not proven. He has no right to talk about quakery. (Arachnoid007 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)).

Hi, Sorry I tried to add in a reference on Goldacres site but I think I accidentally did something wrong. I tried correcting it but no sure how to. My reference was a web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachnoid007 (talkcontribs) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Looks like I may have to do a YouTube video about Ben Goldacre. If you want you can see my vids if you look on YouTube and type in my name "alessandro prian" in the search engine. I'm a former mental patient and I'm trying to inform the public of this medical fraud. Thanks for your advice it was much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachnoid007 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


You appear to be confusing me with the first poster on the Celebriduck subject, who, indeed, is involved with Celebriducks. He is new to Wikipedia and didn't understand why someone had deleted his contribution. I explained to him that he could not post himself, due to perceived conflict of interest. That is why I, rather than he, wrote a neutral, non promotional, informative and factual addendum to the article mentioning the contribution of the company to the ducky world of a completely new category of rubber duck that has, indeed, become part of rubber ducky pop culture.

Celebriducks have been featured in magazine and newspaper articles, on television sitcoms, news programs and even late night talk shows such as Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, etc. I would imagine that by most people's standards, such pop exposure and discussion of this new rubber duck form would constitute a significant contribution to rubber duck culture as a whole. Pardon the pun, but they have made quite a splash amongst rubber duck collectors!

I also thought a new section on variations was appropriate since such permutations of the classic rubber ducky now comprise a significant portion of the overall ducky market and are likely of interest to readers who find themselves perusing the Rubber Duck article. Naturally, Celebriducks, Devil Ducks, et alia belong in this section to distinguish them from the original classic yellow rubber duck.

There are a number of links to commercial ducky sites. By your logic all these should be expunged as well since they are solely commercial in nature and do not appear to add to the discussion in any substantive way. However, the link to is there to allow anyone who may be curious to investigate that subject further.

So, please refrain from deleting my contribution, my friend. I am but a humble citizen, such as yourself, attempting to add to the discussion of this most delightful subject with information about an interesting twist to the classic theme that I believe many folks will find quite interesting and informative. Perhaps you could even help me to find some authoritative references to round things out? Thanks, and take care. Midnight-Sculptor (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Essex Book Festival

I am fully aware as well as compliant with the neutrality rules you have just posted. I just want to make a wikipedia article about a festival I both enjoy and attend.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Selected Poems (talkcontribs) 20:09, 8 March 2009

Re: 3RR Notice

If you look at the person's edits, you will see that it was vandalism-Binary TSO ???

The editor removed a significant section of referenced material in order to add a couple of words about "Sun Talk". Do you really think that can be justified? I mean, is it really that difficult to add new material without removing existing information which is perfectly fine the way it is-Binary TSO ???

stephen fry

this was not a personal comment to stephen fry it is fact based upon the fact that i was a pupil at cundall manor school and was taught by stephen fry and i assume people would enjoy this fact about him. i also find it somewhat fascistic and extremely random the way that you decide what should be in the wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyramone (talkcontribs) 11:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

rome total war

Yeah, I tried to figure out how to do the Talk:Rome:_Total_War/Archive2#Remove_Historical_Inaccuracies_section link. Couldn't do it, so I copied that large portion of text. Wasn't even the full text though. Just so you know I wasn't trying :) Mallerd (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

rome total war

Yeah, I tried to figure out how to do the Talk:Rome:_Total_War/Archive2#Remove_Historical_Inaccuracies_section link. Couldn't do it, so I copied that large portion of text. Wasn't even the full text though. Just so you know I was trying :) Mallerd (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Could you explain your objection to my edit to Yes Minister? I thought that was a more intelligent target for the link. Everyking (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I never heard of WP:EGG before. I'm new here, you see, so you have to explain these things to me! Well, it seemed like an entirely logical link to me, since the quote was obviously referring to Page 3. Everyking (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've removed any reference to Horse + Bamboo Theatre in the Punchdrunk article because I think your point in relation to the source re. WP:RS is, perhaps, correct. I say 'perhaps' because I felt that the reference in the 'Guardian' Comment to a similarity between the use of theatre forms gave an interesting historical perspective and was the referencing of a point of view relevant to the definition of a form similar to 'promenade theatre'. However I'm very happy to bow to your judgement on this. It is important to try and not be self-serving in edits. Best wishes Bob (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

stephen fry

this is as much of a farce as the mp's expences. it is not as though wikipedia is the 'ultimate' definition in accuracy, however, it seems to be a source that jo public has become reliant upon, for good or for bad. the condecending nature of the administration is not in keeping with the freedom of the internet and so again i repeat the accusation that the editing of this article is facistic and therefore it is no further advanced than the big brother society of the clockwork orange....this is doomed to failure...unfortunately because of people without foresight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyramone (talkcontribs) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for explaining. I hadn't thought of it like that. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline of games

The rationale for the placement was that since subject outlines also serve as topical guides (tables of contents), the most useful location for the links to them is at the front of their respective subjects.

I placed about 30 links as a test run, to gather feedback. The resulting discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#top of article reference to outline is unnecessary spam.

The Transhumanist    23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: For more information about outlines, see WP:WPOOK (which is looking for new members, by the way).

RE: Gene Hunt

Hello McGeddon. I realise that you are just trying to keep the peace on the Gene Hunt article, which I admire. But me and you both know that some WP:OR was inserted in those edits. You can see by the history, the amount of factual innaccuracies I have corrected. It is clear that the user has made up that WPC Dobbs was a "matron", again me and you both know she is nothing of the kind. Just thought I would let you know about what I think. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 10:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is never mentioned in the show, but I suppose you could call her a matron. However, a book I own says that from 1922 they were phased out, the only other ones that existed from then were "court matrons", the last one of them retiring in 1996. It also says that matrons were replaced by WPCs, which if, is the case surely it would be better to call them WPCs. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lyn Took : Round the Horne

Hi...I'm no vandal. I am Barry Took's youngest son and know the difference between a widow and an ex-wife. My late father and Lyn were divorced a couple of years before his death. Regards, David Took —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesisthrup (talkcontribs) 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I could reinforce what has been said above about Lyn Took's status and as Barry Took's eldest son (yes, David and I are brothers) I can confirm that an ex-wife is not legally entitled to call herself a widow. However, if a person who is divorced (which after all, tends to be a fairly private matter) does not correct an erroneous impression that they are still married to someone at the time of their death, then a local paper is understandably going to assume that they are talking to a widow. As far as proof is concerned, I could give you the names of the solicitors involved in the divorce but I wouldn't so you'll just have to accept the word of Barry Took's sons. Regards Barry C. Took —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References

Hi I added several cultural references to the Post-It page. It seems that you erased it twice. Is there a reason you don't want it on the page? It seems that a "cultural reference" section is very commonly added to Wiki pages. What I added isn't offensive or inaccurate. In fact, if anything, it's very complimentary to Post-It. --Kismetmagic (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Kismet

RE: Removal of picture

Even though the picture was not mine. Did it really need to be removed? I'm sure you will throw a Wiki policy at me, but still. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol. A sense of humour is never a bad thing. But thanks for your answer, and I see why it should not be included now

Thanks. I understand what you are saying. Fair enough, I will do so. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed-Circuit Television


I recently moved the "Closed-Circuit Television" to a new title since this article talks more that just closed circuit television (CCT). This article should be titled "Video Surveillance" since it encompasses CCT and as you can see the article talks about video surveillance as well. This last term makes more sense for this article. Or how can I create a new page for video surveillance? When I do a search it redirects to the CCT page, which is not 100% accurate. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! --RPT01 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

About that silly Nirvana definition

If you're devout as I've been and followed the 10 commandments pretty well without ceding authority to any spook or any mysticism, then you'll get your big break later in life and attain Nirvana legally. Nirvana is wrought with discomfort and it is precisely as I've described it at

I don't think that pontificating droids should be the ones to tell youth what Nirvana is, because then they'll never know. Nirvana is a free gift of God and not exclusive to high muckity-mucks! Realize that. Think on that good and hard, mister. God is about Law and everything shining in the Sun; the Devil is about the Moon, lunacy, darkness, ignorance and debauchery and sorcery and cowardice and ... well you get the idea: stuff that isn't decent enough to surface and stand scrutiny in the Sun and in the light of the Law.

No, my piece is in no way "opinion", for I am there, ascended to The Father ...until death only, and not an inch further. For God doesn't employ sorcery; He doesn't need to; He employs plain temperate legal means to gift those who heed His call and provide the fully-legal means of egress. It's the existing Wikipedia piece on Nirvana that constitutes OPINION and likely outright FRAUD. What you all have described in that article is just another bubble, like oh-so-many bubbles that will eventually burst. Like the Taliban bubble; like the bubble of Heidi Fleiss before it came crashing down; like the bubble of Manuel Noriega, or Ferdinand Marcos or a trillion others. No suffering?? Hah!! That pathetic article only describes a life of selling out, of finding a niche where one is buffered by mystics, priests, admirers, and the like-minded. NO, that isn't the goal. NO, that isn't the attainment! Achieve the attainment and you'll find out in a freakin' heartbeat what it IS about. ETP (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Try these steps toward realization:

Q: Do you know God? A: Yes, He created you, so you literally know Him like the back of your hand.

Q: Then why am I not happy and successful yet? A: Because you know what He knows, which is the fact that you haven't yet completed your mission in life for Him, the gist of which is blatantly OBVIOUS: you are to demonstrate and prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, PUBLICLY, that there is sweet reward for those who keep His commandments, and dire punishment for those who don't.

Q: When I complete my mission, then will I have attained Nirvana? A: YES, and your absolution will be just that, ABSOLUTE. But whoa!'ll be a sitting duck for any sorceries that the Devil can whip up and believe you me, that's a MOUNTAIN of pain. The Devil will try to convince you, through magical charade, that you have fallen SHORT of the Glory That Is God (yeah, and so what? who hasn't?). The Devil will try to WAYLAY you from the steady course, away from goodness and knowledge and openness and righteousness. But hey, you don't ask for much anymore anyway, because you've achieved the TOP goal, ABSOLUTION. You won't be back for any return visit; God is DONE with you; He has abandoned you (yeah and so what? you only existed to serve that one mission and now you are filled with glee at its completion; and it can't be undone; it is consummate, as is your absolution). But the Devil will continue for years, nay decades, to use sorcery on your body and mind to waylay you from Truth, trick you into disbelieving that your mission WAS INDEED COMPLETED, PERFECTED AND CONSUMMATE. Don't buy the charade, for the arena, though sublimely compelling, and all its players, though costumed in holier-than-thou regalia, are an outright and total FAKE! The Devil is trying to recall you to its lunacy and filthiness, to be Evil's tool for eternity, through witchcraft and reincarnation (which serves his evil designs, to confound and manipulate).

Q: What should I do to fight this horrible parasite, these sorceries? A: Do nothing to fight them, for there is NO causation associated with those lifeless artificial charades! Just live as you care to live, love and sometimes hate, build and sometimes demolish, eat and sometimes fast. Smoke 'em if y'got 'em. It's just PLAIN LIFE after the attainment. Transgress and it's the local constabulary that will mete out any punishment. You aren't to DIGNIFY the charade presented you!! But since it is sublimely compelling at times, you'll have to swallow your pride and tolerate some wavering/weakness; but KNOW that it doesn't count against you, for you are HOME free and clear. Absolution is ABSOLUTE. Never forget that! Your mission was a SMASHING SUCCESS! It didn't make even a paragraph in the newspaper, but we all (the ecosphere) JUST LOVED IT !!!!!!!!! Many earnest THANKS !!!

ETP (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did YOU go to Law school!? Wikipedia policy says no such thing!

I read the cited/linked policy texts and my external link passes ALL their tests. As for number 11, it clearly states that "this exception is meant to be very limited". Mine is no "personal web site" and it contains exactly ZERO personal information, only gospel truth about the subject matter. It's content-rich and precisely on point. No, fool; I'm forging ahead. If arbitration looms, then so be it!

ETP (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

old DMOZ and new and latest

Hi, sorry but it is NO promote AND no spaming. DMOZ is a very good directory, but paintballsites are very old and not latest. paintball guide is free, NO COMMERCIAL!!! and only for quality paintballsites. search engine ranking are I do not care. I am a paintball player, the new site looks good but rarely finds. from the base, I started this project in which I worked hard. so that it always remains current. spam or advertising will be ignored look at the page, please detail. and think about your decision again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • you do not find it is stupid because what you write? You may link to DMOZ on outdated links. I write on my page may not link because it is spam. although it is a simple brochure sites for paintball is. AND ONLY FOR PAINTBALL SITE. It is free and not commercial. where you recognize that advertising is a mystery to me. advertising, it would be like if I do it under all sorts of paintball would just register. quite honestly, I sometimes doubt on wikipedia because they simply do not offer anything to iniformationen. example of this is the best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dormant sensory organ

Since a prod tag had already been removed from the article, I have listed it as AfD instead. You may want to voice your opinion there. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Sorry if it seemed "bitting the newbiees". His comment seemed like vandalism so I reverted it using Huggle.Nothing intentional, I'm sorry. On the contrary, I try to be friendly with newcomers and will watch out more in the future. Thanks for telling me;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi McGeddon, that reflinks tool looks really useful. Can you advise me on how I install it? Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Since you just reverted their last unhelpful edit to RuneScape, I thought I'd bring it up with you first. This user seems to do some good work, but most (if not all) of their edits to that article have been either unhelpful, or just vandalism.[6] [7] [8] Their user page says they don't like RS - that's fine. Vandalising the article is not.

I don't know what to do. Do we continue reverting and warning (which he doesn't seem to be listening to), or find an administrator to issue something sterner? I need a second opinion. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas (novel)

Hi. Please check in on your move proposal on Talk:Cloud Atlas (novel). --Una Smith (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work!

Hi McGeddon,

Just as I was about to hit the edit button on the "Enemies" section on Fallout 3, you beat me to the punch and did the job before I could. Great work! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for that, I didn't know it was automatic, thanks. --Comedy Dan (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Snopes edits

Please do not arbitrarily revert constructive edits mixed in with any you challenge. My edits combined the two (Evidently: it is not clear what you object to. Certainly not, one would not think, the several constructive ones not involving cited material).

Just because material is cited does not make it either encyclopedic or relevant. I found neither to be. I will delete the two passages again on those grounds. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:

Hi. How weird that you warned this user about the same thing, almost a year to the day after I did! :) Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 11:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)