User talk:McGeddon

Barcodes

Hi McGeddon, I recently tried to add some new info on one of the inventors of our modern day Bar Code. I mistakenly used some phrasing "one of the first" that required a second verification source which I understand. I then edited the statement to just say, "While working for Pitney-Bowes Alpex, N. Narasimha Murthy received 3 patents on the Bar Code, PATENT # 3,700,858 - February 24, 1971 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,700,858.PN.&OS=PN/3,700,858&RS=PN/3,700,858

PATENT #3,731,064 - July 28, 1970 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,731,064.PN.&OS=PN/3,731,064&RS=PN/3,731,064

PATENT #3,761,685 - May 24, 1971 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,761,685.PN.&OS=PN/3,761,685&RS=PN/3,761,685" and sourced the US patent office to verify this factual statement. I am wondering if this statement, regarding patents on the Bar Code also requires a 2nd source? If you visit these government links of public record, you will find the product, abstract, company, date and Mr. Murthy's name verified. If you could provide me with any further advice on how to have this fact published, I would very much appreciate your input.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Houseofhoofyfoot (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 December 2014‎

Reference Errors on 30 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Internet screamer page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cranes (beverage)

Thank you for doing the revocation for Cranes (beverage). I was unable to find the ad for Cranes. I was looking for the name of the company to add to the article. Notability may still be an issue, we shall see.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

hash oil

Hey you tampered with my editing on the hash oil page. The parts I deleted were facts misrepresented and taken out of context. I have a background in chemistry. If you want to contribute to the page fine. Please do so. I would appreciate it if you let my project be . I am not even close to finished.

forallofx@hotmail.com

Please feel free to contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.12.101 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamleys

The reference to show that Gamleys is trading again is from their website www.gamleys.co.uk. How best should I reference this, as it is not an article? == — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.194.182 (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Link is totally relevant with wikipedia page

My website http://goprohero4.github.io/ is based on GoPro Hero 4 Silver edition. Wikipedia needs to have a link like this so that visitor can get into that link and directly buy that selected product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techstalks (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Viruses

You have recently edited the page [List of viruses], and seem to have a handle on the structure of Wikipedia. I'm a brand new user looking to submit my up to date taxonomical list of viruses that is currently living in my sandbox. If you could point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! Bervin61 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Images at Think of the children page

Greetings, User McGeddon. I just happened to be at the Think of the children page seeking to crib the blockquote2 template I remembered seeing there and noticed two glaringly non-germane Talking Head images were gone. I checked the page's history and saw that Cirt had removed them "per Talk". At the Talk page I saw you were the instigator. Since you did not make the edit, there is no link at the History page to send a thanks, so I am doing it here. Those images had glared at me for some time, but given how assiduously Cirt keeps after the page I was disinclined to engage on them. Instead, I ended up in an unrelated back-and-forth with Cirt over various copyedits, which ended up in a productive collaboration and mutual respect. After that I moved on, and thus was gratified to see the images gone today.

I can sympathize with Cirt's continuing desire to break up a wordy page with more germane images. It's a shame a bright panel from the Simpson's animation isn't fair use. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it?

Hi McGeddon, I really don't understand you. I raised these in January on the talk page, got your comments, left it there for others to comment, then made the changes. The other changes were very minor things I observed at the time - for example [this recent edit https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=prev&oldid=648191031] was partially incorrect as the piece is pulled directly from source. The other edits were minor improves with rational explanations in the edit summary. If you were of the view that the draft section I intended to insert should never happen, why didn't you raise that a month ago when I was discussing with you and asking your advice? thanks Danh108 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Even based on your assessment of my relationship to the subject matter, which as you know, I maintain is incorrect, however leaving that aside, the section you referred me too allows me to edit when using the talk page process. Otherwise what will happen? You are just chasing all the editors away from this page until the troll comes back and you befriend him/her again? Danh108 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi McGeddon, thanks for your comments/explanation. I do value/appreciate the amount of time you give to keeping Wikipedia up and running and I am conscious not to waste too much of your time educating me. One challenge your suggestion poses to me is that at the moment we are the only people passing much comment on the article, so I felt answering the only concerns you raised would constitute consensus? Plus you are quite switched on. I would say you err on the side of caution, which is good, so I considered that passing through your feedback was enough - wouldn't having you screen additions is an adequate protection against bias? cheers Danh108 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I get what you are saying. My hesitation is that neither of us have had much luck getting people interested in this topic, I guess because the group is quite small...still, you are suggesting so I will give it a try and see. I was looking at the history and noticed one change was made by you.....can I ask why the piece about the India President got inserted in the beliefs? It just seems really out of place as that is a "real world anecdote/report', not part of the groups belief's....it doesn't fit the structure/logic of the article. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

hmmmm....but first I need to try and drum up an audience from somewhere so I've got someone to raise it with :-)....apart from the occasional "cult" commentator, and the other occasional editor who deletes the whole controversies section :-D....anyway, one never knows their luck on Wikipedia - maybe this time there will be someone with heaps of experience on small religio-spiritual groups just wanting to cut their teeth on something new :-). Cheers Danh108 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could point me in the direction of the Wiki-projects pages. I'm not that good at finding my way around...sorry to be such a beginner....a hyperlink would be ideal :-) thank youDanh108 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian Goose

Edit: small animals is suffice.

Dear McGeddon,

I saw an Egyptian goose go from an empty stomach to a full stomach in an instant. I noticed how territorial the Egyptian goose is, especially when the weather is cold in Benelux region EU. After seeing how the wings of the Egyptian goose fold tense against the torso to suffocate the animal inside the stomach, I had no words.

I do not have a picture of water birds eating other water bird offspring, but I seen it and had a conversation about it with a local. Check images: (1) the Egyptian goose walking with its offspring on a cold FEBRUARY in THE NETHERLANDS, (2) this image of the locals I had a conversation with.

(1) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Iw6mot96u9SjMyWW9ieHFwMlk/edit?usp=docslist_api

(2) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Iw6mot96u9WEpLZHExNG9Ua0U/edit?usp=docslist_api

Thank you,

Seb — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebNoLife (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong reCAPTCHA example images

Hi, You left a message in my user talk page and I replied. Since I don't know whether you will automatically be notified, I'm letting you know. Thanks Teo8976 (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sisyphus Shrugged

Hi, McGeddon. I added the novel Sisyphus Shrugged to the Sisyphus page because there was already a link to a page about a novel featuring Sisyphus. Links to works featuring references to the mythological character seemed fair game to me. If you're saying there's a difference between reference and a commercial site, that's fine, but could you please say that? As of now, I'm just guessing that's your reason. Rpeate (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, McGeddon. I won't put the link back up, because I feel sure you'll just take it down again, which is fine. But I note the issue is not as clear-cut as you make it sound. Wikipedia's own guidelines offer two different views:

1. " . . . In line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked."

2. "Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link."

It also says, "When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." I would do that, except I doubt you would defer to another editor who decided in my favor, so I will let it drop for that reason. You may rest assured you have saved Wikipedia users from having to suffer something I think might benefit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpeate (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I already said I won't post it again. I will defer to the first position stated, because it is not worth it to me, and because I may not have understood the purpose of Wikipedia. That said, there is no reason to assume you are always right. I consider the matter closed, and you should feel pleased that you prevented me from sharing my work. Rpeate (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My blogs

can you explain why adding my personal blogs on spam list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozguncel (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)