User talk:McGeddon

Copy Editing

Dear McGeddon,

Thanks for answering! So many reversions of my copy-edits remain unexplained that your message makes me smile. :)

-- From your edit history it looks like some of your edits are causing problems when you're copyediting a reasonably well-written article which lies outside your area of expertise - fixing obviously ungrammatical sentences is fine and useful work, and there's a lot of Wikipedia that needs it, but when you simplify a technical detail for what you perceive as readability, there's a real danger that you'll change its meaning and detract from the article. --

You may have misinterpreted my copy-edit: some words and ideas are implicit and therefore omittable. E.g., in the sentence "Platform A can support up to 10 tons" prepositional phrase "up to" can be omitted because unless Platform A can support only 10 tons (this detail should have been mentioned) then it also can support less than 10 tons. I rarely intentionally simplify technical detail because it rarely exceeds encyclopedic depth; most of my simplifications instead are unintentional, and I apologize for having made them. :(

-- Checking your most recent edit, you correctly fix the ungrammatical "smaller and unique in shape over the other ESPs", but stray beyond mere copyediting by removing details both intentionally (the fact that ESPAD's attachment is "unlike ESP-1" is lost, as is the detail that ESP-1 was carried "into orbit" by a Cargo Carrier) and accidentally ("The Unity Module it like ESP-1" seems to be missing some words, and no longer refers to the platform's power source). (I'm assuming that these changes in detail were unintentional, since you described it as just copyediting - if you know about ESPs and were making corrections, removing details is obviously fine!) --

Continuing my example, if "Unlike Platform A, Platform B can support 20 tons" follows the first sentence, then "Unlike Platform A" can be deleted because unless Platform A's ability to support 20 tons was absurdly unmentioned, readers can infer the dissimilarity between the platforms' load capacity. "into orbit" can be deleted because the Cargo Carrier would nowhere else carry the ESP-1; analagously, writing "I with my shoe stepped onto the street" would be wordy because readers would assume that I wore shoes. Whereas I blush at my grammatical accidents. >_<

-- Perhaps it's worth you focusing more on fixing flat-out bad grammar and typos, and being careful when touching content which is already accurate and grammatically correct, and merely inelegant? --

I carefully copy edit that content. Tangentially, I likewise copy-edit many other works and thereabout receive almost no complaints.

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talk • contribs) 01:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I see your point about "inferring dissimilarities" - if the article doesn't mention Platform A's load capacity, but mentions that of Platform B, there's nothing to suggest to the reader that the two load capacities are explicitly different. Platform A's capacity may simply be unknown. Similarly, although a reader who knows what an Integrated Cargo Carrier is will understand that whatever it carried must have been carried "into orbit", a reader unfamiliar with the technology wouldn't be able to infer this without clicking through to read a second article. There's no harm in including such small details if they help the reader to understand the subject; a word in a sentence might be "implicit and therefore omittable" to an expert, but Wikipedia readers are not all experts. --

The article mentions both platforms' load capacities without saying that one exceeds the other or that platform A cannot hold 20 tons: any layperson would understand that 20 tons are more than 10 tons and therefore that Platfrom B can bear more weight than platform A. A reader unfamiliar with space technology would think that the Cargo Carrier is a spacecraft because all surrounding context describes space.

-- You say "I likewise copy-edit many other works and thereabout receive almost no complaints" - eight editors taking the time to leave a message on your talk page with concerns about your copyediting style over the past year is a significant amount. And even just glancing at your most recent edits from the past week, you have four different editors reverting your copyedits with concerns over accuracy or style ("edit mostly obscured meaning", "rvt to version before copy-edit - much clearer", "Sorry, but copyediting also needs to preserve subject accuracy", "Previous version had better grammar and spelling"). There is clearly some kind of problem here! What do you think this difference of opinion is down to, and how do you think it can be avoided? --

These other works are not on Wikipedia but on Wikihow, too many specialized Wikis to count, scores of pages of fiction from many authors, technical documentation, and GUI text. My edits thereto are almost always liked; whereas my edits to Wikipedia usually get mixed reception, and today an angry mob of editors has suddenly reverted all my recent edits. >_< However much I err, I wonder whether word's spreading has caused this sudden reversion increase.

Obviously a problem exists! I just don't know what it is because however many messages I send to reverting editors, almost no-one detailedly explains why my editing is bad. :( What I see as horridly tangled and wordy they see as elegant, causing many conflicts. Nimbus227 has greatly helped me, from examples deriving principles and telling me that I am not copy-editing but stylistically rewriting articles. These principles and that detail are important. :)

This difference of opinion may boil down to some grammatical differences:

I write: [Subject] [preposition] [adverb] [indirect object] [verb] [direct object] Most people write: [Subject] [indirect object] [verb] [adverb] [direct object] [preposition]

The latter order confuses me because it violates the English principle of writing description before objects and jumbles the sentence's structure. For example of my point of view consider the first stanza of "Men of Harlech":

"Tongues of fire on Idris flaring / news of foemen near declaring / to heroic deeds of daring / call you Harlech men" makes sense to me because the passage's most important parts--"Tongues of fire," "news," "heroic," and "Harlech"--are first. If ignoring rhyme scheme the passage were, "Tongues of fire flaring on Idris / news of foemen declaring near / call you Harlech men / to heroic deeds of daring" the passage would baffle listeners and not climax on the poem's focus: "heroic deeds of daring". Granted poetic poetic license authors can violate this rule; e.g., "Misty Mountains Cold"

"The pines were roaring o-o-on the height. / The winds were moaning i-i-in the night. / The fire was red. It flaming spread. / The trees like torches blazed with light."

Repeatedly panning readers' imaginations from subject ("pines," "winds," "fire," "trees") to field ("height," "night," "spread," and "light") creates an epic scene that seems un-Wikipedian--not least because the entire poem biasedly tells the story of Smaug's unprovokedly and dastardly attacking the dwarves' mountain hall rather than as a fiasco of greed, cultural myopia, and failed interspecial relations. :D

Perhaps I should sometimes write prepositions after verbs. What do you think?

If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

--

I intend a neutral, concise, and logical style: I said that putting prepositions before verbs seems more logical and Wikipedian whereas putting verbs before prepositions seems more confusing and poetic, and I exemplified this point by comparing Harlech Men and Misty Mountains only because the former uses my style whereas the latter does not. :) Also, Men of Harlech would not sadden Welshmen because the song recounts a Welsh victory.

If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Inexcusably Belated Reply: I want to know your specific complaints.  :) If I know exhaustively and exactly, whether generally or specifically, what you believe to be wrong with my editing, then I can correct your error or my editing.

Duxwing (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Global Metropolises Category vs Largest Cities by Population

Hey there, McGeddon. I am currently creating the Global Metropolises category & the Largest Cities by Population (Globally) category. I'm not desperately attached to keeping both categories, but I do think there is a subtle distinction. At this point, my plan is to add the 100 largest cities to each category but I think that as other's contribute to the categories they may grow to contain different datasets/cities and certainly people will find each caytegory for different reasons, from different searches on the search engine. I was inspired to create these categories because I was frustrated by how regionally atomized information was on the cities category page, and it seems to labor intensive to me to constantly edit and update pages like the "World's largest cities, since the same cities are usually going to appear on the list, but they are constantly changing ranks with each other. Does that make sense? Why do you want to delete the Global Metropolises category?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMikael (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 February 2014‎

Susanna Reid

Hi, why was the link about Susanna Reid named 81st Most Desirable Woman in the World inappropriate? AskMen is a leading men's online lifestyle publication. Thanks. Simona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smohan23 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeeves & Bertie Wooster

I made similar edits today (changing "Bertie" to "Wooster" where appropriate) to two different articles, and received very different responses. When I changed 16 occurrences in P. G. Wodehouse, you reverted me, but when I changed 34 occurrences in Jeeves, I received a Thank you notification from User:Wikipeterproject, who claims to be a veteran editor with 9000 edits (not that that makes him unassailably correct, but since I think he's done more edits than you and I combined, he probably knows the house style, even though neither you nor I have found anything definitive on the subject of naming conventions for fictional names).

So I thought I would explain to you why I made the changes.

I do agree that, superficially, it feels odd to us in the 21st century, to speak of fictional characters by their surnames but, firstly it is what I have found in many other articles, and secondly I believe it is the only NPOV solution in this case.

I disagree with your suggestion that the "Jeeves and Wooster" books (as I believe they are always formally called, rather than "Jeeves and Bertie"), generally refer to Bertie Wooster as "Bertie" rather than "Wooster". I don't think you are comparing like with like. Obviously, Wooster's family, and sometimes his friends, call him "Bertie", just as Reginald Jeeves' friends call him "Reggie". But in a semi-formal situation, he is referred to as "Bertie Wooster", and in a formal situation as "Wooster".

Also, remember that we are referring to books set in a time 60 - 100 years ago, when conventions were different and classism was rampant in the UK (as were racism, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance). We should not therefore be blindly following the terminology in the book within our commentaries -- that style, while excellent for humorous writing of the period, would not have been considered "encyclopaedic" then, let alone now.

It seems right to list out the conventions of those times, which were, if I remember what I was taught (please someone correct me if I am wrong):

• older family members address or refer to younger relations as First-name, often with a diminutive, (+ Surname if ambiguous), eg Reggie (Jeeves) or Bertie (Wooster)
• younger family members address or refer to their parents and grandparents as Mr/Mrs (First-name if ambiguous +) Surname, eg Mr Jeeves or Mr Wooster (I really can't imagine addressing my parents as Mr/Mrs Enginear, but I know that they were taught to address their own parents in that way when they were young, at least if others were present)
• younger family members address or refer to their aunts/uncles as Aunt/Uncle First-name (+ Surname if ambiguous), eg Aunt Dahlia, or Aunt Dahlia Travers, if there were several Aunt Dahlias
• equals in the middle or upper classes (and all their subdivisions) address or refer to each other by surname only, unless either family or very friendly (even when I was at school, we did that, and some still addressed me in that way at university, though I did not reciprocate, except occasionally in jest or for irony) -- interestingly, Bertie Wooster and his friends generally avoid the issue by using nicknames, but otherwise, as far as I recall, they used surnames
• equals in the working class (and all its subdivisions) tend to address or refer to each other by First names with diminuitives if friendly, or otherwise as Mr/Mrs Surname, eg Reggie or Mr Jeeves
• masters/mistresses address or refer to junior servants as formal First-name (as previously they had addressed or referred to slaves), eg when Jeeves was a page-boy, he would have been addressed as Reginald (but perhaps I've mis-remembered, or else US usage was different, because the slave in Huckleberry Finn is "Jim", not "James")
• masters/mistresses address or refer to senior servants as Surname, eg Jeeves or Spode
• servants refer to the patriarch/matriarch as Mr/Mrs xxx (assuming he/she's not a knight/dame or a lord/lady), eg Mrs Travers (Aunt Dahlia)
• servants refer to sons/daughters of the patriarch/matriarch as Mr/Mrs/Master/Miss First-name Surname, eg (when his parents were alive) Master Bertram (definitely not Bertie, even when he was a baby), or Master Bertram Wooster

Although is seems Bertie Wooster is an orphan, he is of an age where most people would still have at least one living parent, so the readers (assumed by the author to be middle or upper class -- remember most of the books pre-date Lady Chatterley's Lover and the infamous "Would you let your servants read this book?") are encouraged to think of him as "cousin/nephew Bertie" while the valet, however clever, is still "Jeeves". If Wodehouse had been writing for the servant class, he would have spoken of Mr Wooster and Reggie, and he would have avoided many of the lèse-majesté issues as being not suitable for servants to read.

Obviously, if Wooster was reading about himself in an encyclopaedia, he would expect to see himself mentioned first as "Bertram Wilberforce Wooster", or possibly "Bertram Wilberforce "Bertie" Wooster", and thereafter as "Wooster". We do indeed start his article in that way, but we then proceed to refer to him as "Bertie" throughout, which would horrify him -- it's one thing for a reader/cousin/uncle/aunt to refer to him as "Bertie", but certainly not a formal publication.

But is that really the point?

For me, my skin crawls when I read "Jeeves and Bertie" because it perpetuates class prejudice. The two men are named in different formats because of their different circumstances -- because we are encouraged to think of "Bertie" as a young relative, while "Jeeves" is a non-person, no longer the chattel that he would have been 200 years earlier (or little over 100 years earlier in the USA) but still someone so far beneath us that we can never be on first-name terms.

Let's compare briefly with Huckleberry Finn -- and I do this without in any way disrespecting the much more serious issues dealt with by Mark Twain (it is thought that "Jim the runaway slave" is based on the slave whose bloated body Mark Twain had discovered as a boy -- the runaway had drowned while trying to escape from bounty-hunters; the author kept returning to the manuscript, modifying it for years before he finally released it; it is thought that he wanted to make it a darker tale, but his instincts told him that without the happy ending he finally added, the Northern US public would not accept it. But even though, by the time he was writing it, slavery had been abolished, so what he wrote was no longer illegal, the Ku Klux Klan were already lynching white integrationists, so it was risky to make it too happy).

Jim comes through as the real hero, the only adult main character, who in the end is prepared to face death, or worse being sold to a bad slave-owner, rather than leave an injured Huck. Huckleberry Finn is like a Shakespearian fool. Someone who, by his position (still a child, largely self-taught, alienated from society and with little moral guidance) is permitted to say the things that, if he was an adult, would have led to him being lynched as a "nigger-lover". Tom Sawyer is a selfish dilettante who thinks it's all a game -- he's the same age as Huck but has never had to fend for himself and is immature -- he knows that Jim's owner has freed him, but he doesn't tell anyone because that would spoil the fun -- the fun of Jim and Huck risking their lives and being shot at. Meanwhile, Tom knows deep down that, because he's from a good family, he'll be looked after, however the game ends. But yes, even in that story there is humour.

Compared with that, as Wodehouse said himself, the topics in the Jeeves and Wooster books are extremely light, and the humour predominates. But Wooster is a bit like Sawyer might have been, 10 years on. He is still a dilettante and still a bit selfish -- he doesn't realise it -- he speaks of "Never let a chum down" -- but Tom would have said that too. But actually, some of his actions, and those of his friends, prey on society. It's hilarious to read of, knowing that such stereotypes, if they ever existed, are now extinct, or at least, limited in numbers, eg members of the Bullingdon Club who somehow still get elected to high office in the UK. But it's only hilarious because Wodehouse has brought us on side, to smile at the idiocies of cousin Bertie. And, while he never has to put his life at risk like Jim, Reginald Jeeves is still the quiet fixer who arranges everything, even getting "our Bertie" out of prison when necessary.

I was born into a society where class prejudice was rampant. One of my grandmothers was a bigot, who sat in a restaurant disparaging the waiter as if he couldn't hear her. I made sure I never went out with her again. One Easter, as a child, I visited a friend whose parents moved to a seaside town. They would not let us go to the beach on Wednesday afternoons, because that was early closing day and "the tradespeople would be there". Their neighbours were a rich family who owned a large grocer's shop (the nearest we had to supermarkets in those days). To his mum's annoyance, my friend insisted on being friendly with the neighbour's children. One day, one of those children dared to use her toilet. As soon as he had gone, she was fussing round the toilet, spraying disinfectant all round it, complaining that "you never know what germs those types may have". I was invited to visit them again, but I made my excuses and didn't go.

Just as with racism, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance, I have tried hard to distance myself from class discrimination, and it hurts me when I see it perpetuated in Wikipedia, which should be NPOV. Yes, the Jeeves and Wooster books are hilarious, but they are "of their time". Just as I would not call someone a nigger on the excuse that that word peppers Huckleberry Finn, so I do not use different conventions for naming servants and masters, just because it is the (historically correct) usage in Wodehouse's books. Nor should Wikipedia.

So am I being oversensitive? Is there some reason I have missed why we should allow class-prejudice in our commentary of the books? 'pedia is not my home wiki, and I do not want to be drawn into a long discussion. I shall therefore back out for the present, and leave it to you to decide. At present, P. G. Wodehouse is reverted to its original style, ie Bertie...Bertie...Jeeves and Bertie...Bertie...Jeeves and Bertie. So if you think I am wrong, it can be left for the moment, but if the consensus is that I am right, it will need to be re-reverted. I hope to be back on the site in a few days, to see what has happened. Enginear (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel that "Wooster" is appropriate, at least when referenced alongside Jeeves, given that the pair are commonly referenced that way (for example in the BBC series Jeeves and Wooster. It is otherwise not uncommon in Wikipedia to refer to fictional characters by their given name, and this is the case throughout the Bertie Wooster article. I don't think that one can or should read a class prejudice into any of this. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a neutral bystander, but I think Enginear makes some compelling points. Vttale (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As is obvious, this is a hobby horse of mine, so I went away for a few days to calm down! Actually, I think that instinct from experience should count for a great deal, particularly when, as he has quietly pointed out to me, McGeddon's experience is a highly impressive 60,000 edits. Indeed, such instinct can often be used to find a good solution when standard rules/recommendations do not seem appropriate, and thereby reduce the need for excessively detailed rules. However, McGeddon, on this occasion, I think you may have misjudged the issue for two reasons.

To summarise what I wrote above, firstly, I don't believe you are comparing like with like. In the books and serials, those who are not friends or family always refer to both characters by their surnames. While there is an argument for writing our articles as if we have the same upper class familiarity with "Bertie" and the same condescension to "Jeeves" as Wodehouse himself does, that seems, as Orangemike stated in his edit summary, an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia.

Secondly, while I largely agree with what Wikipeterproject has stated above, I differ slightly. It is certainly the case that, since Jeeves and Wooster episodes have been repeated very frequently in UK now for over 23 years, any other usage, eg "Jeeves and Bertie" immediately grates, and leaves the reader wondering why the writer is emphasising non-equality of the names (ie surname v first-name), rather than keeping to the "long established" equal surname v surname usage. And while one perhaps shouldn't read class prejudice into this -- after all, I hope we're all agreed that accuracy of content takes primacy over word-use or grammar -- I for one find it difficult to suggest any other reason for the unequal wording, and that is distracting.

To compare with gender discrimination, it is as if the stars of Gravity were referred to throughout our article as "Clooney and Sandra" or their characters were described as "Matt and Stone". It's just inappropriate. I'm more relaxed about the use of "Bertie" when it's not contrasted with "Jeeves" (and I did leave that in place in some cases where it seemed appropriate). And personally, I would not suggest adding anything to the Manual of Style unless and until there have been a number of long and time-wasting discussions relating to several fictional universes -- I suspect that different types of fiction require quite different treatment, and it would be very easy to write lengthy guidance which confused more than it helped!

Thank you everyone for remaining civil, even those of you who felt I was being oversensitive. Enginear (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Really this should just be a straight, neutral policy matter of how and whether to reflect the author's usage in a work of fiction - I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Forenames_and_surnames_of_characters to try to find out what the rule is (or should) be. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Willis Tower edit

Hello there. I think what I wrote in the Willis tower article was neutral. You see I didn't make anything up, all of those statements are from proper websites written by professionals. It is not me who said those things, these statements are found in proper university websites:

• http://www.lehigh.edu/~infrk/2011.08.article.html - this is one is Lehigh University website
• http://www4.lehigh.edu/news/newsarticle.aspx?Channel=%2FChannels%2FNews%3A+2007&WorkflowItemID=0bed2560-462b-4bd9-b834-4b5a1e91cc54 - this is one too is Lehigh University website
• http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1211 - this one is structural magazine website
• https://ialcce2012.boku.ac.at/keynote_details.php?profile=5 - this is also another univeristy website.
• http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-9180-top-10-worlds-tallest-steel-buildings/#.UwHewZgRTCM

So as you can see what I wrote about Khan are all from those websites written by professional engineers. thank you. --Aalaan (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Twenty Questions Page

Dear McGeddon,

Some external links did removed by you, but you should consider that the links are subject of the page! nadafy.com is an academic project in machine learning field, its similar 20Q.net in the skin but different in algorithm and code behind. The project need to be played to get more feedback from its functionality ratio during times to analyse learning rate per decision. Do you want to delete it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.110.228 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 25 February 2014‎

Remove link from Flappy Bird

Hi can you please put the link back because there is nowhere to actually play the game online and I thought this was a great resource for that purpose.

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.39.51 (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Twitch Plays Pokemon.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Twitch Plays Pokemon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not edit warring

A comment on the Talk page by an IP in a similar range infers vandalistic intent for the edits, stating that "Using Wikipedia to encourage Helix worship is ridiculously dumb." ViperSnake151  Talk  18:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Both "216.165.254.97" and "207.233.31.37" are both me. Izno is not. Don't assume that I'm a vandal just because I disagree with you about an edit, especially on other people's pages. --MrChangHuIIIEsq (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for keeping me in check. MrChangHuIIIEsq (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Improper use of article's Talk page

Thank you for the pointer. One assumes that one might, well, talk about an issue on its Talk page! Seriously, you must admit that the corpus of rules governing suitable modifications to the Wiki is enormous. No harm, no foul.

50.128.184.140 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User Problem

Hello and thank you for pointing that out for me. Right now, some user kept adding unsourced information on TriStar Pictures, List of TriStar Pictures films, List of films released by New Line Cinema, and others. Can you report that user, please? - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinions and facts about Torquay

Sorry if I offended u but i was just replying to your post of me being Scorpio's pal but no one sees Scorpio in Torquay because of his huge fan base and im not sure if he still lives in Torquay and im not his pal but Scorpio is regarded as UK's No.2 Hardcore-Techno DJ behind The DJ Producer aka Luke McMillan I might have got the year of birth wrong but he is one of the most famous Techno Dj's in the world otherwise why would he be a regular at most major dance events. But Lauren Pope is on notable people just for being in the paper as a page 3 girl which surely is not enough to be notable either. Plus Torquay's population of 65,500 is only the Torbay area of Torquay and not the whole of it of which some parts come under South Hams and Teignbridge district councils and the map doesn't show the north end of Torquay. Plus since 2001 there has been about 5,000 homes built since then in the Torbay area of Torquay which with there being at least 6,000+ homeless it means there must be at least 10-15,000 homes derelict I will try and get a proper map of Torquay but am not sure how to put it on the web page any suggestions because all maps of Torquay doesn't show the areas like Kingskerswell, Abbotskerswell, Stoneycombe, Compton, Combeinteignhead, Stokeinteignhead, Netherton and even (Maidencombe and Stantor Barton which is in the Torbay boundary) so to say the population is still the same as 2001 is impossible especially when you can see the amount of building going on down here.StatoatTBC (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Susanna Reid 2

Thanks for finding that. I have been Googling it, but wasn't prepared to accept Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Huffington Post or any other tabloid source, which was what was being generated up to this morning. Telegraph is good though. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Joan Chen

Thank you for inserting that photo of Joan on her wiki page; I didn't quite have the courage to do it myself. I know she likes that photo. Also, I submitted my photo of John Sias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Chronicle

--Nancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.23 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

You saved me from getting involved in an edit war over multiple articles there. Glad it wasn't only me who thought the links were unnecessary. Mabalu (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Your edit for NationStates is very much appreciated. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

kifner

Hi McGeddon: I added another photo of John that I took in 1994 in nyc. I'm sure he's still alive! --Nancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.9 (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

.

Can you please make that picture so that both pics are same size, please? It makes me feel unbalanced somehow, I really tried to work out some visual balance. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC).

Answer at my page. By the way, what Wooster? He is called Bertie. Hafspajen (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fazlur Khan

As an editor at Fazlur Khan, you may want to visit the page to help prevent an incipient edit war involving an anon IP. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. The sentence "Khan, more than any other individual ushered in a renaissance..." is directly found in pg 78 of this book it is not made up: http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=rF1IFsQ0wdcC&pg=PA78&redir_esc=y the last paragraph it is not over blown the book is written by an engineer. His innovations did bring a major change is skyscrapers please read all the references sources carefully. E.g http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?37163 Thank you

Also please come to the skyscrapers talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.151 (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As for this sentence it is not overstatemet. In 1960s there was a major change in design system for skyscrapers before they were of rigid steel frames but aft his innovations they are tube design. This is why "renaissance" due to these major changes. You just tagged the concern like i've seen articles with those tags snce 2007 and nothing is still done. Okay so what about this one? --119.30.39.151 (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yudkowksy

Hey, I was wondering how you think we should go about phrasing Yudkowsky's education. Since not many people know about Yudkowsky, I figured I'd cut to the chase and ask someone who does. My concern is that "self-educated" is an oversimplification of the information and that its safer to stick closely to the source. What do you think? Inanygivenhole (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

the other supporter of khan is not me

108.27.114.64 this user who was in favour of khan is not me. Please check locations with Ip locatioh checker please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.151 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.checkip.com/ip/108.27.114.64 use this website to see locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.151 (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.151 (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread the IP as being one of the several that - assuming you to be User:Aalaan - you have been editing from since your block. I have restored the user's comments. If you wish to contribute to the conversation, you should submit an unblock request on your talk page and get your account reactivated. --McGeddon (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What can you reactivate or will it be some other guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.151 (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It'll be whichever administrator happens to review it, almost certainly someone who is unfamiliar with the block and will assess it neutrally. (I am not an administrator.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright but can you help me? Like u can write down yes this guy will be better now so unblock him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.151 (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up your unblock request for you (you edited the example text instead of pasting it below), and an admin will check it in due course. Only you can vouch for your future behaviour. --McGeddon (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, the statement abou khan and skyscrapers renaissance:

The sentence "Khan, more than any other individual ushered in a renaissance..." is directly found in pg 78 of this book it is not made up: http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=rF1IFsQ0wdcC&pg=PA78&redir_esc=y the last paragraph it is not over blown the book is written by an engineer. His innovations did bring a major change is skyscrapers please read all the references sources carefully. E.g http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?37163 Thank you

As for this sentence it is not overstatemet. In 1960s there was a major change in design system for skyscrapers before they were of rigid steel frames but aft his innovations they are tube design. This is why "renaissance" due to these major changes. You just tagged the concern like i've seen articles with those tags snce 2007 and nothing is still done. Okay so what about this one? --119.30.39.151 (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.208 (talk)

You should raise any content concerns on the talk page of relevant articles, if and when your block is lifted. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your kind words of welcome, McGeddon!

Jeffsmack (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Koi

What is not relevant about our informative extra reading, when the content about those three varieties is so thin? I don't understand what isn't 'appropriate' and I do feel you have made an error of judgement on this one, especially when other references on the page point to lesser content than ours. Disappointing. Plus calling our resource spam is rather abusive. How would you feel if you happened to have a website that any content you created was called 'spam' despite taking several hours planning and writing it? Furthermore, this reference is allowed: http://koisale.com/inprogress2/ourkoi.php - what part of that link doesn't contain advertising, and what do I get out of reading that page compared to what we have contributed, which may I add was an honest contribution to a page that people could find useful. Please review your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.221.238 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalized again

The following IP User talk:65.51.181.126 has vandalized again after you gave him a "last warning" for vandalism in February. I think they should now be blocked. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

rakesh biswas page resolve it

please edits the errors in rakesh biswas page ..all the information provided by user is genuine .thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakesh biswas01 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 17

Alaykam-as-Salaam McGeddon. I noticed that you reverted my edits to 2010s in fashion regarding the wearing of small ponytails by British metrosexuals. If Messrs. Jenner, Proudlock and Essex are not wearing ponytails, then kindly explain what these are:

Joey Essex: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/28/article-2570190-1BE840C600000578-865_634x564.jpg

Ollie Proudlock: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/09/article-0-1B4A43F500000578-893_306x217.jpg

Bruce Jenner: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/14/article-0-1C47C5DB00000578-543_634x800.jpg

Boris Johnson

Thanks for the edits on my edits, its made me think more clear on what to post about. Sorry still learning. Kings regards Sarah1971 18:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of reference

Why did you remove the reference to a website that computes liars dice odds? It has a table and everything which is would be useful to anyone who is interested in learning more about liars dice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.98.158 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Thank you for your message. It was not meant to be advertising. Those books consist of great photos and are free to download. I think they are a great visual help for anybody who wants to learn more about Munich. Thanks! Anna Karolina Anna Karolina Heinrich (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Biswas

Thanks for that, I should have checked dates, but they are both blocked anyway. Were you suggesting that the IP was guilty of disruptive editing? I didn't read it as quite an admission to being the blocked user, although it's very likely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Duh... I should have realised, block changed, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi im going to Tell you

Im a Mexican who is Plubish or make article for Mexican Fans who needs Vete a la Versh and Werevertumorro and they needs to be appear on Wikipedia because soon Vete a la Versh will be tank the first #1 of Mexican Fans and second one is #2 Werevertumorro and they needs to appear in Wikipedia so will be take it in --IceCreamBips 65 (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)