User talk:McGeddon

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.

Dead links

Hello, I'm just tried to fix the dead link with related source. Why are you deleted it ? It's dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelfahrenheit (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wi-Fi health risks

Hey dude, stop removing my information or I'm going have you blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunshineAwake (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Anmol Andore

Thanks for your view - it's borderline, I agree. But it will soon become apparent if the user really intended promotion and he won't get a second chance. Deb (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Shadow people Scientific explanations

I gave 4 references in that:

• Chatterjee, Rhitu (September 20, 2006). "Illuminating the Shadow People". Science Now. Retrieved 13 April 2010.
• Wiggins Arthur W. Wynn Charles M. (2001), "Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction : Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins," National Academies Press, ISBN 0-309-07309-X
• Ohayon M M, Priest RG, Caulet M, Guilleminault C (1996), Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations: pathological phenomena?, The British Journal of Psychiatry (October 2006)
• McKellar Peter (1957), "Imagination and thinking: A psychological analysis," ISBN B0007DES76

What is wrong with that?

FYI, IMHO, The modern folklore section is not scientific and should be removed - It is so misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.56.211 (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Learn more about me on http://www.lukecole.name and http://www.coletek.org - and my personal experiences and thoughts on shadow people - http://www.lukecole.name/blog/2010/07/17/shadow-people-the-dark-figures-after-waking-from-a-dream/

That shadow people movie is so wrong... And the wikipedia page should not just talk about that... This shadow people thing has been around alot longer then that damn useless movie... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.56.211 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it has to do with quantum reflection... Maybe not, no one does much research on it. And will never do research on it, when they read wikipedia and see it is just about a silly movie... This is real thing that needs to be studied...

Regarding "hallucinatory edge-of-vision figures" vs "shadow people" as spooky paranormal hat-wearing monsters - these figures are not edge-of-vision!!! They are directly in front of you... You clearly have no idea what your talking about. And yes some of these figures do appear to where hats. I understand this sounds odd, and I've personally be studying the odd issues since I had my first experience over 14 years ago. I'm a robotics engineer with two degrees, so I'm no nut job. This "shadow people" stuff is something important. It maybe hallucinatory, but the case studies are so similar it (e.g. hat people) and none of it is edge-of-vision... Anywayz.... I guess you will just ignore this comment to, and not reply, so "shadow people" stay in the "paranormal" and monsters section.... Typical silly person... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.56.211 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Heber Harper

Heber Harper does not qualify as a BLP because he died in 1969, as the article says. DS (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Lego Group

This is my evidence for the change I made, which I'm going to add to the relevant page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.137.194 (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rummy World

How come Okey is on the 'See also' but I can't add Rummy World which is also a tile-based game similar to Rummikub?

Manual of Style

Regarding my edits to the article "Christmas Truce", thanks for bringing the Manual to my attention in the matter. To say it "explicitly" rules out the "th" suffix, however, is presumably not to say that the manual has been carved in stone. I think so historical an entry as the "Christmas Truce" of WW1 is of sufficient import to warrant an exceptional regard for context. See, for example, under the heading "Fraternisation", there is reference to the "10th Battalion". You might argue thet that is an actual title and is therefore exempt from the manual's "explicit" ruling out of the use of the "th" suffix - but then I might fairly argue that the very subject itself over-rides all precepts of the manual - the context warrants exception. Let me know what you think. Mark^Dask 22:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Selfie Page

Stop removing my pictures from selfie page please. It's for my project and you don't own that page. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceDignity (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi McGeddon, Thanks for your help with the Elite:Dangerous entry - wiki is a little arcane (and somewhat intimidating) perhaps for us dabblers, so it's appreciated. A question if I may: I'm sure you've encountered this before, but what are you supposed to do when someone perhaps either slightly misguided or with a vested interest (and zero interest in any kind of consensus) edits a wiki entry to suit themselves? Is there a protocol? I guess just 'un-doing' edits is frowned on. That would seem to be as bad. Um, user 'HyperspaceCloud' seems *quite* intent on changing anything they perceive as 'negative' for their evidently fave topic (judging by their history). Anyway, if there's a page or something I should read just let me know. Cheers Rog. Splodger999 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous - Offline "Controversy"

I'm really only normally a reader of Wikipedia and I don't get involved in the editing side of things. I only have an account so I can look at edits and see the parts being changed around if I think they might be reasonably important. The Elite: Dangerous page has been changing so frequently that I've actually noticed it happening. So I've become interested in what's happening there. As you seem to be the most moderate of those involved I was wondering if you could explain some things??

Could you explain why the page keeps having the controversy section separated and then re-merged? I'm trying to follow the logic in the history and it just seems to me that there is a group of people trying to paint the game in the best possible light (surely that counts as conflict of interest or something?) despite the many citations relating to issues with the development and the offline problem.

I have seen a few edits that looked like an opposing group (who seem to not be very happy with the game devs) are doing nasty edits as well. But overall I just don't see why that "Controversy" section isn't kept separated out as it seems to be a different enough matter from "Development" that it warrants it's own section.

Is there a way to lock out those people obviously involved in the edit-war (Hyperspace being an obvious first choice as it's difficult to see him as impartial in the matter)? Wtf4photography (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as already noted in the [talk section], I'm an early 'backer' and current player of the game, quite happy with it too - I made previous contributions to the article before registering with Wiki (as a mere IP address). Although a 'happy camper', I was surprised to see no mention of the offline thing in the article recently, and saw no reason for it, or the refunds saga, to go unmentioned. They've certainly caused a ruckus in the game's 'community'.

As a bit of an old geezer, I still find it surprising that video games seem to generate views of such strength that no perceived criticism can be tolerated. User:HyperspaceCloud seemingly wants the article to give misty-eyed approval for the latest instalment of his/her favourite series. I gather the accusations of slander were pointed in my direction (sigh), which is a little unfortunate. As of this morning, they're still reverting edits that evidently upset them.

By the way, thanks (to everybody) for tolerating my Wiki-noobiness: normally a reader of course rather than an editor, and the whole environment is a little daunting for us relative newcomers. --Splodger999 (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)--Splodger999 (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your message

All my edits had an edit summary clearly explaining the rationale for changes I made. As I believe you have mistakenly reverted my work without attempting to understand what I have done, I am restoring my edits. I also disagree about archived references always being acceptable substitutes for sources or that defunct organizations must be written about in the past tense. You are welcome to locate alternate sources for content which I delete. Your 17K edit summary reference is also unclear to me. Gollymemolly (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It was 1.7K and not 17K. Please recheck for yourself. Gollymemolly (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2005 deadlink is obsolete, superceded by the 2008 report which is retained in the article. Gollymemolly (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current India Against Corruption article is about a Jan Lokpal Bill campaign run by a clutch of people briefly known as "Team Anna". The section I edited is about the "India Against Corruption" organisation which has some sort of content dispute over the article. See WP:LTA/IAC, [1], [2] etc. Gollymemolly (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

National Report

Dear Mr. McGeddon, You've blocked my account from posting. I use a VPN service for work which should address the issue of my IP address. The current IP address is not going through the VPN. *NOT FOR PUBLICATION* Your information is wrong and you need to get your facts straight sir. On November 22, 2014, Wikipedia opted to merged Paul Horner's account with the National Report, something the company objects to. In fact it seems careless not to have contacted the company to advise us of such a major change. Mr. Horner was a freelance writer and one of many who worked for the National Report. He was fired this month by the company for cause. Next issue I have is why would wikipedia have allowed the merge to occur in the first place? Mr. Horner has never been an official spokesperson for the National Report. Any claims he's made otherwise is dishonest. Any claims made by Mr. Horner of having worked for us as a "Lead Writer" is a lie. Mr. Horner during an interview he did with the Washington Post originated from his mouth. Mr. Horner failed to inform the company of said interview and he is not nor has he ever been a spokesperson for the National Report. The only two spokespeople for the company are Allen Montgomery (founder) and Nigel Covington (co-founder). See National Reports staff page for more information. . Most writers generally use pen names for their work. ALL DATA CONCERNING THE VPN IS PRIVATE AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION ON WIKIPEDIA.McGeddon (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelCovington85 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Placebo Effects

You deleted my addition about placebo effects of commercial actions, commenting that it is "arbitrary and minor study from a full history of 200 years of placebo." Allow me to respectfully strongly disagree. This so-called minor study received the prestigious O'Dell Award (that rewards research papers having the most significant long-term impact) as well as several other major awards, because it has changed the conception of placebo effects. Both this paper as well as another one by the same authors from JAMA have been very influential with regard what we know about placebo effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heshacher (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

VPN block

Greetings McGeddon,

As of 9:45 am PST (US) I use a VPN for work everyday. I am not using it right now. It appears you initiated a block (?) on me, or maybe it was a bot. Not sure I'm barely a week old on wikipedia and so far it has been anything but professional with wiki people. THIS DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION ON WIKIPEDIA. I share with you so if you did put the block up you will understand the VPN. If you did not take such action please let me know and I will pursue other options. Thank youNigelCovington85 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You do realize that talk pages are public, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Earth Anthem

It seems from the past few edits of Arpita 321 that the user is selectively targeting Abhay K and Earth Anthem by him. Another Animesh 12 tried to promote somebody's else anthem without any success. May please take note of it. Preniac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preniac (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe yes, if you look at the past edits of Arpita321 and Animesh31, they are selectively targeting Abhay K's Earth Anthem because Animesh31 did not succeed in promoting some Waugh's world song and SAARC Song. There is something more here than meets the eye. Look at their past contributions. All they have done is to target Earth Anthem and SAARC Anthem. PreniacPreniac (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, McGeddon. You have new messages at Talk:Streisand effect.
Message added 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think that, perhaps, the IP editor might have been reverted when the basic claim being made is now supported. N2e (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for remind me that Note I'm sorry for this mistake in writing this article, I hope in the future will not repeat again. Bahramian v (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)