User talk:McGeddon

no true scotsman - pinker

Regarding this, can you specify the page(s)? Thanks Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It's because I have that ebook and a ctrl+f of "scots" or "porridge" doesn't return results. But of course it could be a matter of editions. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the article you used as reference just copypasted the example from here. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Image suggestions?

Hey there, I saw you removed an image from the article Think of the children.

Do you have any other suggestions for some images that could be used to illustrate the article? — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me know if you think of anything? Maybe how about those same words in another shape that's not a speech bubble, like just a square? — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh Biswas

Hey !! I am administrator of Rakesh Biswas Article , i don't know the problem with this page why ??its always get deleted by providing original references sources and its always show speedy delation , Kindly check the original references and Popularity and Save this article to re publish . Thanking you !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wekipediaaccounts (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out WP:OWN. I'd like t point out as is the article is rightfully tagged as a csd. You need reliable sources seperate from the source that demonstrates clear notability and it defintely doesn't do that at this point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for continuing the RfC

though in truth I don't really know what to do at this point. I've made my case, and there isn't that much else to say. Serendi^podous 14:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My Talk: page

Sun.Nov.9.3:25am PST Richmond CA

Good morning McGeddon, I believe I may have contacted you about getting started on Wikipedia and vaguely remember someone saying they had posted something to my talk page. Thank you for the support.

Sincerely (EcoEconomist (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC))

M.e

I've left him a message. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:McGeddon reported by User:Urammar (Result: ). Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Urammar (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 November 2014‎

Request to remove advertisement tag on Nixie (drone) article

Hello McGeddon,

I did my best to rewrite the Nixie (drone) article in a more neutral tone and added a few more references (there are quite a bit more articles on this topic now). Would you consider removing the advertisement tag if you think the tone is now acceptable? If now, please suggest the necessary changes. Thanks in advance for your time! ~Zina~ (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Horner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Horner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Horner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Bootstrap question

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain your reasoning for this revert? You said that the events were based on the information in the notebook but it doesn't appear that it would be that way, at least not with the way that section is currently worded. It says "Over the years the predictions of the notebook come true, allowing this person to become wealthy enough to fund their own research". If the events were "based on" the information in the notebook then how can they be predictions of the kind that can make someone rich? I'm assuming the kind of future information that would allow someone to become wealthy is of the sport's statistics or lotto number types. For example, whichever horse is destined to win a race is not going to be affected by someone in the audience with knowledge from the future on which horse wins the race. So how can the events be based on the information in the notebook? If the information in the notebook is just a record of things that happened in the world, then only the information is based on the events but not vice versa. Empresschild (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem and thank you for the warm welcome :) I just noticed that another edit of yours included the removal of a paragraph that I thought was valid (about Shakespear's plays) along with grammatical changes. Since there was no explanation for the removal of the paragraph I wasn't sure if you removed it by mistake but I was wondering if you could review that change as well. Empresschild (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

MONTY HALL SIMPLIFIED

Thanks McGeddon for the promptness, your commitment for Wikipedia and the courtesy for explaining the revert of my edit. My only contention is if an addition explains a stated fact in a cogent fassion, that can be understood more easily by the readers, one should not classify it either as a matter of opinion, or some 'research'.

Wikipedia gets progressively richer by better expression, not by administrators stifling expression of fellow editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Passingon (talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 November 2014‎

Thanks! How did you find that rule?

Oh, that's some nice information: the rule that you showed me about outdated models and whole technologies! Well, the reason that other iPhones (besides the 5S, actually) were still described that way (in present tense) is that I hadn't gotten to them yet. But I think I actually like this idea better, as long as it solidly applies to all models of other current technology, like computer- and peripheral models and vehicle models, etc.; as well as to completely phased-out whole types of technology, such as the telegraph (already in present-tense) and the wire recorder (mixed). I don't see why it wouldn't apply to them too. In fact, I discovered a category listing that links to other outdated models, and the overwhelming majority of those articles are also written in present-tense! But then why didn't the Wikipedia designers (or super-admins) make this rule specific to all kinds of technology and models rather than just video games and their consoles? And what would have to be done for one or more authorities to change that to include all still-existing models and technologies?

For example, if you were to stumble across an article like... oh, say... the 1927-1931 Ford A and the 1932 Ford models, or the computer programming languages Altair BASIC and Microsoft BASIC (and maybe I'll find some others a little later), then what would you say should happen to them (or even what would you do to them)? I think I know the answer, but I want to see exactly what you would say.

And how do you revert multiple edits at the same time? Does going down to lower ones in the history revert everything at that level and above? Or is it just everything that that user had done from that level and above? I thought I had seen an instance where a reversion was done to something lower but it didn't affect more recent editions. What do you know about this?

And might you also know an admin. who would back us up on applying this rule over all technologies and models? How does an editor locate and contact administrators besides by reporting someone?

SummerFunMan (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I've just sent you a thank-you note through the edit history, will you please copy that from wherever it shows up to you and paste it here (just for my curiosity)?

SummerFunMan (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the videogame guideline by searching through Wikipedia's non-article pages. The videogame WikiProject is just a bunch of users who got together to decide how to write videogame articles - it looks like they just came up with the present-tense rule by themselves rather than basing it off of any wider policy; the WP:TENSE you quoted was similarly just a consensus of editors (admins and not) deciding how to write about fiction. It's entirely possible that there's no actual agreed guideline for what tense to use for technology in general.

If you click "View history", navigate to an earlier version of an article and click "edit", you'll be editing that old version and will override all later edits if you save it. There's more explanation at WP:REVERT - if you play around with some test edits at User:SummerFunMan/sandbox I'm sure you'll get the hang of it.

Wikipedia:Teahouse is a good place to ask questions, I'm sure somebody there could tell you if there was a policy about past tenses, or what to do about it if you wanted to get some support for unifying the tenses on all outdated cellphone articles. --McGeddon (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Just in case you decide that you'd like to post follow-up responses on my page instead of here, would it be okay for you to rethink that and for us us to please just keep the rest of the conversation here?

So if you reverted my present-tense editions on iPhone5 and then I liked the explanation that you gave, then would you be willing to back me up in some other editions (the examples I listed above, plus some others [not only is Microsoft BASIC and Altair's, but the one from Apple too]), adjusting them (or restoring them) to the present tense, the same way as the overwhelming majority of those articles found by linking from Category: Obsolete Technology are? Thanks for your response on my talk page. But would it be okay for us to please keep the rest of the conversation here?

So if you reverted my present-tense editions on iPhone5 and then I liked the explanation that you gave, then would you be willing to back me up in some other editions (the examples I listed above, plus some others [not only is Microsoft BASIC and Altair's, but the one from Apple too]), adjusting them (or restoring them) to the present tense, the same way as the overwhelming majority of those articles found by linking from Category: Obsolete Technology are? As of yet, when I asked you what you would do to those other articles, you hadn't given a response regarding those. So... what do you think? Will you go by and enforce the same thing to those as you did to iPhone 5?

Also, did you see the thank-you message that came as a result of my pressing "thank" in the history? Just as a matter of curiosity, would you not mind please posting that here?

SummerFunMan (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I got the thank you: it looks like this. I'm not planning to change any other articles. --McGeddon (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me what the thank-you looks like. Well, if you were so interested in making sure the iPhone 5 article was written in present-tense form, even to the point of digging up that rule for me, then why would you not be interested in adusting other articles to meet that same standard (or at least to back me up if it comes to someone else disputing it)?

SummerFunMan (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So... you're just gonna ignore me now? I thought you were friendlier than that. Why? SummerFunMan (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody trying to convince me that I might actually be interested in doing something that I've said I wasn't interested in isn't my idea of a fun conversation. --McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• BTW WP:COMPNOW (which applies generally to all computing articles) addresses this too. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. --McGeddon (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding this time. But, @Mcgeddon:,

1. I doubt you would only communicate in a discussion that was fun for you, because of this: Aren't there many discussions here or in other places that involved you that are either a. not fun (just neutral), or b. even negative, but that you still communicated in anyway? You're not trying to tell me that all these other discussions you've stayed part of were "fun," are you?

2. I actually wasn't trying to convince you that you might be interested in doing something that you said you weren't interested in doing; I was only asking you a curious question about why you were only interested in adjusting the one article but not the others. So would you please be willing to say why, if you were interested in changing just the one article, that you were not interested in also backing me up on other articles in either a. changing some of the others, or b. at least reverting someone else's reversions of my fixes on the other articles, backing my fixes up with consensus (like what can happen with so many other edit disagreements, and would be nice if someone would finally generate consensus with me)? Or will you at least say why, if you are not interested in fixing the others to match or backing me up on my fixes to the others, that you were interested in changing the one that you did?

SummerFunMan (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you're still learning how this place works. A lot of Wikipedia - particularly reversion of inappropriate edits - operates on the very small scale, where editors will have a range of WP:WATCHLIST articles they keep an eye on, and if they see somebody make a bad edit, they'll undo it. They might check to see if the same editor has made the same mistake on other articles, but they probably won't spring into action and spend the rest of the day hunting down and fixing that same type of problem across the whole project: to some extent there's an assumption that somebody else will catch the problem. This doesn't mean that the editor was wrong or insufficiently confident about their initial revert.

If you think I was wrong to make the revert, then I'd be happy to discuss that on a relevant article or project talk page. WP:COMPNOW seems very clear, though. --McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Knights of Momus

Hi, I'm Xcia0069. McGeddon, thanks for creating Knights of Momus!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Useful article but it needs more citations to be trustable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Xcia0069 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal abuse?

I turned on my PC this morning, to find that you had requested protection for my talk page after scores of personal attacks. I missed all of this, and the edits have all been deleted, so I don't know what was being said. Are you able to enlighten me? Did the attacks include specific threats? Were they obviously from Runtshit or JarlaxleArtemis, both of whom have regularly targeted me? Thanks. RolandR (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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 already alot longer then that damn useless movie...