Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 31 January 2015

This is McGeddon's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Elite: Dangerous - Offline "Controversy"

I'm really only normally a reader of Misplaced Pages 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 , 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)

If I may lend my perspective on the situation. There is quite a bit of emotion around the issue of offline removal and the true scale of the issue. Obviously one side is interested in making it the most important thing and will exercise hyperbole to emphasize their point. The other side of the coin are those (and I really hesitate to use this term but it seems to fit the bill) fanboys that will actively gloss over anything that ruins their rose tinted view of the game. In my own personal opinion and having read all of the citations I've come to a conclusion that there is not sufficient information to make a judgement either way and as such a completely neutral approach to the representation should be taken. i.e. no attempt at extrapolating numbers or impact one way or the other. I have been involved in a particularly contentious section of the article that I have researched and discovered exterior ulterior motive for having it as a reference and as such have raised it's validity as a question. In my opinion, taking into account as much information as I have been able to garner, there is a particular element to the discussion that has relied on the reputation of the source over and above the quality of the content to validate. This doesn't sit right with me as these things should always be approached with a solidly neutral and absent of emotion view. Regarding the Controversy/Development/Offline discussion I perceive there to be a move to keep the 'issue' to the fore without consideration for structure and neutral representation (I'm sure this is not intentional but it seems to have played out this way). I think that a neutral and non invested eye to the situation would be greatly appreciated. Just my two penneth. Spotlesssunshine (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi McGeddon - just a note to say the recent IGN review I added to Elite:Dangerous is 'longer term', as for weeks it was a 'review in progress' with no score. The reviewer has only updated the thing (after playing for a month) and scored it in the last few days, but has kept the original date of the article for reasons known only to them. Cheers. --Splodger999 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Update: they posted a vid version of the review dated 12th Jan 2015 - the actual final review date. --Splodger999 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Dead link spam

When you see accounts that are dead link spamming, like Pixelcreativetr, you should report them to AIV instead of UAA in the future, since it's obvious black-hat spamming, and AIV has a much faster response time than UAA. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Another dead link spammer http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:McGeddon

McGeddon stop spamming dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.85.117 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

/* Happy NewYear! */

Happy new year and thanks a lot for improving OpenStructures.Lagoset (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Selfie Stick

Not clear why you removed my addition. Several publications have referred to selfie stick as a narcisstick - NY Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune. I referenced the NY Post because they were the first. --E bailey (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hey, i made the edits i could, but i wasnt able to change the spelling, of the title of the page, so maybe you can fix that. welp i did my best for now.

Docdemort (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of reference to superstitious in post

Hi McGeddon, You removed my reference to superstitious in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Secret_(book)

Superstition is defined as the concept of "one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events". 'The Secret' advocates that thinking about something causes it to happen, which by definition is one event happening without any natural process linking it to the perceived cause.

Regards,

Commoncencus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commoncencus (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guiding Principles of Flag Design

You deleted the detail of the principles (→‎Principles: per WP:QUOTEFARM, we shouldn't copypaste the whole thing - no suggestion on the site that the document is not copyrighted) and replaced with a summary of their contents. Thank you. I'm new but will learn. Should I queriy this with the authors and request that they clarify copyright status with a view to reinserting the detail of the principles or is page noteworthy enough without them? Ahmedd69 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Second (and third) opinion

Hi McGeddon, I was interested to get your thoughts on this text. While I appreciate your points about COI, it seems no one is going to fix the errors in the article, so I have prepared a draft for one section. i will message Greywinterowl as well. Regards Danh108 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No title

Hello. Mcgeddon. it seems you have been changing my things. i would not recommend doing that. You are not the leader of wikipedia and should therefore keep your large nose out of other peoples buisness. No one cares what you think. block me and i will simply make another account. goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanthelonewolf (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No title

Hello McGeddon! Thank you for helping me with citation reminders. I have added all the necessary citations to the texts. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshall.niles (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Murray

Hi Mcgeddon: Yes I noticed you wiped out my careful amendments. All my info is very well sourced so let me cut'n'paste his entire pedigree from Burke's Peerage for the avoidance of any doubt - this was the principal point of reference as mentioned in the article - anyway you'll see in a mo... M Mabelina (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoops - wisely Burke's have encrypted their online info. It can be seen in hard copy in Burke's Peerage 2003 edn (or you can refer to www.peerage.com which altho it doesn't have the same credibility in terms of name and reputation, in this instance the info accessible there is largely plagiarized (altho not as detailed) from Burke's - qv: http://www.thepeerage.com/p2254.htm#i22535 - many thanks - anyway let me reload the facts & if you still have cause to dispute them we can discuss. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there User:McGeddon - I note your latest ref Al Murray's political connections, so let me explain (although this would be too long-winded to put in the main article). I am also a distant cousin of Al Murray so am not just trawling through the family tree. We all meet up from time to time and over the years through the people we meet and family discussions that are had a vast amount of political knowledge and acumen is acquired - whether we can remember it all is another matter! It is relevant to anyone standing for Parliament to know something about politics hence Al Murray's routines on political satire etc... Please advise should I need to elaborate further - many thanks indeed. M Mabelina (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

PS. there are a wealth of connections on his mother's (Thackeray) side too (but I thought the article would become unwieldy to go on about them) ....

PPS. this may interest you too, qv. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30829089 not that I had in mind to include it in the article (unless you think otherwise)... Thanks

Gd mrng McGeddon - thanks for your further attention to the Al Murray article but it still doesn't read quite right. I appreciate dealing with current events can become vexed but may I suggest it should read: Murray's family has had many political figures in history (delete including grandfather Sir Ralph Hay Murray - he was a diplomat - applicable in previous wording tho); also, above where it reads "was of Scottish nobility and married into the von Kuenburg family, aristocrats from Austria" after the change in stress of the article those Austrian aristocrats were Counts of the Holy Roman Empire (of which I know Wiki likes to keep a record) so should that be mentioned somehow? Anyway thanks again & let me know how to resolve swiftly. Best M Mabelina (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

PS. also "Murray is in remainder both to English and Scottish peerage titles, including..." would read better as well as being more accurate! Hope of help - await yours - thanks

Without having to disclose the whole caboodle (of our family history, as you requested initially - we're 5th cousins btw so hardly time to have vested interests between all), I trust the latest improvements satisfy editorial standards - I am more than happy to assist but these discussions are becoming somewhat protracted to say the least. Basically Murray does have political know-how & I would think it should be made clear how this comes about (alternatively dumb down the article). Please advise M Mabelina (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Political connections

Hi McG - if I were to say "calm down dear" (as PM David Cameron did once - you should know where) it clearly would have the opposite effect. So what to do? You have clearly got a bee stuck somewhere, so let's leave it - although I have to say your interference only serves to bastardise information "what was presented proper"! Why? M Mabelina (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be so blunt but I can't see how to get through to you (unless you'd like to speak by 'phone which might be easier?).

Duke of Atholl

Hi McGeddon: could I ask your help? Herebelow is an article improved with COAs etc (but I can't figure out how to do the gallery bit)! Help!! Thanks:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 January 2015‎

Thanks yours M Mabelina (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Death threats

I thought rev/del sufficient here, no reason that Admins shouldn't see that. Several accounts have been blocked including a sleeper I found. Seems to be Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Malusia22. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Good luck

Good luck with trying to get anywhere productive with Mabelina's editing. I have been battling against her eccentric editing for several years. She takes no notice of the MOS and other editors and just continues to edit according to her own idiosyncratic ideas of what is correct ~ which very frequently are far from correct. She especially has little understanding of contemporary capitalisation principles and is constantly capitalising common and generic nouns but also sometimes not capitalising words which ought to be. She can be very exasperating. Anglicanus (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

My Apologies re Oxfam Edits.

To clarify - seems there may have been some misunderstanding, on my part, re your Oxfam edits - I thought you simply reverted the material - which prompted me adding the discussion edit on the talk page - seems I overlooked, at the time, you moving the material to the "works" section - my apologies for my part with this - it was not at all intended - Thanks again for your help with all this - it's *greatly* appreciated. Drbogdan (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did at First video game. Please don't post multiple dead links after final warning! 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Rolf Hind - your proposal for deletion

Dear McGeddon. Rolf Hind is one of UK's most famous performing artists, no need to look very far to find out about it. I referenced his personal website in the article (which is a work in progress). By the way, this might look like my first article on Misplaced Pages, but I am not a beginner. I simply cold not reinstate my older identity and I mostly edit in French. All the best. User talk:Seraphin lampion — Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

1. http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3159462