Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:04, 29 October 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.

9Lenses on Survey Tools Comparison

Hi McGeddon, Please reconsider the removal of the addition to . The reason for removal was expressed as "not appropriate for an encyclopedia", but the tool, 9Lenses, is as are the others on the list are, SaaS survey tool. In more detail, the tool allows license owners to create questions and source response; much like SurveyMonkey or SurveyGizmo; which are on this list. I believe that this page will help visitors assess options and that 9Lenses is a viable option. ~Much Appreciated, Sean

Haunted houses

Thanks much for the help. It didn't occur to me to check for vandalism when I was tagging it. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring deleted content to other user's talk pages

Hello, McGeddon.

Thank you for your message. Sorry, I was mistaken! The policies about user's talk pages are different in the spanish Misplaced Pages.

Regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello McGeddon

I think you did make a mistake on the #666 content when someone says 666 they take it as number of the beast its in the bible prophecy Grimreaper45 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Grimreaper45

Kirpal Singh

What is considered a reliable source of information when there are two conflicting sources of information on the same subject? The article on Kirpal Singh claims to be unbiased but it cites sources that are opposed to the tradition of Sant Mat which believes in the continuity of masters. The reference in the article was to a statement made by George Arnsby Jones - not to a direct quotation from Kirpal Singh. Mr. Jones's article in Sat Sandesh claims that Kirpal Singh said his successor would never come from his own family. This alleged quotation should not be acceptable as a reliable source since Mr. Jones can't speak for Sant Kirpal Singh.

Can this be resolved?

Charles VidichCvidich (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of page with H3LLO in text.

I agree that this text should be deleted it is meaningless on this forum. My intention is to create a dialog concerning the Esoteric science as I have learnt and verified. I intent to refer with Wolfram as verification wherever possible or practice. I am in agreeacne with Wolfram in that 'science and Esoterics/... Should be as accessible to the majority as well as possible. This task of simplisicity and (on occasions) balance is a task that is to be dealt with care and precision.

Michael57101art (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Starchild skull article NPOV

Isn't the original article a violation of WP:NPOV? Whoever is reverting the so-called "fringe" version could also be interpreted as showing a bias (I admit I am biased). The article is very one-sided right now, and if I'm not mistaken, this is also a WP:NPOV conflict. I feel that it should be apprehended as such.

I didn't know where else to put this. please don't get mad.EBenderednebE (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. You have said (The Quran does not appear to mention the boiling of a frog). My reply is: the Quran didn't mention the boiling of a frog literally but it talked about the same concept in that verse. So, I hope you approve my edit. Thanks :-). مصطفى النيل (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

???

And where is your edit warring warning on the other editor's talk page? Afterwriting (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Stop making hypocritical comments on my talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

digisig answers

Hi McGeddon, I've made a stab at giving you a two-sentence answer. But of course, I've also left you five paragraphs of explanatory-expansion.  ;-)

In what situation would User:McGeddon be insecure or compromisable while User:McGeddon6f7bd0537a3b5fd5ad2f477c4815451033ecae7e was not?

In my hypothetical (paragraphs #4 and #5 of the five mentioned above), I took a shot at answering that specific question of yours, from the 1Wiki8 usertalk. In short, the crypto-username is better ("more secure") in *any* situation where some adversary acquires the wikipedia-password for User:McGeddon... or for the omicron-impersonation-account User:McGeddοn, as well. The only protection that you as the real User:McGeddon have, is ad hoc: assuming your underlying IP address has not changed, some checkuser might believe you, rather than the adversary. Assuming the adversary is not adept at imitating your lingo-choices and your phrasing, maybe the people that 'know' you on-wiki will be able to figure out which is the adversary, and which is the real McGeddon. But with a username like User:McGeddon6f7bd0537a3b5fd5ad2f477c4815451033ecae7e, it would always be a five-minute job for you -- even when an adversary had compromised your wikipedia-password and was perfectly imitating your speech-patterns -- to mathematically prove they were the fraudulent McGeddon and you were the true McGeddon.

  Now, that's not actually how User:1Wiki8 is utilizing their digisig-innovation, at the moment anyways. They are more interested in non-repudiation of *specific* messages, such as linking their old user-account to their new one which we've both seen, and future such 'important' messages (maybe RfA bangvotes for instance). They also have some other things in mind, from their commentary, which I'm not clear on just yet. But I'd like to find out.

  Coincidentally, you also have a thread here, further up your talkpage, where a crypto-hash username would have been useful: the courtesy-vanished-human, who later wishes they could mathematically prove they *are* the same human, but cannot. If they had chosen a 'gibberish' username, back in the beginning, or even, just before they were courtesy-vanished (with digisig linkage from their new crypto-strength-uid to their about-to-be-vanished-uid), it would be straightforward for them to convincingly-yet-anonymously prove themselves *as* themselves. This is true, even if they had zero access to their old wikipedia-password associated with their old wikipedia-user-account. All the digisig math, is pretty much just as easily accomplished off-wiki, as on-wiki. But only if you *have* a crypto-strength-username, methinks.

  If you like, I'm happy to explain the math of digital signatures, or just give you the executive summary of how they work, or whatever. But understanding why 1Wiki8 wants the crypto-hash to specifically be right in the username, is extremly hard to explain without first transmitting some basic grasp of the pubkey thing, and that's difficult stuff. Webservers are the most common example of pubkey use in the wild... but because they are servers identifying themselves to browsers, rather than humans identifying themselves to other humans, it is a bit of a leap to see the applicability. (Linux kernel commits also use hashes, but for unique identification rather than for "security" purposes.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already exceeded the wordcount limit in my most recent comment to the username-page, but I did want to talk about this bit:

If your account is compromised and you know that you once posted a {{user committed identity}} to your userpage, this is enough to re-secure the account...

That depends on whether that userpage has been edited by the hypothetical adversary, right? You believe you have the private-key corresponding to what is on the userpage now. But your own userpage is available for me to edit, even as an anon: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:McGeddon&redirect=no And it contains your plaintext pubkey. By using a homoglyph attack, and creating a visually identical username to yours, an adversary might be able to edit that page, without getting caught, and change the pubkey to one the adversary controlled. (A sufficiently clever adversary would label the homoglyph account as an 'alternate for use at libraries and other unsecure locations' and then leave an innocuous edit-summary like 'updating to my (meaning your!) new WMF pubkey'). Later, maybe many months later, if the adversary brute-forced your wikipedia password (or just your associated email account), then how will Beeblebrox know it is *you* that is the true McGeddon, rather than *the badguy*? Especially if they've studied your speech-patterns, so the adversary can claim in your "wiki-voice" to be the real McGeddon, in a convincing fashion.

  It would probably get sorted out eventually, I realize, wikipedians are smart, but a dedicated adversary could get around the pubkey-in-plaintext-on-the-anyone-can-edit-userpage (or at least cause hours/days of havoc), if they were persistent and clever enough. Unless the adversary has WMF-dev-perms, having the crypto-hash in one's username stops all that stuff. The only reason that there are not such attacks, isn't because such attacks are impossible, but simply because wikipedia-personas are not all that real-world-valuable; there are too many checks and balances in place. In other words, even if somebody managed to compromise your User:McGeddon persona, and convince at least one admin that *they* were the real you, what would they do next? If they start abusing wikipedia, they'll be blocked whether they are impersonating you or not, so there is little practical point.

  Still, what User:1Wiki8 is trying to do, is create a username that *is* extremely secure against hijack-attacks, backed up by the tool-chain used for securing bitcoin 'money' in the usual cryptocurrency fashion. It's a five minute task, to mathematically prove they are really the true 1Wiki8, or that they digisig'd any specific on-wiki message, and for me or any other wikipedian who knows the cryptotools to verify what they say is true. Now, whether that level of "security" (see five-dollar-wrench-breach) is actually helpful to wikipedia, long-term, will depend on how normal it becomes to use such a thing. If a lot of people were doing it, I can see several interesting applications (arbcom/rfa/afcReviewDigisig/wikipediaDonations/wmfGrants/wikimaniaTickets/etc/etc) that would be basically impossible with non-cryptographically-strong-usernames, but relatively easy with them. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If I realised that my own userpage had been edited to change the hash, I would obviously point this out to the reviewing admin. If I can prove that the earliest hash on the page was written by me, that would be enough to establish me as the "true" McGeddon (where "true" simply means "the human who was editing the account at that time"; but if the attacker could only prove to be a later version of McGeddon, I'd be the one who got the keys). --McGeddon (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to keep you from realizing, the adversary would have to be clever, either by taking advantage of a time when they knew that wikipedia infrastructure was compromised (watchlist bug for instance -- perhaps purposely introduced but could also just strike at an opportune moment), or would have to interfere with the operation of your watchlist specifically in some fashion, such as by spam-flooding your mailserver to prevent the watchlist message from ever arriving. They could also just wait until *you* were making a series of edits, and then insert their malicious change in the midst of your own changes. You would be 'notified' that User:McGeddοn had changed something... but would be unlikely to suspect foul play. You would be more likely to suspect a bug in mediawiki. Well, prior to this conversation at least, you would not likely be paranoid enough to suspect a homoglyph-adversary.  :-)     And as long as you were patient, in explaining to Beeblebrox (or whomever you tried to convince you were the real McGeddon) that your story was correct and the adversary was just using social engineering techniques to trick them, eventually justice would be done... but it might take hours or days, whereas with 1Wiki8's approach it is five minutes typical, fifteen minutes tops. Again, though, this is not a plausible attack-scenario, because wikipedia-usernames are not all that valuable, it is a gedanken thing-a-ma-bob.

  Along the same sort of lines, I also put the "security" in scarequotes, because having a crypto-hash in your username just moves the goalposts: a truly clever adversary will not waste time breaking the crypto, they will just break into your house, or bribe a sysadmin at your ISP, or do some other type of attack that gets them all the access they need without worrying about all your crypto-nerd stuff. Bruce Schneier tells a story about how the uber-wealthy people in 3rd world countries stopped buying luxury cars that could be hotwired, and started using cryptographically strong key-fobs... which meant, instead of criminals trying to hotwire the automobiles whilst the owner was leaving it parked, *now* the criminals try to carjack the vehicle whilst the owner is behind the wheel, often violently: moral of the story, increasing mathematically-provable "security" can backfire. (Some of the luxury cars popular in 3rd world countries now literally have aftermarket flamethrowers attached to the side to mitigate the carjacking risk... or so I've heard rumor of, citation needed, I have never seen such myself.)

  Anyways, the point of the conversation here, besides being an interesting usertalk diversion, is that there are some (reasonably) easy to explain hypothetical advantages to the crypto-hash-in-the-username approach. 1Wiki8 is not actually expecting to utilize these corner-cases we've been discussing, you and I, of stolen-laptops-which-compromise-your-wiki-password-but-not-your-bitcoin-secure-offline-paper-wallet, and of vanished-users-that-wish-to-briefly-reauthenticate-without-their-old-password. The main use 1Wiki8 is putting to their new innovation, is most likely simply storing all their eggs in one place: they keep their bitcoin 'savings accounts' in their highly secure paper wallet, and since they're already doing all the work it takes to securely maintain a paper wallet of bitcoin 'money' they also keep their wikipedian-username-private-key in that form, as a bonus. When they want to add a digisig to some particular edit, such as their account-linkage edits or whatever, it is a piece of cake (relatively speaking) to use their existing bitcoin-related toolchain to do it.

  Long term, though, if a significant number of people begin maintaining WP:DOPPLEGANGER usernames in addition to their 'friendly' traditional wikipedia-username, we could see some neat stuff: provably secure mechanisms where only two admins working together can WP:BLOCK, or provably secure mechanisms where only three arbcom members can unblock a particular username, or other weird crypto-magic. (Schneier again.) Short term, I see little harm in letting 1Wiki8 do their thing, and my hunch is "their thing" could be hypothetically more 'secure' in some ways in the medium-term, plus with a little luck, very cool long-term. Time will tell, if we let it. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I tell Beeblebrox my account has been compromised and give them my secure keyphrase. They reply saying that it doesn't match the hash on my userpage. I frown, and check it myself. It doesn't match. I look at the page history and realise somebody changed it without me noticing, perhaps even redacting my original edit. I tell Beeblebrox to try again with the earliest diff in the edit history. Any social engineering argument just comes down to "I'm McGeddon and I can verify this February 7th hash" versus "no, I'm McGeddon and I can verify this April 15th hash, but not the February 7th one". The end.

If the hash username had no impact on other users, it'd be fair to have one to guard against whatever unlikely edge cases worry you, but "confusing or extremely lengthy usernames" are explicitly against WP:UNCONF because they make life slightly more awkward day-to-day for other Misplaced Pages users (they stretch out the edit history, they're hard to distinguish as unique, they give the first impression that an edit might be asdfghj vandalism, it's harder to start a thread on the talk page about "that recent edit by username"). It's like protecting yourself against obscure name-based edge cases in the real world ("that guy might overhear my name on the street, look up my home address and break in, knowing I'm not there!") by insisting that your friends and business contacts all address you as "John Smith" when talking to or about you in a public place. It works, but it's an ongoing inconvenience for everyone except you.

The secure alternative to Misplaced Pages editors having hashed usernames would be make it a convention for hashes to be noted down in an agreed place unique to each user, in a particular format, and this is exactly what {{user committed identity}} does. --McGeddon (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sure. And because you retain your secure passphrase, as an ad hoc type of site-specific security, and are careful about how exactly you do it, and what computer systems you do it upon, it is unlikely to be compromised. And because Beeblebrox is savvy, and 'knows' you personally, it will not be long until you are unblocked. But 1Wiki8 is trying to consolidate this ad hoc procedure, using manual software-tools, into an automated-by-the-bitcoin-toolchain type of procedure. Not because they worry about being password-compromised by an adversary, and being able to conveniently get back their persona, but because they are trying to make digisig'd messages for certain key wikipedia-edits (e.g. account-linkage and maybe more in the future) as convenient as possible, and as resistant to userpage-mod-attacks as possible. Hence, the crypto-hash in the username. You can argue they should NOT want to consolidate toolchains, or argue that they will never NEED to digisign their wikipedia edits, but the much higher convenience (and the somewhat higher "security") of the approach is plain, to my wiki-eyes anyways.

But, let us cut to the chase: your argument against User:1Wiki8102940185093409423092343's 33-byte username equally applies, without any perceptible variation, to this good-faith-editor-person, who has a theoretically-confusing theoretically-not-easy-to-uniquely-identify username of 38-byte length:

• (cur | prev) 05:04, 5 October User:2015‎ 2602:306:cd0d:9230:e9db:3d27:f47d:5de5 (talk)‎ . . (82,687 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Capitalization) (undo)

This ain't just about 1Wiki8.  :-)     Sooner or later, my ISP will move from v4 to v6, and everything you are saying in that last reply, translates very simply into "permaban IPv6 usernames" to my wiki-ears. Exactly the same way that argument User:Dr Blofeld was making, on the WT page where they proposed a max-20-character-limitation, translates into "permagan IPv6 usernames". I don't think that would be an optimal outcome, to say the least. Now, there is already the recently-created User:1Wiki8 doppleganger, so anybody who is a savvy long-haul wikipedian will be able to use {{ping}} to easily contact the editor thataway. You can even type User_talk:1Wiki8 instead of the long thing, if needed.

  But if the core of the argument boils down to, that long name showing up on my watchlist will confuse me, ban it per WP:UNCONF, then all that I can say is, now that we've had this conversation, you won't be confused anymore, because you understand that it is a crypto-hash, and a very carefully selected one at that. I don't know how many millions of cycles of computer-time it took for 1Wiki8 to generate that specific bitcoin address, but I can say with reasonable certainty that bitcoin addresses cannot be specified in advance -- they had to burn up a lot of electrons in the PRNG circuitry, until that specific username-slash-crypto-hash finally popped out of their GPGPU, is my guess. Anyways, I'm happy to talk about this further if you like, and we can explore the other potential ramifications of using a crypto-hash in a username (and maybe ask 1Wiki8 what specific plans they have for their strong-crypto-username in terms of non-repudiation and some of the other properties they mentioned). But the main policy-backed argument is that confusing usernames should only be allowed with good reason. If no reason is good enough, then let us change the policy, to say that confusing usernames are never allowed, including IPv6 usernames. But there is a "good" reason for IPv6, which is that plenty of people use it off-wiki, as an internet "usernames" (addresses). There is an equally good reason for 1Wiki8's long crypto-hash username, which is that plenty of people use those off-wiki, as crypto-currency "usernames" (addresses).

  Thanks for the good discussion, sorry I could not be more convincing, but as I say, it is a complicated topic, and I don't understand the whole breadth and depth of the use of crypto-hash 'usernames' myself (whether on-wiki or off-wiki), so it's difficult to explain my medium-understanding to other folks in most cases. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "hard to distinguish as unique, they give the first impression that an edit might be asdfghj vandalism, it's harder to start a thread on the talk page about "that recent edit by username"" also goes for IPv6 usernames, and IPv4 to some extent. And other editors find it harder to refer to those users, or distinguish them from one another, or mention them specifically but casually in a talk thread. Editors even have to be reminded that IPs are WP:HUMAN. 1Wiki8's username has all those disadvantages of an IP address username and goes a little bit further by looking more like an asdfghjkl vandal name or an interface bug. IP addresses are unpingable, 1Wiki8 is awkward to ping unless you're a "savvy long-haul wikipedian" who even knows that their alternate username exists. This is a lot of inconvenience just for a cool bitcoin address that protects against one implausibly obscure Misplaced Pages server attack.--McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We mostly agree.  :-)     I'm pushing for User:1Wiki8 to add that doppleganger as a wikilink directly to their usual sig, making the shortnick more discoverable (the sig can have the crypto-hash as part of the link to usertalk and the doppleganger as a link to the userpage for instance). And yes, most of WP:UNCONF applies perfectly to every IPv6 anon-name, and to a lesser extent IPv4 dotted-quads like myself. There are plenty of folks who wish everybody could be forced to register, but luckily enough (or unluckily depending on one's philosophical position), the WMF is adamant about anybody-can-edit. Given that IPv6 usage is only going to grow, as more and more ISPs use them, and as more and more humans switch to mobile-devices for quick anon-edits, I see very little harm in making bitcoin-crypto-hash-usernames also allowed-per-policy. You by contrast end up with the opposite conclusion, namely, why add to the confusion we are already going to see, as IPv6 grows steadily more popular, by also allowing cryptic often-seen-as-confusing tediously-long crypto-hash-usernames?  :-)

  And actually, there is some reason to hope that crypto-hash-based-usernames might someday replace IPv6 anon-usernames, for instance, by changing the way the wikipedia mobile-app works on Android/iOS devices, such that it automatically creates a crypto-hash for the device, rather than relying upon the dynamic IPv6 provided by the upstream cellular-ISP. This might be cool, because unlike IPv6 editors, 1Wiki8 has the advantage that they *can* be pinged... and in my book only long-haul-savvy-wikipedians would ever *want* to ping another wikipedian. Also unlike IPv6 editors, 1Wiki8 can have a custom sig, which hides the crypto-hash behind CSS. Plus of course, since they have a username rather than an IP-only-username, 1Wiki8 can created a WP:DOPPLEGANGER. In my book, that makes the crypto-hash-usernames a significant improvement over IPv6, in terms of hassle/etc (to both the human behind 1Wiki8 and the editors they interact with in talkspace and edit-summaries and whatever). I expect most folks who want to have a static persona would end up creating a doppleganger with a shortnick, and link their various mobile-device-hashes thereto, however.

  In any case, the main security-things that crypto-hash usernames are potentially useful for, in the long run, is only going to happen when they become "not-uncommon" as opposed to "singular-and-only-used-by-1Wiki8". There is no guarantee such will come to pass, in the next several years; it depends on whether or not bitcoin becomes a mainstream banking technology, and on some political factors, methinks. Still, most of my interest in allowing the crypto-hash-username is about long-term 'vaporware' ideas that provably-secure-digisig-usernames would permit: secure RfA/arbcom bangvoting, no-unblock-without-multiple-admins-acting-in-concert, maybe deprecating IPv6 for mobile app uses, and that sort of thing. None of that is possible today, in an easy-to-implement fashion at least, because not enough wikipedians have crypto-hash-dopplegangers. As for User:1Wiki8, methinks they are primarily concerned about their off-wiki security exposure, and are primarily trying to consolidate all their online personas into a single type of technological toolchain, so that they will easily be able to manage their bitcoin 'money' and using the exact same toolchain easily digisig their 'important' wikipedia edits, plus gain a smidge of theoretical security (subject to the wrench-related-breach o'course).

  Anyways, as in most real-world systems I've looked into, there is almost always a tradeoff between security and convenience; driving a car would be considerably more convenient, if you didn't need a key/keyfob to open the garage door, and a key/keyfob to unlock the car door, and a key/cryptofob to start the engine, and to put on your seatbelt and close your car door to shut off those annoying buzzers. But property-security, property-security, property-security, security-against-bodily-injury, and security-against-bodily-injury, respectively, mean that we are willing to stomach those inconveniences, for some added security. Cars would also be a lot cheaper to manufacture, own, and repair, if they could skip the turn-signals and the brake-lights and the inspection-stickers and the license-plates, not to mention the license in one's wallet and the general-liability-insurance-paperwork in the glovebox... but because cars are driven in public, most governments mandate such "features" so that drivers will be able to interact with each other "securely" (and cops will be able to function appropriately).

  Our discussion (meaning you and me but also the other folks commenting at the policy-talkpages and in the RfC-username-thread) is mostly about the question of whether 1Wiki8 aka User:1Wiki8 aka User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR will, or will not, be retaining their "license-to-edit". Does their sig have enough "turn-signal" equivalents, so that other wikipedians will be able to figure out that 1Wiki8 is pingable? Does their userpage/usertalk have sufficient linkage to their past account, and their doppleganger account, so that wiki-cops will be able to figure out which "license-plate" is currently "mandatorily-insured"? Last but by no means least, is this particular kind of cryptographically-strong vanity plate ... or maybe it is a cryptographically-strong keyfob ... able to pass the bureaucratic requirements of the on-wiki WP:BURO, regardless of any off-wiki benefits that may exist, or any future potential on-wiki benefits that may someday come to pass? I am a bit saddened by the worries about 'legal' precedents in username bureaucracy-administration, and the allergic reaction to the idea of piggybacking on a quasi-'currency'-technology; to be fair, I don't see either of those reactions in your complaints, you seem to have a clear focus on the cost-benefit analysis which measures convenience-factors versus security-factors, and I appreciate that. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Jayant Biswas

in the page Cave Research in India, only a single name after "headed by" is given because other is not related to any type of Research, instead that is belongs to adventurous sports, and the page is about CAVE RESEARCH and not Caving (as a whole). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biospeleologist (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear McGeddon, Try to understand "National Cave Research and Protection Organization" is the National level Institution, the head office is in Raipur. It has power to operate its function throughout the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biospeleologist (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Viswant

Hello McGeddon Now i found that you removed the speedy deletion tag of Viswant. Please go through the references within the article, the references didn't even states any significance about the article.

Here's the fourth reference that i found on the article, I cannot even see any mentioning about Viswant within it. Also the first reference is only a Youtube link, i don't know how it is significant. The 3rd reference also embed that video within it. The 2nd reference noted is only from a website that cannot be trusted, it found to be a gossip type. Hope you'll undo your action and delete Viswant article from Misplaced Pages. Josu4u (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Sai-Kiran-Adivis-Kerintha-to-roll-out-soon/articleshow/30450614.cms?

The Internet and cats has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, McGeddon. The Internet and cats, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Uri Geller

This is Lincense2ill. I think my edits were fair. Some of the changes involved attempts to neutralize idea of career vs notoriety and celebrity appearances. His career work seems to have involved writing books based on the appearances, along with referenced oil and mining company work. Other edits focused on relevance with statements about James Randi's finances, not as it pertained to Geller. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by License2ill (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet Horror Movie Database

Hello Sir,

Internet Horror Movie Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG/WP:WEB; the only secondary sources given are Italian blogs. Google has only fourteen results for the phrase "Internet Horror Movie Database", most of them Facebook posts. McGeddon (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Google list it both as Internet Horror Movie Database or iHORRORdb.com or iHoRRORdb. You can find filmmaker, website, social accounts and even IMDB talk about the Internet Horror Movie DatabasePizzole (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Living people's bios

Hi McGeddon: I did source it at the bottom qv. The Daily Telegraph, which quite clearly states that Corbyn's Order-in-Council affirmed his membership of the Privy Council yesterday (ie. on Friday). By the way, perhaps you are aware? that this matter has caused quite a stir among varying degrees of Misplaced Pages cognoscenti and incognoscenti! But, suffice to say that Corbyn is now a Rt. Hon. - even he says so himself. Perhaps you would be so kind as to restore the correct updated version? Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted & my apologies - further Buckingham Palace's categoric advice, satisfactory clarification must now be awaited (following unprecedented confusion emanating from various sources, including No. 10 Downing Street, UK parliamentary authorities and Labour Party officials) about Corbyn's PC status. M Mabelina (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Novara Media nomination for deletion

On 3 October 2015 you nominated that the Novara Media page be deleted. Can you explain your reasons, for clarity's sake? This is a legitimate media organisation that doesn't seem to meet any of the reasons on the deletion policy. I.e., along notability guidelines, it is a reasonably large, legitimate media organisation, its page is backed up with reliable sources, it is not advertising (Novara are NFP), etc. Please clarify on this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.133.91 (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of snowman picture

I'm sorry you didn't like Alf. His intentions were good. Sb2s3 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

BBC

I didn't consciously set out to revert your edit - it was simply a result of an edit conflict. But, I think it's probably better to put both sides of the argument in this article - clearly the BBC as an institution is under review (some would say attack), so I think a brief mention is appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Over to you - I'm up to 3RR, I guess. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Shadow Rap Deletion

Whats up Mcgeddon. I am new to wiki as you can tell and am teaching myself how add more things to the page. Is their a certain articles explaining how edit? I also improved the Shadow Rap page, is it a little more decent now?

Thanks, Yung Samsun Yung Samsun (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned

at User talk:Jdol526. You don't have to comment - I'm waiting to see what he says now. :-) Peridon (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I've frightened him off... Peridon (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

You don't appear to have cited where I've changed any grammatical errors? If you would like to highlight this, if they are incorrect, I will of course change them.

Please note that this entire article is comprised of quite a few questionable, personal views and some citations which are disallowed on Misplaced Pages e.g. Blogs. All I'm attempting to do is to elevate it from the chatty style that it is at present up to a standard that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordFrazey (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help with article about company

Hi McGeddon, The article that I created - TotoGaming does not comply with Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. But in the section See also there are links to the reliable sources. Please help to solve the issue regarding the noncompliance.

Problem with Advert Tag

You have tagged our article TotoGaming as advertisement. Please mention/highlight which part refers to the advertisement. The article was written by the third person and doesn't include any advertising part.

Contesting Article for Speedy Deletion

Hi, an article that I submitted for Cloudcade was deleted on account of "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". The article complies with all guidelines set forth by Misplaced Pages. All information are properly cited via credible sources, contains objective facts, are not self-promotional and contains helpful information for those who are interested. Please take a look for yourself, all previous comments regarding the Company being "non-notable", "self-promotional", etc have been properly addressed: https://en.wikipedia.org/Cloudcade The company has since launched a popular game on mobile and web called Shop Heroes. I would also like to create an article around that as I'm an avid fan. I am requesting for the article to be un-deleted, thanks for you time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenith711 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:McGeddon, please note that the context of the article has since drastically changed since 2014. The company has since launched a product, Shop Heroes, which was actually featured by Apple with the release of iOS9 and further featured by Google Play all across last week as the top game worldwide. The company has two offices, one successfully released product and a 2nd one in the works according to their team. There are also published reviews of the product all over the web, with a few cited in the updated article. Please take a closer look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenith711 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Advertising Tag

Hi McGeddon and thanks for your comments. I have noticed that there were made several changes in the article TotoGaming withe the advertising content. As i understand there is no more advertising content in the article. So please remove the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aznauryanmikayel (talk • contribs) 05:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hindi Rap Page

I had added that page named "Hindi Rap" which redirects to "Desi Hip hop" because Hindi rap is different genre than Desi Hip hop. Hindi rap is limited to only Hindi language while Desi Hip hop is used for a wide interpretation of Rapping culture around Indian subcontinent unaffected by languages Decoding myself (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

RE: Proposed Deletion Driftwood (2016 film)

The wikipedia page is not quite complete yet, It is a group effort and i am waiting on information from several group members so I can complete the page. 21:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Your recent editing history at Generation Z shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war"

It appears wikipedia has pitted us against each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakracer (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. wikipedia ITSEL-how does website work BTW.Its so weird.Am i even in the right place?.com

Withdrawn AFD

Hello McGeddon, think you can withdrawn the AFD because the website notability is now clear. All points are respected. Thanks. (Pizzole (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC))

Deletition of page

Sir, please how i can delete my created pages Sameer9988 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm late to say I appreciate your thanks a month ago for my small edits to the article Dust storm. Thanks for your kind encouragement. Manytexts (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

GoPro HERO4 overheating problems

Hi,

My addition to the GoPro article and the overheating problems that the HERO4 face has been archived until a reputable source is added. However, I don't know how to reference the numerous forum postings, group discussions on Facebook as well as my own and colleagues experiences with this camera. Any help on how to cite, eg. http://news.softpedia.com/news/GoPro-HERO4-Camera-Found-to-Dangerously-Overheat-when-Attached-to-Battery-BacPac-461536.shtml & http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/micro-pov-camera-systems/525513-hero-4-black-overheating.html would be greatly appreciated.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efassbender (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello sir Mc Geddon

I'm really sorry about that. Please accept my apologize. I will not make the same behavior like that. please help me to delete it immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chileax (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

McGeddon, Sir or Madam

A few days ago, you left a message on my Talk page about what a minor edit is. --- What if I add one or two links to the See Also or External Links section? Is this okay to call a minor edit? I realize I probably use the "minor" label too much, but sometimes it's hard to draw the line. Thanks in advance for any clarification. (I do punctuation/spelling edits, but the vast majority of my contributions in the last year have to do with content -- or the way something is expressed. Have also been marking broken or dead links, if I can't easily fix them.)

Floridasand (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

unbelievable the movie

Thank you for your interest in our page. I have been learning as I go because another user has started creating a page without the permission of the movie director owner and currently producer. I am working with Steven Faucett and his wife Angelique to create the page. IF you have any concerns, help or questions please let me know we are still in the building aspect of the page. We would like it to avoid deletion.

AngelicasparksAngelicasparks (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I did leve a message on the users talkpage 20:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Karah kenze (talk)

User:Karah kenze

Hi, writing to inform you that I have filed again your original edit warring report about this user because they have been doing it on other articles and against several other editors. There is only one statement on the talk page supporting their edits. LjL (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2015 (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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Survio on Comparison of Survey Software

Hi McGeddon, firstly, thank for checking the post. I would like to ask you if you could explain me the reason why it´s notpossible to add Survio when another completely similar tools are in the list. Don´t undertsand me wrong, please, just I try to figure it out. If it is about links, I just wanted to prove that service exists. Thanks for paying attention to my comment.

Aha! Yes, it´s true, it makes sense. Thanks for the advice.

DYK for Cats and the Internet

On 28 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cats and the Internet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although cats have an unprecedented popularity on the internet, no one is entirely sure why? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Chuckle Brothers

Hi McGeddon,

I appreciate your comments re. the edit war, however do you not feel it would be in the public interest to include the article in question on the Misplaced Pages article? Indeed, the matter caused a great stir at the time and is one of the first articles you see when typing 'Barry Chuckle' on the Google search engine.