User talk:McGeddon/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Help to keep the better photograph

Hello McG, Greetings! I have noticed that you have reverted the edits done by me in Ear and Toothbrush. In case of Ear, I don't think it is lacking EV and quality and the cropping also not taking away the EV of the photograph. In Toothbrush, none of the images in the article are of the same quality of the picture added by me. Please reconsider your reversion and help me to keep the photographs in the respective articles. As you can see I am one of the tireless contributor to wiki and love to continue doing it, please don't discourage me. Thanks and Regards : Blacknclick (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• McG,

But still, do you think the supporting parts are relevant for demonstrating ear ? The article specifically speaks about the ear not any other part. I have noticed in many other examples to reach a decision to crop the ear in that manner, please think once again. In the Toothbrush, none of the images are in the same quality and clarity of my image, when we demonstrate, do it in a better way, that was my intention not to give simple images for just showing purpose ... Blacknclick (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello McGeddon

We are not much acquainted by the Wikipedia, but time to time edit few pages come under our expertise . If you have something to add in the page Cave research in India please go ahead, otherwise please do not edit or cut any line from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biospeleologist (talk • contribs) 07:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Meghalaya Adventurer Association is a sports club engaged mainly in cave exploration not in Scientific Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.250.74 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New page patrol

When you are tagging new pages for cleanup or deletion, like Digital anomie, please make sure they are mark as reviewed. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 11:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Oh, I was assuming that Twinkle was doing that automatically for me. I'll try to remember to in future, if it's not. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

FBC entry

hi,

i see you have removed the entry but i think you should keep the definition of FBC.

thanks lynn888 Lynn888 (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Hello so how do i add my link to my article then??? please help sir Samuelbado (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TOP100 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:TOP100. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:TOP100 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Swatting

I agree that there is useful information in the link about the possible 'scale' of swatting incidents, but the source for this information is a clearly biased piece seeking to link the practice to a specific movement on questionable and circumstantial evidence (the "subforum on Reddit" being accused is not identified, and there's nothing I can see linking the "baphomet" 8chan board to Gamergate; 8chan, being an imageboard site, is essentially "social media" just like Reddit, and as such its individual boards don't inherently have anything to do with each other). Also, it's been suggested to me that getting this link into Wikipedia may be part of an attempt to include additional criticism of Gamergate (in particular, branding as an "online harassment campaign") in Wikipedia, after a change to the article title was rejected. 76.64.33.209 (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dust explosion thanks

You're very welcome! Manytexts (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Thanks for fixing the place of birth thing again. I was trying to resolve an edit conflict and missed that difference. Bazj (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul Ewing (actor)

Just wanted to hear your arguments for accepting this AfC submission. Besides 2 minor mentions in The Guardian (definitely not extensive) there is absolutely no coverage about him that is independent and reliable. Ping me if possible. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my recently deleted edit (again)

What do you mean by "third party"? The videos were authored by Jim Sterling who was directly involved in the feud about which the section talked.

Fuck off

Take your Harry Hill bullshit, shove it up your arse and fuck off while you're about it.

Matthew heller

Didn't create this article-but it went to me as I moved it right when you put that up-might want to change your prod log and send the message to the right person. Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Games The Shop (Retail)

The page Games The Shop has been deleted. Is there no way some country's only specialist retailer can have a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allwyndsouza10 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wordcaster Media and Public Relations

Hi McGreddon

Im new to Wikipedia and finding adding factual info on my own business time consuming. that is why I have copied content from my own LinkedIn page for speed (I drafted it!) and am confused as to why you want to delete my page. Im not sure what other source I can use?

Please advise. thank you and sorry to cause you additional work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barns206 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Awesome Tones (Band) deletion

Hello McGeddon. could you please give a reason why the page "Awesome Tones (Band)" was deleted and how we can improve on it. Also will be undeleted after we meet the criteria... if so how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victordairo (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Dean (South Korean Singer)

could you please change this back to our original title.. or make it Dean (Artist) or Dean (Singer) or Dean (Singer-Songwriter)? Because although Dean's ethnicity may be Korean, he's single was released in United States of America as a American Singer. Please... I work at Joombas as a SNS Marketing department and our boss and Dean is not too happy that South Korean was added to his title.. If you could could change it to one of those title, that would be very appreciated. Josephyangjoombas (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Replied to your message

Hi User:McGeddon. Just to let you know that I have replied to your comments on my page, again. Apologies for my delay. I have answered both of your points. (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Also hi User:McGeddon No idea what that message was about, I've never edited the Harry Hill page and do not intend to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.209.240 (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:McGeddon. Thanks for info, really helps. Will do as you've suggested. RLKnights (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Make Systematic the Page (Biswas)

Few days back the page Biswas was arranged in a very systematic way by categorizing the personalities having title Biswas according to their respective fields. Unfortunately you have revert the same. The present structure is not at all appreciating as while mixing the same the internationally renowned persons and ordinary (merely notable) persons are standing in a same order and which is not justified. You are requested to think again regarding the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimpionly (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 July 2015‎

Bestfriendwhatnotever

I had a look at this guy's contributions and concluded they can't possibly be anything other than just random names put in infoboxes for a "laugh". I've deleted all of them per WP:CSD#G3 and told them they'll get a block if they do it again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Why did you revert my edit? The Nikki Catsouras article does indeed mention the Streisand effect. Just do CTRL-F and search for "Streisand" and you'll find it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Victor O'Frank

I do not understand the reasons you provided for the deletion of my article. Could you please remove the tag and maybe try to confirm the sources on the page. I will be making edits on the article just so i can get it in order.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vic2tee4u (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 July 2015‎

Teardrop tattoo edits

I notice you removed the 'prison reference' to the teardrop tattoo. It is a criminal tattoo and noted as such in the Wikipedia page on criminal tattoos.

Lil Wayne of course is a famous wearer who has spent time in prison and the only reason Amar'e Stoudemire was included in the 'adopters' section is specifically because his brother was in prison; it would be pointless to list every teardrop tattoo wearer; these were put there specifically.

Another wearer; Amy Winehouse had a teardrop tattoo after her husband was incarcerated.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2007/dec/10/amywinehousetattoo

Would it be okay to add the above article as a reference?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.82.40 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 25 July 2015‎

Verification needed

In the teardrop tattoo page; the references do state the tattooed wearer was raped while incarcerated but nowhere does it say in any reference 'the number of times'.

Prison rape is common and you wouldn't see a prisoner with 100 teardrop tattoos for example. There would usually be one and it would indicate the prisoner was 'owned' and/or used for sex and often forcibly tattooed.

I think 'number of times' should be removed as you will not find a prisoner that is raped on a daily basis by multitudes of prisoners covered in teardrop tattoos.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.82.40 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 25 July 2015‎

Why

Why was my page marked as a speedy? Did you even read the entire article? Because without reading the article, you have no idea of it's contents. It is not a "web blog". When I created the article, about 2 minutes later a tag was put on it. You couldn't have possibly read the whole thing that fast. Learn to read, and learn to make deletion discussions. EdytaGocek (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

James Cooper Proposed Deletion

There are plenty of secondary sources. Why do you keep on nominating it for deletion?

Cookie!

74.102.70.142 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

What does a book called Love and Ice: The Tragic Obsessions of Dr. Elisha Kent Kane, Arctic Explorer have to do with spiritualism, Henry Grinnell and the Fox sisters? --McGeddon (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not being a practiced Wikipedia user, I am going nuts trying to figure out how to respond to you these last few days. I hope this is the correct vehicle. Your concern seems to be that the book (Love and Ice) suggested as a reference in several articles is only tenuously related to the articles. This is hardly the case. Here are extracts from the blurb for the book, which covers Arctic exploration, spiritualism, and even the Resolute desk: "This is the story of the famed explorer who perhaps was the greatest American hero of the 1850s . . . . The poignant love affair between Kane and Margaret Fox, the Spiritualist medium, adds heart-warming contrast tp the explorer's frigid adventures in the Arctic." Furthermore, Henry Grinnell was Dr. Elisha Kent Kane's sponsor. And the Resolute Desk (for which you have removed the reference) was a direct result of the Kane/Grinnell relationship and is the complete subject of the book's Appendix. I do not understand how you can judged the relevancy of a book to an article based solely on its title. I hope this clarifies your concerns. Thank you for your attention and I hope this message reaches you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14rayvonne16 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You commented, "but a biography of a man who was in a relationship with a spiritualist seems tenuous for "further reading" on the much broader subject of Spiritualism." I maintain, however, that the book's relationship to Spiritualism is hardly tenuous. A full 10,000- word chapter is soley devoted to the topic, along with further discussion throughout the book, illustrations of the key characters involved in the founding of Modern Spiritualism, and so forth. Not only is this book a biography of Kane, but it is also a comprehensive biography of Margaret Fox. Hence, I believe that this book is quite appropriate for further reading about Spiritualism. 14rayvonne16 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Recently deleted article

Good afternoon!

I was working on an article on Richard S. Mroz that was deleted and all of my work was lost. I believe I understand what the issue was that led to it's deletion, but was working on addressing it when I lost the opportunity. Would it be possible to have it restored with only the offensive areas deleted? I am a newbie to this whole process and would appreciate any help on making Wikipedia a better place/community for everyone. Thanks again for you help and for keeping Wikipedia as an amazing resource.

Rschwarznj (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! After reading Paper Towns I wanted to try my hand at writing and editing Wikipedia pages (it seems really interesting). My friend and I started together so that we could help each other out. Hopefully we'll get it right this time. Thanks again!

Rschwarznj (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:Proposed deletion of Clifton Truman Daniel

I wrote references.--永続繁栄 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to TribalWar. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

These are links to non-existing sites or messageboards pages that no longer exist. They are not repairable. Is there any point in keeping? 166.173.56.89 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sooraj Pancholi

Hello McGeddon. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Sooraj Pancholi. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
14		Bartok (card game) (talk)						Add sources
9		One Card (talk)						Add sources
91		History of the Caribbean (talk)						Add sources
15		Cairo American College (talk)						Add sources
1		Rybicki Press algorithm (talk)						Add sources
42		Daifugō (talk)						Add sources
553		Positive psychology (talk)						Cleanup
72		Teen patti (talk)						Cleanup
27		Simulation language (talk)						Cleanup
443		Internet privacy (talk)						Expand
3		The Trouble With Money (talk)						Expand
587		John Connor (talk)						Expand
370		Euchre (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
401		Criticism of Facebook (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,110		Justice League (TV series) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,275		Social networking service (talk)						Merge
54		Parton (particle physics) (talk)						Merge
94		Privacy issues of social networking sites (talk)						Merge
440		Facebook features (talk)						Wikify
291		Timeline of major crimes in Australia (talk)						Wikify
6		Take the Train (talk)						Wikify
5		MacTalk Australia (talk)						Orphan
2		Fragger (talk)						Orphan
0		Chratze (talk)						Orphan
12		Zee Punjabi (talk)						Stub
9		New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (talk)						Stub
323		Shedding-type game (talk)						Stub
4		Ristiseiska (talk)						Stub
8		Cabo (game) (talk)						Stub
5		Spaceballs (demogroup) (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Soul

Thanks a lot Mr. McGeddon for quick response. Actually I've just complete a script on the Soul. And I wish, I'll share more learned people like you with it. Md. Mofiz Uddin (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for leaving a notice on my talk page. Well, you are probably right that the "busy" would be a more appropriate template. However, I am trying to say that I am not simply "busy", but possibly will not return back to editing (that is what I really feel). Telling this on my user page is not forbidden by any policies. Neither this is a problem for other users with whom I can easily communicate if needed. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to this... In the message on my talk page message I invite people to post their comments and usually respond to them (as I do right now). Sorry, but I do not have time to modify templates and prefer using plain text. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre: Bad Journalism

While the statement about Goldacre might have been less-than-neutral, there does seem to be a case for highlighting some of the nasty and snide comments/attacks made by this ‘Journalist’. That said, by saying Goldacre “has been a particular critic” of a number of people, does not the article hint at his needlessly combative nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.185.242 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Festivus Page

Wider adoption section is completely out of date with only a reference to Salkin's book published in 2005, and a second book with clear questionable relevance. The new book published by FestivusWeb contains researched examples of Festivus being celebrated around the world, and is supported by third party references. There are even results of a public survey of Festivus adoption done through the website. My honest belief is that there is no better contemporary reference that demonstrates the ongoing adoption of Festivus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcnvr (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

According to google searches and the author bio he has been quoted in the national media regarding the subject of Festivus. In this case there is no better Festivus resource out there, self-published or other. This is clearly a tome, and it does effectively update the notion that people are continuing too celebrate this holiday. Did you see it was endorsed by the son of the Festivus creator Dan O'Keefe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcnvr (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

2048

Hi, You made a mistake by removing external links I added to the page 2048. The link is a valid link. If you would like to only cite journal published sources, then you will have to remove almost most of the links, since most of them are newspaper articles or link to other website. For instance, look at this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lights_Out_(game) has a link to some website: http://web.archive.org/web/20100704161251/http://www.haar.clara.co.uk/Lights/solving.html

Further, the analysis of the game is correct and is written by a Professor and hosted on his webpage. Hence, could you revert back the external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetanotherwikier (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

about the editing of the 'Hindu Selves in a Modern World

For my better understanding may I know, why the contents of the book were edited out?````

WP:VANISH

I notice you mentioned the vanish guideline when undoing my edit at Talk:EPROM‎. I won't undo your edit but this phrase in the guideline seems to says that talk pages are not readily changed:

• Note that signatures (on user talk pages, article talk pages and project discussion pages) will not be changed, and will, by default, be redirected to the new user name. You can ask for this redirect to be removed.

I think the right thing to have done was leave the signatures as before but redirect the account pages to the obfuscated name. Regards, —EncMstr (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Keynes' book «How To Pay For The War»

This book does not have an article in wikipedia. Since I own a (1940) copy I created an article, photographed the cover and uploaded it; because it's an important book and that the article on John Maynard Keynes is way too long; and not about this specific book. The artcle was deleted within hours. Why? Why does the boring General Theory and the The Treatise get their own articles and not «How To Pay For The War»? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RISClives (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Internet forums

I’m contacting active participants on this article to vote “yes” or “no” on this suggested format. [Talk: List of Internet Forums]
72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Salkia vs. Salkhia

Thes two articles may describe the same place. Please be careful when helping the new editor.Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I'm not a native speaker, sorry if I'm unprecise. I have asked Western Bengal group for help.Xx236 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Attack page

What part of Wolfman Crozier's Biography did you consider to be an attack when you tagged it with {{db-g10}}? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for comment

I note that editing entries in the talk page is not to be done.

Could you therfore, in the interest of fairness, please revert all changes in the Seasick Steve talk pages made by user Aircastle ?80.195.100.70 (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Seasick Steve page

Hello Mc Geddon

I saw you were on the talk page for Seasick Steve. Just a little recent history. In July i saw on google search that on Wikipedia all the longstanding and well referenced Seasick Steve content concering name and age had been deleted and edited with a different name and age. All unsourced. This was done by IP editor 80.195.100.70 He was very soon blocked by Wiki Administrator, Gilliam for abusing editing privilages on another page. This editor has had many complaints and warnings. (see talk history 80.195.100.70) When I looked at the history on the Seasick Steve talk page and main page this editor had a long history of trying to insert unsourced material and deleting well referenced content. I then took it upon myself to monitor the page. He has now returned again still trying to insert the last name of (Redacted) with absolutley no source. He has made edits (what i would clearly class as contentious) on the talk page as a way of inserting this name but with no reference. see below,

"It's a pathetic attempt to try and persuade everyone that the former paramedic/recording producer (Redacted) is a gnarly ancient genuine Hobo." 80.195.100.70

As it states at the top of the talk page; This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this

This has just been an obvious attempt to continue trying to change the subjects name through constantly editing the talk page without having to reference it at all. I have reported 80.195.100.70 to a Wiki Admistrator. If you agree with this, any help monitoring the page would be greatly appreciated. All the best Aircastle (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Seasick Steve

Thanks for the constuctive comments. Very helpful. My main goal was to first try and delete all the reference about the unsourced name, Beacuse this was left on the talk page after the alledged source was declared a vilolation of WP:BLPPRIMARY by wiki administrator SlimVirgin. I was under the impression that this content which was found in violation and the talk around it, should be removed as stated in the Talk Page heading. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but my intentions were to just try and do what i thought was Wiki policy, especially in this case were there was such a concerted effort by IP 80.195.100.70 to continually insert unsourced content about the subjects name on both the talk page and main article. Any other editing was unetentional. Thanks again for your comments and help. Best Aircastle (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ramyatalanki

Hello Mr McGeddon, Thank you for restructuring my page. I am new to wiki. (Ramyatalanki (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC))

Mr McGeddon could you please guide be about how to add and delete tags and where these tags can be used. (Ramyatalanki (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC))

Migros Management

Would you help me manage my bank please? :) SansaChen (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello

How's it going man? 206.82.167.147 (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Loonie (rapper)

I suppose an alternative to A7 under which it has already been deleted four times,[1] would be to take it to AfD so we can apply G4 in the future if it gets recreated under another title without substantially differences in content and sources. Feel free to remove my A7 tag and take it to AfD if you want to. Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Flatwoods monster.gif

When a page just sits in CAT:CSD for a long time (nine days, in this case!) with nobody touching it, neither deleting the page nor declining the request, it's an ambiguous situation that's simply better served by a process other than ordinary speedy deletion. That's why I suggested that you go with a different process. Other than FFD, which might have been better yet, I think the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} route that you followed is probably the best option. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't go to Files for Deletion; you went to Possibly Unfree Files, which is meant for getting people's opinions on whether a file's claim to be freely-licensed ought to be retained. This is why the bot closed it: files already marked as nonfree are out of the page's scope, since everyone agrees that they're nonfree. I don't think there's any need to move it now, unless someone disputes your disputation. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, it's a completely different page. If I understand rightly, it's meant for situations where the file is fine if free and not if not, and normally it's used when you can't prove a license status but believe that you can make a good case. For example, you might take something there if it's clearly marked as freely licensed, but it's by an editor with very few edits, and it's really small with almost no metadata: you could go there to say basically "this may well be taken from another website, but I can't be sure". In that situation, PUF is better than FFD because (as long as the file's in use) there's no reason to delete it if the copyright situation is fine, but if people at PUF agree that it's likely to be a copyright infringement, it can be deleted without outright proof. FFD is better either when you've got a clearly nonfree image, like here, or when a clearly free image may not be needed. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A helpful tool

When we get new articles on Indian films written by editors who are weak on MOS:FILM and lack understanding of WP:RS, there is sometimes problems because Google does not properly index Indian news media. I have found the search tools over at WP:INDAFD to be quite helpful. With them, I easily found that the new topic you nominated does indeed meet WP:GNG, and being completed meets WP:NFF. IE: India West New Indian Express Hope you find the tools as helpful as have I. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing signatures

Please don't change signatures to non-existent usernames. Although the original user has left the project, the replaced username you are changing it to is not currently in use, and could plausibly be used by another editor in the future. --McGeddon (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi

That's my comments. I leaved Wikipedia by vanishing done by user Fumitaka Joe. The problem remained is my name left in those signatures. Do you have any other ideas how could I handle this?

Sorry for this. I was not aware of issue you mentioned.

We can use this page for talk. I bookmarked it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.130.175 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 20 August 2015‎

WP:VANISH says that "in some cases collapsing or blanking is possible", regarding old signatures - I'd assume that the best thing to do would be to change the signature comments to User:Vanished user 8ij3r8jwefi, but am not entirely sure. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing. --McGeddon (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have time for this today anymore. Could we keep in touch next days?

Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.130.175 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 August 2015‎

Sure. Just leave a message on my talk page or type "User:McGeddon" as a link in a comment somewhere else so that I get WP:PINGed about it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. :-)

As far as I can see this vanishing rule wasn't implemented to the end:
"Note that signatures (on user talk pages, article talk pages and project discussion pages) will not be changed, and will, by default, be redirected to the new user name."
I'm not sure could I do it by myself.

This part you mentioned:
"Old signatures embedded in past posts cannot be changed due to technical limitations of the MediaWiki software, although in some cases collapsing or blanking is possible."
refers to practice of user name changing, but it seems it could be valid in general. On the other hand, it's true that old signatures can be modified one by one as I did. It seems that first part of sentence refers to automatic changing.

This is what I get from Fumitaka Joe after process of vanishing regarding this issue:
"Regarding changing signatures, I can't offer you any advice there. I would recommend simply leaving the signatures alone, as changing them would draw a lot more attention than leaving them be. It's up to you if you wish to change them, and then up to you how you want to go about changing them."

Anyhow, I plan to contact someone at Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing as you adviced me.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.130.205 (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support regarding Dsimic discussion and for overall understanding.
Also, sorry for changing archived Euclidean algorithm talk page. I think I didn't saw it's archived.
Cheers! :-)

Courtesy vanishing does not include anything to do with signatures. This is clearly spelled out on the courtesy vanishing page. Bureaucrats will do nothing with signatures. That is up to you and convincing anyone seeing you do it that you are the vanished user (which tends to greatly increase your exposure, so it's not recommended that you do it). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi McGeddon
What do you think, could we remove this talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.130.22 (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The starchild skull article

Why is it being reverted? I kept Novella's POV to try and maintain neutrality, but it is still rejected. I don't understand why, and nobody will explain what I'm doing wrong with the article.

Can you point out my errors below?

Extended content

"The Starchild skull is a bizarre skull said to have been that of a child who died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and which paranormalist Lloyd Pye believed it was of extraterrestrial origin. Claims of Lloyd Pye Pye claimed to have obtained the skull from Ray and Melanie Young of El Paso, Texas, in February 1999, stating that the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico, buried alongside a normal human skeleton that was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel. Pye claimed the skull to be a hybrid offspring of an extraterrestrial and a human female, later abandoning this hypothesis in favor of a better hypothesis. Assessment of the evidence A dentist who examined the upper right maxilla found with the skull determined that the skull was that of a child aged 4.5 to 5 years, but with adult sutures and adult teeth. The volume, however, of the interior of the starchild skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, unlike the orbits of a human, which are a round, rectangular shape, with the optic foramens situated closer to the bottom of the orbit than to the back. There are no frontal sinuses. The back of the skull is flattened, and lacks a true inion, which all vertebrates have. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone. The characteristics of the bone are unique, however: the bone is uniformly half as thick as human bone, but 2-3 times as hard, due to a much greater amount of collagen, and the presence of bizarre fibers that can resist the cut of a dremel blade. There is an absence of functioning lacunae, and a red residue that should be absent if it were bone marrow. The skull has a crease between the two parietal bones, running down the sagittal suture, evidence of a reduced, smaller face, with reduced chewing muscles The brain had greatly enlarged frontal, parietal, occipital, and temporal lobes relative to a human brain. X-rays reveal tracks made by blood vessels, and when a brain cast was produced, the cast show veins and arteries that corresponded to the impressions made by the blood vessels. Neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School says that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull. DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes." Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother. Trace genetics also failed to recover Nuclear DNA (nuDNA). the nuDNA was well preserved, but it failed to respond to primers. Pye then hypothesized that the being was "a human-alien hybrid, with a human mother, and an alien father." In 2010, an unnamed geneticist working for the starchild project managed to recover several nuDNA fragments that totaled at 3,000 base pairs. the fragments were sequenced, run through the NIH database, and half were human. The other half had no known corollary in the database. In 2011,the geneticist recovered 4 fragments of mtDNA that was approx 9.5% of the mtDNA genome. in these fragments, there were 93 variations in the base pair sequences, and when Pye extrapolated upon this, he found a statistically probable estimate of 800-1,000 mtDNA variations, whereas humans have only 120 variations. Further testing recovered a fragment of the FOXP2 gene. This master gene is highly conserved, with only 1 variation, which causes muteness; extensive mutation of this gene is inevitably fatal. The 211 base pair fragment recovered had 56 variations, which is unprecedented thus far. Another gene fragment found resembled a gene in the human genome that coded for collagen 8, a specific protein found in the corneal endothelium of humans. References

I guess I need help with this. EBenderednebE (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 September

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 Cubing (education) page, your edit caused an empty citation 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) 00:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Sockpuppet dont revert my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Ksena (talk • contribs) 08:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

UK/US English

Thanks for the information. Npcomp —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Motor control circuit in Automation

Why did you delete the valid reference to a typical motor control diagram that is part of standard electrician training, calling it "unhelpful"? This is basically the same diagram I studied as a junior engineer working in manufacturing, so I know it is a valid reference. With the accompanying note it is an accurate diagram of the circuit in the preceding discussion. I would have preferred to have another diagram, but I no longer have my old electrical handbook and don't remember the title. In my opinion the link, being dynamic, is a better illustration than a static picture, and even if you find another (static) diagram, I still prefer the link.Phmoreno (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Dark data (business)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Dark data (business). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Dark data. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dark data – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. KDS4444^Talk 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Captain Herleven

Considering that the user who created the page is named Captainherleven and I found nothing useful by searching for "Abraham Herleven," I thought A11 was appropriate when I applied it. Clearly I wasn't thorough enough. I still think it fits the criteria for db-hoax, but I'm not going to touch this article since I've already been reverted once. Novusuna ^talk 19:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Generation Z page

I appreciate your edits here but could you provide exact quotes from the sources please?2606:6000:610A:9000:A87C:DD72:A78:7F28 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is that it's Original Research. For example, how do you know that McCrindle has a "new definition of Gen Z". What if McCrindle changed it again recently. See the problem? 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide the page number of the source you're quoting from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Pasquale Natuzzi

Hi, McGeddon. Referring to the statement "Natuzzi is considered one of the most important entrepreneurs in the history of southern Italy and in the upholstered furniture sector", the source is Agenese Sinisi in her book "Natuzzi un divano a Wall Street". I know I'd made a mistake in writing a different source but I soon checked it. On the occasion, I would know how I can avoid that Pasquale Natuzzi's picture will be deleted, since it is of public domani. Thanks a lot! Marianne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianne83 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi, I am new user You sent me Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LAST TIME OF EARTH = ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compassionate247 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

I wasnt sure if you would see this reply on my other page, so I wanted to put it here for you as well.

Thank you McGeddon, I really appreciate your response. I will recreate the pages and make them more clear. Since the band has so many albums, I probably had too many open linnks before I could update them. This is my first time really updating Wikipedia, and I was trying to update pages by looking at examples of others. Even a Mod updated one of my pages, so I used his example moving forward. Thanks Again!Weezer17 (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Link Deletion Justification

Hi McGeddon, Recently you removed citation of one my contribution.The wiki article was Matka_gambling and I was added section Jargon of Matka , which was originally published by website (http://www.esattamatka.com). It was not my site , nor I am promoter of that website.I also know that wikipedia links are no-follow.I added citation just because contents of jargon (which I added to wikipedia article) are property of that website and there should any problem if I give original credit to that website.I hereby request you to undo changes you did at article. // What to do you don't allow me give credit back to original auther nor allow me contribute wikipedia.Very frustrated.Thinking not to contribute wikipedia onwards. Best Regards, AstoPanditji — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroPanditji (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Haa Haa

PanditJi means priest in english.I have no doubt it was not me which refered by website.I am astro Pandit.By the way it was co-incidence that I am also astrologger by profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroPanditji (talk • contribs) 19:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please Undo Changes

Please undo changes you made without links.Okay.I don't have problem if you do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroPanditji (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit. I had added the original statement and Gawker source, but another editor added the sneaky, malicious however ... bit at the end of it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed (student)

Thanks, looking back on it, that edit to the lead was a little undue, something I hadn't thought of when reverting. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Land Rover Discovery

Thanks for removing those weird changes to the page. I'd probably have seen them, but as I'm still learning, it may have taken me some time to work out quite what they were, or what they meant..., and how to get rid! I've just tried to work out what they were, and failed. Put me out of my misery if you can... What were they for, and what (if anything...) were they supposed to do. Thank you in advance UndateableOne (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the one. Like they were never going to identified and removed! Thanks for the answer. UndateableOne (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing part of comment

Hello McGeddon

Thanks for the message. I had just seen that I had mispelled contentious so i wanted to correct that. Then i saw that my other comment seemed redondent and had really already been said before by myself basically and did not see at all that it had affected any reply or interpretation that followed, at least in my opinion. Thanks for the comment and like i said i am still learning.Aircastle (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Point taken. Aircastle (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

SurveyCTO on Survey Tools Comparison

Hi McGeddon, Thanks for your message about why you removed the link I had added to ["Comparison of Survey Software"]. You said the reason for removal was that you thought the link was "not appropriate for an encyclopedia". However, as the message from 9Lenses also points about above, the link I added was no different than all the other links that you have not removed from that page. The page is meant to be a comparative listing of survey software and, in that regard, it would be relevant to have a comprehensive listing of survey software on there for an objective comparison. Either all survey softwares are irrelevant to that page, or none are. In fact, most of the tools that have been left on there also do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for links any more or less than the link I had put on there. All the citations for the software that have been left on there are just the home websites of the companies themselves and even Googling most of the names does not result in any objective, third party press coverage of any of the tools (except for maybe SurveyMonkey and Qualtrics because they have been around for so many years). I believe, in fact, the link I added had more third party citations than any of other links.

So can you explain, for example, why links to Survata's or KeySurvey's landing pages are appropriate but links about other survey platforms are not (given that even researching them on the internet in general does not yield anything but pages either created by the companies themselves or sponsored/paid for coverage, which does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizand (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

QuestionPro and Survey Analytics on Survey Tools Comparison

Hello McGeddon,

Just received your message about not adding links to ["Comparison of Survey Software"]. As per your instructions I checked the guidelines *again* and checked the talk page of the above article. I wasn't aware that this page could not be edited as a regular wiki and I had to put in a request for edits on the talk page. Apologies for that. But besides that, may I request you to please help identify what part in the links was against the guidelines? I only had included links to the websites of the 2 survey tools named, just like all the currently listed software (which haven't been removed) have too. The page is merely about a list of software, and not any news or information about it, and in such a case in my opinion the most notable source for each item included would be the website iteself. I might have missed some point in the guidelines the process so I'd request your guidance have it as per the guidelines. Kind regards Unitedopinions (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steve Baker /Composer/Producer

A tag has been placed on Steve Baker /Composer/Producer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You've Been Warned

.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxfireblazer123xx (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRIP64FuqMWJ31eWaE5YP6Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazy Kat Gamer (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Piggate

Hi no problem about that :) I made an article in Romanian and Russian about it but they got deleted probably because I thought I was a lot better at those languages than I actually am :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourdots2 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Fourdots2 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok cool I didn't actually know that, I last had a wikipedia account when I was a teenager, i was trying to work out how to do it last night and it got really confusing! :) thanks for your help though. At least the french one was vaguely comprehensible :D Fourdots2 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I might do yes :D

Fourdots2 (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Curriesonline content

Hi there, I'm sorry that you thought my article was too promotional.

Please can I have the content back so I can revise it and then re-post?

Also, am I signing/tagging/posting in the right place correctly? A little advice would be great if you have time?

Thanks, DaveGee85 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)DaveGee85DaveGee85 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 in my view] 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)

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 Wikipedia. Josu4u (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

References

9Lenses on Survey Tools Comparison

Hi McGeddon, Please reconsider the removal of the addition to ["Comparison of Survey Software"]. 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

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[2] 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: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.[3] (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^[heh] 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)