User talk:McSly/Archive 2

Overpopulation - Evolution through History
Just a quick note to thank you for re-sizing my two supporting graphs on Overpopulation - Evolution through History - they do look much tidier now and it does make the page easier to read. Not so sure about renaming the section from "historical Context" although I think the new title you've given the section works equally well (perhaps its more in "wiki-style"?) Anyhow, thanks again for your help. Regards Barryz1 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm still not a big fan of the current title though and well, the whole section actually which I'm in the process of trimming quite a bit. So your thanks maybe a little premature :-)--McSly (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not too sure what you mean by "trimming it", but I’m worried! I've emailed links to a number of people (including several who are well qualified to comment) to ask their opinions about my contribution to this important subject, and the general feedback I've had is they felt it really useful to put "overpopulation" into context (as I had) so as to provide "the bigger picture" and help everyone understand exactly what's been happening.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so it's articles need to be encyclopaedic; providing the full background and helping readers see things in full context. In this case that means understanding at a high-level the impact on population due to changes in human activity from “hunter gatherer”, through various agricultural phases, the industrial revolution and dramatic shifts in the 20th century, as well as set-backs such as plague (particulatly Black Death). None of this was even mentioned before in the article so after much thought and research I carefully added it. There is no POV in what I've written - it's all factual and published elsewhere (as evidenced by my copious references). I'm not giving opinions, simply pointing out in context what is actually happening.

There is a second equally (if not more) valuable point to the whole of this short section as it stands… as I said previously (on Roentgenium111's talk page ) "I think drawing attention to the fact that the population of the world is growing very rapidly in a way that has never happened before at any time in human history is perhaps the single most important point of this whole 'Overpopulation' article. Whether you think it a good or bad idea, or believe the resources of the world can support it or not, the fact of the matter is that it is happening".

So in summary - I think the section (whatever it is called – I’m warming to your revised title) makes all the relevant points in firstly identifying periods in human history that have directly contributed to changes in population (ultimately leading to an understanding of what supports and makes populations grow, which is what the article is about) as well as showing that even terrible setbacks to population, such as the Black Death or (to a lesser extent) World War II have had surprisingly little impact on the long term trend.

I'm rather short of time right now and need to carefully review what you've done. I can see you've put a lot of work into it and have made it much easier to read - thanks for that (I'm generally too wordy, I know, though I hope what I have to say is worthwhile and factually correct). '''Please therefore don't trim it further! Let's discuss it first?''' Thanks. Barryz1 (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ok maybe saying "trimming" was not the most appropriate term to use, maybe "rewording" would be better and I think I'm done with the removing of material. For information, I'm all for keeping that section which is clearly useful to indicate how this overpopulation problem came to exist. I don't necessarily want to repeat all the information we have in World population, but yes, this section is needed.


 * As I said, I'm still not completely ok with the title, the reason I changed it was because as a general rule, I'm not a big fan of words such as "context" or "commentary" in WP, but if you have a better idea, I'm all for it. Incidentally, that's actually the reason for most of my changes in the section. I'm trying to follow this policy: Let the facts speak for themselves, which is why I changed the sentence "in 1939, despite the appauling loss of life in the World War II". I think it should be Ok now, the next changes will probably be to change the bullet points into paragraphs as it is a more recommended style. --McSly (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again McSly, I've finally found some time to take a proper look at what you've done and do completely agree with almost all of your changes; you've certainly improved the article. I noticed a very minor spelling mistake with your title which I've now corrected (adding an "r" to through), more importantly I also noticed a silly factual error on my part (saying that civilization started in 10,000BC when in fact it should have said 10,000 years ago - a difference of 2,000 years!) - anyhow I've correct that too.

I did say "almost" - the one thing you've removed (and you're not alone as Roentgenium111 previously removed it and I added it back) was a brief discussion on the “How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth” model and article. It's probably true that more "scientifically minded" people might find that sort of thing slightly annoying, however I'm sure it's of great interest (thought provoking and possibly even inspirational) to a wide audience and highly relevant to the topic of overpopulation. It's also the sort of thing people aren't likely to find out about unless we tell them.

Whilst the actual calculations its based on are speculative and unreliable the concept is undoubtedly sound (it's hard to actually integrate under the population curve for, say, the last 200,000 years that humans are thought to have been around. That's not only because we don't know the actual mathematical function for the curve but also because population estimates from even 2,000 years ago (let alone 200,000) are quite uncertain. HOWEVER it's not hard to roughly estimate it and the result is of course quite surprising. Whilst I'm very much in favour of including it I'm also feeling a little cautious now as since both you and Roentgenium111 removed it (and I respect both of you as careful and experienced editors). Please could you give this more thought - maybe ask a few people what they think too? Perhaps if we emphasis the high degree of uncertainty in the actual end result we can still include it for interest only? ....Barryz1 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Attachment therapy
I noted your revert here. Unfortunately this is only one article of many under attack by this user who I believe on past experience to be an indefinitely banned user. I've posted all the IPs to FT2 here as he was involved in the arbitration and the indefinate banning of this entity.Fainites barley scribs  23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the heads up. It seems indeed to be repeat offender. --McSly (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be pleased to note that User:PAMom and his more recent incarnation User:Corkytig have been indef banned. Fainites barley scribs 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am indeed very pleased. I don't have a lot of internet access these days so I missed the last few rounds. Unfortunately, I don't think it's the last time we hear about this user.--McSly (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Please don't revert constructive edits.
You are wrong about John Gutfreund. Please read the actual article. The quote contains "fucking." Removing it is bowdlerizing reality.

“No,” he said, “I think we can agree about this: Your fucking book destroyed my career, and it made yours.”

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?page=9#page=9

- A user
 * Thanks... I realize that coming from an IP, there's the very strong twinge of vandalism, so I don't begrudge you being suspicious! 129.101.63.56 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]Hello, thanks for letting me know. I reinstated the quote. Don't hesitate to create an account to edit wikipedia and provide an edit summary every time. Because most of the time an IP address doing its first edit by adding the word "fucking" it'is usually a sure sign of vandalism, obviously not in this case. --McSly (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the weak insult on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, always a pleasure ! --McSly (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: Countdown
Hello McSly,

Saw in the history before that you helped to revert some of the vandalism relating to the "Star Trek: Countdown" page. Unfortunately, there has been some more vandalism, which I just reverted. Do you have the authority to lock the page for a while? It might be worth doing so. I imagine it would only need to be locked for a week or two in the lead-up to the new Star Trek film, after which the hype will die away and sane editing will hopefully return.

Thanks! ArizonaWikiPatrol (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, well, I don't have any special authority to protect a page but you can go to Requests for page protection. They will take care of that. --McSly (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Halevy
Hi there. Many people have done the best they can to help here. Thanks for your help. How can I add published information that is not on the internet? 69.203.3.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Hello, well, if you have a source, you can specify it anyway. For example, if it's something from a newspaper article that is not online, just cite the newspaper, date of publication, headline, etc. basically anything that could help users find the information on their own. This should be fine. However, if you don't have a reliable source for the information, then it's better not to insert anything. One thing you could try is post the info on the talk page of the article first and ask for comment, maybe other users will have a source and then you can insert it. --McSly (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see. Should I scan the newspaper/magazine and add it as a picture? 69.203.3.46 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to scan the article. Just be as precise as possible in referencing it. If a user is not convinced by the info (but they should), then yes surely a scan will be proof enough, but in any event, do not upload the image on wikipedia as newspaper/magazine are copyrighted information so the image will be quickly deleted.--McSly (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Pour Votre Service
Merci!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy is Energy Medicine
The analysis of an energy medicine needs to be qualified. Just as you cannot balance the energy of fire, air, water and earth using the chemical labortory models, it should be said that homeopathy is being characterized only by such a model. It is an energy medicine and if judged by s materialistic model, it should be noted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtime2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What is that concept of "energy" you have been using ? Even if it's using the same word, it seems to have nothing to do with the scientific definition of energy. In addition, many studies have been done putting patients in 2 groups. One treating with homeopathy and one receiving placebo. At the end they tested the results and showed that homeopathy had not effects. In these cases, whether they used a "materialistic model" or some other model had no impact on the results since they were just checking if patients were getting better or not. If homeopathy worked, regardless of its underlying principle, the results should have shown it and it wasn't. So it seems to me that homeopathy has been judged in ways that are independent of the model used. But anyway, to go back to my original point, you include the word "energy" in the article, you need to demonstrate what that concept is. I suggest that you start with the talk page or the article. --McSly (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Torfaen
I live in Torfaen so I know the facts. Do you live in Torfaen? No? Well mind your own business and stop undoing my edits. 31, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.84.143 (talk)
 * Hello, on Wikipedia, it is very important that the facts can be checked by other users. Therefore, you need to provide a reliable source, such as a press article to back up you changes. If not, I'm afraid your changes cannot stay up. If you don't know how to cite a source, just drop me a line and I'll help you do it. --McSly (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

AR Article from Local newspaper website coroborates entry. Please ensure that you correctly identify an edit as vandalism before reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.84.143 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again, perfect, I adjusted the reference on the article. Everything should be nice and shiny now --McSly (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

St Olaves school
http://www.st-peters.york.sch.uk/st-olaves/

Now why would you want to remove that from York?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtolkien (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Tomtolkien, I reverted you edits for 3 reasons 1) your edit summary which was like a claim to say "I'm a vandal" 2) your already long history of edits (and following reverts) 3) the fact that you are most likely the same user as this IP who has been vandalizing the page all afternoon. Oh, and I can add a 4th, doing one good edit after making many bad ones and then pretend that people are mean to you goes against that specific policy WP:POINT--McSly (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My contributions history indicates nothing of the sort. I suggest you remove that comment. I have no idea which user you refer to, although judging by your revert history, I might well sympathise with them. Regarding your fourth point, I cannot understand your comment, perhaps due to a grammatical failure. I do however agree with your that vandalism is the scourge of website such as this. However, simply reverting contributions without any form of prior research or dilligence is also tantamount to vandalism. I am quite happy to engage in any form of constructive debate, but I don't respond to trifling insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtolkien (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again, if I mistakenly linked you to an other user, I apologize. At first glance (and also second glance) your patterns of edit look similar. But anyway, since we both agree that we should move forward and be constructive. Try to reach WP:Consensus by explaining your reasons for your changes on the talk page of the article instead of just reverting. Please stop using edit summary such as "test to see whether this will by deleted by ignorant sycophants", this will get you nowhere. Well except that don't forget to sign your posts by adding ~ at the end and everything should be fine.--McSly (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am correct in suspecting sycophantic behaviour since you have just made a completely unwarranted revert with no explanation. By the way, the change in picture was at the specific request of permissions at Wikipedia, so you have just wasted half and hour of my work and theirs. All I'm asking is for a fair deal here! If you want people to be reasonable, then why treat people like ****? Tomtolkien (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I guess we both were a little easy on the trigger and forgot to assume good faith. Now that everything is cleared up, we can both go back doing constructive changes. Happy editing! --McSly (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

re removal of content at Talk:Global warming
I thoroughly disgaree with the position User:68:56:175.27 has taken at Talk:Global warming, but I don't think that the material he added is vandalism. I may be missing his other exploits, but it may be better to let him post and move on than to keep on reverting. Let me know if I'm off the track. Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes you're right. Although before the section was deleted by others, the IP was given pointers to be more constructive and also pointing out the definition of the word "theory" in a scientific context which he clearly doesn't understand. But yes, I guess a better solution would be to let the section stay, archive it and move on. --McSly (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear McSly,

Thanks for reverting my talk page using Huggle! I had just warned that editor for vandalism, they must have been annoyed

From,

Limideen 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, no problem. that was fun to do :-) --McSly (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
fer that. --Rrburke(talk) 19:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah no problem. The IP seemed to have the strange compulsion to blank users' talk page. --McSly (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yak-43
The Yak-43 was designed in 1983-1984. Lockheed-Martin paired up with Yakovlev in late 1991. Yakovlev sent the Yak-43 design team to Lockheed-Martin to work with them of development of the Yak-141, and also gave them access to the designs of the Yak-43. At this time they were developing the design of the F-22. Hope this helps. - Ken keisel (talk)
 * Hello, yes it does. The first flight of the YF-22 happened on 29 September 1990. There was changes obviously between the Yf22 and the F22 but they were minor and essentially these 2 airplanes have the same shape and form. This confirms that the design for both the F22 and the Yak43 were done long before the 2 companies worked together. This makes sense since as I stated in one of my summaries, having a company from the US and one from the USSR collaborating during the cold war on a fighter jet is extremely unlikely. I obviously have no problem being convinced of the contrary if you find clear sources. But so far, I'm not. Also, do you have a source about the partnership being in 1991, so far the articles I found all talked about 1995. --McSly (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why I placed the Yak-43 under the title "similar aircraft" and not "related development". I do agree with you and Gunston and Gordon that no documented carry-over of any actual parts of the Yak-43 has surfaced so far. Both authors state in their joint book "Yakovlev Aircraft since 1924" that the Yak-141/43 design team arrived at Lockheed-martin in late 1991, along with about $400 million of Lockheed-Martin's money. Since the Soviet union ended in late 1990, the cold war had been over for over a year when Lockheed-Martin took advantage of the opportunity Yakovlev presented, as did Aermacchi of Italy which teamed up with Yakovlev in 1991 as well. The Lockheed-Martin partnership was only announced to the press in June 1995. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, that clarifies a few things. But that also means that the current version of the development paragraph in the Yakolev Yak-43 article is not correct. As I said, the Yf-22 flew at the end of 1990, that's a full year before anyone from Yakovlev arrived. The changes between the YF22 and the F22 were minor so stating in the article that "the F-22 was designed largely after Lockheed-Martin's partnership with Yakovlev" is simply not true. At most, the Yakovlev people worked on a minor refactoring. Also, that paragraph contains a few innuendos which don't look very neutral :-). --McSly (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case the F-22 design is much earlier than I think Gordon and Gunston give it credit for. You are quite right that the F-22 would have been designed before the arrival of Yak's team. I will revise the Yak-43 article accordingly, though I would request that the Yak-43 stay a "similar aircraft" to the F-22. Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau
They are Chinese *territories*. Umofomo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umofomo (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, well, I completely agree with you. This means that they are not independent countries. So we can't include them in the List of countries by population. You'll notice that the entry for China actually has their stats. --McSly (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are other entries on that list that are not independent sovereign states. That's why I said *territories*. Umofomo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umofomo (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again, if we have inconsistencies on the article and across other articles, I'm all for correcting them. The best way to do it is for you to go on the talk page of the article so we can have a central point to discuss about the issue. --McSly (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Other territories also appear on this list. And Hong Kong and Macau do appear on other lists linked from Template: Lists of countries. Therefore I see no problem to add them back to the list of population. There is nothing controversial. They can be re-added to the list right away without further discussion on the Talk page. Umofomo (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Helen Andelin
I am married to one of Helen's grandchildren, We were informed she passed this morning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.32.201.9 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm sorry for you loss. On wikipedia, information need to be independently verifiable. This means that you need to include a source if you want to have the information included. This is not negotiable. --McSly (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Joe jobbing put-in-bay.com
I think our Edgewater Hotel spammer (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2009) is trying to bait us into blacklisting put-in-bay.com -- that's a Chamber of Commerce domain, not one of his. Certainly his edit summaries seem calculated to goad us into this; see Special:Contributions/65.43.193.9. This behaviour even has a name; it's known as a "Joe job".

I suggest that when he turns back up again with a new IP to spam a Chamber of Commerce link you just let the link stand and ignore him.

I blacklisted every Edgewater-related domain that I could find but I suspect our spammer owns more; I'll be happy to blacklist new ones as they reappear. Just list them at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist with a link to the June archive section above. If you're unsure as to the domain's ownership, let me know and I'll check them. I spent several hours researching the various domains and business relationships associated with our earlier Put-in-Bay spam and I kept those notes. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the information, I'll do that next time. --McSly (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that as well until we now see that put-in-bay.com is being redirected to another privately owned web site called visitputinbay.com Who is says it is registered to Island Business Solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.186.62 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert!
Thanks for catching that vandalism on my user page. I owe you one! N b u r d e n (T) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Behind the Guesses - Not vandalism
If you follow the external links you've been blindly reverting (Heaviside step function, Dirac delta function and Ramp function), you'll see that although it goes to a blogspot hosted page, it is not a ``blog'' in the sense of WP:EL Please, stop reverting my edits. I think the information on that site (http://behindtheguesses.blogspot.com/2009/06/derivative-and-integral-of-heaviside.html) is appropriate to be linked to. (173.54.14.159 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Hello, I certainly didn't blindly delete anything. By the way I never said it was vandalism either. I'm not sure I understand when you say the page is not a blog. It's clearly a personal page, it's clearly article based, it's clearly hosted on blogspot.com. If you mean that it's based on facts and not opinions, well many blogs are doing that. You will also notice that in the past 3 months, I was not the only one removing your links and one of the "reverter" is an automated script designed to remove everything containing "blogspot.com".
 * So to keep it short, your links don't respect 2 wikipedia policies, the policy on external links and the policy on reliable sources. If you thing the links should really be included, I suggest you go on the talk page of the article and ask for the opinion of the editors there. If people agree with you there, then you're fine. --McSly (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks a bunch for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Elockid (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! --McSly (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW!
It's a good thing I took a look at your page, Sir! Otherwise, I would have fought with an Anti-Vandalism Athlete, ha ha! So, I just wanted to let you know I uploaded a, in case you would find the time to add an InfoBox, my photo and data from the text here. Thanks a bunch, Yahal.Olal (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. I just noticed that you haven't been warning anyone's pages with Huggle, remember to click the red circle button to revert and then warn. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 05:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the reminder. I don't do it all the time. If it looks like a test edit, for example and not active vandalism. i usually just revert without warning the user. --McSly (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Psychokinesis page
Hello.

Why did you revert that page? I added the most important sites to it and you take it down without even consideration?!?

It is a horrible idea.

These guides NEED to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelekinesisProf (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, please read the Wikipedia policy on external links and specifically the section on links normally to be avoided. --McSly (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting
It's not an attack! Why is everyone reverting it! It's not an attack! LuLouLouis (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit other people user page. it doesn't matter what you put there, just don't do it. --McSly (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for the reverting the vandalism done to my talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation assistance
Hey, I noticed on the article Shenyang J-11 edit history page, you reverted a edit citing that the user Fpg996 is a sockpuppet. I've since listed Fpg996 on the sockpuppet investigation list Sockpuppet investigations/Fpg996, and would like to ask you if possible to substantiate the edit summary. Thanks! ThePointblank (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the situation fixed itself. Ignore me :) ThePointblank (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User page vandalism
Thanks for reverting some (diff) recent vandalism on my User page. Newportm (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing a legit link ? and what is thits : USING NICE, please explain to me.
i am talking about the advertising agency article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvertisingWriter (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, first about the "Using Nice", NICE is just the name of a script used to make some tasks easier. It has actually nothing to do the edit at hand.
 * Now about the link, please review the Wikipedia policy on external link, number 11 seems to apply. Also your user name suggests that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject matter, which is not recommended. If you disagree, that's obviously fine, but since 2 editors have removed your link, I suggest you use the talk page or the article to briefly states why you think the link should be inserted. I hope that's more clear. If you have any question, let me know. --McSly (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Advertising writer:
First of all, the other member obviously removed the link without even checking the website, since his reason was "spam" while the page in question belongs to a .org informational website, selling nothing and also has Zero ADS. and if he was talking about me, that would be complete non-sense since he can see that i spent 3 hours researching the topic and then i contributed to the body of the article before linking to a page which i believe completes the article, contributing to Wikipedia is writing not removing legit and complementary sources, please tell me why did you remove that PAGE ? and don't lecture me about about the rules of Wikipedia, save your copy/past i was there since day 1 and i have contributed to hundred of articles without even signing up.

Full version of NICE to be released
Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --E poch F ail (talk 17:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for completing the survey. You have been added to the full feature set. --E poch F ail (talk 14:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Powick - vandalism
Thanks for catching the vandalism  to  the Powick article. I have issued a single warning  on  the IP user's talk  page.--Kudpung (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the quick reversions on my user page, he's blocked indef as a vandalism account. I appreciate the help! Dayewalker (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, no problem! --McSly (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New Religious Movements
How would you like the addition of "cult" cited? I had no idea what an NRM was. I had never heard the term. I looked it up and discovered it was a politically correct way of saying "cult." Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. How would you have people know NRM is a term for cult if it's not explained? Is there another, gentler way to say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirvice626 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Sirvice626 (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Any help with this please? Sirvice626 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry I was traveling today so I just got your message (I'm also traveling tomorrow so don't worry if I don't respond fast). So about the article. Actually, if you look at the Criticism section, you'll note that "cult" is already there and cited. Since not all NRM are cults, I don't think it needs to be added in the introduction of the article. If you disagree, that's fine obviously. In that case I suggest that you leave a quick note on the talk page of the article to see how other editors react. --McSly (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and happy travels. I left a note on the talk page as suggested. Since the term cult is used elsewhere in the article, I don't think it was a stretch to move it up near the top for clarity's sake. Having to read the entire article to reach such a basic understanding of NRM was entirely avoidable. Sometimes the pursuit of "neutrality" defies the senses. Finally, and unrelated entirely to that issue, do you think threatening to block me while accusing me of vandalism was warranted? Color me surprised. Sirvice626 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Blurring of Planckian pixels
I've removed everything that could be interpreted as original research. The remaining text is copied from the cited New Scientist articles. Those articles contain references to peer reviewed publications.--Systemizer (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, first of all, you didn't remove anything from your text. Your edits are exactly the same as the text that was removed before. Second, your claim that they are no original research is simply wrong, it's also not coming from New scientist as many parts are referenced by this site eschatopedia.webs.com which is nowhere near a reliable source status. --McSly (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. Nothing comes from eschatopedia. It is cited because it contains quotations from the same New Scientist articles. The text is copied and pasted from the cited New Scientist articles based on the work of Craig Hogan, director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics in Batavia, Illinois--Systemizer (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again. First a couple of technical things. Please always use the edit summary field to tell other editors what you do because without that, it's hard to tell what's going on. Also make sure to use the "this is a minor edit" checkbox properly, this edit and that edit  were most definitely not minor. One last thing. I'd like you to be aware of the 3 revert rule as you have reached your limit on all 3 articles in dispute.
 * Now, sorry but you edits still don't work. First you removed the links to the eschatopedia.webs.com website but the referenced text is still there. So we are clear, when there is a problem with a source because it's not reliable, the source AND the text need to be removed, not only the source, that would be too easy. Second your additions are still full of original research which is not acceptable. Let's take an example. Here is your current addition for Doomsday event . I guess the link to doomsday event comes from this sentence: "Thus, when the blurring reaches a threshold level, the Planckian pixels of space will dissolve, which will put an end to the universe's locality". Well I read the 2 sources you provided for this and nowhere in them is a mention or a hint or anything really related to "disolve", "end of the universe's locality" or "threshold level". So here is my question, since nothing is mentioned in the source, how did you come up with that sentence exactly ? While you think about it, I'm going to remove the text as obvious original research. Any re-addition of this sentence (or anything resembling) without proper reliable source will be summarily reverted. --McSly (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Blurring" and "dissolution" are synonyms. "Blurring" is optical dissolution. Pixels cannot become blurred ad infinitum—this is obvious and cannot be regarded as original research.--Systemizer (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no there are not. And what about "end of the universe's locality" and "threshold level". You need to find a reliable source stating exactly that. And don't use synonyms, quote what the source says, not your interpretation of it. So yes what you did is clear, obvious original research. --McSly (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not prohibit using synonyms. To become blurred means to become less distinguishable: blur 1) to make or become vague or less distinct (Collins English Dictionary). A sufficiently blurred thing becomes indistinguishable, "dissolves." A pixel is the elementary locus of space. Absence of loci means absence of locality.--Systemizer (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh that was a nice dodge there. First, thanks for confirming that "blurring" and "dissolve" are in fact not interchangeable. I will add that this edit pushes you even further into original research territory. Which brings us to the main point. If all these words are synonyms, why don't you just quote the article instead of spending time looking up definitions in the dictionary or arguing with me. Sure the use of synonyms in not prohibited, but accurately citing a source would be much better, so why don't you do it ? and the answer is obvious, because the source doesn't say anything about doomsday scenarios, doesn't say anything bout the locality principle, or any kind of threshold. That's why you can't do it, because that part is complete original research. But anyway, I'm done here for now since we are not getting anywhere. I'm sure other editors will give some feedback and I'm not really worried about the final outcome. --McSly (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism
Thanks for reverting the IP who vandalized my talkpage. Pretty sure I know who they are, tagging new pages never seems to make any friends. C'est la vie. -- Terrillja talk  21:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, no problem, always a pleasure --McSly (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bitey, maybe?
I saw you warned User:Kei100 three times for removing a ProD. ProD templates can be removed by anyone, including the page creator, and should not be restored if removed. If I have somehow misevaluated the situation, please let me know. But as I see it now, the users actions are not vandalism.  Intelligent  sium  02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the information. I was actually mistaken as I always thought that PROD templates like speedy deletion templates couldn't be removed. Now I know. --McSly (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Rickey Hendon
Please stop reverting edits for Rickey Hendon. This looks legitimate. I will edit the page with the correct information and in the correct prose. Inomyabcs (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem. I just re-added the basic info as it was removed in a prior edit. But you will notice that the Ip was vandalizing the page and up to its last edit was not providing a source. --McSly (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will leave a message on his talk page explaining the problem. He did go about the edits in an unconstructive way. This should hopefully solve the problem. Inomyabcs (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's all nice and shiny now. --McSly (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for welcoming me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Gordon (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no problem. If you have any question don't hesitate to let me know. --McSly (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

F-22
The edit I made about delivery dates is supported by F-35 article. You should edit constructively and not just use a buldozer to remove stuff.

Doug rosenberg (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Doug, I apologize if my revert was a little brusque. You are right I should have removed the "problematic" part only. --McSly (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Advertising Agency
just want to remind you that almost 3 months ago, you said that you will contribute in the "Advertising Agency" article, but you still didn't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.147.146 (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for reminding me. I have indeed failed to follow up on my promise to improve that article. So I guess I'll have to start working on it then. --McSly (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bandera, Texas
Thanks, for reverting spam before I got there!--fetchcomms 22:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)