User talk:McSly/Archive 3

Thanks
Thank you so much for the information and the Welcome. I have used Wikipedia for some time, but have never did any edits. Hopefully I will pick up the etiquette and formats in quick order.

Take care. sunpacer 08:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpsullivan1967 (talk • contribs)

Lift (force)
I am a professional pilot and a flight instructor. On your reversal of my post to LIFT, I disagree that the next section is the same explanation. And where it is similiar, it is not as clearly stated, not to mention that you eliminated some powerful representations of lift that help people to understand it. Psycano (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Psycano, I apologize if I removed your text by mistake. But from I read, the 2 sections (yours and the one already there) seemed pretty similar and talked about the same thing, Newton's laws. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that the next section is not the same explanation. Is there something wrong the existing section? Because technically, there should be only one section explaining the lift force with Newton's laws, not 2 or 3. If you think your edits should be put back, I suggest that you merge your text with the existing section instead of creating a separate one. Please make sure to always explain your changes by using the edit summary. --McSly (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION
Hi, McSly. Thanks for your message. Since I'm new to Wiki, can you tell me how exactly do I join a talk page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomahawkHunter (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, each article on wikipedia has an associated talk page where editors can discuss changes to be done to the article. You can access it by clicking on the "Talk" tab that you see on top of every article or user page. It's actually what you just used by leaving a message here. Here is the link to the People's Liberation Army Air Force talk page where you can discuss with other about that specific article. I think most of the changes you made are good but without the links working it couldn't really stay as is. Please remember to always cite your sources properly and if you delete anything already on an article, always explain why in the edit summary so other editors know what is going on. Oh, last thing, always add ~ at the end of your messages to sign. --McSly (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

McSly's oppression of truth and freedom
How is speaking one's mind and voicing the concerns of a frustrated and tired nation the same as mindless vandalism??? if censorship can spread to the far reaches of the internet, including this website which is supposed to support free thinking, then what hope have we of ever being able to freely open our minds??????? i await your reply with earnest trepidation and baited breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no freedom of speech on wikipedia. There was never meant to be, in fact. There are rules about what you can and can't post here. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Wikipedia has a strong policy on original research. Shortly put, we can't have any. That's why I removed your text. To be added it will have to be published in a reliable source first. Only then you can insert it here. I'm afraid these'are the rules and they are the same for everyone. --McSly (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

surely all research is original at some point. there is so much information on here that is highly suspect when intellectually reviewed. I can't understand Wikipedia's view that information can be deleted if it does not conform to their highly questionable ideals and rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk • contribs)
 * Could you explain to me what are the specific rules that should apply to your edit here ?. And again, as Dayewalker mentioned above, there is no freedom of speech on wikipedia. --McSly (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The rules? I operate by the simple of rule of being allowed to offer a different side to the information that is being broadcast, whether rightly or wrongly, on this website. People come here to see new explanations and develop their own personal learning experience. With any experience surely one side of an argument or view is not enough to offer a balanced side. I simply apply the rule and logic that my edits offer alternative information to those who seek it. Why should this be censored or disregarded just because it does not fit in with the 'norms' that usually govern this site??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See that page. It's very informative. --McSly (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only informative if your a sheep who can't break away from the mold. I'm not trying to break the system or anything but I just can't understand the need to repress people who offer an alternative or simply different view. That isn't free speech, it's common sense. There are always two sides to a coin, surely only showing one side lowers the respectability of a website that preaches knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only side of a coin, or whatever other analogy you'd like to apply, that belongs on wikipedia is one backed by reliable sources. Your additions were largely gibberish, so they've been reverted. Arguing about it here won't help, as any editor who saw what you were adding would have reverted you. There's nothing more to be gained here, so good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources? says who? since when has wikipedia been a reliable source?? reliable sources can be disputed by anyone, but apparently not here. if opposing a website that oppresses those who argue a 'reliable' source then surely this creates an unreliable source. it goes as far to back up my original argument that wikipedia is an oppressive system, deleting and censoring those who don't agree with anything it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI
There is an issue being discussed at WP:ANI in which you may be involved.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 12 hours
for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Per my rationale here, you reverted edits that were not vandalism in violation of the Global Warming Probation. The sanction is for 12 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problems. I still think the edit I removed was a clear violation of WP:TALK, but I did revert it 3 times. So the rules are the rules after all--McSly (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks dubious to me. Over at General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement LHVU seems to think there is a 1RR probabtion on the article, but I'm not at all sure there is. I'd be very ahppy if there was, though William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello William, I appreciate your concerns. I actually thought there was an active 1RR rule for all the climate change articles. It just escaped me at the time of my editings. I'll take the block. I'm Okay with that. --McSly (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was wrong in my understanding of the specifics but feel (as refreshingly apparently do you) that the general probation on edit warring applies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Er
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation.

Maybe we should have done this before you got yourself blocked. --TS 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the rule actually. I just didn't remember it in the "heat of the moment" .--McSly (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._McHugh
Hello,

Most info I've added on the article, and which you reverted, can be verified here: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh.html. If you do believe any of it is wrong, do say so on the edit page, and we'll work it out, ok? Thanks! 87.196.173.3 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I just answered you on the talk page of the article. If you have reliable sources for your claims, everything will be fine. But please do read the page on biography of living person to more specific info. --McSly (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For restoring my user talk. I hope it didn't take you away from something more important. See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism to my user page
My many thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. I'm finding it hard to believe that someone would vandalise my page, considering that I have only been here about a month. En-AU  Speaker  (T)  (C)  (E) 05:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, always a pleasure. --McSly (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiout
-- RP459  Talk/Contributions 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

please help
thanks for your input. I edited a non-neutral statement by stating the same idea with only factual content. My correction was reverted multiple times. I don't know the correct recourse. I allege that the current article carries a point of view that is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verb356 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, you did the right thing by seeking the opinion of others here. It is usually the best way to reach consensus on a particular topic. Now on the specifics of your change, I'm afraid I have to agree with the other editor. The scientific consensus on the age of the Earth to take a quick example is overwhelming. I don't know what is your personal opinion on the subject, but from a scientific perspective, the Creation Museum really represent a fringe theory. --McSly (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Question
What do you have against articles about songs by Dickie Goodman in the "Dickie Goodman songs" category? Seems logical to me. 71.192.44.22 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have nothing against it. It is just that you replaced some categories without any explanation. That's all. Please always use the edit summary to avoid anny confusion. --McSly (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry
I'll stop vandalizing. I hope we can be friends now :) 24.60.24.18 (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

BLT T-72
Bridge Layer Tank (BLT - 72) have been jointly designed and developed by CVRDE and R & D E (Engrs). The link page contain's the detail.
 * Hello, please read the Wikipedia policy on external links. Yopu have been adding the same link to numerous articles, not only that one. If you think, the link may be useful as a reference, insert it at the right place in the text of the article by adding it between these tags: . But right now, the way you add these links looks a lot like spam (even if the link is a non commercial site). --McSly (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Claims
This is an unacceptable personal attack and violates Wikipedia policy. Additionally, it is the second blind revert made without discussion on the article's talk page. If you persist in these actions, you may be blocked from editing.

Please self revert this last change, and seek consensus before reverting other user's changes. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"dog mess"
If you check the reference provided on Global warming controversy, you will find "dog mess" was stated in the source. Please use caution when characterizing things as vandalism. I'd suggest a self revert is in order and an apology to User:FellGleaming. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Interview request: The newbie experience, revert communication
As I'm concluding the study related to the NICE user script, I'd like to ask you some questions over the phone about your experiences with and ideas about Wikipedia. The questions will be related to how you interact with new editors and the way you communicate when reverting. This chat should take about 45 minutes to an hour. If you are interested or need more details, please let me know. -- EpochFail (talk 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"vandalism"
Sorry, but calling the deletion of WP:OR from an article "vandalism", as you did at Aquatic ape hypothesis, is not appropriate. I'm looking into perhaps protecting the article again, or sanctions for 3RR (not against you). — kwami (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FLOURENS ARTICLE
Dear McSly, I recently added a link to four separate articles, i.e. "Gustave Flourens", "Jules Verne", "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" and "Captain Nemo". Next day all links were removed by you, accompagned by the following comment: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags,external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McSly (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)" This is the first time I ever contributed to Wikipedia and I am sorry that my act was misinterpreted. This is not about enriching Wikipedia's "collection of links" and certainly not an attempt for "advertising" or "promotion". I am an academic with a long career and dozens of publications and I am certainly not looking for "advertising" one of my minor articles, six years old. This is what really is about: The most important Vernian specialist of our time, Dr William Butcher, made an assuption that Jules Verne's most famous character, Captain Nemo, is based on the French revolutionary intellectual Gustave Flourens. I found it very interesting and, since I am maybe the only person that studied Flourens's life in depth (Léonidas Kallivretakis, Gustave Flourens (1838-1871) et la Grèce, doctoral thesis,Université de la Sorbonne, Paris 1983; published also in Greek, Athens 1998), I investigated this hypothesis, and the result of that investigation is an article published in The Historical Revue / La Revue Historique, an academic refereed journal. Since this article a) gives an original detailed account of Verne's inspiration and writing procedures regarding "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea"; b) rises the question of the various historical personalities that possibly inspired Captain Nemo's character, and c) records for the first time a lot of unknown data regarding Flourens' stormy life and political ideas, I thought it usefull to get it linked to the above mentionned Wikipedia articles. This and only this was the reason I proposed the link: Leonidas Kallivretakis, “Jules Verne’s Captain Nemo and French Revolutionary Gustave Flourens: A Hidden Character Model?”, The Historical Review 1 (2004), p. 207-244. http://www.historicalreview.org/index.php/historicalReview/article/view/177/73 I will be glad to have your opinion. Thank you). — User:LEONKALL, 1 October 2010