User talk:McSly/Archive 4

Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse
You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain the reason for removing the sentence "Contrary to the paragraph above, four different studies have been conducted on Oscillococcinum. Two of these have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These clinical studies show that Oscillo reduces both the severity and the duration of flu-like symptoms." It was appropriately sourced and is as complicit with NPOV as the paragraph above. Please explain reason for removal. I am not a Sockpuppet. I have sought to only add a sentence of relevance to clinical studies. I am seeking an immediate explanation as clearly there is a bias going on. I do not seek to enter an editing war, only to enter valid and relevant neutral content. Thank you. -- MelissaK85 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, if you say that you are not a sockpuppet, could you tell me how you came up with the text of your edit? It is nearly identical to many edits done by several users in the past few weeks. If the text is coming from a website, then it's likely a copyright violation and it cannot stay. If you looked at the article's history to get it, then you probably already know why the change was reverted since several editors have done so and explained their action.
 * Now about the specific reasons (and in no special order):
 * Wikipedia articles are not organized as point/counter point so you cannot really phrase a paragraph by starting with "Contrary to the paragraph above". It should be one narrative describing the product.
 * The studies you are citing are older and lower in quality than the ones already present (and showing not effect) in the article. By your own admissions, some of them are not even pier-reviewed.
 * Finally, and that's especially true for articles about a pseudo-science like homeopathy, not all view points are equal, please see the policy on undue weight and reliable sources for medical articles. I hope that helped. --McSly (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Libya. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, this is not an edit war, we are having a healthy discussion. But thanks for the reminder. --McSly (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Links to blogs
Hello. Can you please give me more information why is inappropriate to link my collection of design patterns which is free for the open community. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.127.15 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Zecharia Mayani
Hi. Your input would be helpful at Talk:Zecharia Mayani. —  Jeff G. ツ  22:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not Interfere with Improving Objectivity (KeepingTrue (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
I see that once again you removed my edits without adding content. It appears that you have an opinion related to the topic of Creation_Science. I also see that you have a history of such behavior, including on the Creation_Science article. Edit Warring is not appropriate Wikipedia behavior. For clarification, the edits made to the article are intended to improve objectivity. The tone of the grammar in the first few paragraphs was inconsistent with content further in the article. I realize that this may be an emotional issue for you. For the sake of readers, Wikipedia articles need to be kept objective, using good journalistic practices. With topics such as Creation_Science, articles tend to present a variety of strong points of view. Keeping opinion to a minimum is important. Remember: readers come to Wikipedia for information, not opinion. The more that the Wikipedia content is compromised, the less appealing Wikipedia will be to readers.

I do not wish to discuss the topic of the article. That is not my objective. If you would like to discuss proper writing, per Wikipedia recommendations, I will discuss it with you.

And, always keep your Wikipedia writing true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepingTrue (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, you are obviously welcome to edit the page and contribute to improving its content. The reason I reverted your edits is because they introduced some factual errors or inaccuracies. For example, "popular geology" has no meaning as science is not based on what is popular, but on what the evidence shows (see astrology as a example). Same thing for your change from "scientific community" to "evolutionary community". I'm not sure you are aware of it, but that change is a classic example of denialism done by creationists. Which is, obviously contrary to your goal of improving objectivity. --McSly (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: User pages being linked to
Just wanted to say thank you for clarifying on the user of user pages being linked to, I was wondering why I was removed and I suppose that was the culprit. No worries on that end, link certainly needs to come out then. NzMattis (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries,always a pleasure. --McSly (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Buster Posey
I just wanted to inform you that the information that was posted about Buster Posey and his wife expecting twins is true. Sfgiantsws10 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, as long as it is cited, it's all good. --McSly (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance
This is just to  let  you  know that  an article you  have contributed to  is the subject  of a discussion  at Editor assistance requests. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Deserts
You just reverted List of deserts for no reason. It's List of deserts not List of desserts. --Julian the Shadow | ( Talk | Contribs) 17:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He he, I should have paid more attention to the previous edit before reverting. Thanks for correcting my mistake. --McSly (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Creation myth
User:Conservative Philosopher's edit that you ID'd as vandalism looks like an accident. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle: 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 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. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Image Changes
The images keep switching back to what they were before and I want them to be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy123 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi
im New here want to me friends PS: Cool Name N64dude (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thank you for letting me know. I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't see the restrictions for all of the links. Katenvaughn (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, always a pleasure. --McSly (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale
Hi McSly ! I just read your comment, saying "That upgrade was scrapped years ago, maybe for future version but not F3", but why is this ('recent') article (June, 20  2011) : http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Frances-Rafale-Fighters-Au-Courant-in-Time-05991/

"Since 2008, all Rafales have been delivered in the F3 standard, which adds the ability to carry French ASMP-A air-launched nuclear missiles, allowing the Rafale to replace the Mirage 2000N in that role. Other modifications include full integration with the Reco NG reconnaissance pod, implementation of all currently planned modes for the RBE2 radar, antiship attack with the Exocet or ANF, the Gerfaut helmet-mounted sight, and support for an improved tanker pack.

And could you give any other piece of information ?

Thanks, AirCraft (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A few sources, mostly blogs and forums though. The feature seems to have been dropped quietly. Here are a few examples:
 * --McSly (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

IP hopping monkeys

 * Hi there~! BTW, I see that you are whacking-a-mole with that Cameroonian monkey again, thanks and keep up the good work~! Well, I for one can never figure out why these incompetent editors are so fond of inserting hoax/rubbish into Wikipedia. Toodles~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for cleaning up after the Cameroon vandal(s)! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. On the bright side, they always do at least one edit which is obviously wrong. That makes them easy to spot.--McSly (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * He's back again~! ... -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. As always they were either obviously wrong or with bogus references. Anyway, it's all corrected now.--McSly (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Rutherford B. Hayes
 * FWIW, I just help passed a protection bill for the article page in case that little boring tweet comes back in a week's time (yes, extended from 2 days to a 1 week block for his continuous pointy behaviour~!) to try his grubby little hands at silly vandalism again. ... Hope the nincomput finds something else meaningful to do instead. Cheers~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning vandals after reverting
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Overpopulation: 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 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. Thank you. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Use edit comments.
Use edit comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.23.179 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Response fitting your comment
Please stop adding comments to articles. I remove them for a reason.

Also, if you want to open up a dialog, do so. --91.10.23.179 (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not add these comments. They were there before. Any removal will be summarily reverted. If you continue, you will be blocked.--McSly (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These comments have no function, and maybe even more important, no function that you mention. If threats are your only argument, you should leave. --91.10.23.179 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hallo? Are you a bot? (Serious question since you don't seem to interact.) --91.10.23.179 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your bias
What I have written is more accurate than the biased way the article was written before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.kirkwood.spence (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree with the current version of the article, that's perfectly fine obviously. But in that case I would suggest you use the talk page of the article to discuss the chnages instead of edit warring.--McSly (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi McSly thanks for restoring my User Page last night, my time zone that is!Tmol42 (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Last Edit
Why you undone the talk on Libya's Page? I want the reason, although i haven't undone the action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I gave the reasons in my edit summary (see again WP:TALK and WP:SOAP). But if you want the short version, essentially, stop acting as a whinny 6 year old child. If you want to improve the article, don't remove large parts of text, especially when it's sourced, provide specific concise explanations on the talk page that don't start with "Idiotic Article" and following by conspiracy theory like ramblings. Can you do that? --McSly (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.10.59 (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Revert
this i think was needless and an incorrect revert by Huggle, Thanks and regards --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   06:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

shiatsu
So you have undone my editing about shiatsu because according to you EXACTLY THE SAME SOURCE is not neutral about what I have added but not what someone else has extracted. More biased must be difficult to be. So please inform me how to get mediation ASAP since you are so quick at deleting changes I don't believe you have even looked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiatsushi (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I did read your changes before reverting them. Please assume good faith from the other editors. If you disagree with the revert, this fine obviously, in that case I suggest you read this page to reach consensus. And if you think that you need to resolve a dispute then you can go there.--McSly (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Cameroon IP vandal is back...

 * User talk:McSly
 * M, they're back on other military equipment pages again, I'm thinking of how to stop this nonsense once and for all... maybe a range block? Thoughts? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

please don't butt in
I have Kelastick's permission to make changes to his user page. He only asks that I update the counter. Every time I do something, I fix it within seconds. Auchansa (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or even better, don't do it at all as this will be considered vandalism.--McSly (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have his permission. I asked him about it to make sure it was not vandalism.  I got his ok.  So the uninformed person who does not know jumps into conclusion.  If I did that to your user page, I agree, that is vandalism.  Kelastick is my Wikipedia friend. Auchansa (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What I just said still stands. Do not modify other editor's user page. That's the easiest way to proceed. --McSly (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is a Wikipedia rule that says it is forbidden even if someone has permission, please educate me with the citation. Thank you.  Auchansa (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you provide proof that you have permission? what you have been doing is indistinguishable from vandalism. If it was not, then I apologize. but like i said, the best option is not to do it. --McSly (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

massive edits by you
You are doing a massive number of edits very quickly. This doesn't allow you to discuss or ponder. For example, with Adele, I discussed and then, as a sample, made the changes but you are so quick that you are removing the sample before even one person sees it.

My rationale is the Adele started using her stage name, 'Adele', in 2006. Before that, she was known as Adkins. Auchansa (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ford vehicles
Hi, thanks for message about deleting my "FORD template" edit. Now I'm loged in already. I'm not so experienced editor of Wikipedia, but the table I tried to delete is there twice on the page. I would delete whole the table, but didn't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Křemílek (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I can try. Could you tell me what line or word is duplicated? Thanks. --McSly (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD notification
Hi. Per WP:AFD it is the norm and recommended practise to notify substantial contributors of an article that's being nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs)
 * You are absolutely right. Thanks for the reminder.--McSly (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

ENAC
For information : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile#Notable_Alumni. Regards. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "École nationale de l'aviation civile". Thank you. --80.13.85.217 (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bioresonance
Dear McSly, Today I put the following page and also at the page talk. There is difference between phenomena bioresonance and bioresonace therapy. The Body Energy Field is not correct. In my text is clear visible that there is bioresonance in water of biological system. This is bioresonance. If somebody can prooves that this is not that, please explain that in scientific level.

The phenomenon of the nuclear magnetic resonance is well known in physics. The atomic nuclei absorb and re-emit magnetic fields with a resonance due to re-orientation of the magnetic moment. The magnetic resonance tomography is based on this phenomenon. The resonance is present in the aqueous medium of man or bio environment. There are conditions for this to be bioresonance. Withresearch of bio-photon emission (200-800 nm), Fritz-Albert Popp has proved the selective (bioresonance) absorption of electromagnetic waves by malignant tumors. The bioresonance therapy is in an electromagnetic range that differs from the range of the electromagnetic spectrum of water. Whether there is a bioresonance in a bioresonance therapy in millimeter and centimeter waves, remains to be proven. These waves have a smaller energy compared to the waves in the water spectrum, which are in the micrometer and nanometers ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borromi (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Sorry, I don't know exactly what happened. My machine crashed in the middle of editing that section. I repaired it and completed the edit. See the talk page.

Keith Henson (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, it was clear that it was not your intent to delete that text. --McSly (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

MMR Vaccine
Hi, made 3 edits to MMR page so will leave it till tomorrow but would respectfully request you use the talk page before then so we can try and achieve consensus. If fraud is an issue which needs to be emphasised in the lead, I would suggest you re-write the sentence without reference to the BMJ (except as a citation).

It's ironic that the article blames the media for uncritically accepting an article just because it's in a medical journal when we seem to be proposing the same behaviour. Regards 92.16.50.16 (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Eckankar Wiki page
The reference to Eckankar being a pantheistic religion is false. It is written by a conservative Christian who knows little of the Eckankar religion and who views all non-Christian religions as pagan. The Eckankar writings have many references to there being one God.

·        “There is but one God and Its reality is the Sugmad.”  The Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, Book Two, p. 53.

·        “All religions teach that God is within, but this is not true. It is not God, the Sugmad, that is within every Soul, but the essence of God, or that known as the ECK.” The Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad, Book One, p. 12.

·        “We never become one with God, as the metaphysicians and religionists claim. What actually happens is that we become one with Spirit, the essence of God.” Paul Twitchell, The Spiritual Notebook, p. 108.

I have been studying Eckankar for 37 years. I will be editing the Eckankar and related Wikipedia pages. I will remove the external links and turn them into reference links. I will leave the Criticisms and Related Groups sections alone for Eckankar detractors to use as their sandbox. But I will be expanding and updating the rest of the article.

If you find that I have violated some stylistic aspect of the Wikipedia rules, please let me know and I will make corrections. I can be reached at steve at runfeldt.com

Thank you. --Sarunfeldt (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing Eckankar Wikipedia Page
Hi,

I am just learning the ropes here, so please be patient with me. I have redone some of my edits to the Eckankar page and have removed the inline links and moved them to the reference section.

I will be making more changes to the page to update, reorganize and clarify the information. At present many of the citations are actually blind or false and some things are stated without citation. I am trying to rectify that.

In the meantime, there is an active vandal of the page who makes continued references to something he calls Akatha. This appears to be a new religion started by a disgruntled former member of Eckankar. I believe that it is just one person. He has been undoing my edits and using an anonymous IP address so it is impossible to talk to him. Is there any way of preventing or reducing this kind of vandalism? He is trying to engage me in an editing war.

I was labeled a "vandal" for trying to make changes to the page, so now this individual claims that I have "a history of vandalism". Can you be of any assistance? I want to do this with the least amount of fuss. My goal is to have a clear and organized page. I have been a member of Eckankar for almost 40 years and am a member of the ECK clergy. I understand the need for the Wikipedia page to include a section on criticisms and related groups, but do not think that anyone should be able to add argumentative comments within the sections that explain the Eckankar beliefs and practices. I consider that to be vandalism.

Thanks,

Sarunfeldt (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification
I would like to notify you, that you have been included in a dispute on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cole132132 (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

British Columbia Highway 16
I don't known about worldwide but it is known as the Highway of Tears. See the article Highway of Tears murders. Slight Smile  04:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, good to know. Thanks, I'll update the article.--McSly (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Scotland County
Hello McSly, I added the link because it contains documented research on Scotland County and can be very beneficial for someone researching Scotland County. It is a free site and a lot of the information is provided by residents of Scotland County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanCGriffin (talk • contribs) 04:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed these links and find them no more objectionable than the find-a-grave links. It's non-commercial. The data provided is useful and relevant. And the information provided is not likely to be provided by some other, more reliable, source. I recommend you reconsider your deletions. Rklawton (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, please read the policy on external links here. I don't think those links added any relevant information to the articles they were added to. Also, adding links to the same website to dozen of articles is somewhat problematic and could be construed as spam (whether the site is free or not). --McSly (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read it, and suggesting I haven't doesn't assume good faith. Links to a county's history, births, deaths, marriages, and the like is highly relevant to that county and very appropriate for an article dedicated to that county. The fact that this is a state-wide, county-level resource indicates that these links will be limited to the 100 counties in the state of North Caroline, and that's not at all problematic. Construing these links as spam based on the edit pattern (many additions, new account, short period of time) fails to assume good faith and should not be used as a test for failing WP:EL. Instead, you should have examined the links and asked yourself, would this link potentially be useful to an individual interested in the article's subject. In this case, the answer to that question is a resounding "YES". Rklawton (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, the remark was more directed to user SusanCGriffin than you. So fair enough, I still don't think that those links add much to the articles, but I won't remove them if they are re-added.--McSly (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! SusanCGriffin (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

McSly, Did you remove every link I added? They are all gone now. I spent many hours adding those for the sole purpose of helping others that are researching counties in North Carolina. SusanCGriffin (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All the links should be back on now.--McSly (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

McSly, I added links for 89 North Carolina counties and 45 of them have been deleted. The only notices I have received were from you and they were in reference to Scotland County, Transylvania County and Tryon County. Did you delete the other counties as well? If so, can you please add them back? SusanCGriffin (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I re-added the links I removed. Other editors have also deleted some of your external links. For those you need to talk directly to each editor, I have no intention to override their changes.--McSly (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

McSly, Scotland County has not been re-added. How do I find out who deleted the other pages? SusanCGriffin (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To find out what changes were made to an article (and who made them), the best way is just to go the article page and click on the "View History" link at the top right of the page. For Scotland County, that will give you this link. From there you have the full history of the article and you can use the buttons on the left to compare the changes between versions. You can also look at the list of all your own contributions here so you have a quick access to all the articles you have edited. --McSly (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

McSly, I went ahead and re-added Scotland County. It must not of worked when you did it. SusanCGriffin (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Carolina that you can point to pending a consensus outcome. Thank you. --

Neil deGrasse Tyson and The Police
Why did you revert my changes to Neil deGrasse Tyson and The Police? These were constructive edits based on sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.58.33 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide those sources and you will be fine.--McSly (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the BBC article
Many thanks for removing the reference that MoonProject had put into the article on the BBC. It did look a suspicious reference - I tried to go to the website that MoonProject cited, and just got a note saying "Error  - this page cannot be found". I am well aware that articles such as that on the BBC or that on Newsnight have to be watched carefully in these present times (see the talk on the page on the BBC Two programme Newsnight). Again, thank you for helping out with the article on the BBC, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You've been implicitly mentioned at
WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Chiropratic
McSly, the introduction for chiropractic is a work in progress (it is ok to have redundancy while it is being worked on) so you should not be reverting it like this. Do not make changes unless you discuss in on the chiropractic talk page section first.Abotnick (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abotnick (talk • contribs)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)