User talk:McSly/Archive 5

Creation Science and Intelligent Design listed under Pseudoscience
These two subjects cannot be listed under Pseudoscience for a number of reasons:
 * 1. Wiki editors are to remain neutral. Listing these two subjects under pseudoscience is biased in favor of evolution and atheism and biased against people of both religious and scientific backgrounds. The issue of the validity of intelligent design and creation science should be discussed within the pages of each of these topics instead of listing them under the pseudoscience heading to remain neutral.
 * 2. Wiki editors are to interact in a civil manner. It would also make sense that this would be extended to the relations between wiki editors and wiki readers. I feel it would be preferable to refrain from offending as many readers as possible. As I mentioned before, the issue of the topics' validity could beds cussed on the page itself to reduce offending readers who may accept the tenets of either subject.
 * 3. An alternative might be to list both evolutionar and creation science under the heading of pseudoscience as many people argue that evolution is a pseudoscience. Thus the list would remain neutral. - 3/20/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.220.163 (talk • contribs)

Since I haven't received a response, I'll assume that I being allowed change the page. - 3/23/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.176.14 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, being neutral doesn't mean that all point of views are equal (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE). Wikipedia is indeed bias, it is bias toward the best evidence and the best sources available. Being offended is an absurd argument to justify removing information. People get offended by many things and this has no relevance to determine if something is true or false. By the way, I noticed that you didn't seem to mind offending people believing in vitalism even it is as discarded as creationism. Lastly, if you believe that evolution is pseudo-science, I'm afraid you are misinformed. You should read Evolution as fact and theory to get a better understanding of the subject.--McSly (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Age of life on earth
I would have reverted the first time, but I read Life and that says 3.5 with sources. I think those edits are in good faith. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you undo my edit of the Causes of Autism page? Why?
I put in one paragraph on the Maternal Antibody theory of autism, saying only maternal antibodies transferred to the fetus during pregnancy are suspected of causing somne cases of autism.

The reference used as a book published by a science publishing company, Springlink.

Autuism, Current Theories and Evidence.

What was wrong with the edit? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, please see WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP.--McSly (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

All that debate was over primary vs. secondary sources. The source used in the edit is a secondary source. Let's pretend no one felt any animosity towardss me, what is actually wrogn wtih the edit or source?

Why are you removing my edits
I am trying to edit Causes of Autism.

I am using secondary sources which are allowed.

As a reason for reverting my edits, your use a reference to a discussion which concerned edits based on primary sources, not sedcondary sources.

Is this content permanently forbidden becuase of the previous dispute? That does not seem logical.

I HAVE NEW SOURCES. THEY ARE SECONDARY. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM?

And are you Dave Brodbeck? Or acting at his direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (talk page stalker) Accusing another user of meat/sock puppeting is a rather serious charge. Please review WP:AGF.  Also, McSly might be interested in  if he or she has not seen it yet.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DBrodbeck - are you accusing me of accusing McSly? Please clarify., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You know IP, you can sign your posts, it is really easy. And, you can indent, it is really easy.  Anyway, you asked a user if (s)he is me, you were the one accusing.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking is not the same as accusing but McSly seems to be a Canadian who speaks French and lives in the eastern part of the country like you do. And a posting on his page got a response from you in less than an hour. You could answer the question  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So what you are saying is you spent time to look up and compare both Dbrodbeck's profile and mine in order to support some sort of paranoid and baseless accusations. And yet, in all those years, you haven't bothered reading and following the most basic guidelines on WP. That's really pathetic. It looks to me that you are just acting like a whinny little kid who wants to be treated as an adult but who is incapable of tying his own shoes.--McSly (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of being insulting (and by the way still not answering the question of whether the two of you are one and the same or somehow affiiliated) can you place tell me how a BOOK on AUTISM published by a SCIENCE PUBLSIHING COMPANY is not a secondary source? Seriously, how does that Hi? I've got the chapter from that book, a review paper from 2012 and a review paper from a couple of years back? How do ANY of them fail as secondary sources? I can repost them here if you want. Can we please discuss actual editing of Wikipedia instead of whether I argued about the rules excessively in the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't respond to baseless, paranoid accusations 2) The proper policies have been pointed and explained to you dozen of times in the past few years. If you don't seem capable of understanding them while other editors manage to do it quite easily, that's your problem (we all have our limitations after all). 3) Since I have no reason to reward bad behavior, on this talk page, any comment from you not properly signed will be summarily deleted. --McSly (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent Energy Medicine edits
Hello,

Still getting used to the UI and procedures here. Regarding edits and reversions on May22 to Energy Medicine by IP 76.121.150.157: After reading more about how content on an article tries to reflect the pervasive attitude perceived in society I understand better why the initial edits may have warranted reversion. However, as I'm sure you're aware, this praiseworthy pursuit can be hijacked by the presence of a vocal minority who is level-headed enough to escape reversion. In my experience on both sides of this fence I have found Energy Medicine, for some reason, to be extremely popular; though its physical effects (in a similar way as one's mood) may be difficult to objectify clinically.

I also partially surmised that Neutrality, according to Wikipedia, does not necessarily mean a non-derogatory account of all major view points but a boundary against peripheral, emotional, and poorly referenced view points or work that do not reflect the predominant view.

At this point I would like to suggest that neutrality might also refer to the responsibility of the predominant view (as pre-Copernican astronomy once was) to report its tenants, evidence and reasoning without resorting to employment of references to derogatory statements (or similar suppressive devices) about competing views (which The Church at the time did not). Such statements should not be necessary if the evidence and reasoning are sound and only furthers division among viewpoints.

In such an article as Energy Medicine, where the predominant view appears to be against it, a derogatory article may appear unavoidable but this is not the case. Many parts of this article are negative with respect to the topic yet perfectly acceptable considering the evidence presented. Likewise, there may be points from the proponents camp that appeal to the detractors. As someone once said: "Nobody is smart enough to be 100% wrong."

There is controversy on this topic and it is not so one-sided as this article makes it appear. Therefore, shouldn't the article admit this fairly and openly? It seems insufficient to simply declare those who maintain reasons to disagree to be 'unsophisticated', 'magical-thinkers'. Yes, there is clinical evidence that support the negative side(there is also valid evidence in support of the positive). However, clinical evidence is far from infallible, especially if the underlying assumptions are inadequate.

In the Vitalism article there is reference to theories of Emergence. The human body is certainly such a complex system as to warrant a more conscientious and diligent appraisal of its attributes using our most applicable analytical tools (i.e. Complex Systems Theory and Network Science). See the Dr. Iris Bell reference in one of the edits mentioned above.

My simplified argument is basically an appeal to ignorance over arrogance. Maintaining open avenues of investigation is what is at issue. It is insufficient to declare that the route of energy medicine investigation has been tested and found to be of no clinical benefit when many competent and rational researchers take issue with the manner that testing.

Finally, the edit regarding the History section of the Energy Medicine article describes a misused citation. The first sentence of the History section contains a reference to article [24](Jonas & Crawford) that is supposed to account for it. However, there can be no mistake that no such sentiment exists in this article, having read it twice myself. Therefore, please also uphold the removal of that reference from the support of that sentence.

---Or may we discuss the other reason(s) for your reversion of these edits; such as being considered vandalism or sole editorship without collaboration for example. I am new to these policies and this interface so please be slightly more explicit in your replies where these are concerned. (PS. I have read much(not all) of the talk guidelines).

Thanks, Kmpentland (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page revert
I'll admit I wasn't entirely sure of the best way to handle "IP editor adds their entire comment as a section header", but a blank signature at the top of the section seemed clearer than making it look as if the responding editor had posted the whole thing. You disagree? --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I actually pressed the wrong button. I reverted myself. Sorry about that. --McSly (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages
Since you have over 50 edits at Jules Verne, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Spamming
Below are 3 more promotional posts like the one you flagged, by the same user. I'm not sure what the proper thing is to do about it, thus I thought it best to alert someone with more experience, like you. Bbwn (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_mapping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_allocation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_management Bbwn (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the heads up. I removed those links since the images were deleted. That being said, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, feel free when you see something wrong to be be bold and make the change yourself. Just make sure the changes are properly explained and sourced.--McSly (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging words McSly. You are very kind. :-) Bbwn (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC Page
I've reverted my original comments, as if you view the whole paragraph is un-refrenced (not just my edit), on the basis that the further page "Criticism of the BBC" lists in detail. This has already been discussed on the talk page and as such it's fair comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, your change doesn't seem to be supported by the source which is why I reverted it.--McSly (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain
why you removed this comment by User:Hcobb at Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen? I re-read point no. 4 of WP:TPO and the policy at WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. Both are against removal of such a comment. The comment may have been rude or a POV, but is related to the subject matter, and IMO was not trolling or vandalism, nor was it attacking any particular editor. Can you explain why did you still remove that comment? Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently didn't need a mention on talk, so just added to article. Thanks all. Hcobb (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making an article MORE biased?
I have edited an article 3 times in the last day or so, because of people coming back and removing it. I have merely removed points that do not aide the article or are not fit for being in the article and should be limited to the talk page. The article is on "The Creation Museum" and should be about the location, not the belief. Sgt K Onyx (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for the delay. Your change deleted some text that was properly cited, which is problematic. It also removed information such as "Scientific evidence supports the conclusions that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" which is factually correct. This is why I and other reverted your changes. If you think those changes should stay, you need to start a discussion on the talk page of the article to explain your reasoning and try to reach consensus. Since you are the one wanting that change, it is your responsibility to start the discussion (see WP:BRD). Keep in mind that trying to force the issue or edit war will get you nowhere.--McSly (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if I do it your way, nothing would ever get done, no offense. I wish to point out that the point of the article is to explain the location and what it stands for, putting the point against it in the controversy section. I have reviewed my changes, and have made some new ones that I believe adds more to the article than did before. To your "It also removed information such as "Scientific evidence supports the conclusions that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" which is factually correct.", the sentence is literally in direct conflict with the point of the location, and does not help people learn about the location, and I posit that it should be regulated to the talk page. Of most importance, having actually attended the location, I can say that they have compelling evidence for their side of the "argument" that still fit in with the "scientific method" of Hypothesis, Test, Conclude. (Quick stuff, not per article, look up Polonium Haloes, helium in zircon, red blood cells in T-rex bones. These all come from the museum and were quite compelling.) Sgt K Onyx (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, quick question. How's changing "Scientists" to "Secular scientists" and "Biologists" to "Secular biologists" reconciles with your statement that "[the article] should be about the location, not the belief"? In addition, as an other editor has also noted, hiding content change behind misleading edit summary like you did there has no chance whatsoever to go unnoticed, so you shouldn't try.--McSly (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That was a mistake left unchanged. I have remade my changes in a more unbaised way, if you think them too biased, please explain it to me.Sgt K Onyx (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker)  I see no difference here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Misrepresentation of Sources
I don't accept that Mach 2.0+ excludes figures higher than 2.1 and if there is a page stating this on Wikipedia it needs to be adjusted. It means the same as Mach 2+ in this case. Meaning is always specific to context and the fact that some websites write '2.0+' was a choice, because no one has officially ever stated, in person, Mach 2.0+. Let's face it, to give 1dp and then add '+' is kind of nonsense. It's more likely to be an auto-formatter choosing the number of significant figures/dps just like on Wikipedia. And in the case of the Typhoon this interpreation is confirmed by the Austrian Airforce primary stating .2495kph at 10,975m. and BAE SYSTEMS stating .1521mph'. I think a lot of people are clutching at straws to try and get this changed back.Z07x10 (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Eurofighter Typhoon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Will both you and User:Z07x10 please stop this unseemly edit war about which of the many contradictory sources on Typhhons maximum speed is the correct one - if you cannot find consensus, then go to dispute resolution, rather than edit war.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Hi Nigel, thanks for the reminder. I'm sure we'll find a solution.--McSly (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Eurofighter Typhoon". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 20:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is now an arbitration case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.Z07x10 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, OK. --McSly (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Case request
The arbitration request involving you has been declined. The comments left at the request may be helpful for proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Hi, I am Anil and I want to know that those Ayurvedic books was not promotional, and you should read the Wikipedia guidelines It says "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, ". If you want to verify you can sure check the website and download those books and read them, then take any action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see User_talk:NeilN. I've tried to help the editor but... -- Neil N  talk to me  20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semir Osmanagić and Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis
You might want to see. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Gamification and Big Data
Hello. Could you please explain why you removed my contributions to both Gamification and Big Data. Both had relevant, reliable sources. Stuartzs (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Crocoduck
Not sure why you removed a reference to an article on the crocoduck topic under discussion by saying it was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Why wouldn't a peer reviewed article on the topic be appropriate? “A Tale of Two Crocoducks: Creationist Misuses of Molecular Evolution”, Science & Education, April, 2014 (on-line first) DOI 10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8. Jhofmann3104 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, first, a reference should always be used to either support existing text in the body of the article when a reference was missing or in conjunction with new text, again, in the body of the article to source it. This is not the way you did it. You just added a link at the bottom of the articles so, what was it referencing exactly? Second, and that's the most important here, you added the same link to 4 different articles. That link goes to a page where you can buy the article that you authored. This is an obvious conflict of interest and that's problematic. So I would suggest that you used this reference on the article only if it's relevant, by adding new text in the body instead of a naked link at the end, and don't add a link to a page to buy it.--McSly (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you undo my Alternative Medicine wiki edit?
Saying that "Alternative medicine is any practice has not had it's claims proven using the scientific method" is incorrect because there are some types that have used the scientific method and had it proven that way. While it's true that most forms don't work it may have worked for them when they were testing it such as it having a placebo effect, there is just lack of evidence or published evidence for it. I though that that would be a more accurate claim to put in the wiki article. Correct me if I'm wrong.


 * Saying that "Alternative medicine is any practice has not had it's claims proven using the scientific method" is incorrect because there are some types that have used the scientific method and had it proven that way. While it's true that most forms don't work it may have worked for them when they were testing it, such as it only working on some people or under certain conditions as there is just lack of evidence or published evidence for it. I though that that would be a more accurate claim to put in the wiki article. Correct me if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrainPub (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

DRAINPUB SIGNATURE

Neutral ? I can see that your reverts are supporting a western based point of view
Dear McSly, I noticed a biased opinion and made an edit after 4 months. I was reminded by you who in minutes who the "force" behind wikipedia is. Sorry for having made some changes to point out the obvious. I believe that wikipedia is biased towards western attitude, opinion and propaganda. The edits and reverts point to that. When a western opinion or belief is to be pushed, an article like the most scholarly referred media like "Nature" is referred to. Nature presents an opinion without any scientific experiments or any real measurements. Yet wikipedia and the western biased media use it as a "fact" and publish it as such. Then if I try to state that there is no measurement and it is an opinion. My edits are reverted in minutes. The reverts are marked "in good faith". You are not going to make people believe your opinion as facts just because can put your opinion on wikipedia and delete other opinions. All you are doing is convincing people like me that the editors of wikipedia make it hopeless to put anything on except the mainstream western opinion. I shall be making another wikipedia like open to all opinions website and the western media can link to their biased websites all the time. No one cares. They are not falling for the BS like "America #1" or "911 by Osama" or Acupuncture or homeopathy is a pseudo science. Chinese medicine and other medicines work and billions of people believe in them and use them daily. More people live over a 100 years in the east than in the west. So the west can keep attempting to profit and propogate their ideas. But the east knows what they know before the common western media was created to profit from pushing capitalism. Inshallah the world shall be doing what it keeps doing even after this phase passes. We have cures of cancer and diabetes anyd many other ailments which hurt the western educated people. So you can keep your mind closed and die young. Adios. Like pamela says "Enjoy you egg whites." -- Khawar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawar.nehal (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not opinion so you are mistaken there. If you had actually read the articles you modified you would have realized that the text was backed up by those sources. I'm not going to comment on the rest of what can only be described as a conspiracy theory rant except to say that if someone has told you that they have a cure for cancer, you're the victim of a scam.--McSly (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You are on ...
.. On a mistake about your contributions in homeopathy. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that deep insight backed up by, well, nothing at all.--McSly (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo
Why have you removed my revisions? There is no explanation in the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't pretend that you don't know why your change was reverted. You have made the same edits for weeks now. That change is unsourced, has been reverted by several editors and and explained here. It also forced the page to be semi-protected. Continuing to edit war will just result in a in a longer protection of the page.--McSly (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought the point of Wikipedia is to provide truthful and unbiased information. That is why I made the same edits over and over. The initial piece of information, cited in the source, is incorrect, because the US State Department is biased on the matter. And from what you wrote, I gathered that I should provide another source, backing up my edits. Is that right? I mean, you reverted the edit because of me not following the procedure, not because of what the content of the edit is? But, if that is so, if you keep taking the biased US Government as a reliable source, which source would be acceptable to back me up? Some other government, perhaps? And the explanations made on the Talk page are not based on any valid legal point. For example, the last one, with "It deserves a place on the list", could be applied to any other region which "deserves" to be in that list, depending on the opinion and point of view of the editor. And opposite to that, in this case, there is the UNSC Resolution 1244. Is the user Someone the Person's opinion having more weight than the Resolution of the United Nations Security Council? ... and I just want to add something.... I am not trying to annoy you with this correspondence (if I can call it like that), I am just trying to find out how to avoid the reverting of my edits and corrections. If it is the procedure, not the content, perhaps you could help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.246.51.142 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi! I've noticed your reversion at talk:cold fusion. You seem to try to make more difficult my adding of a comment in a section. Please do not try to obstruct my edits.--:82.137.14.162 (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The section has been archived and what you did screws up the archiving process. If you want to add to the talk page, create a new section. Any attempt to go around the archiving process will be summarily reverted. --McSly (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The archiving process is not important here and it has been unnecessarily archived. My comment fits better in a de-archived section. You seem to think that you own the article by your reply Any attempt to go around the archiving process will be summarily reverted. This is obstruction of legitimate comments. Please stop from unconstructive edits.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add as much context including links to the archived page in your new section. That's not a problem at all. Make sure that new section is there to discuss a specific change to the article.--McSly (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Interruption
I was about to add a subsection in a restored archive whose reuse I've explained when you have interrupted me. It is not polite to interrupted my announced edit. This consumes from the time to formulate the addition and it is distraction from concentration. Please do not interrupt me again and do not waste our time with distractions. I see above that you've had a similar problem with another user.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruption?
I don't understand your labelling of disruption. You are obstructing my announced edits. You are in fact disruptive. Please stop interrupting me and wasting my time. I explained the reason for restoring the archive. Please do not make threats with reporting.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Material from Talk: Cold fusion
Why did you remove material from Talk: Cold fusion three times? The material, although annoying and tedious, was not up to the point of a personal attack or purely disruptive material, so that its removal did contribute to the disruption of the talk page. Just being right about scientific consensus does not require disrupting the talk page. (Neither does being wrong about the scientific consensus require disrupting the talk page by the unregistered editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I didn't remove any material from the talk page. I just reverted the IP manually overwriting the archiving process as they have been doing for months in order to artificially keep those threads alive and using the talk page as a forum. They actually already been warned about it. And told them to open a new section. They just don't want to do it.--McSly (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Mythological Places
Various locations such as Heaven, Hell, Hel, most of the Norse locations cannot be listed as mythological as they are outside of this universe and therefore cannot be listed as myth (aka disproved). A separate page should be established for such locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.245.216 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, when I mentioned the talk page, I was referring to the article talk page that you can find here. Regarding your specific proposal, it looks to me to be a distinction without a difference. The fact that they are based on religion doesn't make them any less mythical. See list of creation myths for a related example.--McSly (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Graphology
Hi! I just noticed that you reverted my edits on the article "Graphology'. You advised that it be taken to the talk page. I have done that before but no one seems to be responding. This article is outdated and needs to be revised. So is the Beyerstein Book, which I know you'll point to. I would strongly advise you to read "The Beyerstein Book: A Critical Evaluation" by Marcel Matley, a questioned document examiner and a graphologist. It talks about the various drawbacks of the Beyerstein's book and the various flaws in research methods which range from using unqualified and inexperienced graphologists to using only a single line of handwriting to make a judgement. Several graphological premises were violated in many studies. Many research studies done, especially in foreign languages do support its validity as I had listed in the article you reverted. A long list of peer-reviewed research studies in support of graphology is listed on the website of the International Graphological Colloquium: http://www.igc-grapho.net/research-in-graphology. I wouldn't be so quick to just regard it as a pseudo-science. If you didn't already know, The Library of Congress took Graphology out of the occult section of the Dewey Decimal Classification and placed it into more respectable sections: Diagnostic Psychology 155.282; Documentary Evidence 363.2565; and Selection of personnel by management 658.3112. Also, the fact that an accredited degree is offered in four universities around the world does seem to indicate that it may truly have some validity. Of course, I'm NOT talking about the graphology in which a single stroke corresponds to a single trait and whose meaning remains fixed. I'm talking about the proper scientific graphology in which every graphic element is evaluated in context of the whole and in which the interpretation depends on the whole and on the various other elements present in the writing. I sincerely hope that you will consider this. I am not reverting your reversion as I hope to talk this through with you first. Thank you for reading! 117.196.169.43 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Ok, I saw the section on the article page and I will answer there.--McSly (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! I have replied to your comment on the same page. 117.222.148.242 (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin
Do not be ridiculous; the issue of the reliability of those carbon dating tests is still debated today with some holding to an anachronistic dating. There are indeed some who believe that the testing was not flawed, but we can not only show the world one view. It is that sort of mindset that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at Acupuncture
Greetings! Concerning your revert at Acupuncture, what do you exactly find "non-neutral change"? You restored the problems with unverifiable material and other items that are not really about the article. How do you mean that restoring the unverifiable material into a verifiable one would be "non-neutral"? The source your restored does not support the claim. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (followed J-S here) Hi McSly -- did you read the talk page? The version you reverted from was indeed a consensus version, and factually correct.  See thread-starter at talk, here, and subsequent explanation.  There was a long discussion of this in July involving lots of editors, with User:Vzaak making a bold edit  that resulted in consensus; see archived talk, and Vzaak's diff at WT:MED .  If that's insufficient and you want to go back to the source (Ernst '09), you'll need the full paper, a link to which is at the bottom of Talk:Acupuncture. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC) edited 10:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine page and education
Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit just now. I had deleted the info regarding the Textbook of Natural Medicine, as the reference, although true, is irrelevant and misleading, in that this book is not in fact used as a primary teaching tool for naturopathic doctors. In fact, it would be impossible to condense all the books studied in a 4 to 5 year medical education into one book. This book mentioned is used as a reference book by some, not all, likely not even most practitioners.

As for the second line, "All forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science, and do not necessarily prepare a practitioner to make appropriate diagnosis or referrals."[29][46][59]:

Naturopathic medical curricula in accredited Naturopathic medical schools are required to cover the proper methods of diagnosis, and standards of care, of disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyfischer76 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Naturopathy not being compatible with basic science is properly sourced and incidentally true since for example they used homeopathy which is the textbook example of pseudo-science. For the rest, please discuss any change on the talk page of the article and gain consensus. Please also make sure to not copy text directly from websites as it is a copyright violation and is not allowed on Wikipedia.--McSly (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How may I access the talk page of the article, as opposed to this talk page I am writing on here? Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the link Naturopathy. You can see the link to the talk page of each article on the top left corner of the page.--McSly (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I see numerous examples of quotes taken directly from source material on the naturopathic page, properly cited as was mine from the AANP.Can you please explain why you consider mine to be a copyright violation whereas the other quotes are not? Thanks 205.197.242.153 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

how you define perpetual motion
in medieval times a perpetual motion devices was any device moved not by a man or that don't extinct to fast (like line on a block with a rock). if you can show to them electric motor they call it another PM.

in nature there are energy sources like gravity or magnetism. for a commonly known gravity wheel which has horizontal axis, the mass center must away from axle and be updated at certain fluency, this is the only ask for this to work. this creates a torque.

with magnetism there is enough to set magnets right way on the rotor and stator like Yildiz does from 30 years, and i guarantee he is a normal man.

in 19th century knowing too much scientists set the gravity motor as violating the energy conservation device, though it works (with losses) from gravity field.

energy conservation ok. but count every energy right way. the equations and simulation are quite easy. first good programs with simulation shows that devices should work fine, and they do, though sadly unknown and babbled.

have a good day!

Master P.

A little help please
Mcsly,Some are need about the Mirage III cost and Some inprovment ok 175.136.106.57 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. The reason I reverted your changes are 1) most seem unsourced and on Wikipedia, we always need to provide reliable sources when making change. And 2) some of your changes appear to be incorrect. removing Israel from the list of operators for example is clearly wrong. So I suggest 2 things: 1) instead of making one big change to the article, instead break it down in smaller, individual change. 2) always, always, always us the edit summary box to explain why you are making that specific update. And of course always provide sources. --McSly (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's ok.But what about the Mirage III cost.That the Problem.175.136.106.57 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That part was already answered to you. See here. And you deleting that information there. So to reiterate, the website you used cites Wikipedia as its source. Since Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself (see WP:CIRCULAR), you cannot use it. You will need to find a different source. -McSly (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information but this is important to do ok I will do my best 175.136.106.57 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.LeadSongDog come howl!  15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am? --McSly (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, we don't use edit comments for discussion, we use the talk page. The principle is BRD, not BRRD, BRRRD, BRRRRD etc. Please engage on the talk page.LeadSongDog come howl!  00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the Problem 115.133.38.236 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Teach Me
Can you help me how to Block And Unblock.please,115.133.38.236 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

HI.
Im sorry but please Malaysia Intersert with Rafale for Replacement Mikoyan MIG-29N.I will gave you a Sorces of Rafale.rafalemalaysia.com/.124.13.234.53 (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but please use the talk page of the article here to present your sources. Do not change the article without getting consensus first. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I Can't but you have to do.good luck.124.13.234.53 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC) I See a sorces but why you deleate it.you have too.cause i can't do.124.13.234.53 (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually,you put the wrong sorces of Rafale.124.13.234.53 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

??
I am new here. Why did you delete my addition? While you may not agree with them or like it, there can be no dispute that some scientists have asserted that some aspects of climate science, particularly as popularly depicted, are pseudoscientific. It could be OK to follow with a note that they are in a minority, but you can't pretend they have not made these claims. Boazier (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)