User talk:McSly/Archive 7

Energy Medicine
You recently reverted my changes to the Energy Medicine page... I realize I am new and my use of reference tags is not up to speed yet but that is no excuse for such a misleading opening statement. For this reason I was careful to only state the obvious and cite information already on wikipedia under energy.Shinyredguitar (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

A simple example of energy medicine anyone can understand would be placing a blanket over a patient to keep them warm. Heat is one of many forms of energy and the blanket manipulates that heat by insulating the body from colder air. No one can argue that this is not energy manipulation to help a human medical condition. Many other forms of energy medicine may be harder to comprehend but are similar in that we help the body balance energy. Shinyredguitar (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

We need to work on this article until it is correct and up to date. As it stands now it it misleading and completely disregards energy medicine as pseudoscience. It also disregards current scientific information on energy, medicine, massage, acupuncture, yoga, acupressure and a myriad of other techniques used to manipulate body energy with the goal of balancing the bodies energy systems. Shinyredguitar (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The information in this article is bias and out of date.... It does not even acknowledge that energy in the body exists. Energy everywhere in our universe takes on many forms

There is new scientific information supporting some forms of Energy work including acupuncture, acupressure, TCM, Tai Chi, Qi Gong, TCM, manual therapy and massage therapy. Some of this new scientific information can be found on the following us government websites and NIH National Cancer Institute. Modern scientific research shows that many forms of energy do exist in the body and can be manipulated to help the body heal. Science shows that energy in the body can take on many forms including electrical, mechanical, chemical, electro-chemical. Modern science acknowledges many forms of energy including Kinetic, Potential, Mechanical, Mechanical wave, Chemical, Electric, Magnetic, Radiant, Nuclear, Ionization, Elastic, Gravitational, Rest, Thermal, Heat, Mechanical work. The human body uses many of these forms of energy to support human life. Energy medicine, manual energy therapy and spiritual energy work is our attempt as humans to manipulate this energy for a positive outcome. The US National Institutes of Health has recently updated their information adding line to point readers to more current scientific findings. Shinyredguitar (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The new official NIH statement reads as follows: "Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, some of the information in this statement is likely to be out of date. For more current information on this and other health topics, please visit MedlinePlus, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health." On this new US government website there are many scientific findings that acknowledge results from forms of energy medicine such as acupressure, acupuncture, and other forms of massage and manual therapy.

Please allow this edit since it is based in whole on scientific evidence from the US government and scientific information already on the wikipedia page for energy & the NIH National Cancer Institute Shinyredguitar (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Anybody who believes that our body does not contain energy and that we have no control at all over this energy is not a scientist. To debunk this as a of pseudoscience is ignorant. Shinyredguitar (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This article needs to be re written and it needs to acknowledge that energy exists in the body in many known scientific forms including Kinetic, Potential, Mechanical, Mechanical wave, Chemical, Electric, Magnetic, Radiant, Ionization, Elastic, Gravitational, Rest, Thermal, Heat, Mechanical work. The article also needs to acknowledge that many forms of manual therapy, psychotherapy, massage, yoga and meditation can manipulate this energy and help the body balance itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyredguitar (talk • contribs) 09:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Another site to cite for recent clinical trials is

Theory of Global Warming
The theory that the earth is undergoing a period of warming comes some thirty years after scientists presented a theory of global cooling. Temperatures on earth constantly change. I live in an area that was once tropical. There have also been wholly mammoth fossils found in the area. Warming and cooling are part of the natural order. As far as recent global warming, it stopped almost twenty years ago. NASA had recently released data showing that the polar ice caps are increasing, not retreating. Scientists were caught covering up the new data showing that global warming had stopped. Many scientists were prevented from publishing data contradicting global warming theorists. Emails were uncovered in the UK that proved a pattern of black balling scientists who disagree with the global warming theory. Here on Wikipedia we see fanatics who cannot tolerate any mention of facts disproving global warming. They immediately change any word in their holy writings that dare suggest other theories might have some merit. They even try to ban writers who attempt to present competing theories. These people are doing a great disservice to science and the free exchange of information and should themselves be banned from editing other people's work. Wdcraven (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you show me in this graph where the warming stopped? --McSly (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Objections to evolution
McSly, I am actually trying to create a neutral page of the article about the objections to evolution. I believe it to be too biased in favor of evolution, thus my intent is to make it more acceptable, or so I hope, for people of diverse backgrounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)
 * the changes you are making are not neutral. They are also not backed up by any reliable sources. And now I see that you are edit warring with several editors without even trying to explain your changes on the talk page. If you continue, I guarantee that you will be blocked (and rightfully so). --McSly (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I really cannot see how my changes are not neutral. As far as I can tell, I have included resources too. I am not warring against anyone, but I see there's a continuous change in information I have included and I am not in the position to be editing indefinitely. Therefore I ask for a definite time to include everything as I can see will improve the article. In fact, I believe the article to not be neutral, and I can cite which parts specifically to prove my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)
 * you are not improving the article. Please stop edit-warring and discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Objections to evolution, or you will be blocked for edit warring and vandalism.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

McSly, my edit is a DIRECT statement of policy from the Discovery Institute. It is not a biased statement. It does not advocate for the Discovery Institute in any way, shape or form. All it does is reflect their "official" policy position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.59.101.154 (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Are you Julio Puentes? Is it something else? --McSly (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

revert Evolution
You recently reverted my edit on the Evolution page, stating my edit presented incorrect information, and then left a message for me on my talk page requesting I continue the discussion here, I have started a discussion on the talk page for evolution to discuss the issue rather than continue it on individual talk pages. If you have any additional input, please let's address the issue there, thanks Willietell (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You're doing the same thing too with reverting three times.
If you want me to stop then you stop. Plus, the short 20th century should be on a seperate wikipedia page not on the 21st century page as it will confuse the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodworker87rrrrty54 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, a few things here. First I did not revert you 3 times. I did it once. 3 other editors also reverted your changes. Second, your changes introduced factual errors, for example the 21st century started on January 1st 2001 and not 2000. Third, in case of disagreement, the right approach is to use the talk page of the article to discuss the change and gain consensus. See WP:BRD.--McSly (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Textron Scorpion
Hello McSly.

My beef comes from the fact apparently I cant add to an article about how nothing bad exists, solely because nobody has referenced previously about how nothing bad exists.

Dont misunderstand me, I have a university education and more than one accreditation. I just dont understand in this particular situation how adding a line about how nothing bad appears to exist possibly highlighting design shortcomings or, the lack of, is apparently against the referencing rules. In the one industry where just about everything goes bad... to name a few the F22 and its oxygen gen issue... batteries burning in Boeings 787 (not like those guys know airplanes!) and the trillion dollar comedy surrounding the F35 that was designed to be everything but, well, isnt, five years and another trillion later....?

Makes things a little ridiculous.... you can write a page about how Everything Is Awesome!™ with a product using dubious examples, but you cant say nothing exists about a situation unless someone else has already cited "professionally" that nothing exists. Go ahead! Write a wikiBrochure™... read my page about my product!!! Look at my suddenly valid sources !!

Wiki. A good idea, but dont trust it. Its the online literary equivalent of that guy at the bar / pub who seems to know everything. ;)

I wonder, are you guys on the payroll? Lemme guess, no because there are no sources ? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoyanG21 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WPI
Hello, certainly the WPI is my creation, but I'm not using Wikipedia as instrument of personal promotion. If you make a little review about measurement of power in Wikipedia, this encyclopedia doesn't have any instrument as good as the WPI. I'm a doctor in Social Sciences and the WPI was part of my Doctoral Thesis, then it had the approval of authorized scholars to use it as instrument to measure power. Thanks to Wikipedia, WPI begin to be known around the work. You can find an example with 백준기 of Hanshin University which used the WPI to evaluated the structural position of South Korea and Kazakhstan as you can read: "현재 국제관행상 중견국으로 분류되는 국가들 중 이상의 세 가지 모델에 모두 해당되는 국 가들―예를 들어, ‘World Power Index(WPI)’, ‘National Power Index(NPI)’ 등을 기준으로―도 있으나, Chapnick의 분류를 적용하면, 세 모델 중 하나에 속하더라도 중견국으로 분류된다. 일반적으 로, 유엔 안보리 상임이사국, 공식 핵보유국, G7―일본과 캐나다는 논쟁적임― 등이 강대국 범 주에 포함되고, 그리고 BRICs가 강대국 후보군으로 범주화되는 추세를 감안하면, 그 외 중견국 범위 설정에 있어서 한국은 WPI, NPI 등 일반적 지표 모두에 상위에 랭크되어 있다" (https://www.kiep.go.kr/eng/sub/view.do?bbsId=newsEvent&nttId=188985).

Another reference is this message I received a month ago: "I have prepared my doctorial dissertation and I found that your database about IPM would be the best source to confirm the hypothesis of my thesis" XXXXXXXXXXXX Professor, Cheongju University Republic of Korea

Finally, I have fulfilled all requirements of Wikipedia. If you don't think so, please be more specific on the points that lacks WPI. Delete the WPI of Wikipedia will deprive a lot of students and scholars of an excellent instrument to measure the national power. Thanks, demgdl (DSSc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demgdl (talk • contribs) 04:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hidden Note
I hope the answer to this isn't too abundantly obvious, but could you please tell me where the hidden note is on the first sentence in the article of the Colbert Report?" Thanks, Terry Foote (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . No worries. On the first line, right before the word "is", the note says: . Cheers. --McSly (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sheesh - sorry about that - learn something new about WP every day. Thanks! Terry Foote (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A320 family
Huston, we have a problem! :-) Need a consensus to erase this line " (excludes Airbus A320neo family) " in A320family information table, as it is contradictory to every next number of produced airframes given in the reference. I agree A320 family of aircraft doesn't excludes A320neo, by my opinion. Thanks, regards! Gotech8 (talk) Gotech8 (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Help on article for creation: Britt Marie Hermes
Hi McSly, I noticed you edit the naturopathy page often. I have written a draft article for Britt Marie Hermes, who is a former naturopath/now whistle blower and I could use your help shaping it up. It was originally rejected due to not meeting GNG and being too promotional. I've added recent sources, but I am not sure how to reduce the promo as it seems to be neutral to me. I think the article now meets WP:BASIC. Thank you. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

how can I correct a false statement ?
I have corrected (edited) a false statement ... and I have received the notice you can see below  ...

I received an obvious obnoxious reply >> how I can correct, false statements on wikipedia.. .. the false statement is listed on Ideology - "Anti-Vaccination" The Health Australia Party, is NOT "anti-Vaccination" .. this and many other text have been placed to dis-credit the HEP.

.. Kind Regards Dieter ...

NOTICE RECEIVED We follow reliable sources and must abide by the WP:PSCI policy which requires us to be up-front about the rubbish this political party spouts. As a example of the mainstream (and so neutral), Novella's piece makes a fine source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Health Australia Party. Questions: How can I change wrong entries? How come someone is allowed to add "Anti-Vaccination" if that is not the case.. .. most of the Health Australia Party's edit's seem to be by critics of Natural Therapy. .. most entries are biased opinions or innuendos ...

text like >> " The party has been criticized for its support of pseudoscientific alternative medicine " .. is clearly biased.... alternative medicine is a general term, and pseudoscientific is therefore an opinion.

text like > Steven Novella has written that the party subscribes to the Big Pharma conspiracy theory .. .. is clearly hearsay .. and how can Steven Novella make an "opinion" anyhow .. ? He is American as far as I can see. He is simply accusing the HEP of something they are not ...

... to sum up ... how can all those opinions be defended .. without being accused of repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions ??? D-Bessmann (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources and must abide by the WP:PSCI policy which requires us to be up-front about the rubbish this political party spouts. As a example of the mainstream (and so neutral), Novella's piece makes a fine source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

D-Bessmann (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . Well, as Alexbrn kind of already answered, on WP, we just report what reliable sources tell us about a subject. If you think that the Health Australia Party is not anti-vaccination for example, you would need to provide reliable independent sources that state that fact. That said, a very quick google search on the subject returns articles such as those, . They are reliable, they are very recent and they state that the HAP is anti-vaccination. So it looks to me that that view is well known. About the 2 examples you use here, HAP promotes the use of homeopathy, which is the textbook case of a pseudo-science and Steven Novella is an expert in the field so his opinion is reliable on the topic. I hope that helped. --McSly (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello@McSly ... sorry not sure of the correct way to reply .. ( I am very new at this) Alexbrn is obviously bias against that party and natural type of therapies .. the way he answered shows that clearly. I quote "which requires us to be up-front about the rubbish this political party spouts". HAP states clearly, that they are not Anti-Vaccination, they are Pro-choice. - Articles against the HEP, come NOT from "neutral" sources, they are from Natural Therapy skeptics. To place the term "Anti-Vaccination" with in the Ideology category, is simply not right. If it would be somewhere within the text, because they have been accused in one article about that, I could accept that.

Question, if I add something neutral, and I find an article which mention HEP in that context as ref.; would that be allowed ? And what quality is needed to make an article a "reliable independent source"? .. and by the way, I don't see a medical web-site article, directed against the HAP as neutral. D-Bessmann (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathy
The current naturopathy page is completely biased. In your message you say Wikipedia pages use neutral information. I am providing factual information from government sources, and one source from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, which states what their goal is. Most of the current sources on the page are individual people's personal negative views of naturopathy, or simply attacks on the profession. While criticism should be included, the goals and standards met by licensed physicians should also be included. In my latest update I have included both these sides, negative and positive, while simply stating what the profession is and the goals/methods they use. I am neither promoting the field not deterring people from using it, just stating what it is, which is what wikipedia should be doing. NOT blatantly attacking a licensed field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benders001 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

2020 Prediction Reverted
Why was a 2020 prediction I edited reverted? Lwabak ris (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CRYSTAL. --McSly (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Religion and WP::FRINGE
Just as an FYI this topic has come up many times and there is a strong consensus in the community that religious belief is not a fringe theory. The only time religious beliefs are treated as fringe is when they claim to accomplish scientific things through supernatural means or cite pseudoscience in support of beliefs clearly contradicted by mainstream science. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thanks for the info. And that clearly applied here as being possessed by a demon is in complete contradiction with modern science.--McSly (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not. It's the same sort of thing as Faith healing. It's a purely religious belief that does not inherently touch on science. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Healing
Hi Mc Sly,

I have twice edited the Crystal Healing page as follows: 1) to remove clearly negative, biased, uninformative and irrelevant content such as "Crystal Healing is a Pseudo-Science". What's wrong with that assertion? Firstly no-one who knows anything about Crystal Healing regards it as a science - neither is it ever (to my knowledge) presented as such. It is a Healing Art. Secondly, your term implies an effort to falsely represent itself as something it is not. We don't do that; so please just leave it OK? 2) I have also tried to inject your comments on 'energy' with a more balanced and socially sophisticated appropriate viewpoint (As you might expect from someone with a degree in Philosophy and Linguistics). And, yes its different from your deliberately and obtusely narrow 'scientific' one. FYI there are over a hundred documented studies on the effects of healing, that is to say on the effects of one person attempting to positively affect another by means of 'healing energies'. (You see, I even give you the respect of putting that term in quotemarks..)

I sense from you a quasi-religeous fervour in your attempts to blot and sneer at anything that implies any sort of spiritual reality. As such, I wonder if, in your own way, in disregarding any facts that don't chime with your own beliefs, you are the one who is being 'pseudo-scientific'. I'm a healer - AND I have been reading 'New Scientist' magazine since I was a teenager. REAL scientists are interested in 'anomalous' data; its the pseudo-scientists who reject 'inconvenient' data, which 'couldn't possibly be right'.

So, I am going to keep re-visiting that page, and removing comments that don't meet MY standards; which, frankly, are higher and more respectful than what I have seen of yours so far. WhyNOT raise your game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.208.224 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, on Wikipedia, we just report what reliable sources tell us about a given subject. Our own personal opinion about that subject doesn't really count. If you have sources to back up your changes, you are welcome to present them on the talk page of the article so they can be evaluated. But what you did was remove correctly sourced material without any explanation and introduce unsourced text. That's why I reverted your changes. --McSly (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Change to Definition of Alternative Medicine
Hi McSly, I would like to make a change to the definition of alternative medicine. I think that a better way to describe alternative medicine would be any form of medicine that can be considered as an "alternative" to standard health care, in other words (modern scientifically-based medicine). Is this definition not correct? Thank you. 98.115.14.11 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Josh
 * In case of disagreement on a change, you should go to the talk page of the article to discuss it and gain consensus. Edit warring is not the way to go. --McSly (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

86.143.164.120, Draco2k and Eurofighter Typhoon
Hi, I believe that 86.143.164.120 and Draco2k are socks of Z07x10 and have opened an SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/Z07x10 regards Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Re Starchild skull
this edit was a copyvio of this http://www.starchildproject.com/starchild-skull-dna -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, you are mistaken. My edits are making the article more balanced and neutral, rather than one-sided. I will be undoing your edit since it is in error. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)