User talk:McSly/Archive 8

Arbitration enforcement sanctions warning
Please do not revert administrative actions at WP:AE, or you may yourself become subject to blocks or other sanctions for disrupting the enforcement process. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Morgellons connection
https://bmcdermatol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12895-015-0023-0. Hope you don't mind putting this here. 19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC) shoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0NPAQ (talk • contribs)
 * Hello No problem to put this here. For information, the paper you are citing has already been discussed on the Morgellons talk page here and  here. Short answer, it doesn't meet the reliable source standard. --McSly (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral POV
The homosexuality page is protected to prevent vandalism. However, it takes the point-of-view of the liberal left, and follows popular opinion as opposed to facts.

It states that most psychologists agree that homosexuality is not caused by parenting or upbringing. That leads to a false assumption that it is genetic.

It doesn't mention that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that it is genetic either. That isn't a neutral stance.

Also, Wikipedia describes conversion therapy in a negative light. I would guess that is because it implies that homosexuality isn't genetic and can be reversed.

Again, that is not a neutral point of view. When I attempted to call Wikipedia's attention to it, I was informed that Wikipedia conforms to a neutral POV policy and my ideas conflicted with their policy.

Why not just say that Wikipedia conforms to a liberal bias and will not tolerate any other opinions or ideas? Jimmy0511 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources tell us on a subject. If you have sources backing up your position, please present them on the talk page of the article you wish to update so they can be reviewed. --McSly (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to post facts. I'm saying that there is no evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic, nor is there evidence stating that people who identify as homosexual are born that way. Those are simply theories that have yet to be proven, but are accepted, in some circles, as popular opinion. They are, nonetheless, opinion.

My point is, Wikipedia allows that type of opinion in an article, even stating that it is widely accepted. It is also widely accepted that being homosexual is a choice, that it is a sickness, that it is wrong. Those are all accepted opinions, but it seems as though Wikipedia is asserting that the only correct opinion is that they have no choice.Jimmy0511 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Jimmy0511

Your revert on James Randi
Hi, I am getting in touch with you about this revert. I believe that the material I am trying to add to the James Randi article is relevant, so I have explained my reasons here. If you still think that the material is not relevant, would you mind explaining there why you think so? Thanks in advance! --a3nm (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits concerning facts on James Randi page. Information provided was neutral and factual. They are also notable. Information was sourced by multiple independent and verifiable source, including Mr. Randi himself. If there is additional information that was not noted or there are additional sources please provide or add in your own edit. I would look forward to seeing them. Thank you.

‪Heckler & Koch USP
The reference I provided for Canada and the Canadian Special Forces Regiment being a user of the Heckler & Koch USP is a reliable source. The reference is from the official flicker page of United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) which is responsible for the operations of all United States military personnel in Africa. The picture on their flicker account that I linked my reference to shows a member of the Canadian Special Forces Regiment participating in an exercise with soldiers of the Niger Army. The picture was taken by Spc. Timothy Clegg of the U.S. Army. The description given for the picture reads, "Canadian Special Operations Regiment instructors teach soldiers from the Niger Army how to properly search a detainee in Agadez, Niger, Feb. 24, 2014. The training is a block of instruction during the Flintlock exercise to build partnership and the capabilities of partner African nations." I believe that it is fare to assume that the man in the photo with the Canadian flag on his shoulder, and who is wearing a Canadian Army uniform is one of the "Canadian Special Operations Regiment instructors" mentioned in the description of the photo. When looking at the photo zoomed in you can see the grip of a handgun sticking out of the Canadian instructor's pocket. When looking closely at the grip of the handgun you can see that it has the letters "USP" written on the grip. To the best of my knowledge that is no other handgun in the world that has the letters "USP" written on the grip other than the Heckler & Koch USP. The fact that the Canadian instructor has the handgun in his pocket would suggest that he is using the handgun for personal protection, which would also imply that this handgun must be his issued hand gun as Canadian Forces personal are not allowed to carry personal weapons when on excursive or deployment. The Heckler & Koch USP is not the standard handgun of the Canadian Armed Forces but Canadian special forces such as Joint Task Force 2 and the Canadian Special Forces Regiment are known to carry non-stranded weapons that other Canadian personal are not armed with. In conclusion the picture clearly shows a member of the Canadian Special Forces Regiment armed with an issued Heckler & Koch USP on deployment in Niger. (KickerTom (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC))
 * hello this is not a reliable source at all. You cannot take a random picture from flikr, do you own wild speculations such as "no other handgun in the world that has the letters "USP" written on the grip" or "would suggest that he is using the handgun for personal protection" and then use that to declare the Canadian forces are armed with that gun. It's  original research and it is not allowed on wikipedia. You need a reliable source that specifically states that that material has been procured. If you used the same logic on other articles, please remove the information there as well or find better sources to support your changes. --McSly (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS used by Somalia
The reference I provided for Somalia using the FAMAS assault rifle was to a photo on flicker of Somalian soldiers seen holding FAMAS rifles. There is 4 Somalian soldiers that can be seen in the photo holding FAMAS rifles. The rifles are FAMAS rifles because they are bullpup rifles that match the profile of the FAMAS. They have bayonets mounted above the barrel, a foldable integrated bi-pod, and large carry handle. These are all visible features indicative to the FAMAS rifle. The description of the photo is, "Members of the Eastern Africa Standby Brigade from Somalia parade during the closing ceremony of the Field Training Service (FTS) in exercise Amani Carana in the Arta region of Djibouti, December 4, 2009. The Eastern Africa Standby Brigade is holding the exercise involving 1,500 troops - from Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sudan, Burundi, Comoros, Seychelles and Somalia. The aim is to build a proper African peacekeeping force which will be able to respond to wars or crisis throughout the continent and have the backing of major Western powers, as this is their first big exercise." The photo was taken by Reuters News photographer Thomas Mukoya. The description says that the soldiers in the picture are Somalian, and in the background of the photo there is a Somalian flag being flown. In conclusion the picture shows soldiers of the Somalian Army armed with FAMAS rifles. (KickerTom (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Same answer as above, please don't do any orginal research, use sources that specifically state the claim. --McSly (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Bias in Paranormal Articles
If anything is biased, it is the absolutely relentless use of weasel-phrases, outright insults, allegations of "fraud" and one-sided quoting of people like Randi, Nickell, etc., in these articles. Wakebrew (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources tell us on a subject. If you have sources backing up your position, please present them on the talk page of the article you wish to update so they can be reviewed. --McSly (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

POV
I removed a POV only to be treated as vandal. It is POV whether it is denial or not. 72.209.196.146 (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . You were not treating as a vandal even when you made the change without explanation. You just received the instructions to how to handle changes on Wikipedia. --McSly (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not you but user PaleoNeonate. Even going far as to restore old warnings from my talkpage. He even has reported me to ADIV. But I just wish to know why my reason of POV was rejected. 72.209.196.146 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read previous discussions on the subject on the talk page of the article: see here. --McSly (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And then there is the problem of how your edit history strongly, if not blatantly suggests a primary purpose and motivation of vandalism, too. I mean, don't presume no one is stupid enough to see the brief edit war you had at Talk:Elephant to preserve your profoundly inane and spurious edit request there.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

NVIC
I see you reverted my recent changes to NVIC, first off the extra paragraph I added to mission statement was a accident, I meant to hit preview not save, so I hadn't added the citation yet(it came from the mission statement on NVIC's site), so it's fine you removed it. But is it not considered appropriate to include the entire mission statement in an article about an organization if properly cited? I meant to have it in quotes. Also yes, the quote I deleted was properly sourced, but it already appears in criticism, so I didn't think it was helpful to have the same quote twice. While not false, I deleted the phrase anti-vaccine from the first sentence because as far as I can tell they claim not to be and have never stated total opposition to the concept of vaccination, and I think NVIC's anti-vaccine tendencies are clear from the rest of the article, it just seemed slightly POV to use this phrase in the first sentence.

After you reverted my changes I again deleted Specter's quote assuming you did not realize it was already in another part the article, if you want to put this back I won't revert you again without discussing first as I don't want to start an edit war. I have not reverted any other part of your reversion. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

== F/A 18 ... PICTURE IS NOT A REFERENCE??? I worked there. CEO, AIR FORCE AND NAVY REPS GAVE A TALK THANKING MDC FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO GULF WAR. I WAS ON THE F18 PROJECT and more specifically, mostly on the E/F. ==

THis is BS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte (talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . Please read this policy. It will help you check if the source is reliable or not. --McSly (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
It is irresponsible editing that sadly forced me to unknowingly resort to edit warring. Reporting me, however, does not change the fact that you didn't bother siding any solid argument to prove your point, or reaching out to me so that we can find common ground. In other words, you have your fair share of fault in this, just as I do. Do visit my talk page so we can reach a consensus based on evidence, for I intend to act one way or another. Chris Liak (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . What do you mean "unknowingly"? Was your account hijacked? A valid reason was given for the revert . Per WP:BRD, it is your responsibility to start a discussion on the talk page of the article. I see that a third editor has now reverted your change so your next step is for you to open that discussion. --McSly (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Su-30MKI's radar cross section
Hello Sir, you have reverted my edit, before reverting you should have read the reference link. There is no mention of Sukhoi-30MKI's radar cross section. It is a invaild link. So, i removed it.Sir, If you have any good sources about RCS of MKI, you can add it. Uttam mahatta (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . I did read the reference linked in the article. Here it is again . That link clearly states that "According to a defence ministry official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metre as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”" and that "[That means that while a Su-30MKI would be as visible to enemy radar as a metal object 5 metres X 4 metres in dimension, the FGFA’s radar signature would be just 1/40th of that.]"
 * So I'm not sure I understand you when you say "There is no mention of Sukhoi-30MKI's radar cross section". As far as I can see, that 20 square meter RCS is actually mentioned twice in the source.
 * I'm going to re-add the text since the statement is actually sourced. If you disagree, you need to discuss the change on the talk page of the article here. Do not remove the text again before you have gain WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry! Actually the reference link i opened was not fully accessible but from your link i get access to the full page. I will not remove any word without your permission. By the way what do you think?why would a top government official declassify its front line fighter's rcs? Ajay Shukla did not quoted the defence official name! That's a unnamed source!Even India did not allow its pilot to use the BARS radar in joint exercises to protect its classified information! Don't you think sir,a highly declassified information needs multiple reference links. Sir,Thank you fror your response, have a good day. Uttam mahatta (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

f-16
i am waiting for your explanation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.57.80 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, the explanation was already done on the talk page of the article here. --McSly (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

By my count 3 of the 4 participants in that discussion suggested it was good to have actual prices and costs on wiki, not deleted. Did you read it all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceGroves (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Energy Medicine
Hi, McSly,

Thank you very much for your note!

I appreciate your desire to maintain a neutral point of view. I feel the same way. That is why I changed the text.

The study published in Dose–Response, under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, indicated that energy medicine indeed stood the test of the scientific method, so was therefore not “a pseudoscientific belief.”

You can read the study here: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1559325818782843

Granted, it is just one study. But it is peer-reviewed. And ignoring it, to me, shows a bias against peer-reviewed research that provides empirical evidence that energy medicine produced “reproducible biologic changes.”

Gerry Harrington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryharrington (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . You should use the talk page of the article here so other editors can also give their opinion. Short answer here, just one primary study done in a Petri dish is not going to overturn the pseudo scientific label. Just to even be mentioned in the article, we would need high quality secondary sources see WP:MEDRS. --McSly (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Electromagentic Hypersensitivity
Hello McSly, I appreciate a welcome, although not new to editing Wikipedia. I have a doctorate in genetics, masters cell biology/parasitology, 40-year employment in biotech as researcher, professor, director, patent agent; last 25 years in legal departments; many peer-reviewed publications. The page in question regarding pseudoscience was biased and negative, and is questionable in the antiquated resource materials and grammatical descriptions. The few changes I made toned it down, but it should be considered for discard. It's an area of science under scrutiny (surely you don't expect I'd cite chapter and verse of 184K refs), and my opinion is that Wikipedia shouldn't promote outdated opinion in the face of new evidence. If one considers whether electromagnetic hypersensitivity should include those who are more sensitive than others to getting sunburned, or can't tolerate loud noise, or develop cancer faster because of gamma rays, then surely the condition exists. I hope your next move will be either to restore the few improvements and to seek a dedicated, discerning expert-- or to remove the page entirely. As a scientist, I found the page offensive and dismissive.

Sincerely (and with thanks for your attention and work), Atkinsok Atkinsok (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . For information, I am not the one you reverted your changes. I just left the message on your talk page to tell you why they were. In our case, the procedure (WP:BRD) is for you to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article and try to gain consensus. A new section has actually already been open here. --McSly (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Charles Jaco
Hello, I received a message stating that my citations were not reputable. I can understand if Zero Hedge is not an acceptable reference but the footage its self is abundantly reputable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Jaco&action=history

2604:6000:130A:1C97:34A1:2081:D9D4:92E5 (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You consider a random youtube video with no context reliable? I certainly hope that you are joking. This is as unreliable as you can possibly get. Please read WP:RS. Also, please take a look at the talk page of the article here where that video has been brought up a few times in the past. --McSly (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I see now, there is a special talk in the ministry of truth about this. That is in fact Charles Jaco on a set. What if I cite it as "charles jaco practicing how to report a war" with the source video?

2604:6000:130A:1C97:34A1:2081:D9D4:92E5 (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Because, as previously mentioned, the source is not reliable. So it cannot be used for anything. --McSly (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity edit
Hello, you asked to clarify about why the science on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity was controversial. Even among the listed articles there's no solid consensus, but I also just don't have any experience adding to the sources. I intended to add this medical study earlier: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109 but I believe I may have done it incorrectly, as someone removed it. I personally don't think EHS is more than placebo, but it seems too dogmatic to deny that there is at least some support for it in the scientific community. Jamesbilten (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Please see the reply on the talk page of the article here.--McSly (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

BAE Systems Headquarters - warning
Hi, I think its ridiculous that I'm being warned when I am stating facts that BAE Systems is based in London and not Farnborough. I even stated sources, yet two users are using a dead link from a local newspaper article from 2013 to argue that it has dual headquarters. Please check these sources:

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/company-information - company website https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01470151 - UK Government register of all registered companies https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary/GB0002634946GBGBXSET1.html - The London Stock Exchange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryskies (talk • contribs)
 * Hello . I did not look at the specific change. I was just reminding you that edit warring is counter productive. You have opened a new discussion on the talk page of the article, this is the correct next step. I'm sure the other editors will comment there and that you will find a solution that satisfies everyone. --McSly (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory
I extended the discussion about the use of "Fringe Theory" on the Christ_myth_theory talk page, as you asked, and I encourage you to join the discussion. Thanks and best wishes. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding reference for event sourcing description
Regarding your message re 'conflict of interest' -

Hi, and thank you for helping wikipedia stay focused and independent. It's an interesting point re conflict of interest, and I hadn't thought how this would come across. As it happens I don't have a conflict of interest in this area (although the link goes to a talk I gave, it's public domain - I don't get any kickback from it, nor does it benefit any organisation associated to me). The reason I linked to the talk is because it's the only one I can find that covers the principles of event sourcing - there are others that touch on these principles, but they don't include the full set but rather dig into one or two - believe me I tried, but in the end I made this talk so that the info would at least be in one place. I suspect what I should do next is extract the details into a wikipedia page, so that others can edit, and link to that instead - then there would be no conflict of interest and I hope it might be a more ideal solution. Would you agree? However, I just haven't had time to do this yet, so thought a link to the source would be helpful as an interim. BenBeattieHood (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . No worries. For information, I don't doubt your good faith in editing that article. It is just that adding your own video as a source to the article is a somewhat problematic and is a little bit of a conflict of interest (the fact that you are not receiving any benefit from it is not really relevant.) As a side note, youtube videos are usually not great sources. Secondary sources on the subject are preferred. --McSly (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

All articles on alternative medicine are skewed
I cannot even believe in a place where information is supposed to be neutral that every single article on alternative medicine methods quotes quack watch as it's source. When I tried to remove this and stated a neutral notification instead of an inflammatory one, my change was immediately removed and called not neutral. This is insane. Who owns this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya789 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . No one owns the articles. However, the article content needs to follow what reliable sources say on the subject. Our own personal opinion on what the article should say is not really relevant. If you disagree with the current version of an article, this is obviously perfectly fine. In that case, you can open a new discussion on the talk page of the article (for example here for Alternative medicine) and propose a specific change to the article. To help with the process, that proposal should follow a template such as "I'd like to change X with Y" or "I'd like to add X between Y and Z" with the source(s) used to backup that change. --McSly (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

So writers are allowed to use any source and call it reliable? These are clearly slanted and take a point of view, they are in no way neutral. I'm not trying to say right or wrong, this is supposed to be educational and these are clearly not, they don't even explain the methods properly. I don't have time to debate every change, I need you to look them over and see how slanted they are and let's write new pages that are neutral. I'll take the time to do this if I know it will be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya789 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, these are clearly written by someone related to quack watch, this company has spent years trying to negate every study and situation in alternative medicine in the US and is linked to big Pharma, they have money in the game here. This is NOT a reliable or neutral source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya789 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, Wikipedia has a clear bias towards mainstream science. Please read WP:FRINGE to see how this is addressed. I already gave you the instructions to suggest changes to articles. If you think that a source such as QuackWatch is not reliable, you can raise the issue on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Be prepared to provide reliable, independent sources to back up whatever claims you will make there. --McSly (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

How is this NEUTRAL?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya789 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see reply above. --McSly (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

HERBALISM PAGE
Thank you for your comments on my edit on the Herbalism page. I believe that there has been some severe malicious editing of the introduction of the Herbalism page to suit the pharmaceutical industry agenda. I have indeed explained this position in my comments on my edit. Perhaps you are saying that my explanation is insufficient to be allowed to clean up the introduction. An introduction to an article should not be polluted with a biased argument. Alternative viewpoints against something should come lower down the page. People come to Wikipedia to find out what something is, not what it isn't and not that there are some people being paid as lobbyists to destroy something's reputation. And all the spurious information I have found on this page is highly offensive and highly wrong. The malicious quotes included links to Quackwatch. So we are being asked to believe that herbal medics are quacks or not as good as medics who use pharmaceutical drugs. Medical herbalism is a medical science. Practitioners train within hospitals to get their license to practice over many years. They use herbs that have been safety tested for dosage through clinical trials. They make referrals to mainstream medicine and avoid prescriptions that could interact with pharmaeutical drugs that the patient is already taking. They spend extended time with their patients to correctly diagnose the condition. They tend to get patients that modern medicine finds difficult to treat because of multiple interacting conditions and lifestyle issues. So to find attacks and Quackwatch links makes it clear what is going on here - pharma business attacking the opposition. I am speaking as a trained scientist with BSc Biochemistry and MSc Plant Genetic Engineering with 5 years editing international biomedical research journals. 95% of modern pharmaceutical drugs originated in plants. The reductionist approach of modern medicine to treating illness is to use a "magic bullet" pharmaceutical drug. The holistic approach of herbalists includes knowledge of the multiple active biochemical components of plant extracts and the synergy that these can have on treating different aspects of a medical condition. It should not be up to herbalists to have to oppose links to Quackwatch by providing alternative references to other sources. To prove a negative? Impossible if you know your scientific method. It should be up to editors to ensure that aggressive attacks are removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnp harrow (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . I'm not going to address your claim of "malicious editing" since you did not provide any evidence for it. Concerning your change here, most of the text removed was not sourced by Quackwatch, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it here and has nothing to do with proving a negative. As a side note, the intro paragraph of an article is the summary of the body of that article (see WP:LEDE), so you cannot really remove anything from the summary before changing the content of the article itself. If you still think that your change is correct, and this is perfectly fine of course; in that case, your next step is to open a new discussion on the talk page of the article here and explain why the change is needed. --McSly (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Avoid warning people if you have not read the issue you are warning someone about.
You recently warned me for edit warring despite not having bothered to read what was going on or the other warnings issued.

Two users had been tagging and reverting an article without reading the material and missed that a reference had already been posted. They both refused to read the material until after being asked more than 5 times to read it.

They were both warned for edit warring due to this.

Warning the person warning someone else shows that you did not even bother to read before you issued the warning.

In the future please at least try to read something before you warn users. It comes across as extremely unprofessional.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . You are mistaken. You are also the one who doesn't seem to understand the process. After your first edit was reverted, it was _YOUR_ responsibility to open a discussion on the talk page of the article (see WP:BRD). Instead you reverted again. I'm also noticing that so far, you have failed to participate to the discussion open by the editor that you are falsely accusing of edit warring. And that's not a very smart idea since you will have to participate to the discussion sooner or later if you want your change to stay.--McSly (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)