User talk:McSly/Archive 9

Revision on Veterinary Acupuncture
You undid my revision of a completely inaccurate page after a group effort of many hours and state the cited sources... Please explain which sources you believe are against "Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media." I listed scientific, peer-reviewed research. Is that what you call NEUTRAL point of view? The page is a mess and most cited sources are not neutral or even scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMiSSiL (talk • contribs) 04:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was actually not the one who reverted your change. is the one who did. I just sent you the message on your talk page to explain the reason it was reverted. To take a quick example of why your change was problematic, you switched the definition from "pseudoscientific" which was properly sourced to "scientific" without explanation. That type of change clearly needs to be discussed on the talk page before being enacted. --McSly (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sotuman
I gave him a Discretionary sanctions alert. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good Job, Doug. Thanks for helping to build the 'pedia, it sets a good example for people such as myself to follow. Sotuman (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

2016
Hi, I did not pick those people at random. I only added a few of them back so that Arthur can check them for me. Matt Campbell (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . Don't do that. This is getting disruptive. If wants to invest his time in what is clearly your responsibility, this is obviously his right, but that case use his talk page to propose the change. Do not pollute the article with random people if you have no idea if they should be included or not. This is just wasting everyone's time. And actually, what you should do is propose those additions on the talk page of the article with your reasoning on why they should be included. And lastly, could you please learn to sign your posts properly? Most editors learn to do it on their first day and yet you still seem incapable of doing it properly after 2 years on Wikipedia. --McSly (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I do sign my post's properly. And I will talk to him privately about next time, and I will speak to him about it privately from now on. Matt Campbell (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

bicarbonate in cancer treatment
I was editing the text while you reverted my revert. Be more patient. MedecinMadinina (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips
Where’s the consensus? not just me. Not even the courtesy of a talk entry. Highly concerning what is going on with this article. Undue weight to a singular point of view. Again struggling to find this consensus. Just wow...--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, First, new talk sections go at the bottom of the page. Second, about the sentence you added here, I may be wrong, but it looks to me that it's missing a few words, or some context maybe. Because right now, I don't think the sentence means what you think it should mean. About the consensus, I would say it's pretty clear that the POV tag is not needed and that if you continue to try to impose it, you will get blocked. But, of course, you are welcome to act as you see fit. --McSly (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Red Pill Documentary Trying to Edit the Wikipedia page
I got a message stating that I tried to edit something (The Red Pill Documentary page) with opinion rather than facts.

I tied to edit "Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes has given the documentary a 29% rating based on 7 critic reviews..." by adding and 92% audience score from 1,359 user ratings.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_red_pill_2016

That isn't an opinion. And it is important. Without adding this additional, accurate, sourced number, all one knows is that some critics didn't like it. The audience emphatically did.

Wikipedia needs to do a better job understanding the gulf that is growing between elite commercial, corporate critics and the audiences seeing these works. That's how we all stay better informed. Gorf7720 (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . Rotten Tomatoes reviews are user generated content. Because of that, those audience scores are not a reliable source and cannot be used in articles. See WP:USERGEN.--McSly (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Gorf7720 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Unfortunate. What I'm writing is that we cannot trust corporate critics either. They have agendas. "The Red Pill" documentary runs counter to our current corporate social-political agenda. A major point of this documentary is that male pain is ignored. These critics are writing, yes, ignore them. My concern is that Wikipedia in these instances, can be misleading its readers. Given your reasoning, I don't really know how to fix the issue.
 * Hello . Yes, Wikipedia follows the WP:MAINSTREAM view of the world. We may or may not like it, but it is by design and very unlikely to change. --McSly (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk page
I understand it might be hard for some people to take and it might be a mad subject, but I can't stress enough that what what I'm saying is complete fact. I'm only 21 and I've figured out exactly what most disability comes down to, simply through the life I've had to live, and I'm trying my best to expose it so it doesn't continue and people know just what goes on in this country. Over here in Britain there's been a lot of corruption and people of bad backgrounds getting jobs in the system unnoticed, and a lot of people in this country have been trying to expose it for decades, such as with the contaminated bloods for haemophiliacs, which included file destruction. If a woman with FAS has kids, that will be a kid born in the maze (FAS by proxy). Over the New Year 2000, there were tons of kids in the maze across England who went further into the maze for obvious reasons and also picked up the British Army maze. That's why they couldn't eat a lot of food, because their senses were basically frazzled and they couldn't express it. The police and other organisations across the world even tried convincing the NHS for YEARS, and they just wouldn't have any of it. They'd just label them awkward and send them back home with unfit parents. They knew exactly what half those kids would do when they were older, and if you work it out, a lot of the films and games coming out have a dark truth behind them. They make them to keep the kids born in the maze out of the maze. It starts with chicken. Chicken Run came out in 2000, Chicken Run 2 is due for 2020, and Red Dead 2 came out this year. What they've done is just wrong, and I hope I've explained it in a way that's easy to understand. This can't go on and people need to know, espespecially since the BA maze has gone around the world and they're trying to hide it. If people on here discuss this and have a think about what I'm saying, you just might be helping a lot of people not just in this country, but in others who are struggling to explain it. It all comes down most of the time to alcohol, the British Army, and leaving/putting your kids in the maze. Might be a mad subject, but I hope people here elaborate on this with an open mind, because this reveals EVERYTHING, and I'm doing my best to do what's right and let people know.84.92.241.155 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, please read WP:TALK and WP:FORUM to understand what the talk pages are for and how to use them. --McSly (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

NVIC
Now I see how Wikipedia pages can be vandalized. Someone changed the National Vaccine Information Page so that it was described only in a positive light. You then changed it back, which reveals the facts that they promote false propaganda. Thanks! Rqdiamond (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

STOP CONTRIBUTING TO CENSORSHIP & PROPAGANDA AT WIKIPEDIA
"As is by now well-known, Wikipedia presents itself as an online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, and whose entries anyone can edit. The idea is that people who are experts in their field will contribute articles, suitably augmented by others who are equally knowledgeable. This is a nice idea but in practice Wikipedia is unreliable, because anyone can edit articles, and in many cases the main aim of those editing articles is not to present the truth but rather a biassed interpretation. Wikipedia has no effective defense against this (especially since its privileged editors are among the worst offenders) and is thus unreliable. This flaw in Wikipedia manifests itself most often in articles dealing with history or contemporary events, in particular those relating to World War II and its aftermath, and to the events of September 11, 2001, and their consequences. There are people who are determined that certain facts should not receive publicity, and whenever an 'unapproved' fact appears on Wikipedia some editor will come along and remove it. In fact there seem to be teams of such trolls, perhaps paid to do their work of censorship and their presentation of particular interpretations of history which their masters want to be the public 'truth'. Although this falsification occurs mainly in connection with historical articles, there is no guarantee that it does not occur in non-historical articles also, such as those dealing with medicine, psychiatry, pharmacy and environmentalism...Because of this lack of defense against censorship and misrepresentation by determined bands of trolls, Wikipedia is not to be trusted. Anyone citing Wikipedia as an 'authority' simply reveals their own ignorance and naïvity." - Serendipity (website blacklisted/blocked by Wikipedia censors - go figure)

"I spent twelve months in Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that it is probably a reliable source of information about boring, routine, non-controversial topics. However, there are some existing editors who know all of the policies and use trickery to ensure that the only point of view that gets presented is their own, and anything else is deleted and the new contributors who put it there will be banned. The result is that the readers only see what is presented, and not what is deliberately missing, but they will get the false impression that they are seeing everything. I have reviewed the methods used by two of the editors here." - Posturewiter

"Wikipedia, in its purest optimal state, is sometimes a correct, accurate and reliable compendium of fact on arcane historical subjects such as the history of railroads; but as author Edwin Black discovered, the American-based Wikipedia can easily be degraded by individuals with hidden agendas and by outright intellectual frauds — without readers ever knowing. Were it not for the fact that the Google algorithm currently elevates Wikipedia to the highest stature in search visibility, the impact of this so-called "online encyclopedia" would be vastly less important. It would just be trite and fatuous. Without Google, Wikipedia would probably achieve only a fraction of its reach. But as it now stands, the rapid ascent of Wikipedia has helped contribute significantly to the dumbing down of world knowledge, especially knowledge of modern military history." -Stan Winer, www.truth-hertz.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniaprods (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * --McSly (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine
Why did you remove the section "Female Health and Medicine" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgammon (talk • contribs)
 * Hello . I reverted your edit because the text added was at least partially sourced with other wikipedia articles which is not allowed. See WP:CIRCULAR.--McSly (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Question
What does "revert whitewashing" mean? I'm an actual geoscientist/geologist who has had to extensively study climate change and read nearly every published paper on climate change. Why did you revert back to the definition of climate change denial that misrepresents what science is? Science denial is the denial of peer reviewed, published, and widely accepted studies, without having any sufficient evidence to prove the science is incorrect, period. It isn't a denial of some sort of consists or group topic. Stop giving the ones who do actually deny climate science more material they can point to to show how Wikipedia is biased. Cavercse (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC) cavercse
 * hello . I suppose you are referring to that change here. The version of the text I have reverted to is essentially a copy of the introduction of the article Climate change denial. If you think that the definition is incorrect, you can try to discuss it directly on the talk of the article on climate change denial here since that's where the text comes from. I should just mention that most sources talk about "scientific consensus" in that context and not "current peer reviewed scientific studies". On wikipedia, our job is just to report what the sources say on a given subject. --McSly (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

NAC-60 specs
Why are you using a deprecated specs template?--Petebutt (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For up to date layout and styles for aviation articles use Template:WPAVIATION creator--Petebutt (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for correcting my mistake. I did not realize there was new templates. I just use the Boeing 2707 article as a template. --McSly (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks
Its always nice to hear I'm not a complete loon. Alternativly if I really am a complete loon, that at least I'm in good company! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"non neutral changes"
You just made this false claim while undoing some edits I made. Your revert restored a copyright violation and several style errors. What exactly did you think neutrality had to do with anything? Sthatdc (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, If you think there is a copyright issue, we should fix it. So your next step is to present the source you claim has been plagiarized on the talk page of the article so we can evaluate if there is in fact a problem. --McSly (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you claimed "non-neutral changes" for no reason at all, knowing full well that the matter at hand had nothing to do with neutrality. Good to know. Sthatdc (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

2020s
Just received a message from you on 'edit war' - I did everything to be noted - I wrote like 5 comments in the talk section, and there is no one to argue there, just someone who reverts my changes... Are they also subject to ban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel.marchev (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello What do you mean "there is no one to argue there"? You re-added your change within 5 minutes of leaving a message on the talk page. Did you really think that was enough time? On top of that, the section where you added your comment Talk:2020s already had the reason why your change was incorrect. --McSly (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no way my change is incorrect - I can count to 10 even without being a professor in computer science, but this is not what our conversation here is about. What I am saying is that I correct something (an obvious mistake), or at least I propose a way to level both sides of a debate, but somebody reverts it back without even arguments. How so? Isn't that somebody supposed to at least see the arguments in the talk? Is this somebody somewhat priviledged to more tha 3 reverts (as it seems I have been treatened with ban)?Angel.marchev (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion on the content of the article needs to happen on its talk page here. Anyone edit warring can be blocked and noone should do more than 3 reverts/ The process that needs to be followed is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle So after your change was reverted, the next step is the discussion on the article's talk page. --McSly (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Regards
Dear User Mcfly I was wondering why did you reverted my edits. I read the source and couldn't find any the cited estimate in the source. If that is so anyone can write any number with dead links claiming that they are correct.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazoutti (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, the edit summary of the edit I reverted seemed to indicate that you couldn't find the source. Since a source is not necessarily available on the web, this is not really a good reason to remove the text. If the problem was with a dead link, the procedure to follow is indicated here. Lastly, if you have good reason to believe the values are wrong, you should clearly explain why on the article's talk page. --McSly (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

My Randi edit
My edit of Randi's page was backed by sources. Unless anyone can supply proof of any scientific credentials then my statement that Randi has no scientific credentials and for that reason isn't taken seriously by Parapsychologists is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AscentIntoOvermind (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello The reason for me reverted your changes is that you removed 3 paragraphs of properly sourced material with no explaination. You can see my comment here. --McSly (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed them as they created a misleading picture of Randi as a credible critic of the paranormal, which for reasons discussed in that Daily Grail article isn't the case and because most of them came from biased and ideological sources like the Skeptical Inquirer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AscentIntoOvermind (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great. But since people disagree with that change, the next step for you is to open a new discussion on the talk page of the article so you can explain why that text should be removed. See the BRD process. If you get consensus on the changes you propose, then you can re-add them to the article. --McSly (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, "The Daily Grail" is a blog by Greg Taylor that promotes conspiracies and pseudoscience, and so not a WP:RS for Wikipedia's purposes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

Naturopathy
Hello, I do understand your critique that my edit was not backed with sources. However, I think that this page lacks a great deal of information about what naturopathy is and only explains that it is quackery. I do not dispute this, but readers search up these topics to learn what they are and not just read redundant paragraphs about it being pseudoscience. Plus, some of the statements are not completely accurate. Saying that naturopathy has nothing based in science is exaggeration when practices like diet, exercise, and medicinal properties of herbs is in fact backed by science. AriaBlack (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . You are obviously welcome to improve the article if you think it is needed. But just as a reminder, Wikipedia is very openly edited from the mainstream point of view so any change not presenting that view is likely to be challenged (see WP:FRINGE). If you delete text that is sourced, you should most likely go on the talk page first to explain why you think that source is not valid, or the text is not correct. Lastly, specifically from your previous edits, you made changes to the introduction of the article. The intro serves as a summary of the body of the article (see WP:LEAD). So it is unlikely that you would want to change that part first. You should change the text in the body of the article first, then update the lead if needed. --McSly (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reiki changes
Hey,

I am new to editing Wikipedia and am not clear about what needs to happen to get my changes accepted. I'm guessing you reverted to the old page on Reiki because I hadn't discussed changes? How do I go about that?

Thanks Pamxz (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello I'm actually not the one who reverted your changes. It was user:MrBill3. You can see their revert here. The changes you made were quite substantial and some of them look problematic. As a quick example, the whole paragraph about "Anecdotal evidence" is completely unsourced. You should discuss the changes first on the talk page of the article here and gain WP:CONSENSUS. I would also recommend that you read the Wikipedia policies for sourcing medical information (WP:MEDRS) as well as WP:FRINGE. --McSly (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Bengal Informer (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoops
Whoops Bengal Informer (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Where are you from?
What is on your mind? Bengal Informer (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Goop Lab
Hi, Not sure if I am at the right spot here. Thank you, I got your message. However, since I watched all 6 episodes of the series, I was surprised to see that a lot on the wikipedia page is actually not neutral at all. There has been no mention of organizations such as MAPS which are featured in the series which help through research and science to overcome for example ptsd. In every episode there is depending on the topic either a health care professional or in the case of eg female pleasure a pioneer such as Betty Dodson. That is valuable information. If by any chance I posted this at the wrong spot, apologies upfront. Never used that feature before. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feasenshi (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . Well, your changes were not sourced. On Wikipedia, we need to back up changes we reliable sources. Also, you removed text without explanations. If you think the article is not neutral, you can propose changes on its talk page here. --McSly (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In what Logic should Osteopathic Medicine and Osteopathy not be separated in an article that talks about osteopathy?
I have distinguished between osteopathic medicine and osteopathy; DOs and osteopaths. Point out to me exactly where I went wrong. Which part was not neutral to you. People confuse osteopathy with osteopathic medicine. These two are not the same thing and need to be distinguished as such. Osteopathic medicine is an offshoot of osteopathy; it is, however, not osteopathy. Do you have anything personal against American osteopathic physicians and surgeons? MedStudentUSA 2/4/2020
 * Hello . Well, we already have 2 separate articles Osteopathic medicine and Osteopathy to distinguish between the 2 disciplines. And the distinction is noted from the very first sentence of the article: "Osteopathy, not to confuse with Osteopathic Medicine, which is the practice of traditional Western medicine and surgery keeping in mind of the original osteopathic principles." So, we both agree that they are not the same thing. And the intro of the article tries to tell them apart. Maybe that is not clear enough and there is a way to make it more obvious. --McSly (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That line you quoted was written by me. It was restored to "Osteopathy is a type of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of muscle tissue and bones" with the undo. If not anything, can I please edit the first line as "Osteopathy, not to confuse with Osteopathic Medicine, which is the practice of traditional Western medicine and surgery keeping in mind of the original osteopathic principles, THEN SAY is a type of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of muscle tissue and bones"? Only this line will be edited. I will hyperlink to the other article. Hopefully, that will maintain neutrality. MedStudentUSA 2/4/2020.
 * Hello again, first, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ). It looks like an other editor has also reverted your change to the intro. If you think, that change is needed (which is perfectly fine), you should open a discussion on the talk page of the article here. --McSly (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment at SPI report
Hi McSly, thanks for your comment over at SPI. Yeah, I chose to quit responding after the sob story came out. I was suspecting an LTA, thanks for pointing out the history there. Your advice is excellent, I probably should've stopped well before. Thanks again. Best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Reiki dispute resolution
Hi, I hope this is the right way to notify you that I have requested dispute resolution for the Reiki article, specifically regarding using the NIH definition for Reiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamxz (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, the instructions are listed on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Fourth bullet point on the instructions to create a new query. --McSly (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, == Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. 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 this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --

requesting an article to be written on another editor’s behalf?
Hi McSly,

I was wondering if you could help me out. How can a new editor (such as myself) request another, more senior editor to create an article on my behalf? Rukher (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, you can try to go to the Editor assistance Request page to help with the creation. Depending on the subject of the article, you may also try the portal page for the relevant wiki project. For example, if the article is about aviation, you can try your luck on the talk page of the WikiProject Aviation. There is however, no guarantee that anyone would be interested, or have the time to write the article. In case it is helpful, if the article you have in mind is Draft:International Aviation HQ, it is very, very clear that at this point, that organization is not notable enough to have its own article (see WP:NOTE). --McSly (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Type 26 Frigate
With reference to the projection of serious cutbacks in military expenditure, in context of the worlds population being a willing give up so much in order to protect the worlds medical profession from harm, the last thing the British government are prepared for, is to tell a population, who's self harm rate has gone through the roof; including harm to others; is that after "lock-down", we need to tighten our belts further and pay, a "60 per cent basic tax rate from zero", in order to pay for, a massive explosion of balance of payments negativity. Our budget in November is expected to be a brutal cut of the armed services. As a crude harmless guess on my behalf, the user seems to be highly knowledgeable with reference to military affairs, and probably is coming from the military dependent area of Seattle USA and Victoria, Canada and its ship building, commercial activities. Victoria, Canada, is the area where the main military ship design software program is produced, and i am aware of "Starbucks" and its HQ, financial involvement via their credit union. I only hope that the user is correct, and that there is no need to worry about cutbacks in any walk of life. The edit i will add was not intended to grate at anyone's interest, but to tell the home truth, it is doubtful that any military will have any money after this, let alone redeveloping the "yf-23" for the Japanese Air Force, as is often floated as a possibility. I am afraid that after this "Covid19" issue we are all going to have to get real, & that includes the worlds military's. Let me remind you, Israel has made the statement that as a result of "Covid19", it no longer considers Iran to be an immediate threat. I do think that rather makes the idea of continued military big tickets to be an issue, precursor to "Covid19" and not to post date it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.28.222 (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello IP, on Wikipedia, all statements need to be properly sourced. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. --McSly (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I wish all of the editors well on this platform and the sister newspaper platform; however; as one can see the instant one makes the point, "If we need to spend every tax dollar on medicine, and we have no enemies to fight", why in gods name, your articles don't reflect the stupidity of further military spending on big ticket items, is admittedly over my head. All i will say is notice please, the only news story breaking the medical cycle, is our RAF sending fighters to bomb Syria, because they are desperate to keep spending what we can not afford, as well as keeping pace with the feared enemy {one guy in a cave} and his abilities with a laptop. I will for a parting point add, we don't need millions of people working in cyber security to keep pace of a few fanatics in a cave, especially now the international community is one big happy family. Thank god; & that's my final statement.82.19.28.222 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

SLS Page - Ongoing Edit War
Hi McSly. I get the feeling you'd like to steer clear of this debate, but I'd greatly appreciate it if you could weigh-in at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The user in question is attempting to claim I am the only one to have objections to his changes, and that appears to have emboldened him to resume his disruptive editing practices on Space Launch System. Again, I know you'd probably like to stay clear of this nightmare, but your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 04:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:John Kamar
I've reported to WP:AIV, but I'm not sure if that's the place to report cases like this. Do you happen to know where cases like this should be reported? - ZLEA T\C 13:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I think ANI is probably a better choice. --McSly (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Nixon at Lincoln Memorial
As Wikipedia and you say - YouTube links are fine if they are objective, neutral and pertain to the subject article. So, again, what is not factual in that video taken from first hand sources and what is promotional about it? Nathanmcginty (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention this video also contains the first interview with the photographer who took the only pictures of the subject of the article. I guess that's promotional too? Nathanmcginty (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, the promotional part is that you seem to be adding links on multiple wikipedia articles from the same random, unknown, unaffiliated youtube channel. Do you have any connection with that channel? (See WP:COI). Some of these videos don't seem to have any indication of notability (one of them had like 40 views) and the Nixon at Lincolm Memorial video looks like a copyright violation from here. --McSly (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, Right, that's my channel - This is the President. From what I see in WP:COI, it pertains to users updating articles about themselves. This is not about me. I am a documentary filmmaker (and no, I didn't make that page) who happens to specialize in presidential historical videos. You know why that Nixon video looks like a copyright violation? Because I made it, licensed it to the Atlantic and now the licensing period is over. So I put it on my channel. Sure, one of my videos had 40 views, but there's another video with more than a million views and another with half a million. I see your point, but you could have addressed these edits in a more positive manner instead of just assuming that someone was coming in here (with a 10 year old Wikipedia Editor account, BTW) to put up promotional links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanmcginty (talk • contribs)
 * Well, linking to you own channel is definitely a conflict of interest. It is also against the wikipedia rule about advertising and self promotion. And since it looks like your only contributions so far this year were to add those links, as well as the ones from 2 years ago. And last year your attempt to create an article was declined because it was blatant advertising . On WP, it's always important to assume good faith, but the pattern is clear. --McSly (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Chiropractic
You deleted my edit that manipulation is effective for headaches and neck pain. I can provide more than 5 sources for each to back them up. But because you won't read it and just delete it anyway there's no point. Dezicnated (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . A few things about your edit. 1) it was completely unexplained. Please make sure to use the edit summary box so other editors understand what you are doing. 2) you made the same edit yesterday. At that time other editors reverted you and invited you to discuss it on the talk page of the article. Instead of doing it, you just reinserted the same change without any kind of explanation. I'm not sure what outcome you were expecting there. 3) in case of disagreement on a change, the correct way to proceed is to discuss it on the talk page of the article (see WP:BRD). There is nothing bad about having an edit reverted, this is part of the editing process. 4) the lead of the article acts as the summary of its body (see WP:LEAD), so changing large chucks of the lead without updating the body first is very unlikely to be correct as the lead would not summarize the article anymore. I hope that makes things clearer. --McSly (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you have the habit of removing fully referenced changes from this article. Please stop frey (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * frey Well, you should read the advice I gave, it's likely to be helpful for you as well. --McSly (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) I explained my edits. Various national agencies worldwide regulate and license the chiropractic profession. My edit provides several government websites as citations.


 * 2)I did not make any edit to the page yesterday. Only today.


 * 3) After my edit was removed with merely the comment "better before", I took my ideas to the talk page, where I explained in detail my justifications. My entire talk page comment was removed (including the additional citations and references).


 * 4) I did not change large chunks of the lede. In fact, I left the entire reference to pseudoscience intact. I merely included the new and important concept that the profession is licensed in multiple countries worldwide. Hiding this fact makes the article appear biased. Including it, enriches world knowledge and enables readers to further their own understanding of the benefits and dangers of various human occupations, some of which are regulated by governments. frey (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine
. The real Science behind this modality and not it's form, it is now what is being presented as a new modern mindset in science. The mindset is a inductive Geocentric science like Geology so about Human beings and the relationship with Nature, ecology phisical emotional and spiritual health. This is why it is now being taught as new integrative ecology in higher education institutions. Here in Melbourne Confucian classes and TCM are being taught at the University of Melbourne. This is why the WHO introduced this modality. Prevention ( Chinese Medicine) is better than the Cure (Occidental Medicine) as we have seen with the recent events. Even this is not explicit enough. Inductive= Chinese Medicine. Deductive = Occidental. We need to work on this page. As Chinese medicine is very broad and has influenced many cultures India, Greece and Rome for pulse blood pressure technology. Japanese medicine is based on Chinese Medicine as their information comes from Chinese text, as does their formative written language Kanji. This is just another example of another very refined cultural use of this model. The mindset is in Confucian, Taoist and Buddhism, Shinto and and and. Shenqijing (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . Not sure what this is all about, but if you want to make a change to the Traditional Chinese medicine article, the best way is to propose it on the talk page of that article here. Make your proposed change is specific. You should phrase it in the form of "I'd like to change X to Z" or "I'd like to insert X between Y and Z" and that it is backed up by reliable sources. Keep in mind, that without those sources, no change will be possible. Hope that helps. --McSly (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello I have cited the edit from a source that has already been used on the article. I have left many messages on the talk as you can see. The editors that are reverting the page have no history,one looks like a sock puppet and they all have time to revert my hard work my contribution to the Wikipedia article, but not add a thing to its main body or suggest something on the talk page. My citations are on talk they are credible and what I have added is factual. The first part of my edit was suggested on talk by another mediator as the solution. There has been other information taken out of the lead not by myself but another user. I will revert my edit now as I am the only edditor talking on this page for the last month with no reply untill I add value. Shenqijing (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect: Historical background
I am referring to addition to Dunning–Kruger effect that was reverted by you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect&oldid=prev&diff=983886497

Do not you think this historical background is relevant? If you think it is not, what about adding it to Illusory superiority or may be another article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wali omer (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, that wasn't me. It was was who removed your changes. A historical background may be relevant, but we have to be careful with sourcing and how to present it. We cannot simply pick historical examples of what we think are similar concepts, that would be original research which is not allowed. Instead, we would need secondary sources that have been published after the Dunning–Kruger studies and specifically point out that the concept may have been identified earlier. --McSly (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Feldenkrais Method
Bbachrac (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)What are your credentials for editing the Feldenkrais Method entry?


 * Hello . Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. Credentials in a specific field is not a requirement to edits articles in that field. --McSly (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Bbachrac (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)  @McSly, thanks for your note. How does one engage with the page stakeholders to form a consensus on major edits? By the way, Feldenkrais Method is a service marked term by the Guild which regulates the practitioners.


 * , FYI, editors usually sign their posts at the end, not the beginning:-) To discuss changes to an article you can use its talk page -> Talk:Feldenkrais Method. I suggest that you read previous discussions on the page. You should also make sure that you propose specific changes to help with the discussion and most importantly, you will need to provide sources. No change will happen if they are not backed up by reliable sources. Thanks for letting me know about the trade mark although I don't think that will be really relevant for the content of the article. --McSly (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I will prepare an edit with suitable sources during the week and seek to talk with ALEXBRN. As you can see with an internet search is, ALEXBRN is a known Wikipedia Vandal and Troll These are relevant links to the structure of the International Feldenkrais Federation. Other than being a student, I have no conflict of interest with respect to the Feldenkrais Method. The IFF is a federation of Feldenkrais Guilds and Associations https://feldenkrais-method.org/iff/member-organizations/ Feldenkrais Guild of North America https://www.feldenkraisguild.com/ The FELDENKRAIS Guild UK Feldenkrais Method® is the registered trademark of the Feldenkrais Guild UK Ltd, Reg No. 1563759. http://www.feldenkrais.co.uk/index.php Feldenkrais Method® https://feldenkrais.com/ (Bbachrac (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggest that you also read the policies on assuming good faith and no personal attacks. Oh, and you are completely wrong in your assement of user:Alexbrn. I also find it rather weird that when your changes were rightfully reverted (you did not provide any source to back them up), your first reaction was not to think that as a beginner, you may have made a mistake, but instead got background information on the other editor and then falsely accuse them of vandalism. --McSly (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "a known Wikipedia Vandal and Troll" eh? Well well, ones lives and learns. I believe the only places on the web where my Wikipedia account has come under attack, are well-established locales of the crank-o-sphere. I think such places are best avoided, to preserve sanity ... Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @McSly First of all, I have no conflict of interest with respect to the Feldenkrais Method article which I hope to improve in consultation with other editors. I am a 78 year old retired physicist who following quadruple by-pass and spinal stenosis surgery, have had to learn a lot about Physical Therapy and follow-on methods of rehabilitation and managing impairment. In order to minimize thrashing with editors concerning re-writing an article, I am hoping to discuss a proposal in a Sandbox Talk page to understand preliminary consensus. I understand that once published, the article will be subject to additional editorial scrutiny. If there is a better way, please suggest. When I have developed web pages, I usually use a staging area before publishing. This would be a similar technique. ( https://www.commonplaces.com/blog/web-development-what-is-staging/#:~:text=A%20staging%20environment%20is%20a,for%20the%20public%20to%20see.) I will no longer comment on Editors and I apologized to ALEXBRN. BY the way, I first used the Arpanet starting in 1974 at Xerox PARC and then transitioned to the Internet and then the Web. Bbachrac (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Bbachrac Trying to rewrite an article from scratch as you are just starting on Wikipedia would be hard enough. Picking an article that is both on a medical subject and on a fringe subject will add a good dose of difficulty on top of it. Frankly, you are welcome to try, but it will likely be a very frustrating experience. Wikipedia has set of rules related to medical articles (WP:MEDRS) and fringe articles (WP:FRINGE). Those take a while to fully master. Instead, I would suggest to forget about the Feldenkrais Method for a while, spend some time editing unrelated and uncontroversial articles and then come back when you have more experience. I would also suggest to make small changes at first, in the body of the article rather than the lead and take from there. --McSly (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good advice. I am really puzzled by how derogatory Wikipedia labels like "Fringe" ; "Quakery" or "Alternative Medicine" etc are cavalierly used to categorize subjects and suppress developing or improving article NPOV and how unchallenged deletions are allowed to maintain. There certainly seems to be a cohort of editors that game the system. In anycase, I also came to the conclusion that the best approach is to walk away from worrying about this article as well as continuing to providing support to the Wikimedia Foundation. As you probably know, only 2% of Wikipedia users donate. The Foundation is well endowed, so the programs will be fine. https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ Regards Bbachrac (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC).
 * They are not used in a "cavalier" way; rather, I follow the sources. Wikipedia has long been beset by people upset I suppress the Truth&trade; about (e.g.) alien abductions, about how 9/11 was an inside job, or about how squirting coffee up your bum cures cancer. Every proponent of a fringe theory has reasons why theirs should be accorded special treatment, while being unable to see that Wikipedia's policies apply equally and fairly across the board. The Feldenkrais article has had 424 editors, and most of it is written by a practitioner. What I've seen in the last few years is attempts to whitewash criticism and add unreliably-sourced advocacy. The matter can be taken to any dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, but this change is not going to happen, because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are designed to stop it.


 * @buttinsky Thanks for the suggestion to go to dispute resolution WP:DR Bbachrac (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC).
 * One of the interesting things about the web at the moment, is that while some mainstream news and social media sites are only just waking up to the need to present misinformation as such (e.g. Trump's tweets), in Wikipedia the need to be up-front about the fringe nature of fringe things has been long baked-in. Google even uses Wikipedia articles as a corrective label to fake content in Youtube. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @ALEXBRN Common use of Fake or Fringe as label in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory) is to deride or suppress minority views or ideas. When they emerged, quantum mechanics, continental drift, horizontal gene transfer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer), Neuroplasticity, (http://www.hubermanlab.com/), (https://www.normandoidge.com/) etc were considered fringe. Bbachrac (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC). Bbachrac (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, always the Galileo Gambit. If Wikipedia had existed at the time yes, it would have labeled fringe theories as fringe. It is not our job to be right, but to summarize the accepted, mainstream view of things as published in good sources. As you surely know, the conversion rate from fringe to mainstream is near zero. As Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since last I wrote, I have found that some of the references on the Article misrepresent what is in their citations and some of the links are broken. See in particular pages 65-72 of the 2015 Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance (https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20191107151136/https:/www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phi-natural-therapies). The 2015 Review doesn’t conclude negatively concerning Feldenkrais. It says based on limited systematic review of published studies, health outcomes in people with any clinical condition is uncertain and more research is needed. They have launched a 2019–20 Natural Therapies Review . "Since our last review in 2014–15, additional evidence on the clinical effectiveness of these therapies has been identified. This review will assess the clinical effectiveness of those therapies by looking at additional evidence since our last review. (https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/private-health-insurance/private-health-insurance-reforms/natural-therapies-review-2019-20. Clearly the current article needs to be improved.Bbachrac (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC))
 * If and when an updated review comes out, it will no doubt be a fine source. But WP:CRYSTAL applies until then. The cited source is represented faithfully, as has already been discussed at some length. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Proper Use of Talk Page
@McSly When I asked your advice on editing, I did not mean to drag into your User Talk Page a continuation of discussion that more properly belongs on the article talk page or my talk page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbachrac). I have created a copy of the section to date on an archive page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbachrac/Archive_2_McSly) and you can delete or archive if you want. I would ask ALEXBRN and others if they want to engage me to do it directly on their talk pages or mine. Bbachrac (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Bbachrac, the best place to discuss is the talk page of the article. The discussion should be based on a specific change proposal that is backed up by sources. --McSly (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect changes
What are incorrect changes mate? AlexClwn (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello . You are changing the meaning of the text without providing sources to back up those changes. Per WP:BRD, you should discuss those changes on the article talk page and gain consensus before resuming your changes. --McSly (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Not all changes need references. Have created a new section on the talk page.AlexClwn (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The text needs to be supported by sources. If you change the text, you should either provide a new source, or explained why the previous text was not properly supported by the existing sources. --McSly (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Dassault Mirage 2000
This edit to Dassault Mirage 2000 was reverted by you. But it is backed by the cited source. However the other claim, for the shooting of a MiG-21, is not supported. The editor has since restored their edit which seems OK. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit removal
Thanks for removing that edit to 2013 I made (it's hard to explain), it was an experimental edit and I didn't mean to submit it. :P PlanetDeadwing (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello PlanetDeadwing, no worries. --McSly (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Topics characterised as pseudoscience
Hi, I have now added an explanation for my edits to the talk page of the article. Feel free to comment on it if you want. KtosKto64 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 revert
you beat me to it lol...was about to revert it myself. Thanks, though! InvadingInvader (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Shiatsu, "neither qi nor meridians exist"
As you know, claims on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. The source does not say that qi and meridians are nonexistent. They say that qi is unverifiable and meridians are not supported by evidence. We should also keep in mind that no claim in science is ever considered to have absolute certainty, only support or lack of support. I have updated the article to be more accurate to the source. MarshallKe (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added a new section to the talk page, since this seems to be bordering on an edit war with several parties involved. MarshallKe (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just checking. I've returned the page to the consensus version. Cant see any sign of an edit war though, just an edit by Marshall above, and my revert! -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 15:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Why can't we mention the 747 joke in popular culture?
A potential source is: https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=_5CmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT95&dq=what+sound+does+a+747+make+when+it+bounces&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaqp3x45b0AhU-zzgGHYbJCTgQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=what%20sound%20does%20a%20747%20make%20when%20it%20bounces&f=false or https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=2UVcDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT123&dq=what+sound+does+a+747+make+when+it+bounces&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaqp3x45b0AhU-zzgGHYbJCTgQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=what%20sound%20does%20a%20747%20make%20when%20it%20bounces&f=false 219.78.82.2 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Eagle
The F-15E Strike Eagle is also listed there but has its own article. If it's sourced (which it was) and there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page, then don't revert it. GansMans (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello GansMans. I was going to tell you about the WP:BRD process that needs to be followed. But then, I noticed that after barely 30 edits, you have already been blocked once for edit warring. So it's not that you didn't know, it's that you are continuing to ignore the rules. Anyway, the discussion is open on the talk page of the article and so far you have receive no support for your change. I will just say that sometimes on Wikipedia, people disagree about article changes with the consensus not going the way we want. It happens, it's not the end of the world. The best way is just to accept it and move on. --McSly (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No support for my edit? Theres an entire discussion on that page asking for this edit to be put in. "Accept it and move on" is literally all I've been told anyway on pretty much any edit that's been made. I got wrongfully reported for edit warring (where my original edit was determined to be the correct one in the end but banned regardless) because someone with 130,000 edits doesn't dare let someone who doesn't spend 8 hours a day scanning Wikipedia change something. It's impossible to make an edit stick even with sources on Wikipedia and it didn't use to be that way. Wikipedia is not where anyone can edit anymore, it's where groups of no lifes, who think its their job to police Wikipedia, decide if they revert your edit even if it's factually correct because someone who actually doesn't spend 90% of their time on Wikipedia tries to pitch in a bit and help out. Even if you disagree, they'll just report you for edit warring because someone with 130,000 edits is invulnerable to discipline on here. It's disgusting and not the way it used to be. I've been quite literally followed by a user (who is middle aged, unmarried and works from home with 2 cats and does nothing but surf wiki reverting edits, but actually most of the time reverts genuine cited edits), but because there's a slight chance my edits are on his watch list, I'm threatened with a report for making "false claims" and will get banned for longer. You didn't even give a valid reason for reverting me either. In a dickish tone you said "iTs bEeN sTateD mUlTiPlE tImEs" as if that's good enough or as if that in anyway proves why I'm wrong. I'm probably done editing Wikipedia after this anyway, because this obviously has become some sort of weird cult-like groups who stick together and bury casual editors like myself.

Hope you have a fine day. GansMans (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

T-URF13
You wrote: "Don't re-add it until a consensus is reached". - Which kind of consensus do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C3:372D:2E01:C85:4F82:A865:2225 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello IP. The kind defined in that Wikipedia policy: WP:CONSENSUS. --McSly (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

F-35A V Tornado
Thanks, I had examined the image and compared the left-most aircraft against the Tornado, and got that identification wrong. They look remarkably similar in that profile.- Peter Ellis - Talk 05:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, no worries. --McSly (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

KF-21
Hi McSly, thanks for stepping in on the talk page. I had to unwatch the page to avoid the temptation to edit war, and I refrained from commenting on the talk page as I wouldn't have been very civil. I've learned the hard way that sometimes it's better if I step away. The last time I didn't back off when the editing got heated, a few weeks ago, I nearly got blocked! Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries. The secret is not get emotionally involved :-) --McSly (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Easier said than done, at least for me! BilCat (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry
My brother got on my account and used it to edit Alzadye (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course he did. --McSly (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't people realize that no one will ever believe that excuse, even if once in a comet's orbit it might actually be true? BilCat (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Your re-edit on the Wikipedia page for List of Active Aircraft in the Indian Air Force
Please don't revert the changes I made as I cross-referenced them with the Wikipedia page containing the 'List of equipment of the Indian Army'. Please revert the page back to my edit. Good day and cheers to constructive edits! Maitrey M. Telang (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Maitrey M. Telang, your so called "cross-reference" is not allowed as WP cannot be a source for itself. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. You should already have known that because the links to the WP documentation left on your talk page contain that information. ON top of that, the value that you entered (160) is wrong because from your own source it says it is for _both_ Chetak and Cheetah types, not only the Cheetah. In the future, please be more careful. --McSly (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with your first statement, I think you need to re-read my 'source' as it quite discernibly mentions that the value (160) is for HAL Cheetah, HAL Chetal and HAL Lancer. It also explicitly mentions a separate row for HAL Chetak. Therefore, please reconsider your second comment and please be more careful. Good day and cheers to constructive edits! Maitrey M. Telang (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have re-edited it accordingly. Maitrey M. Telang (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing the Feldenkrais Method Article
Hello McSly. Thank you for engaging about the need to improve the Feldenkrais Method Article and establish a Neutral Point of View consistent with Wikipedia policy. I will in the coming weeks be inviting editors to my Sandbox and related talk page for consideration and discussion of needed changes. User:Bbachrac/sandbox Since you are a very experienced editor, I hope you will contribute to either making the article NPOV or having it removed. In the mean time, please review this National Institute of Health article Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name? I would also value your opinion on Wikipedia Articles appropriating and redefining Service Marked terms and applying defamatory and pejorative terminology while ignoring reliable sources but claiming there are none. As early as 2015 there were peer reviewed review articles concerning the effectiveness of the teaching practice. Meanwhile Dr. David Gorski blog opinion comments are given prominence. The Feldenkrais MethodSM is complementary to Physical Therapy and many licensed Physical Therapist are Guild trained and incorporate the method into their proactive.

Thank you Bbachrac (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Bbachrac. Some remarks (in no particular order) from what you just wrote. Whether we like it or not, Gorski is usually considered a reliable source on the subject of alternative medicine. If you disagree, you can try to get an answer from the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you search the archive pages of that noticeboard, you will see that Gorski was discussed before usually with the result that he is reliable. If you have sources on the effectiveness of the practice, you are welcome to bring them. But I strongly suggest that you first read very carefully WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE to see if that source is acceptable. Also, don't be offended if a source that you think is acceptable turns out out not to be. It takes a while to truly comprehend and master those policies. Lastly the link you included here is not from the NIH, it is from the NCCIH, those are 2 different entities and the latter could be described (bluntly) to be pro quackery. So to go back to the subject of acceptable sources, it is very unlikely that a source coming from the NCCIHcould be found acceptable for the article. Hope that helps. --McSly (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note
 * "= About NCCIH =
 * The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) is the Federal Government’s lead agency for scientific research on complementary and integrative health approaches. We are 1 of the 27 Institutes, Centers, and Offices that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
 * The mission of NCCIH is to determine, through rigorous scientific investigation, the fundamental science, usefulness, and safety of complementary and integrative health approaches and their roles in improving health and health care.
 * NCCIH’s vision is that scientific evidence informs decision making by the public, health care professionals, and health policymakers regarding the integrated use of complementary health approaches in a whole person health framework."
 * More eventaully...Bbachrac (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of how they describe themselves. You didn't expect them to say: "We are a bunch of fake scientists wasting taxpayer money on nonsense studies", right? --McSly (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

History of video games
Hi. I saw that you reverted my edits on the history of video games article. I reinstated the edits due to reasons listed in the edit comment and on the talk page. WP:BRD only partially applies; I already re-added the content that was contested. Rosedaler (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Rosedaler, WP:BRD always apply. So, if you think that you are special and the rules don't apply to you, don't complaint when you are blocked. --McSly (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Read the page.
 * "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus."
 * "This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy" Rosedaler (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I've already followed most of the bold guidelines in my editing on the page. Rosedaler (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Masaru Emoto
Hi,i got a message from you that my edit was "less than neutral". The edit was basically a quote on quote of findings from a scientific journal which requires to be neutral. You can check it by clicking on the link I provided. What exactly is the problem with what the scientific journal wrote? Feasenshi (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello . Not sure what you mean as I did not send you any message regarding your Masaru Emoto changes. I did send you a message 2 years ago about your changes on the The Goop Lab article but nothing since. To see you is making changes on your talk page, you can take a look at its history and the history of the article itself if your changes are reverted . Let me know if you have any other question. --McSly (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your vandalism
If you have an actual reason to undo every single edit I made, then kindly go through them one by one, and explain for each one what it is you object to. I will be specifically interested in why you prefer ungrammatical nonsense to actual English. 86.139.109.185 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The revert is about you removing properly sourced (and correct) text about the technique being controversial not any grammar changes. I see that you have now being reported for edit warring. When you are back from your upcoming block, your change will have to be discuss on the talk page of the article as already explained. --McSly (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding article: Aster (missile family)
Hey there,

I think we have a disagreement whether the weight for the Aster 30 missile should be 430kg or 450kg.

AIUI, according to the source referenced: https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/aster-15-30/, towards the bottom of the page, the missile weight appears to be labelled as 430kg.

Could you kindly clarify your position for 450kg?

Thank you Freedomv20 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, This is kind of funny. I got the value from the same page as you. From the page https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/aster-15-30/ if you select the "Aster 15 & 30 Datasheet", you get that PDF document . Which lists the weight at 450kg. So, not completely sure how to deal with this now, since we have contradictory values coming from the same official page. If I were to take a guess, I would say that the missile may have had incremental upgrades and so the weight may have change between versions. Or maybe it's just a typo. --McSly (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Doing a quick Google search. Looks like the ground version ASTER-30-SAMP/T is also listed at 450kg : https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/aster-30-sampt/ . Not sure if there is a difference between the ground and navy version of the missile though. --McSly (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey McSly,
 * Ah yes, I clearly see your point now. It is indeed strange to see this contradiction but I fully agree with your thoughts here. Let's leave it as 450kg.
 * Thanks for your time on this.
 * Best, Freedomv20 (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Genesis Creation Narrative
How about let's restart discussion to include myth in the first section but call the narrative a narrative in the first sentence. While academically myth does not claim the story is false, in common parlance myth is lie. FortUser (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello FortUser, as I have indicated in my last response on the article's talk page, please read the FAQ. It covers your question and the reason why myth is correct here. --McSly (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Just for your interest/info
Hey I thought I’d just let you know that some edits you reverted recently (Special:Diff/1158912180) were the work of users under a sockpuppet investigation, and some of them have already been blocked. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/2021Porto Final. Fork99 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI: EWN
wp:EWN Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

About a user you welcomed recently
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that User:Joebiden1938 that you welcomed recently, their username doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s policies, but they have been blocked for other reasons. Please just report these usernames or to warn them to change their username, depending on how blatantly obvious they violate WP:Username. You can use Twinkle to do this. Fork99 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

July 26
I am requesting you to visit latest comment (D-30 gun) on Talk page of 'Indian army equipment' article. Dl ff (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Cyrano radar family article unsourced
Greetings, during my NPP patrol I seen your article Cyrano radar family is unsourced. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, this article could be moved into the draftspace as it has no sources. Please add some references to the article. Have a good day! &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   18:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello User:SunDawn. No worries. I'm working on that article as a translation from the french WP. The sources are there. I'll start adding them now to avoid any confusion. --McSly (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)