User talk:McSly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

MMR vaccine controversy[edit]

Is there anywhere that we can show that an Italian judge ruled that an mmr inoculation caused autism in a child? -penny4 guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny4 guy (talkcontribs) 03:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. you should direct your suggestions for changes to the talk page of the article here so it's easier for other people to weigh in. I would say though that you need reliable sources and that Mercola is really, really, really not reliable for anything. Also asserting in the article that a judge could decide a scientific question is laughable on its face.--McSly (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

February 15[edit]

Why this source on homeopathy is not right? --Pediainsight (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you read it? --McSly (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all right, but, what do you think about this source? Can I use it?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/11/world-homeopathy-awareness-week-homeopathic-preparations

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Airbus A320neo[edit]

I already cited a source for the Airbus A320neo not being a new aircraft. As I said, most everything published about it has implied that it's a new aircraft. It is not. Boeing is conducting a similar program with the 737MAX. They're not new airframes. They are new engines on old airframes. I'm going to continue to edit the article. If Wikipedia blocks me it will just confirm that Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. The Airbus A320neo article already reads like a commercial for the airplane and Airbus and should be rewritten entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talkcontribs) 16:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, as other editors have pointed out to you, your interpretation is incorrect. The Airbus A320 neo is not about upgrading already purchased airplanes, but a new upgraded version of the A320. As a matter of fact, this is what your own sources states so i hope that everything is clear now.--McSly (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy[edit]

Please, do not delete the content. This is a true quote, Yehudi Menuhin is famous, and Goodreads is a right source. --Pediainsight (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to restore the content. --Pediainsight (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the opinion of a violinist cannot possibly be relevant on a science article. The fact that you think that it is, is actually troubling. If you add it again, don't worry, someone else will remove it as for the same reason I just mentioned. --McSly (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This violinist opinion is part of the history of the homeopathy on 20th century. Famous people can show a point of view about homeopathy. On all the articles some famous people shows opinions about the themas --Pediainsight (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC) --Pediainsight (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My answer stays the same. --McSly (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My point of view is the same. --Pediainsight (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think Goodreads is a right source? --Pediainsight (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Goodreads is not the original source. You need to find it.
You could add to Yehudi Menuhin's article that he believed in homeopathy. That this would damage his reputation is unfortunate, but so be it. His statement is very inaccurate and shows he didn't have a clue. Also, we can't start adding every single believer's name to the homeopathy article. That type of information belongs in the individual's own article. We do have Category:Homeopaths (where he wouldn't belong), and we don't have Category:Fools who believe in homeopathy, and rightly so. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we must introduce also another category:, Category:People paid by pharmaceutical industry bye. --Pediainsight (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear me! What is astonishing is that I see the same sort of thing time after time. Perhaps it isn't astonishing at all, but sad. Ah well. I'm going to steal your page category too. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Creation science[edit]

Dear McSly, Yes, I certainly do disagree with your recent undo of my contributions. The page is entirely slanted against Creation Science. Using the word "attempt" to describe the efforts of creation scientists implies that they are not succeeding. "Seek" is a much more neutral word, and I don't see what anyone should object to it.

The page also says that professional scientists disagree with this view. I think the more neutral statement is that most disagree. As I showed, there are numerous scientists who in fact agree. How can the page be neutral without this fact being shown?

Please, I am going to revert the page back to include my edits. If you choose to revert them again, I think you should demonstrate why and how they are not objective.

Thank you, musoniki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musoniki (talkcontribs) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Shiatsu[edit]

Yes - people keep undoing the edits while I am editing. Please look at the Talk page there are lots of complaints about the biased nature of the article - including contributions from one of the people doing the undoing. I am trying to cite examples of acupressure / shiatsu (which is a type of acupressure) from international journals but can't because I can't complete the post. I have emailed about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talkcontribs) 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Eikoku:, the best way to resoilve the dispute is to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article and not try to force them as it will most likely fail. There is a new section that has been created here, you should join the discussion. --McSly (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

AAH page[edit]

Hello,

I'm glad to see that your other threads are anti mumbo jumbo things like Homeopathy and MMR vaccine being linked to autism. These have both been proved to be wrong by science. However, the issue on the AAH has not yet been settled, and my comments only highlighted that discussion on the topic has restarted again in recent times. Also, it is wrong to say that Westenhoffer was a Nazi. Do you think all people who believe in the AAH are Nazis? AAH is not eugenism. Please explain why you disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquapess (talkcontribs) 16:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)