User talk:McSly

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

Creation Science and Intelligent Design listed under Pseudoscience[edit]

These two subjects cannot be listed under Pseudoscience for a number of reasons:

  • 1. Wiki editors are to remain neutral. Listing these two subjects under pseudoscience is biased in favor of evolution and atheism and biased against people of both religious and scientific backgrounds. The issue of the validity of intelligent design and creation science should be discussed within the pages of each of these topics instead of listing them under the pseudoscience heading to remain neutral.
  • 2. Wiki editors are to interact in a civil manner. It would also make sense that this would be extended to the relations between wiki editors and wiki readers. I feel it would be preferable to refrain from offending as many readers as possible. As I mentioned before, the issue of the topics' validity could beds cussed on the page itself to reduce offending readers who may accept the tenets of either subject.
  • 3. An alternative might be to list both evolutionar and creation science under the heading of pseudoscience as many people argue that evolution is a pseudoscience. Thus the list would remain neutral. - 3/20/13— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Since I haven't received a response, I'll assume that I being allowed change the page. - 3/23/13— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

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

Age of life on earth[edit]

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

Did you undo my edit of the Causes of Autism page? Why?[edit]

I put in one paragraph on the Maternal Antibody theory of autism, saying only maternal antibodies transferred to the fetus during pregnancy are suspected of causing somne cases of autism.

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

Autuism, Current Theories and Evidence.

What was wrong with the edit? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, please see WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP.--McSly (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Why are you removing my edits[edit]

I am trying to edit Causes of Autism.

I am using secondary sources which are allowed.

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

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


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

(talk page stalker) Accusing another user of meat/sock puppeting is a rather serious charge. Please review WP:AGF. Also, McSly might be interested in [1] if he or she has not seen it yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DBrodbeck - are you accusing me of accusing McSly? Please clarify., — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Instead of being insulting (and by the way still not answering the question of whether the two of you are one and the same or somehow affiiliated) can you place tell me how a BOOK on AUTISM published by a SCIENCE PUBLSIHING COMPANY is not a secondary source? Seriously, how does that Hi? I've got the chapter from that book, a review paper from 2012 and a review paper from a couple of years back? How do ANY of them fail as secondary sources? I can repost them here if you want. Can we please discuss actual editing of Wikipedia instead of whether I argued about the rules excessively in the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1) I don't respond to baseless, paranoid accusations 2) The proper policies have been pointed and explained to you dozen of times in the past few years. If you don't seem capable of understanding them while other editors manage to do it quite easily, that's your problem (we all have our limitations after all). 3) Since I have no reason to reward bad behavior, on this talk page, any comment from you not properly signed will be summarily deleted. --McSly (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent Energy Medicine edits[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page revert[edit]

I'll admit I wasn't entirely sure of the best way to handle "IP editor adds their entire comment as a section header", but a blank signature at the top of the section seemed clearer than making it look as if the responding editor had posted the whole thing. You disagree? --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I actually pressed the wrong button. I reverted myself. Sorry about that. --McSly (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages[edit]

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


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

Bbwn (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

BBC Page[edit]

I've reverted my original comments, as if you view the whole paragraph is un-refrenced (not just my edit), on the basis that the further page "Criticism of the BBC" lists in detail. This has already been discussed on the talk page and as such it's fair comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, your change doesn't seem to be supported by the source which is why I reverted it.--McSly (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain[edit]

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

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

Why do you insist on making an article MORE biased?[edit]

I have edited an article 3 times in the last day or so, because of people coming back and removing it. I have merely removed points that do not aide the article or are not fit for being in the article and should be limited to the talk page. The article is on "The Creation Museum" and should be about the location, not the belief. Sgt K Onyx (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the delay. Your change deleted some text that was properly cited, which is problematic. It also removed information such as "Scientific evidence supports the conclusions that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" which is factually correct. This is why I and other reverted your changes. If you think those changes should stay, you need to start a discussion on the talk page of the article to explain your reasoning and try to reach consensus. Since you are the one wanting that change, it is your responsibility to start the discussion (see WP:BRD). Keep in mind that trying to force the issue or edit war will get you nowhere.--McSly (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if I do it your way, nothing would ever get done, no offense. I wish to point out that the point of the article is to explain the location and what it stands for, putting the point against it in the controversy section. I have reviewed my changes, and have made some new ones that I believe adds more to the article than did before. To your "It also removed information such as "Scientific evidence supports the conclusions that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" which is factually correct.", the sentence is literally in direct conflict with the point of the location, and does not help people learn about the location, and I posit that it should be regulated to the talk page. Of most importance, having actually attended the location, I can say that they have compelling evidence for their side of the "argument" that still fit in with the "scientific method" of Hypothesis, Test, Conclude. (Quick stuff, not per article, look up Polonium Haloes, helium in zircon, red blood cells in T-rex bones. These all come from the museum and were quite compelling.) Sgt K Onyx (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, quick question. How's changing "Scientists" to "Secular scientists" and "Biologists" to "Secular biologists" reconciles with your statement that "[the article] should be about the location, not the belief"? In addition, as an other editor has also noted, hiding content change behind misleading edit summary like you did there has no chance whatsoever to go unnoticed, so you shouldn't try.--McSly (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That was a mistake left unchanged. I have remade my changes in a more unbaised way, if you think them too biased, please explain it to me.Sgt K Onyx (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) [2] I see no difference here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Misrepresentation of Sources[edit]

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

Typhoon edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eurofighter Typhoon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Will both you and User:Z07x10 please stop this unseemly edit war about which of the many contradictory sources on Typhhons maximum speed is the correct one - if you cannot find consensus, then go to dispute resolution, rather than edit war.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, thanks for the reminder. I'm sure we'll find a solution.--McSly (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Eurofighter Typhoon". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There is now an arbitration case (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, OK. --McSly (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Case request[edit]

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

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Eurofighter Typhoon". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 November 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


Hi, I am Anil and I want to know that those Ayurvedic books was not promotional, and you should read the Wikipedia guidelines It says "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, " . If you want to verify you can sure check the website and download those books and read them, then take any action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talkcontribs) 17:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:NeilN#Ayurveda. I've tried to help the editor but... --NeilN talk to me 20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semir Osmanagić and Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis[edit]

You might want to see [3]. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Gamification and Big Data[edit]

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