User talk:McSly/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome...

Hello, McSly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Fnlayson 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

McSly

I think this is the page you told me about... I have added the links and references necessary to back up this edit. It now has multiple sources links and references, so don't scrub it again without scrubbing all the un-referenced info on the page. While I find it faltering that you would credit me with 'original thought' on reflective solar satellite designs, I must decline the honor of invention, as the concept was invented and tested back in 1987 by the Russians.

Thanks

okmjui2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okmjui2000 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mirage 2000

So what's your point with M2000 removal? In that flight almost all the characteristics of M.2000-5 were showed, so it's not simply an 'anectodal' history, it's an overwiev of M.2000-5. Not the same stuff. And BTW there is no reason to remove it even if it was 'anecdotal'.

Moreover, you removed also another two not properly anectodal parts: the fact that M.2000 has not the seat sloped enough to help to soustain G-acceleration like happens to F-16, the fact that M.2000 had a cronologic advantage over F-16 (the main market oppositor) with SARH missiles, and finally the fact that M.2000 export had Exocet capability just like M.5/F.1 had previously.

So i don't see any improvement with your 'anecdotal' remotions, also because you have also removed tecnical characteristics that should be marked. Greetings. --Stefanomencarelli 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefano,

The reason I removed the bit about the seat was because there was no source and no actual information provided on the inclination of the seats. I'd like to add that it would be surprising that Dassault would design an airplane capable of sustaining 9g in combat but then not anticipate the effects on the pilots.

I guess we can reinsert the part about the exocet missile. The reason I removed it was because the AM39 is the standard anti-ship missile of the French army, it seemed obvious to me that any French attack aircraft would you it so there was no need to go into too much details.

And finally I moved the description of the flight to the talk page specifically because it contains some interesting information that we can use in the article. My problem with the paragraph was really about the formatting not the actual information. I'm planning to re-insert some of it in the article. --McSly 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aero Gazette

Why do you consider Aero Gazette, a spam link in aircraft and aviation page? Aero Gazette, gazette.aero is a fast growing news service about aircraft and aviation (free of charge) with more than 5.000 unique visitors per month, edited by pilots for pilots and finally the domain .aero is reserved to aviation entities. Please undo your deletion or add a news section with Aero Gazette.

Hello Aeronews, I apologize for my spam remark, sometimes I'm getting a little heavy handed. That being said, I went on the gazette.aero website, I selected Search www.aerogazette.com of course the other option is just Google, and did a few searches. Here are the results:

Airplane - 9 results, all of them are press releases wildly available on the net.
A380 - 8 results, all of them are press releases wildly available on the net.
Dassault Rafale - no result.

So I'm sorry to be blunt, but that site is completely useless to find any information. Furthermore, you can look at the wikipedia policy on external links and specifically on links that should be avoided. You'll see that the items 10, 11 and 12 are relevant to your site.

I removed the link from the Aircraft article and will continue to do so as the site linked doesn't provide any relevant information for the article.--McSly (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because Aero Gazette is mainly a general aviation website. If you search 'cessna' you obtain 129 results, 'aircraft' 364 results However you say Aero Gazette is spam and that is not true, you consider Aero Gazette useless and this is very questionable.

Moreover, Aero Gazette is the only (try with google) aviation site with a link to Wikiversity School of Aviation, probably more important then a list of aircraft.

Hello again. I have only one argument here, just one, Wikipedia is not a directory of links. The only thing to answer is if the sites you are linking should be kept based on the external link policy. Here is a direct quote from that policy:

Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.

Based on that quote, my opinion is that your sites are not providing anything that dozen if not hundred of other aggregators and blogs are already providing and as such do not add any value to the original articles and should not be included. --McSly (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

you should delete the link to aircraft-info.net for the same reason

You are absolutely right. I just removed it from the article.--McSly (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

French Military nav boxes

Merci pour la clarification des discutions sur ma page. Cependant je trouve parfaitement injustié de supprimer une palette de navigation au seul motif qu'elle n'est pas jolie (POV). Pour les articles Aviation navale et French Army Light Aviation je trouve que c'est completement ridicule et pousser le vice du revert un peu trop loin. Toutefois je peut admettre que pour certain véhicules (NH90, Tigre...) la présence de la palette peut etre discutée mais pour d'autres vehicule (Leclerc, Rafale...) j'ai beaucoup plus de mal. Objectivement, les arguments du type la boite n'est pas jolie ou ne s'insert pas dans l'article ... sont franchement peu recevables. --Toubabmaster (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

World population

World population counter (world-population.net) is really a spam link? It's created solely for that purpose with no hidden agenda in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrelectro (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry mcsly, no imagining or prediction of figures were used in my addition to the population distribution article, the calculations were all made to existing and current population/land mass statistics. This was to prove a point about the skewed DISTRIBUTION of planets population!!!!--argonorgan (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jules Verne

Thank you for the clarification. I think it might be good idea to mention it at the page The_Eternal_Adam as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightofthought (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Always a pleasure! --McSly (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

JAS-39 Gripen

It has come to my attention that Wikipedia User McSly has prevented me from editing adding a possible future costumer of a JAS-39 Gripen, and changed my edits over and Over again. Just to let know: I'm not making up my facts, the news and the interest of colombia for this aircraft has been for months and I do have sources from Sweeden.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=760950

Also, it has come to my attention that a possible adquisition of Erieye AWACS from SAAB to the Colombian Air force is not listed in the website, despite being a fact its purchase. it can be found at www.fac.mil.co in the 2007-2010 adquisition plan.

I hope with this my edits are taken into count and not so lightly as they've been for the last couple of days.

Thank you

User: Amick_lindsey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amick lindsey (talk • contribs) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

McSly removed your edit once in the JAS 39 article because you did not provide a source for the information in accordance with Wikipedia polices. Refer to WP:CITE & WP:VERIFY for one relevant here. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the sources listed by User:Amick lindsey above. They don't say anything about Gripen, only Erieye is mentioned. The dn link (Dagens Nyheter) links to a blog where there is some speculation on whether Colombia wants to buy more than the Erieye, but blogs don't count as sources. LarRan (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you check this other source http://www.dagensmedia.se/mallar/dagensmedia_mall.asp?version=159360 becuase I don't find pleasant the comment from user:LarRan saying that I based my correction in hearsay. Colombia is interested in an 4.5 generation aircraft and JAS-39 is a possibility. All I added was Colombia as a possible future User. I'm from Brazil and I know we haven't bought any Gripens yet and we're just looking for a new aircraft just as colombia is. They're looking for a replacement for its fleet of Mirage's that will be retired in 2010. I'm not making this up, please researched with someone who speaks spanish and can confirm this. I don't know reliable this newspaper source is since I don't live in Sweeden, but this is definitaly the talk among Colombia and South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amick lindsey (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, nobody implied that you were making things up. We merely stated that the changes you made on the JAS 39 article did not have a source so there was no way to independently check the information. Keep in mind that it's one of the most important thing on Wikipedia. Since anybody can add or delete anything on the articles, being able to check the sources is what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia and not a collection of unfunded rumors. Now it looks that the last news article you provided mentions some possible negotiations. With this new information, I'm not opposed to add Columbia to the list of potential customers. If you want to re-do the addition, don't forget to add the link to the news article as a source or it will probably be deleted again. If you don't know how to include a source in the article, don't hesitate to drop me a message or go to the talk page of the JAS 39 article so you get some help.--McSly (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the clarification, I didn't know how add the sources and the comments since wikipedia can be a little complicated at times, so can you help me adding Colombia in the article and the sources as a future "POSSIBLE" user? User: Amick_lindsey

If you list the web link here, I can help you. Please paste the full address. LarRan (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work!

Hi! Just dropping by to say you did a great job with reverting vandalism to Hot dog today. Have a cookie for that

Chamal ^Talk ± has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Chamal ^Talk ± 03:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Hey, I noticed you're using Huggle. Do you like it? How easy was it to get used to? I'm trying to decide whether it's worth putting my mac aside and firing up my PC to run huggle. Your opinions/ experiences would be nice to know - the revision you made that I noticed was ridiculously fast. Cheers Pip (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pip, I've started using it just a few days ago and so far it's been great. I wasn't using any other tool like WikiGuard before so I can just compare it with "regular" editing. The tool is easy to understand and use and has a lot of cool features: you can revert and warn the user in one step, you can revert more than one edit at once again in just one step. Also a really neat feature is when you have reverted something from a user (or IP), any following edits by the same user will show up automatically on your screen so they can't escape :-).

With it, you really have the upper hand. Before it always felt like I was chasing the vandals always a few steps behind, well, not anymore. You should give it a try, it's real easy to setup. I hope that'll help.--McSly (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, you just beat me reverting Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Thanks for ruining my sense of accomplishment :P. Keep up the good work. Useight (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit

I feel that you should have tagged the page HPC_newsletter for speedy deletion, as it meets the criteria G7, because the user you reverted was the original creator, and by that user blanking his own page, he is requesting the page be deleted. --TylerPuetz (^talk/_contribs) 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you are right, I clicked a little too fast, not realizing the page was in a speedy deletion process. Sorry --McSly (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP YOUR GRAFFITI

You continually insist on doing this, this is in poor taste, do you do anything else? You should get a life..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nondasaz (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, may I ask what you are referring to ? --McSly (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you stop your graffiti altogether, then the problem will be thus averted the rest is simply semantics.Nondasaz (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, it seems that the only page page we both edited is the Slater & Gordon article. And on that page, I made only ONE edit, this one, which was clearly removing vandalism done by someone else. So it seems you are mistaking me for somebody else. Incidentally, looking at your edit history, it seems you have a rather aggressive way to handle edits that you don't like. I invite you to carefully read the editing policies on Wikipedia, particularly the one on civility and on ownership of articles before making any other changes. One last thing, the Slater & Gordon article reads like an advertisement, so I'm now going to do some editing on it. Don't worry, there won't be any vandalism or grafitti on my part, I'll just try to improve the article. --McSly (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention

Hi, please pay attention when reverting blankings, you reinserted libelous material here and here. Cenarium ^Talk 02:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User warnings

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Save Your Hands! Book

Please explain why you are deleting my references to this book both as an external link and further reading. The book is a widely respected 2nd edition on injury prevention and ergonomics. The ISBN is 978-0-9679549-1-2. I am an avid reader of wiki and know that this is a valuable resource. This edit is not a spamlink. Please correct your edits accordingly or advise why you will not. Thank you. Beth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowb (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Beth, I have no problem with you adding this book as a reference to an article (assuming it's relevant to the topic), however I had one specific problem with the way you did it and that's why I reverted your edits. You essentially just added a link to this website: www.saveyourhands.com at the end of the articles.

There are 2 problems with that, first that is not really a reference since you didn't add any content to the articles themselves, so what is the link referencing exactly ? The second problem is the link itself. It is a marketing link, the sole purpose of the page is to sell the book which is a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy on External link.

So to summarize, you can reference the articles with the book but be specific on what the reference is. Any link going to a page where you can buy the book (directly or indirectly) is not acceptable and will be removed. I hope this clarification helps. --McSly (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the welcome

Flyinhigh (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awesome job with the reverts tonight. Keep it up! Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please explain

I noticed that you have removed the "On November 20, 2007, Disturbed posted the music video through their official YouTube channel." at Land of Confusion. Go to Disturbed's offical website and click on the Youtube link. This will take you to Disturbed's offical YouTube channel. Click on show all and go to page 2 and click on the second video. Please explain how a posting a link to something the copyright holder themselves posted through a distribution channel of their choice is not a good idea.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC

Hello, ok, I admit I may have been a little too quick on the trigger here. But for my own defense the same edit was reverted twice before by a Bot and once after by an other user. I'm not a big fan of Youtube links on WP in general because of the obvious copyright issues, but if you are reasonably sure that this channel is in fact official and that nothing else is available as a source, then sure why not. --McSly (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Careful with those rollbacks!

You just replaced some vandalism. No harm done, of course, but try to be a little more careful. ^{What I do}Xenocide^{Talk to me} 03:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching it. I could have sworn I reverted the next edit and not that one. But anyway, thanks for checking.--McSly (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your carefullnes and reverts in the article Papyrus. Someone is irresponsable [1]. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why the rollback of a totally relevant external site?

You recently reverted my edit that introduces Space Elevator Engineering-Development wiki on the "External Links" section on the bottom of the Space Elevator page [2]. This link I added is to a specialist-wiki that has been instituted, and put in place by the active space-elevator engineering community (including Dr Brad Edwards who is quoted liberally in Wikipedia). It is totally about the space elevator, and elaborates on material that is only lightly addessed in Wikipedia, and develops it in depth from an engineering development standpoint. Please see where a link goes before concluding that it is spam!

Thanks Tetherman (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your help on 2012

I am new to this and I was struggling with the proper etiquette and you helped me tremendously, thanks! Knowheretorun (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

== Thanks again for you continued work on this article.Knowheretorun (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops.

Ack! --Rrburke^(talk) 03:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes I saw that. No worries. I reverted it but to make sure it doesn't happen again, I'm gonna ask you to run naked around your house 10 times. The brisk Canadian weather will ensure that you'll remember next time :-) --McSly (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

message for McSly

Please stop adding advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry no idea how drop message here

i ve edited wrong urls from my old domain to new one. bad job 4 people from u to chage my edit back. old ones urls doesnt exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.51.241 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Population Growth - Charts & Commentary

The whole of the recently added short section entitled "Population Growth - Charts & Commentary" that appears on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Population was removed by McSly (23:56, 27 January 2009) and the reasons given were: “poorly source, duplicate from population growth, and personal opinion”.

Taking these one at a time:

(1) “Poorly Source(d)”.
This is disputed because the primary source for the section (comprising two graphical charts with brief commentary on what they show) is the large table of data appearing immediately above it on the same page! That table of data is itself well sourced with numerous references and citations of leading and established authorities on the subject. Other than the data itself (which forms the bulk of this short section) several comments and observations were made to draw attention to the shape of the curves on the charts themselves and their wider significance in the context of the subject. Numerous reliable sources (such as the UN and the BBC) were quoted and identified. (Incidentally, a glance at the history of the page will give an indication of how much care and time was taken to produce the section – most of that time spent researching and checking the information presented).

(2) “Duplicate from population growth”.
This is disputed as the section was specifically added to graphically present data appearing on the World Population page (see (1) above) and so has direct relevance to that page. Clearly when subsequently commenting on the resulting graphs some overlap with the related article arises which is why a direct reference and link to it was made at the end of this short section (as well as to "Overpopulation" and to a lesser extent "Population Aging" also both cross-referenced). Without doubt there are currently a number of articles on Wikipedia relating to various aspects of Population and this does result to some extent in confusion. None the less it’s a big subject with many ramifications and so this isn’t perhaps therefore so surprising. There is scope to tie all of these articles more closely together by going through and more fully cross-referencing them (which was attempted in this modest example with the explicit cross-reference to Population Growth).

(3) “Personal opinion”.
In the personal opinion of this author McSly based removal of this important, well researched and painstakingly written new section on personal opinion! More seriously; it is hard to imagine that any intelligent person looking carefully at the two graphs contained within this section would not be struck by the extraordinary and spectacular population growth that has been occurring (and in general accelerating) for the last 200 years. The importance of including these two graphs cannot be over sated as it is extremely difficult to get such a clear understanding of the highly skewed pattern of growth merely from inspecting the preceding table of data. As explicitly set out in the section in lay terms (in the annotation on one of the graphs) this dramatic growth is unprecedented in the previous 1 – 2 million years of human history. It is NOT a personal opinion to state that the growth is “alarming” although when time permits perhaps a few references to should added to identify some of the most alarmed of the world’s leading experts and authorities struggling to deal with this phenomenon. It is NOT personal opinion to state that the growth is “apparently unstoppable” since in the last 200 years nothing has remotely come near to stopping it! It is NOT personal opinion to consider this extraordinary growth a major threat to mankind and the biosphere, no only do the facts speak for themselves anyway but many of them were also cited to reliable sources. It is NOT personal opinion to state that this is a “highly sensitive and difficult subject often rousing strong emotions for religious as well as political reasons” though again a good quality source was cited, in this case the BBC’s article on related ethical considerations though potentially hundreds are available to support the statement.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryz1 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Barry, Sorry for the delay. Two quick general points before I address your edits specifically. First, don't worry because some of your edits were reverted. This happens all the time. We are actually following the Be Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle which is how this often works on Wikipedia. Second, when the changes on a specific article are disputed, it is customary to put the discussion on the Talk Page of the article itself and not on the User making the change. This way we may get more input from other editors interested in the subject. But that's not a big deal.

Now onto your edits. I will not spend too much time on the text of the paragraph since it has been removed. I will just say that I stand by my characterization that the paragraph contained mostly duplicated information and was not written in a neutral tone. As an example, most if not all the internal links provided were already present in the other sections of the article. Furthermore, sentences such as this one: "As a consequence (of the above) Population Growth has become one of the greatest threats to the both mankind and the “biosphere” of the planet itself" and the commentary for this image are clear personal opinions.

Now for the 2 remaining graphs, well the problem is still there. Equivalent graphs are already present in the article in the following paragraph and this image specifically. Maybe we should change their size so we can see them more, but there is no reason to have the same things twice. So anyway, I'm going to remove the section again. I hope that my explanations are clear. --McSly (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi McSly, thanks for your response, which I do appreciate.

I found your comments helpful and interesting and certainly feel I’m a little closer to understanding, though not completely agreeing with, your reasoning.

By the way, please explain what you meant by “First, don't worry because some of your edits were reverted” since as far as I can see you have simply once again removed all of my work on this?

After spending several hours over several months browsing through various aspects of the “population” topic (as covered by the somewhat confusing medley of related Wikipedia articles including population, population growth, overpopulation, population aging, world population and so forth) I came to realise how hard it can be to get a clear picture. It’s a big subject with many ramifications (as I previously commented elsewhere) and perhaps it’s therefore not so surprising it’s become a bit disorganised and unstructured. I’m quite sure it would benefit from for some editorial (or perhaps administrative) support to try and tidy it up so in principle I generally welcome your input and intervention.

I’ve looked carefully at your critique of the “commentary” I’d previously devised and included, but then subsequently removed myself (after reinstating it following your initial reversal of my edits, if that makes sense and isn’t too confusing as a sentence?). Anyhow, I came to agree with you that the tone and style of that earlier “commentary” didn’t completely conform to Wiki standards. Even so I still firmly believe its actual meaning and factual accuracy was valid (just not expressed clearly enough or in an appropriately neutral tone).

Therefore I removed the “commentary” but still feel some or all of it could beneficially be reinstated (though perhaps moved to a different article, as you suggested, then cross-referenced via a footnote under the graphs) provided rewritten in a more appropriate tone and style. Obviously, as with any part of any article, there’s always room for further improvements such as additional sourcing and referencing. Even so I still feel what I’d previously posted was a good start and that you’d been a little harsh in your condemnation of it.

I did completely agree with you regarding the "descriptions" (if that was what you meant) that I'd added to the two charts, so these have been very greatly simplified and cleaned up in response.

So far then we are in agreement.

Where we seem to disagree is over the validity, value, relevance and importance of the two graphs themselves. It was only these graphs which I’d originally intended to add (and incidentally, though it may seem hard to believe, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time developing them – many hours spread over a couple of weeks). The “commentary” arose afterwards when I thought it might be helpful to describe them and elaborate with some contextual information (that as we have now agreed can wait or be added elsewhere).

You say that “equivalent graphs are already present in the article”, then point to the “Rate of Increase” section that follows. Firstly, whilst “World_population_(UN).svg” is interesting as it affords easy comparison between the RELATIVE sizes (ratios or percentages of total) of population by region for any particular year in the range 1950 to 2050 (obviously using projects) it gives a COMPLETELY FALSE IMPRESSION if you are interested in knowing how Population (including World Population and Population by region) has **changed** by year because it’s population SCALE is NON LINEAR. I’ve shown this graph to many people and virtually none of them (except a couple of statisticians) noticed that crucial fact! This is what first motivated me to create my own graphs from the same data that appears on the table above.

Of course I had noticed “Population_curve.svg” in the same section, however I hotly dispute your suggestion that it’s in any way “equivalent” to my TWO NEW GRAPHS READ TOGETHER. Population_curve.svg does have value and relevance where it is as it fits in with a set of three other related curves. However apart from the fact it is rather small and dull (and difficult for most people to notice) it does not include the breakdown of population by region (let alone in colour, or with any of the helpful annotation I included with my more detailed charts) to enable readers to see, for example, that the population of Europe has recently flattened off whilst that of Asia has shot up at the same time.

Having shown copies of both my two charts (including recent revisions) together the examples of the charts you cite as “equivalent” to several people and asked them to compare and comment the result was people quickly grasped the meaning of mine whilst not getting much from Population_curve.svg and completely misunderstanding World_population_(UN).svg due to the non-linear scale. Admittedly this was not a conclusive experiment, just a quick survey, however it was probably indicative of the general response.

Finally, and very importantly, the Population_Curve.svg is now OUT OF DATE as it only shows data to 2000 and a poulation of approx. 6.0 Billion whereas two charts show the curve heading past 6.7 billion at the present time.

I’ve uploaded my enhanced population chart for 10,000BC to the present time that now includes a close-up insert for 2000BC to 1750AD. Here therefore for comparative purposes are the four charts together (mine plus the two you suggest are “equivalent” and “duplicated” by them).

I'd like to reinstate my two charts but with the greatly simplified and pared-down bullet-point commentary I'd recently replaced the original with,
In other words....

Notes:
(a) "At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million": World Population Clock).
(a) Minimal population for many thousands of years.
(b) Steady growth began around 1000BC which then levelled off around the year 0.
(c) Approx 800 years of steady growth from around 1000AD onwards.
(d) Yet faster growth from around 1800AD.
(e) Dramatic growth since 1950 to the present day and forecast to continue (8.9 billion by 2050).

I'd very much welcome your further comments as soon as you have time.

Barryz1 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Included here for easier comparason...

My charts:

A graphical representation of data found in the above table entitled "Estimated world population at various dates (in billions)"

The other two charts:

J-10 and JF-17 article vandalism

Hi, have you tried getting IP addresses of people editing these articles without proper sources banned by the admins? Hj108 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, no I haven't. Although this seems to be the next logical step. The caveat here is that technically, these are not vandalism acts. I'm sure most of the edits are made in good faith. The problem is that the info is coming from rumors, blogs, unreliable sources, wishful thinking or just fanboyism in the case of the "comparable aircraft" section. I'm going to try and see what happens. --McSly (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Shit Compared to AutoRune

Please stop marking it for speedy deletion. I mentioned that it has a significantly high usage for RuneScape cheating.

Hello, there is a procedure to follow in this case. Just follow it. --McSly (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Population Density Chart

I noticed you changed the population figure for Japan on the Population Density chart. When changing an existing population statistic with another it is necessary to then calculate the new population density as well. New population divided by area country km2. I have already made the correction. TFBCT1 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello TFBCT1, I noticed your edit. Thanks for checking my changes.--McSly (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Raptor

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.--F-22 Raptor ^IV 00:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pawan Kalyan

Vandalism by 76.251.241.150 was made 'permanent' by User:Thehelpfulbot, so I've reverted to previous to that. HalfShadow 03:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I saw that. I was about to revert a little further but you got it faster :-) --McSly (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Our Mrs. Reynolds - Raft v Wagon

Discussion at Talk:Our_Mrs._Reynolds#Wagon_v_Raft about this. You were big an reverting the raft edits, so you probably want to have your say here. Zybthranger (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look there. --McSly (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Space elevator

I assume you've already well aware of the 3RR, but next time, do not just revert ad nauseum. Request protection at WP:RPP before it gets too far. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes, you are right. Thanks for the reminder. I admit I got a little carried away. --McSly (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

rpp vs ani

Hi -- WP:RPP is only for requests for page protection, so I've undone your edit there. Requests that an account be blocked should go to WP:ANI. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll go there. --McSly (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon editor 24.87.45.232

Hello McSly, I see that you have dealt with anon editor User:24.87.45.232 as well. He edits a large number of articles with incorrect information, and without references. If he does use any reference it is usually a blog, forum, or something else that is not valid. Additionaly, he almost never gives an edit summary, never discusses his edits on the article talk page, and completely ignores any messages left to him on his talk page. What do you think should be done about this editor? Do you think he should be reported? He seems to completely disregard Wikipedia rules regarding references, and will not discuss his edits or the articles he is editing. His edits may not qualify as vandalism, but his behavior certainly seems like it is violating Wikipedia policy. I just wanted to get your input on this, as you have had experience with him/her. Thanks in advance!Wacko Jack O 14:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Yeah this guy has been wasting my time for the last few months. I tried to report him a few days ago here but with little effect. I guess the reason is that he doesn't fit any of the clear cut categories of vandalism. It's low level and not very frequent so it's not really adapted for WP:ANI; and he's doing the changes on many articles so it's not adapted for WP:RFPP either. I think we are now far past the point of assuming good faith and he should be reported for vandalism. Whenever you see he's next edit, don't hesitate to report him here and I'll do the same if I see him. Hopefully the number of messages on his talk page will be enough to convince an admin to do something. --McSly (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He's actually stepped up the frequency of his edits. He is doing it multiple times daily now(on multiple pages if you look at his contribs).Wacko Jack O 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just reported him again. We'll see how it goes. --McSly (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a note(verifying what you said) under your report as well. Hopefully, something will be done about this(so it will get his attention).Wacko Jack O 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he just got a ~~48hr~~(now changed to 24hr) block. Hopefully, this will get his attention.Wacko Jack O 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this has just been changed to 24 hours :-) but that's fine. Hopefully, he will get the message and stop ignoring the other editors. --McSly (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.Wacko Jack O 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you guys ever need input from me to convince moderators that this anon. user needs more serious action taken against him, please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to help! Hj108 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

becarfull mate

the informations about Demographics of Libya is so wrong , as a libyan i have never see these any where , someone has changed the real informaiton to plotical propaganda , as no one of you tooke care of that I did .

please compare between the old copies . and the References below then you will know how many filling in the text . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.129.152 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I personally have no idea if the demography of Libya is accurate or not. I just said that you removed part of the article without providing any explanation. If the information presented is not correct, don't hesitate to make the necessary correction but remember to always explain why you make the change and more importantly, please provide a reliable source for your change. Without a good source, it is likely that your change will be reverted. If you need any help, let me know. --McSly (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)