User talk:McSly

This is McSly's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse

You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the reason for removing the sentence "Contrary to the paragraph above, four different studies have been conducted on Oscillococcinum. Two of these have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These clinical studies show that Oscillo reduces both the severity and the duration of flu-like symptoms." It was appropriately sourced and is as complicit with NPOV as the paragraph above. Please explain reason for removal. I am not a Sockpuppet. I have sought to only add a sentence of relevance to clinical studies. I am seeking an immediate explanation as clearly there is a bias going on. I do not seek to enter an editing war, only to enter valid and relevant neutral content. Thank you. -- MelissaK85 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you say that you are not a sockpuppet, could you tell me how you came up with the text of your edit? It is nearly identical to many edits done by several users in the past few weeks. If the text is coming from a website, then it's likely a copyright violation and it cannot stay. If you looked at the article's history to get it, then you probably already know why the change was reverted since several editors have done so and explained their action.

Now about the specific reasons (and in no special order):

Wikipedia articles are not organized as point/counter point so you cannot really phrase a paragraph by starting with "Contrary to the paragraph above". It should be one narrative describing the product.

The studies you are citing are older and lower in quality than the ones already present (and showing not effect) in the article. By your own admissions, some of them are not even pier-reviewed.

Finally, and that's especially true for articles about a pseudo-science like homeopathy, not all view points are equal, please see the policy on undue weight and reliable sources for medical articles. I hope that helped. --McSly (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Libya. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, this is not an edit war, we are having a healthy discussion. But thanks for the reminder. --McSly (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to blogs

Hello. Can you please give me more information why is inappropriate to link my collection of design patterns which is free for the open community. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.127.15 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Zecharia Mayani

Hi. Your input would be helpful at Talk:Zecharia Mayani. — Jeff G. ツ 22:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Interfere with Improving Objectivity (KeepingTrue (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

I see that once again you removed my edits without adding content. It appears that you have an opinion related to the topic of Creation_Science. I also see that you have a history of such behavior, including on the Creation_Science article. Edit Warring is not appropriate Wikipedia behavior. For clarification, the edits made to the article are intended to improve objectivity. The tone of the grammar in the first few paragraphs was inconsistent with content further in the article. I realize that this may be an emotional issue for you. For the sake of readers, Wikipedia articles need to be kept objective, using good journalistic practices. With topics such as Creation_Science, articles tend to present a variety of strong points of view. Keeping opinion to a minimum is important. Remember: readers come to Wikipedia for information, not opinion. The more that the Wikipedia content is compromised, the less appealing Wikipedia will be to readers.

I do not wish to discuss the topic of the article. That is not my objective. If you would like to discuss proper writing, per Wikipedia recommendations, I will discuss it with you.

And, always keep your Wikipedia writing true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepingTrue (talk • contribs)

Hello, you are obviously welcome to edit the page and contribute to improving its content. The reason I reverted your edits is because they introduced some factual errors or inaccuracies. For example, "popular geology" has no meaning as science is not based on what is popular, but on what the evidence shows (see astrology as a example). Same thing for your change from "scientific community" to "evolutionary community". I'm not sure you are aware of it, but that change is a classic example of denialism done by creationists. Which is, obviously contrary to your goal of improving objectivity. --McSly (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User pages being linked to

Just wanted to say thank you for clarifying on the user of user pages being linked to, I was wondering why I was removed and I suppose that was the culprit. No worries on that end, link certainly needs to come out then. NzMattis (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries,always a pleasure. --McSly (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Posey

I just wanted to inform you that the information that was posted about Buster Posey and his wife expecting twins is true. Sfgiantsws10 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, as long as it is cited, it's all good. --McSly (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance

This is just to let you know that an article you have contributed to is the subject of a discussion at Editor assistance requests. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deserts

You just reverted List of deserts for no reason. It's List of deserts not List of desserts. --Julian the Shadow | ( Talk | Contribs) 17:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He he, I should have paid more attention to the previous edit before reverting. Thanks for correcting my mistake. --McSly (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation myth

User:Conservative Philosopher's edit that you ID'd as vandalism looks like an accident. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle: 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 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image Changes

The images keep switching back to what they were before and I want them to be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy123 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

im New here want to me friends PS: Cool Name N64dude (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thank you for letting me know. I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't see the restrictions for all of the links. Katenvaughn (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, always a pleasure. --McSly (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dassault Rafale

Hi McSly ! I just read your comment, saying "That upgrade was scrapped years ago, maybe for future version but not F3", but why is this ('recent') article (June, 20 2011) : http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Frances-Rafale-Fighters-Au-Courant-in-Time-05991/

"Since 2008, all Rafales have been delivered in the F3 standard, which adds the ability to carry French ASMP-A air-launched nuclear missiles, allowing the Rafale to replace the Mirage 2000N in that role. Other modifications include full integration with the Reco NG reconnaissance pod, implementation of all currently planned modes for the RBE2 radar, antiship attack with the Exocet or ANF, the Gerfaut helmet-mounted sight, and support for an improved tanker pack.

And could you give any other piece of information ?

Thanks, AirCraft (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]