User talk:McSly

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

Arbitration enforcement sanctions warning[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please do not revert administrative actions at WP:AE, or you may yourself become subject to blocks or other sanctions for disrupting the enforcement process. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Morgellons connection[edit] . Hope you don't mind putting this here. 19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC) shoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0NPAQ (talkcontribs)

Hello @C0NPAQ: No problem to put this here. For information, the paper you are citing has already been discussed on the Morgellons talk page here and here. Short answer, it doesn't meet the reliable source standard. --McSly (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral POV[edit]

The homosexuality page is protected to prevent vandalism. However, it takes the point-of-view of the liberal left, and follows popular opinion as opposed to facts.

It states that most psychologists agree that homosexuality is not caused by parenting or upbringing. That leads to a false assumption that it is genetic.

It doesn't mention that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that it is genetic either. That isn't a neutral stance.

Also, Wikipedia describes conversion therapy in a negative light. I would guess that is because it implies that homosexuality isn't genetic and can be reversed.

Again, that is not a neutral point of view. When I attempted to call Wikipedia's attention to it, I was informed that Wikipedia conforms to a neutral POV policy and my ideas conflicted with their policy.

Why not just say that Wikipedia conforms to a liberal bias and will not tolerate any other opinions or ideas? Jimmy0511 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Jimmy0511:. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources tell us on a subject. If you have sources backing up your position, please present them on the talk page of the article you wish to update so they can be reviewed. --McSly (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to post facts. I'm saying that there is no evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic, nor is there evidence stating that people who identify as homosexual are born that way. Those are simply theories that have yet to be proven, but are accepted, in some circles, as popular opinion. They are, nonetheless, opinion.

My point is, Wikipedia allows that type of opinion in an article, even stating that it is widely accepted. It is also widely accepted that being homosexual is a choice, that it is a sickness, that it is wrong. Those are all accepted opinions, but it seems as though Wikipedia is asserting that the only correct opinion is that they have no choice.Jimmy0511 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Jimmy0511

Your revert on James Randi[edit]

Hi, I am getting in touch with you about this revert. I believe that the material I am trying to add to the James Randi article is relevant, so I have explained my reasons here. If you still think that the material is not relevant, would you mind explaining there why you think so? Thanks in advance! --a3nm (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits concerning facts on James Randi page. Information provided was neutral and factual. They are also notable. Information was sourced by multiple independent and verifiable source, including Mr. Randi himself. If there is additional information that was not noted or there are additional sources please provide or add in your own edit. I would look forward to seeing them. Thank you.

‪Heckler & Koch USP[edit]

The reference I provided for Canada and the Canadian Special Forces Regiment being a user of the Heckler & Koch USP is a reliable source. The reference is from the official flicker page of United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) which is responsible for the operations of all United States military personnel in Africa. The picture on their flicker account that I linked my reference to shows a member of the Canadian Special Forces Regiment participating in an exercise with soldiers of the Niger Army. The picture was taken by Spc. Timothy Clegg of the U.S. Army. The description given for the picture reads, "Canadian Special Operations Regiment instructors teach soldiers from the Niger Army how to properly search a detainee in Agadez, Niger, Feb. 24, 2014. The training is a block of instruction during the Flintlock exercise to build partnership and the capabilities of partner African nations." I believe that it is fare to assume that the man in the photo with the Canadian flag on his shoulder, and who is wearing a Canadian Army uniform is one of the "Canadian Special Operations Regiment instructors" mentioned in the description of the photo. When looking at the photo zoomed in you can see the grip of a handgun sticking out of the Canadian instructor's pocket. When looking closely at the grip of the handgun you can see that it has the letters "USP" written on the grip. To the best of my knowledge that is no other handgun in the world that has the letters "USP" written on the grip other than the Heckler & Koch USP. The fact that the Canadian instructor has the handgun in his pocket would suggest that he is using the handgun for personal protection, which would also imply that this handgun must be his issued hand gun as Canadian Forces personal are not allowed to carry personal weapons when on excursive or deployment. The Heckler & Koch USP is not the standard handgun of the Canadian Armed Forces but Canadian special forces such as Joint Task Force 2 and the Canadian Special Forces Regiment are known to carry non-stranded weapons that other Canadian personal are not armed with. In conclusion the picture clearly shows a member of the Canadian Special Forces Regiment armed with an issued Heckler & Koch USP on deployment in Niger. (KickerTom (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

hello @KickerTom: this is not a reliable source at all. You cannot take a random picture from flikr, do you own wild speculations such as "no other handgun in the world that has the letters "USP" written on the grip" or "would suggest that he is using the handgun for personal protection" and then use that to declare the Canadian forces are armed with that gun. It's original research and it is not allowed on wikipedia. You need a reliable source that specifically states that that material has been procured. If you used the same logic on other articles, please remove the information there as well or find better sources to support your changes. --McSly (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS used by Somalia[edit]

The reference I provided for Somalia using the FAMAS assault rifle was to a photo on flicker of Somalian soldiers seen holding FAMAS rifles. There is 4 Somalian soldiers that can be seen in the photo holding FAMAS rifles. The rifles are FAMAS rifles because they are bullpup rifles that match the profile of the FAMAS. They have bayonets mounted above the barrel, a foldable integrated bi-pod, and large carry handle. These are all visible features indicative to the FAMAS rifle. The description of the photo is, "Members of the Eastern Africa Standby Brigade from Somalia parade during the closing ceremony of the Field Training Service (FTS) in exercise Amani Carana in the Arta region of Djibouti, December 4, 2009. The Eastern Africa Standby Brigade is holding the exercise involving 1,500 troops - from Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sudan, Burundi, Comoros, Seychelles and Somalia. The aim is to build a proper African peacekeeping force which will be able to respond to wars or crisis throughout the continent and have the backing of major Western powers, as this is their first big exercise." The photo was taken by Reuters News photographer Thomas Mukoya. The description says that the soldiers in the picture are Somalian, and in the background of the photo there is a Somalian flag being flown. In conclusion the picture shows soldiers of the Somalian Army armed with FAMAS rifles. (KickerTom (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

Same answer as above, please don't do any orginal research, use sources that specifically state the claim. --McSly (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Bias in Paranormal Articles[edit]

If anything is biased, it is the absolutely relentless use of weasel-phrases, outright insults, allegations of "fraud" and one-sided quoting of people like Randi, Nickell, etc., in these articles. Wakebrew (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Wakebrew:. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources tell us on a subject. If you have sources backing up your position, please present them on the talk page of the article you wish to update so they can be reviewed. --McSly (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


I removed a POV only to be treated as vandal . It is POV whether it is denial or not. (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello @ You were not treating as a vandal even when you made the change without explanation. You just received the instructions to how to handle changes on Wikipedia. --McSly (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Not you but user PaleoNeonate. Even going far as to restore old warnings from my talkpage. He even has reported me to ADIV. But I just wish to know why my reason of POV was rejected. (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read previous discussions on the subject on the talk page of the article: see here. --McSly (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
And then there is the problem of how your edit history strongly, if not blatantly suggests a primary purpose and motivation of vandalism, too. I mean, don't presume no one is stupid enough to see the brief edit war you had at Talk:Elephant to preserve your profoundly inane and spurious edit request there.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


I see you reverted my recent changes to NVIC, first off the extra paragraph I added to mission statement was a accident, I meant to hit preview not save, so I hadn't added the citation yet(it came from the mission statement on NVIC's site), so it's fine you removed it . But is it not considered appropriate to include the entire mission statement in an article about an organization if properly cited? I meant to have it in quotes. Also yes, the quote I deleted was properly sourced, but it already appears in criticism, so I didn't think it was helpful to have the same quote twice. While not false, I deleted the phrase anti-vaccine from the first sentence because as far as I can tell they claim not to be and have never stated total opposition to the concept of vaccination, and I think NVIC's anti-vaccine tendencies are clear from the rest of the article, it just seemed slightly POV to use this phrase in the first sentence.

After you reverted my changes I again deleted Specter's quote assuming you did not realize it was already in another part the article, if you want to put this back I won't revert you again without discussing first as I don't want to start an edit war. I have not reverted any other part of your reversion. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


THis is BS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte (talkcontribs) 03:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Mondobyte:. Please read this policy. It will help you check if the source is reliable or not. --McSly (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

It is irresponsible editing that sadly forced me to unknowingly resort to edit warring. Reporting me, however, does not change the fact that you didn't bother siding any solid argument to prove your point, or reaching out to me so that we can find common ground. In other words, you have your fair share of fault in this, just as I do. Do visit my talk page so we can reach a consensus based on evidence, for I intend to act one way or another. Chris Liak (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Chris Liak:. What do you mean "unknowingly"? Was your account hijacked? A valid reason was given for the revert [1]. Per WP:BRD, it is your responsibility to start a discussion on the talk page of the article. I see that a third editor has now reverted your change so your next step is for you to open that discussion. --McSly (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, McSly. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Su-30MKI's radar cross section[edit]

Hello Sir, you have reverted my edit, before reverting you should have read the reference link. There is no mention of Sukhoi-30MKI's radar cross section. It is a invaild link. So, i removed it.Sir, If you have any good sources about RCS of MKI, you can add it. Uttam mahatta (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Uttam mahatta:. I did read the reference linked in the article. Here it is again [2]. That link clearly states that "According to a defence ministry official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metre as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”" and that "[That means that while a Su-30MKI would be as visible to enemy radar as a metal object 5 metres X 4 metres in dimension, the FGFA’s radar signature would be just 1/40th of that.]"
So I'm not sure I understand you when you say "There is no mention of Sukhoi-30MKI's radar cross section". As far as I can see, that 20 square meter RCS is actually mentioned twice in the source.
I'm going to re-add the text since the statement is actually sourced. If you disagree, you need to discuss the change on the talk page of the article here. Do not remove the text again before you have gain WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry! Actually the reference link i opened was not fully accessible but from your link i get access to the full page. I will not remove any word without your permission.

By the way what do you think?why would a top government official declassify its front line fighter's rcs? Ajay Shukla did not quoted the defence official name! That's a unnamed source!Even India did not allow its pilot to use the BARS radar in joint exercises to protect its classified information! Don't you think sir,a highly declassified information needs multiple reference links. Sir,Thank you fror your response, have a good day.  Uttam mahatta (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


i am waiting for your explanation — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the explanation was already done on the talk page of the article here. --McSly (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

By my count 3 of the 4 participants in that discussion suggested it was good to have actual prices and costs on wiki, not deleted. Did you read it all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceGroves (talkcontribs) 21:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 14:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)