User talk:McSly/Archive 6
 | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
MMR vaccine controversy
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 (talk • contribs) 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
Why this source on homeopathy is not right? --Pediainsight (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, all right, but, what do you think about this source? Can I use it?
--Pediainsight (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Airbus A320neo
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 (talk • contribs) 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
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 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
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 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Shiatsu
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 (talk • contribs) 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
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 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Vandal bot
where is the right page to report vandal bot? Bcrouchjrff (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hello @Bcrouchjrff:, you just need to check your own talk page. The bot left you a few messages, you just didn't bother to read them. From what I can see the reverts were justify, so there is really nothing useful to report. --McSly (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The first revert definitely wasn't, the old reversion wouldn't take me to the section of page, but it did when I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcrouchjrff (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion that you may (or may not!) be interested in joining
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon 2 regards Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Abiogenesis.
Dr. Peet holds a B.S. with honors in chemistry and an M.S. in chemistry from the University of Nottingham, and a Ph.D. in photochemistry from Wolverhampton Polytechnic. Dr. Peet, who is a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, has served in higher education for 22 years with 2 years service as international development manager for science education projects.
Seems like someone who would be qualified to talk about the subject of abiogenesis, which falls right into his realm of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E95:6F20:F058:FA71:1443:46F2 (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!
I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
- Browse the new WikiProject page
- Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system
Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
statements with citation needed are okay
I saw the reversion you made to the List of cognitive biases article. For the edit summary you wrote, "Please provide that citation. Don't add citation needed tag on text that you add yourself." This is not a good reasoning for the revert. Adding a {{citation needed}} tag to one's own material is perfectly fine. The WP:USI section of the Wikipedia:Content removal essay even explicitly states so. It'd be particularly odd if you wouldn't have reverted if the editor had not used the citation needed template, so your reversion is best interpreted (as per the edit summary) as being due to the statement being unsourced. Unsourced statements are allowed on Wikipedia and unless you have a reason to remove them, you ought not do it. The reasoning for removal can be very weak but it cannot be simply because the statement is unsourced. We ought not punish users who ask for help with citing by using a citation needed tag.
Without looking into it too deeply, in this instance it seems that affirmation bias may be the same or close to the same as confirmation bias and therefore the entry was already in the list. (Not 100% sure of that, so it's just an example.) A reason like this would have been a valid for the removal of the text.
In general, reverting with Twinkle is best reserved for vandalism (as per its own documentation which says "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used"). As explained above, you didn't give an appropriate edit summary. Plus, no assumption of good faith was needed here; this was a good faith edit. I wouldn't have used Twinkle's rollback feature in this scenario. Also, don't forget that it's not a bad idea to welcome users. Twinkle makes that easy. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The edit shown in the diff seems to be an "appropriate edit summary" to me. The main issue Anti-vandalism tools in this regard is they can provide no reason in the edit summary. Just my 2 cents anyway. Remove my post if this is not welcome or needed, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Jamalmunshi
We ec'd on his talk page. I think the guy means well but just doesn't know what the standards are here, so I left him a gently worded note. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
That IP you reverted at the YEC article?
See User:EranBot/Copyright/rc - it was copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Your message
Could You have a look at my replies to Your comment, please. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
User talk:137.147.7.175 vandalism
Considering that the vandal is going to continue inserting that filth back in, I would leave it for now. I have let the blocking admin know on the ANI section, and I am sure they will do something about it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks McSly for your message concerning the Edit of the KC-46 Pegasus. I restored my Edits and placed citations as requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfabozzi (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Global Warming
Your continued editing to hide the facts is disgusting. The polar ice caps have been increasing. Polar bear populations are growing to hear record numbers. The earth has been cooling for the past twelve years. There is no scientific consensus about global arming. There have been over 4,000 papers published about global warming, 97% saying it is occurring. But that does not represent the percentage of scientists that buy into the hoax. People like you who distort the truth, present theory as fact and try to silence honest debate are doing a great disservice to science and the pursuit of truth. Wdcraven (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
On the same team
We're on the same team, McSly. I, like you, am trying to reveal the truth. I agree with your views on Climate Change (Global Warming), and on many other things. But we need to work towards uncovering the truth in the biggest conspiracy, the "Moon Landings". Neoletrix (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, so part was faked exactly?--McSly (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- The images and the video. It is _possible_ that mankind has been to the moon, but the photographic and a cinematographic evidence of the landings from the Apollo missions have been shown to be fake. All the the claims have counterpoints, of course, but you need to decide for yourself which argument is better. Look at the evidence, look at the claims, and choose for yourself. The "Moon Landing conspiracy theories" article is a good place to start. Neoletrix (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- To motivate the possibility for you, here is a clip of a speech given by Neil Armstrong. It is cryptic but try to interpret what he is saying. Neoletrix (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that the landings are perfectly real. It's just that the astronauts were too incompetent to take a single picture to prove that they were there? --McSly (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm saying that some astronauts, maybe Americans, could have been to the moon. But not the ones from the Apollo missions. Listen to what Armstrong says. Neoletrix (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Oh my. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 08:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm saying that some astronauts, maybe Americans, could have been to the moon. But not the ones from the Apollo missions. Listen to what Armstrong says. Neoletrix (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that the landings are perfectly real. It's just that the astronauts were too incompetent to take a single picture to prove that they were there? --McSly (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Aluminum adjuvant vaccines
Which information did I post on the causes of autism page that was nonfactual? Here are the sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170 http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurdenofTruth (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There has to be those "qualifiers". You gotta say it is according to science to make it clear. There are many people who believe in astrology and you can't generalize like that. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Astrology has been demonstrated to be wrong, regardless of how many believe it. We don't hedge facts just because some people might have wrong beliefs. Many people deny the holocaust. Regardless of beliefs, there are facts of the matter. Would you add qualifiers to the holocaust denier article? Second Quantization (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
What can I post?
I don't understand you keep deleting posts, so what can I actually write on this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrologer Seth Morris (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Elevatorgate
For several years, the article on Elevatorgate was false. It's even perversely the case that the false reporting started early and methodically. It's even one point in the text. I'm well aware that motivated sides want to keep the false version. However, the evidence and the facts disagree. I've put together a fully sourced update and you are free to check it. But I find it unfair that my version is simply thrown out without reasons and I'm apparently expected to "argue" for something. There is nothing to argue. There are the facts, and the facts disagree vehemently with the current version, which you have restored. This other dude rather has to explain why he believes throwing out everything is a good idea. Lokkhen (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Flood Geology
Why am I being accused of an edit war? My edit is being undone without cause. It appears as if OTHERS are engaged in an edit war, not me. My edit is valid and is NOT vandalism in any way. There are many members within the scientific community, including Christian scientists and secular (non-Christian) scientists. So, to say "scientists" consider flood geology to be myth is false. It infers that ALL scientists consider it to be myth. A distinction needs to be made and my edit should be allowed. It is a factual statement and an important distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.33.101 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Telelinguistic communications - Telepathy and langauge
It is very well known, very well studied and understood that Telepathic communication can be linguistic in nature...If man could communicate telepathically , the nature of telepathic communications would be linguistic in nature. Telelinguistic communication is telepathy & language covered in context and is relevant to telepathic communications, many people feel that language and telepathy go hand in hand and the subject of telelinguistics opens the door to many new and unrecognized potentials for telepathic communications, including linguistic evolution's and metalinguistic possibilitys. I will not go into detail but i myself feel it fair that language and telepathy should be represented within the documentation. Mysterdee (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterdee (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- hello @Mysterdee:, thanks for discussing the changes. The reason I reverted your changes is because they are not sourced. It is important to always cite reliable sources when making changes to articles, especially for fringe subjects like telepathy (please read WP:FRINGE on that subject.) To give you an example, you start by adding the following: "Over the past ten years even the most closed-minded of skeptics have come to admit what most people have always known, namely that telepathy is a real and important interpersonal communicative device." That statement is completely unsourced. It is also, I'm sorry to say, flatly wrong. There is no indication that telepathy has any recognition in mainstream science. To make that claim, you would need numerous strong sources and you did not provide any. --McSly (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note that the material in question was copypasted from a publication devoted to "satirical linguistics." - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Parapsychology
Any reason in particular why you believe that the scientific method cannot be applied to the study of phenomena considered to be paranormal or parapsychological? Just because you claim something is pseudoscience does not mean that it IS pseudoscience. The fact of matter is that paranormal phenomena have been reported across time and cultures for millenia. Who are you to say that studying such phenomena is pseudoscientific? Siddhi.powers (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hello @Siddhi.powers:, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body of the article. The pseudo-scientific nature of parapsychology is clearly explained in that section, so it needs to be mentioned in the introduction. If you disagree, please discuss on the talk page. Continuing to edit war will get you nowhere.-- McSly (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)