User talk:McSly

Thanks

Thank you so much for the information and the Welcome. I have used Wikipedia for some time, but have never did any edits. Hopefully I will pick up the etiquette and formats in quick order.

Take care. sunpacer 08:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpsullivan1967 (talk • contribs)

Lift (force)

I am a professional pilot and a flight instructor. On your reversal of my post to LIFT, I disagree that the next section is the same explanation. And where it is similiar, it is not as clearly stated, not to mention that you eliminated some powerful representations of lift that help people to understand it. Psycano (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Psycano, I apologize if I removed your text by mistake. But from I read, the 2 sections (yours and the one already there) seemed pretty similar and talked about the same thing, Newton's laws. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that the next section is not the same explanation. Is there something wrong the existing section? Because technically, there should be only one section explaining the lift force with Newton's laws, not 2 or 3. If you think your edits should be put back, I suggest that you merge your text with the existing section instead of creating a separate one. Please make sure to always explain your changes by using the edit summary. --McSly (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION

Hi, McSly. Thanks for your message. Since I'm new to Wiki, can you tell me how exactly do I join a talk page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomahawkHunter (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, each article on wikipedia has an associated talk page where editors can discuss changes to be done to the article. You can access it by clicking on the "Talk" tab that you see on top of every article or user page. It's actually what you just used by leaving a message here. Here is the link to the People's Liberation Army Air Force talk page where you can discuss with other about that specific article. I think most of the changes you made are good but without the links working it couldn't really stay as is. Please remember to always cite your sources properly and if you delete anything already on an article, always explain why in the edit summary so other editors know what is going on. Oh, last thing, always add ~~~~ at the end of your messages to sign. --McSly (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

McSly's oppression of truth and freedom

How is speaking one's mind and voicing the concerns of a frustrated and tired nation the same as mindless vandalism??? if censorship can spread to the far reaches of the internet, including this website which is supposed to support free thinking, then what hope have we of ever being able to freely open our minds??????? i await your reply with earnest trepidation and baited breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no freedom of speech on wikipedia. There was never meant to be, in fact. There are rules about what you can and can't post here. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia has a strong policy on original research. Shortly put, we can't have any. That's why I removed your text. To be added it will have to be published in a reliable source first. Only then you can insert it here. I'm afraid these'are the rules and they are the same for everyone. --McSly (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

surely all research is original at some point. there is so much information on here that is highly suspect when intellectually reviewed. I can't understand Wikipedia's view that information can be deleted if it does not conform to their highly questionable ideals and rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk • contribs)

Could you explain to me what are the specific rules that should apply to your edit here ?. And again, as Dayewalker mentioned above, there is no freedom of speech on wikipedia. --McSly (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The rules? I operate by the simple of rule of being allowed to offer a different side to the information that is being broadcast, whether rightly or wrongly, on this website. People come here to see new explanations and develop their own personal learning experience. With any experience surely one side of an argument or view is not enough to offer a balanced side. I simply apply the rule and logic that my edits offer alternative information to those who seek it. Why should this be censored or disregarded just because it does not fit in with the 'norms' that usually govern this site??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See that page. It's very informative. --McSly (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only informative if your a sheep who can't break away from the mold. I'm not trying to break the system or anything but I just can't understand the need to repress people who offer an alternative or simply different view. That isn't free speech, it's common sense. There are always two sides to a coin, surely only showing one side lowers the respectability of a website that preaches knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The only side of a coin, or whatever other analogy you'd like to apply, that belongs on wikipedia is one backed by reliable sources. Your additions were largely gibberish, so they've been reverted. Arguing about it here won't help, as any editor who saw what you were adding would have reverted you. There's nothing more to be gained here, so good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources? says who? since when has wikipedia been a reliable source?? reliable sources can be disputed by anyone, but apparently not here. if opposing a website that oppresses those who argue a 'reliable' source then surely this creates an unreliable source. it goes as far to back up my original argument that wikipedia is an oppressive system, deleting and censoring those who don't agree with anything it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.69.249 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

There is an issue being discussed at WP:ANI#Deleting and readding of talk page comments in which you may be involved.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 12 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Per my rationale here, you reverted edits that were not vandalism in violation of the Global Warming Probation. The sanction is for 12 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problems. I still think the edit I removed was a clear violation of WP:TALK, but I did revert it 3 times. So the rules are the rules after all--McSly (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks dubious to me. Over at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Edit_war_at_Talk:Global_warming LHVU seems to think there is a 1RR probabtion on the article, but I'm not at all sure there is. I'd be very ahppy if there was, though William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello William, I appreciate your concerns. I actually thought there was an active 1RR rule for all the climate change articles. It just escaped me at the time of my editings. I'll take the block. I'm Okay with that. --McSly (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was wrong in my understanding of the specifics but feel (as refreshingly apparently do you) that the general probation on edit warring applies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Er

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Maybe we should have done this before you got yourself blocked. --TS 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of the rule actually. I just didn't remember it in the "heat of the moment" .--McSly (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._McHugh

Hello,

Most info I've added on the article, and which you reverted, can be verified here: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh.html. If you do believe any of it is wrong, do say so on the edit page, and we'll work it out, ok? Thanks! 87.196.173.3 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)