User talk:McSly

Creation Science and Intelligent Design listed under Pseudoscience

These two subjects cannot be listed under Pseudoscience for a number of reasons:

• 1. Wiki editors are to remain neutral. Listing these two subjects under pseudoscience is biased in favor of evolution and atheism and biased against people of both religious and scientific backgrounds. The issue of the validity of intelligent design and creation science should be discussed within the pages of each of these topics instead of listing them under the pseudoscience heading to remain neutral.
• 2. Wiki editors are to interact in a civil manner. It would also make sense that this would be extended to the relations between wiki editors and wiki readers. I feel it would be preferable to refrain from offending as many readers as possible. As I mentioned before, the issue of the topics' validity could beds cussed on the page itself to reduce offending readers who may accept the tenets of either subject.
• 3. An alternative might be to list both evolutionar and creation science under the heading of pseudoscience as many people argue that evolution is a pseudoscience. Thus the list would remain neutral. - 3/20/13— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.220.163 (talk • contribs)

Since I haven't received a response, I'll assume that I being allowed change the page. - 3/23/13— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.176.14 (talk • contribs)

Hello, being neutral doesn't mean that all point of views are equal (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE). Wikipedia is indeed bias, it is bias toward the best evidence and the best sources available. Being offended is an absurd argument to justify removing information. People get offended by many things and this has no relevance to determine if something is true or false. By the way, I noticed that you didn't seem to mind offending people believing in vitalism even it is as discarded as creationism. Lastly, if you believe that evolution is pseudo-science, I'm afraid you are misinformed. You should read Evolution as fact and theory to get a better understanding of the subject.--McSly (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Age of life on earth

I would have reverted the first time, but I read Life and that says 3.5 with sources. I think those edits are in good faith. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you undo my edit of the Causes of Autism page? Why?

I put in one paragraph on the Maternal Antibody theory of autism, saying only maternal antibodies transferred to the fetus during pregnancy are suspected of causing somne cases of autism.

The reference used as a book published by a science publishing company, Springlink.

Autuism, Current Theories and Evidence.

What was wrong with the edit? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, please see WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP.--McSly (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

All that debate was over primary vs. secondary sources. The source used in the edit is a secondary source. Let's pretend no one felt any animosity towardss me, what is actually wrogn wtih the edit or source?

Why are you removing my edits

I am trying to edit Causes of Autism.

I am using secondary sources which are allowed.

As a reason for reverting my edits, your use a reference to a discussion which concerned edits based on primary sources, not sedcondary sources.

Is this content permanently forbidden becuase of the previous dispute? That does not seem logical.

I HAVE NEW SOURCES. THEY ARE SECONDARY. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM?

And are you Dave Brodbeck? Or acting at his direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Accusing another user of meat/sock puppeting is a rather serious charge. Please review WP:AGF. Also, McSly might be interested in [1] if he or she has not seen it yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DBrodbeck - are you accusing me of accusing McSly? Please clarify., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You know IP, you can sign your posts, it is really easy. And, you can indent, it is really easy. Anyway, you asked a user if (s)he is me, you were the one accusing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Asking is not the same as accusing but McSly seems to be a Canadian who speaks French and lives in the eastern part of the country like you do. And a posting on his page got a response from you in less than an hour. You could answer the question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So what you are saying is you spent time to look up and compare both Dbrodbeck's profile and mine in order to support some sort of paranoid and baseless accusations. And yet, in all those years, you haven't bothered reading and following the most basic guidelines on WP. That's really pathetic. It looks to me that you are just acting like a whinny little kid who wants to be treated as an adult but who is incapable of tying his own shoes.--McSly (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of being insulting (and by the way still not answering the question of whether the two of you are one and the same or somehow affiiliated) can you place tell me how a BOOK on AUTISM published by a SCIENCE PUBLSIHING COMPANY is not a secondary source? Seriously, how does that Hi? I've got the chapter from that book, a review paper from 2012 and a review paper from a couple of years back? How do ANY of them fail as secondary sources? I can repost them here if you want. Can we please discuss actual editing of Wikipedia instead of whether I argued about the rules excessively in the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1) I don't respond to baseless, paranoid accusations 2) The proper policies have been pointed and explained to you dozen of times in the past few years. If you don't seem capable of understanding them while other editors manage to do it quite easily, that's your problem (we all have our limitations after all). 3) Since I have no reason to reward bad behavior, on this talk page, any comment from you not properly signed will be summarily deleted. --McSly (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent Energy Medicine edits

Hello,

Still getting used to the UI and procedures here. Regarding edits and reversions on May22 to Energy Medicine by IP 76.121.150.157: After reading more about how content on an article tries to reflect the pervasive attitude perceived in society I understand better why the initial edits may have warranted reversion. However, as I'm sure you're aware, this praiseworthy pursuit can be hijacked by the presence of a vocal minority who is level-headed enough to escape reversion. In my experience on both sides of this fence I have found Energy Medicine, for some reason, to be extremely popular; though its physical effects (in a similar way as one's mood) may be difficult to objectify clinically.

I also partially surmised that Neutrality, according to Wikipedia, does not necessarily mean a non-derogatory account of all major view points but a boundary against peripheral, emotional, and poorly referenced view points or work that do not reflect the predominant view.

At this point I would like to suggest that neutrality might also refer to the responsibility of the predominant view (as pre-Copernican astronomy once was) to report its tenants, evidence and reasoning without resorting to employment of references to derogatory statements (or similar suppressive devices) about competing views (which The Church at the time did not). Such statements should not be necessary if the evidence and reasoning are sound and only furthers division among viewpoints.

In such an article as Energy Medicine, where the predominant view appears to be against it, a derogatory article may appear unavoidable but this is not the case. Many parts of this article are negative with respect to the topic yet perfectly acceptable considering the evidence presented. Likewise, there may be points from the proponents camp that appeal to the detractors. As someone once said: "Nobody is smart enough to be 100% wrong."

There is controversy on this topic and it is not so one-sided as this article makes it appear. Therefore, shouldn't the article admit this fairly and openly? It seems insufficient to simply declare those who maintain reasons to disagree to be 'unsophisticated', 'magical-thinkers'. Yes, there is clinical evidence that support the negative side(there is also valid evidence in support of the positive). However, clinical evidence is far from infallible, especially if the underlying assumptions are inadequate.

In the Vitalism article there is reference to theories of Emergence. The human body is certainly such a complex system as to warrant a more conscientious and diligent appraisal of its attributes using our most applicable analytical tools (i.e. Complex Systems Theory and Network Science). See the Dr. Iris Bell reference in one of the edits mentioned above.

My simplified argument is basically an appeal to ignorance over arrogance. Maintaining open avenues of investigation is what is at issue. It is insufficient to declare that the route of energy medicine investigation has been tested and found to be of no clinical benefit when many competent and rational researchers take issue with the manner that testing.

Finally, the edit regarding the History section of the Energy Medicine article describes a misused citation. The first sentence of the History section contains a reference to article [24](Jonas & Crawford) that is supposed to account for it. However, there can be no mistake that no such sentiment exists in this article, having read it twice myself. Therefore, please also uphold the removal of that reference from the support of that sentence.

---Or may we discuss the other reason(s) for your reversion of these edits; such as being considered vandalism or sole editorship without collaboration for example. I am new to these policies and this interface so please be slightly more explicit in your replies where these are concerned. (PS. I have read much(not all) of the talk guidelines).

Thanks, Kmpentland (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page revert

I'll admit I wasn't entirely sure of the best way to handle "IP editor adds their entire comment as a section header", but a blank signature at the top of the section seemed clearer than making it look as if the responding editor had posted the whole thing. You disagree? --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I actually pressed the wrong button. I reverted myself. Sorry about that. --McSly (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages

Since you have over 50 edits at Jules Verne, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Spamming

Below are 3 more promotional posts like the one you flagged, by the same user. I'm not sure what the proper thing is to do about it, thus I thought it best to alert someone with more experience, like you. Bbwn (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_mapping

File:BPMN Opsdog.com Cost Allocation Business Process Map.jpg

Cost Allocation Business Process Map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_allocation

File:BPMN Opsdog.com Cost Allocation Business Process Map.jpg

Cost Allocation Business Process Map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_management

File:OpsDog.com BPMN 2.0 Corporate Treasury Management business process map.jpg

Corporate Treasury Management business process map

Bbwn (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the heads up. I removed those links since the images were deleted. That being said, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, feel free when you see something wrong to be be bold and make the change yourself. Just make sure the changes are properly explained and sourced.--McSly (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging words McSly. You are very kind.  :-) Bbwn (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Complaint against you at ANI

I have made a complaint at ANI re reversions of my edits in bad faith.

Also, I am going to raise the issue of you being a sock puppet for Dbrodbeck.