| Revision as of 23:14, 23 January 2010 editLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,604 edits →Your editing privileges have been suspended for 12 hours: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:18, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,134,948 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User page}} | |||
| {{Usertalkarchiveheader}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 9 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:McSly/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| I’m sorry, I must have done it wrong, I cited the references in the post I made. | |||
| ⚫ | I’ll try to figure out how to post correctly, it’s my first time trying <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == Rotten Tomatoes Audience Rating for The Red Pill == | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Hi: Thank you for being a volunteer in Misplaced Pages! | |||
| Thank you so much for the information and the Welcome. I have used Misplaced Pages for some time, but have never did any edits. Hopefully I will pick up the etiquette and formats in quick order. | |||
| Noticing that, per ], you've had to regularly roll back user edits that point out the wide discrepancy between critic and audience ratings for ] on , when those edits quoted the current audience rating on RT. Also noticing that the UGC rules state that user-generated content is "generally" unacceptable (as opposed to a categoric "always" unacceptable). | |||
| Take care. sunpacer 08:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I wonder, with the large critic/audience discrepancy being worthy of note and the number of audience ratings being massive by comparison (over 1000), could it be considered acceptable for the Wiki article to simply state that RT audience ratings for the show are vastly different from the RT critic ratings, and then reference the external link to RT? (notably different from previously reverted edits, we'd leave out the actual user rating percentage.) ] (]) 10:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 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. ] (]) 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 ]. --] (]) 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Fighter generations in lede == | |||
| == QUESTION == | |||
| May I ask where the consensus mentioned was established? I was recently involved in a similar dispute over unsourced changes to the fighter generation in the ] lede, but removing the generation altogether would hopefully end the issue. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, McSly. Thanks for your message. Since I'm new to Wiki, can you tell me how exactly do I join a talk page? | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| : 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 ] 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 ] 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 <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your messages to sign. --] (]) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Hello ], not sure I can point to a specific discussion. However, if you look at the archives of the ], there are multiple discussions about generations in articles, categories, in dedicated articles, this one for example, ]. Essentially the outcome is that the generations are mostly made up, blurry, marketing categories that should be deemphasized in the articles. Also, if you look at the history of articles such as ] and ] across the years, you can see that the generation information has been steadily removed my multiple editors. --] (]) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == McSly's oppression of truth and freedom == | |||
| == Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == | |||
| 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : There is no ] on wikipedia. There was never meant to be, in fact. There are rules about what you can and can't post here. ] (]) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello, Misplaced Pages has a strong policy on ]. 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 ] first. Only then you can insert it here. I'm afraid these'are the rules and they are the same for everyone. --] (]) 05:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <section begin="announcement-content" /> | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages's view that information can be deleted if it does not conform to their highly questionable ideals and rules.{{unsigned|188.220.69.249}} | |||
| :''] '' | |||
| :Could you explain to me what are the specific rules that should apply to your edit ?. And again, as Dayewalker mentioned above, there is no ] on wikipedia. --] (]) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Wikimedian, | |||
| 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??? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :See that ]. It's very informative. --] (]) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. | |||
| 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. | |||
| : The only side of a coin, or whatever other analogy you'd like to apply, that belongs on wikipedia is one backed by ]. 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. ] (]) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ]. | |||
| 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> | |||
| There is an issue being discussed at ] in which you may be involved.--] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Your editing privileges have been suspended for 12 hours == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> | |||
| == 2024 French legislative election == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''time'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} for {{#if:|'''reason'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:|] (]) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> Per my rationale , you reverted edits that were not vandalism in violation of the Global Warming Probation. The sanction is for 12 hours. ] (]) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I saw that you undid a revision on this page (French legislative elections 2024) with the argument: "Please discuss this change on the talk page". But this change had been discussed on the talk page... Did you even check ? Moreover, you undid the revision but you did not take the time to justify the reason on the talk page. That is why I am editing the page again, and if you have a reason to delete the revision, please do so, but justify it on the talk page. ] (]) 09:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I did see the discussion as my revert specifically mentioned that there was a note. Looks like an other editor also disagree so it looks like the discussion is not over yet. --] (]) 16:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wish the other editor discussed it on the talk page while editing... I am apparently the only one who cares about that ] (]) 21:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Magnet Therapy == | |||
| Hi, my last edit, which included the study of 194 osteoarthritis patients from 2004, was reverted. I believe I provided a reliable source. | |||
| Could you provide more details about this? ] (]) 14:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Hello {{ping|Itz.mas10}}. I'm not the one who reverted your changes. It was done by ]. That said, the reason is that the study you used is a primary study, which is not acceptable on WP. You need secondary studies (meta-analysis, systematic reviews,...). Please see ] for all the details. --] (]) 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Got it. Thank for replying. ] (]) 14:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 00:18, 19 November 2024
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McSly. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I’m sorry, I must have done it wrong, I cited the references in the post I made. I’ll try to figure out how to post correctly, it’s my first time trying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abusedbyelders (talk • contribs) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes Audience Rating for The Red Pill
Hi: Thank you for being a volunteer in Misplaced Pages!
Noticing that, per UGC rules, you've had to regularly roll back user edits that point out the wide discrepancy between critic and audience ratings for The Red Pill on Rotten Tomatoes, when those edits quoted the current audience rating on RT. Also noticing that the UGC rules state that user-generated content is "generally" unacceptable (as opposed to a categoric "always" unacceptable).
I wonder, with the large critic/audience discrepancy being worthy of note and the number of audience ratings being massive by comparison (over 1000), could it be considered acceptable for the Wiki article to simply state that RT audience ratings for the show are vastly different from the RT critic ratings, and then reference the external link to RT? (notably different from previously reverted edits, we'd leave out the actual user rating percentage.) Douglas Butler, Victoria, BC (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Fighter generations in lede
May I ask where the consensus mentioned here was established? I was recently involved in a similar dispute over unsourced changes to the fighter generation in the HAL Tejas lede, but removing the generation altogether would hopefully end the issue. - ZLEA T\ 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello ZLEA, not sure I can point to a specific discussion. However, if you look at the archives of the Aircraft Project, there are multiple discussions about generations in articles, categories, in dedicated articles, this one for example, Fifth and other fighter generations. Essentially the outcome is that the generations are mostly made up, blurry, marketing categories that should be deemphasized in the articles. Also, if you look at the history of articles such as F-22 and F-35 across the years, you can see that the generation information has been steadily removed my multiple editors. --McSly (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
2024 French legislative election
I saw that you undid a revision on this page (French legislative elections 2024) with the argument: "Please discuss this change on the talk page". But this change had been discussed on the talk page... Did you even check ? Moreover, you undid the revision but you did not take the time to justify the reason on the talk page. That is why I am editing the page again, and if you have a reason to delete the revision, please do so, but justify it on the talk page. 2001:861:5602:2180:805C:7304:73E6:44AB (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did see the discussion as my revert specifically mentioned that there was a note. Looks like an other editor also disagree so it looks like the discussion is not over yet. --McSly (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wish the other editor discussed it on the talk page while editing... I am apparently the only one who cares about that 2001:861:5602:2180:805C:7304:73E6:44AB (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Magnet Therapy
Hi, my last edit, which included the study of 194 osteoarthritis patients from 2004, was reverted. I believe I provided a reliable source.
Could you provide more details about this? Itz.mas10 (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Itz.mas10:. I'm not the one who reverted your changes. It was done by User:Bon courage. That said, the reason is that the study you used is a primary study, which is not acceptable on WP. You need secondary studies (meta-analysis, systematic reviews,...). Please see WP:MEDRS for all the details. --McSly (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank for replying. Itz.mas10 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)