User talk:McSly

This is a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McSly.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes Audience Rating for The Red Pill

Hi: Thank you for being a volunteer in Wikipedia!

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)[reply]

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\^C 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Got it. Thank for replying. Itz.mas10 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]