User talk:Markbassett

Deletion discussion about Intelligent design (historical)

Hello, Markbassett,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Intelligent design (historical) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent design (historical) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reinstating edit on Creation-evolution controversy

-- here we have the benefit of the exact item being talked about on google docs, yet guy misquotes a misquote from popper and ... claims that is the better way ... Theories then are never empirically verifiable." and "These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as the criterion of demarcation."; [1], Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1935; Engl 1959) pg 18

Hi Markbasset, I see you reinstated your edit I had reverted previously, which removes the word pseudoscience. That word is backed by the reliable secondary source used and quoting Popper directly could actually be considered WP:OR since it's a primary source. It'd be great if you could give WP:BR a read. When an edit you make is reverted you go to the talk page, open a new thread about it and then wait to hear from other editors' input on the issue. Reverting back is considered bad practice and doing so more than three times in less than 24 hs (I'm not saying you did BTW) is considered edit warring. I'd really appreciate it if you could self revert your last edit and open a new thread so we can discuss it. Thank you very much. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please try the article talk since the re-creation means I've really looked and still think the edit is appropriate and so posted there. But first, please consider the desireability of having the primary source on the section topic Falsifiability (the Popper book) in favor of a lesser secondary source and on what wording would convey what is modern application or re-interpretation and where it will have gone too far in rephrasing the secondary source. To be precise, Popper defines falsifiability as a separator for science from all else, not saying the all-else is pseudoscience. Even the secondary source seems to not be making it the determinant for pseudoscience but noting it as a criteria (one of many?) for distinguishing science from psuedoscience is the Stanford extension of modern discussions. Saying a test mentioned in modern discussions is correct of STanford, but saying it as the determination of a duality was not in Stanford. Non-falsifiable pieces might equally well be poetry, law, music, acconting etcetera. And while Popper used the word pseudoscience, to him Pseudoscience usage differs from that of modern day -- he used that for Bolsheviks as epithet for his fellow Jews having to teach politically-correct Marxist views in what we now would call 'soft' sciences. Markbassett (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

School and student project pages

Odd -- at illegal immigration, a Talk post mentioned being a senior at Rice University and intending to craft a page. Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants She was/isKatcai02 and gotten a barnstar about Use of restraints on pregnant women .

Looking at her activity history led to finding another student at LHall19 and a general search for 'senior at rice' with site:wikipedia.org' turned up Wang1991 (and many others) who mentioned a class page Human Development

Love it ? Hate it ? Maybe systematically such will flush out due to low hits ... but then many small topics are in same kind of situation. Hmm.

- - -

p.s. looking at contributor led to another class Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University, Fullerton/Gender and Technoculture (Fall 2015) which says it is autogenerated class page ... hunh. Markbassett (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

pps now there is [2]

Perennial sources

Not sure if you saw my suggestion #2 in this cmt re changing the name of that page to clarify its intent. Also note my cmt here that "The issue perhaps is how to most appropriately and clearly indicate the value-add of 'existing consensus'." You can vote on that here. I indicated my willingness to change my vote if that clarification is implemented. In any case, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Humanengr (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Humanengr - I can see the title of it is wrong, being ‘repeatedly checked sources’ or something else. But then it seems a half-baked effort to what I am thinking seems a bad idea, so a poor title is not much surprise. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we’re largely on the same page — see item 1 in my response to the Template:Supplement RfC. In anticipating the support this RfC would likely garner, I thought it best to make things a bit less inedible. That led to this proposal where my last adjustment to the proposal was prompted by your cmt that “Ultimately a source is only judged RS in some context …”. I see that proposal as a nudge and perhaps a step away from totally inedible. Humanengr (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage disruption

snip

• [3] is where this all started. My notification is a courtesy since others seemed unobligated to alert you.--MONGO (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MONGO Thank you for the link. Since it was phrased as a shut up or else, it's seeming par for the course of censorship attempt. If they did not understand my post it would hardly be so violently opposed, it would just be ignored or more detail asked for -- although at some point, I think MrX and Starship do actually know what I am saying, they're perhaps just unwilling to WP:BRDDISCUSS concerns. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A lot of those talkpage comments require no response. As much as possible, always go armed with a load of references, especially from their approved venues....and keep things as short and sweet as possible to avoid acrimonious entanglements. In verbal conversations, few ever listen anyway, often talking past each other...but in online written discussions, this is even worse. At my job I have found that most people I chat with require me to repeat something twice if communicated verbally, and 4 times if done by email, and I even try to dumb things down for them so they get it. Wikipedia is worse even than that many times.--MONGO (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

::Also, Bishonen did ping you but me thinks as a courtesy, the reporting party, while not obligated since its not reported to a complaint board, should have done so...orbetter yet, AGF and simply come here and try to work things out directly beforehand.--MONGO (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC) snip

User:MONGO good hints. Though I still suspect there may be cases of topic selectivity, where some folks just don't want to or are congitively unable to talk about some concerns. That seems just the nature of the world these days Thanks again, the tips might help where it's not a strong block. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

stonkamets

Happened to see talk page of Stonkaments ...

Not sure of wp usage, but memes as topical policy/guidance might be good - philosophical stance is generally policy, and explanation or details is guidance

tiny gods (religion), follow your bliss, feeling your way in (history), etc... though under misc depressing “It is easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled.”

tiny gods ... it matters what vibes you spread, it matters which tiny gods you make more real through worship [4]

We make the world real through actions that open the heart. [5]

You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. You get to decide what to worship.

Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.

They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing.[6]

LISTGAP

Re: [7]

Per MOS:LISTGAP (which I linked for you in my edit summary), please don't use leading bullets in unbulleted sections. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, it got put back though due to the edit conflict ... Markbassett (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Article talk page concerns

Hi Markbassett. I would like to discuss the quantity and quality of your article talk page edits with you (and only you—No MONGO/Atsme/Levivich/PackMecEng, please and thank you). I'm hoping that I can convince you to earnestly strive for clarity, brevity, and relevance in your article talk page comments, especially at talk:Donald Trump. I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but I find that you post a large number of comments that make little sense and do little to advance the purpose of refining content. For example, you have made 32 comments in the discussion about COVID-19 in the lead. Not a single one of those comments has moved the discussion closer to resolution.

Here are some examples from the past couple of weeks. Collapsed for convenience.

1. You created a new section to falsely claim that an edit proposal is "Generally running “Oppose all”". You provide no substantiation to the claim. At that point, 13 editors supported the content and 11 opposed it. I asked you to "PLEASE strive for clarity, brevity, and complete sentences in your comments?". MelanieN responded to your comments: "No, Mark, "Oppose all" is certainly not a consensus takeaway from the above discussion." With a 13:11 support:oppose ratio, I have a hard time believing that this was anything other than WP:GASLIGHTING or simply lack of competence. I've highlighted portions that are ungrammatical to the point of being incomprehensible. The post was disruptive. Generally running “Oppose all” so now what ? Things above seem to have gotten lots of pushback and diverging into side topics, so I thought it time to open a subthread looking for the now what... 1. Can we agree that response above is generally or commonly running to “Oppose all”  ? Not to do the !count thing, it just seems to me..... a lot of oppose “all” (unusually broad), does not seem anywhere near any one proposed line favored or a progress for defining need or approach to a consensus edit on even a part-line tweak. 2. If so, then now what ? I think the original thread and all proposals are toast, and this one can close soon. But maybe there are some items worth note ? Maybe noting what general LEAD principles are of interest, such as edit body first? Or a side discussion worth spinning a new thread for ? - - - - — July 13, 2020 2. This doesn't make much sense. I guess it could have been summed up as "I agree." User:Rusf10 Good points, that the word ‘false’ is presented an UNDUE number of times. That WP is giving unequal treatment would need to refer to some standard though for any correction - to determine if it should be less white-washing there or less tar-and-feathers here. Also —- perhaps you would want to present article content about the external view of ‘false’, of it being a POV narrative and unprecedented posturing over nits. WP doesn’t need to say the ‘false’ claims as if that is factual or at all important to BLP - it is also a context of being under partisan attack and biased media coverage. To some extent, having it seems just a partisan talking point - something pushed vaguely in every opportunity, regardless of relevance. To some extent it seems just media infotainment selling to a niche - something done by deeply adversarial New York Times and Washington Post and Toronto Sun. Finer discussion of ‘false’ seems more something for the Presidency article, but the frequency here and wording here deserves extra scrutiny and context if it’s going to be said so, so often. — July 13, 2020 3. This example is more rambling than incoherent, but it stands out as a serious WP:CIR concern. You refer to starship.paint's extensive list of reliable source articles as "useless" and then you go on to cite townhall.com which is considered an inferior source full of opinion columns. User:Starship.paint “cherry picked” is your word, and thank you for collapsing the useless lists. But what you need to respond to is that those failed ONUS because they’re not applied towards anything and because one can google up 10 cites for just about every POV, and it is a bit unusable for the thread to just drop in ‘here are some urls’ without context of how gotten and which proposed wording is intended to be cited for what. We’re not going to give 40 cites for any line chosen, and LEAD really should be from body content and cites not an unrelated score of urls. Just umpteen hits at undefined randomness is basically useless and TLDR. There are billions of links on web - saying a number like 10 or 15 as if that is at all significant is just silly, you need to show something like appearance in all POV publications or WEIGHT in millions for a topic, and explain the phrase it is intended to go to. I can equally turn up URLs for say Fauci praised President Trumps travel ban and travel restrictions. That you did an example (or above several) simply does nothing for DUE or OFFTOPIC or picking which particular hit for relevance and information instead of SENSATION or POV. So show a few million hits and maybe you’ve got DUE. Show it from BBC and not just NYT and maybe you’ve got widely said. Show it actually is part of an impact on President Trumps life and you’ve got BLP instead of OFFTOPIC. But showing me just 10 hits from the usual partisan sources NYT et al.... just isn’t anything. Not even showing enough DUE for a ‘critics said’. — July 13, 2020 4. This is virtually incomprehensible, but it does seem to insult an editor who went out of their way to cite sources to support a content proposal which is exactly what we are supposed to do on article talk pages. User:Starship.paint Thank you for collapsing that, but nope this cherry-picking google only shows that gives situation is unclear result - it included (a) “government slow”, as in Congress etc not “Trump”, and (b) demonstrated “critics” claim this, plus (c) did not consider the RS saying otherwise. Such as it being a mix of good and bad - e.g. Politifact saying “slow” is incorrect or BBC descriptions of things gotten right and wrong. Cheers Markbassett — July 12, 2020 5. This one is blatant WP:TE and WP:GASLIGHTING. starship.paint meticulously compiled a list of high quality sources (20, not 10); categorized them according to each element of the proposed content; and quoted each one. Somehow that wasn't good enough for you. You wrote: User:Starship.paint again you did not get the point -- that this dumping unexplained lists of about 10 cites is unusable and just meaningless. You didn't give context of how that was crafted; or which edit wording it was intended to support; or even if those are cites in this article or the other one or intended to be added somehow. You just dumped a load into TALK. thank you for at least hatting it, but of circa one billion hits in Google finding a dozen for any particular POV does not do anything to show it is significant or that other POVs do not exist. {{Just say what was the point of the list and how you made it and how you intend it to be used -- and if your answer is to show 'only my view is right' then I'll be glad to come back with ELEVEN cites about other view, or maybe 10 cites to places saying silly stuff like that's a chihuahua on his head or he's really the love child of a werewolf.|#ffeee}} Again, just dropping 10 urls just doesn't ring as if that's a significant portion let alone as all the POVs. — July 14, 2020 6. Here you repeat the falsehood that "Oppose all seems the consensus", even though six days earlier I had already documented 17 editors supporting the material and 12 opposing it (17:12). ValarianB and Emir of Wikipedia commented in the interim increasing the numbers to 18:13 in support. Oppose all (seems the consensus) - while there were variations in the opposition, the prior discussion of this thread seemed the proposals 1 2 3 had a consensus of 'oppose' and phrasing of 'oppose all' was commonly said as each one was mostly opposed by folks rather than anything having a consensus. The A B C ... through P are topics and if you're asking are they contentious then I'd have to say it depends on the phrasing and the context. A topic of "slow" is different depending on if the proposed phrase is "initially slow" or "criticized as slow" or "falsely said slow"; and if the context is for a LEAD edit or a body edit, and whether the sole part of the paragraph of has more there. — July 29, 2020 7. Then you double down on the first false "oppose all" claim. User:MelanieN Factually the answers above *did* run to a lot of "Oppose All" -- with that exact phrasing in many cases and the general theme in many more of the discussions also having a strong 'no not that' flavor. The phrasings as shown in proposals seem toasted enough to me, and note the discussion moved along from there. — July 29, 2020 8. And again. This is now the fourth time you claimed that Oppose all seems the consensus. User:Scjessey - Oppose all (seems the consensus) - factually is part of my input. Yes 'none of the above' isn't desired, but that doesn't mean 'none of the above' isn't part of my input - and the above snippet of MrX is a different flavor of intent that seems simply incorrect since this thread isn't yet looking at the "determine specific wording", which was part of why I'm at Oppose all. Where the thread was looking for some sense of what's more or less contentious -- I have explained that depends on the phrasing and position -- and where the ending question of which is "notable enough for Lead" -- I give oppose all because that's not a valid basis for Lead content. While I could try to give some ranking as to what seems body larger or WEIGHT more prominent -- even that wraps into it depends on phrasing and position and would still leave all these selections as 'oppose' for content and conflict reasons. My responses would be 'not X: blah bla bla, it should ask bla beeh bla'. Although the phrasing topic is not the question asked, that seemed to me an important sidenote to mention and it seems evidenced at F/G and I, J, and L. I also see A as conflicting with or competing with M because of the wording, both being some prominence to a sub-area of criticism and how it's phrased. So !vote is oppose all, bu good for eliciting concerns. — July 29, 2020 9. Here you feed a concern troll and use it as an opportunity undermine every other editor who has collaborated to improve the article. I also have no idea why you need four space between each sentence. ser:Mitchellindahouse - Welcome. I agree the article is biased, mostly written by critics and heavily based on sources that are critics, and has had many remark about the bias. I figure it as largely due to WP goes by WEIGHT supposed to convey in proportion to the coverage and mainstream media -- is what it is. Plus WP editors here go a bit beyond that in selection bias and phrasing, but then everyone comes with their own Bias. I suggest that if you see something specific and clearly wrong go ahead and make a WP:BOLD edit on that, and be prepared to TALK about it here as it may well get reverted. — July 29, 2020 10. Here, you make the blatantly false statement that "Version 3 was already and emphatically rejected." against clear evidence posted to the contrary here: User:MrX/DT_lead_COVID-19 (options A-E) and here:[8] User:Bdushaw - For what help it may be, I think the “version 3” refers to the first subthread of “We have to agree and specify wording”. The top thread “Covid-19 in the lead” was originally about whether to mention “Obamacare” or to use “Affordable Care Act” and had a few variants of one proposal, then came a “We have to agree” section with 5 variants of a different proposal. That whole “We have to” section had mostly objections, and unusually said “all” in many “Oppose all” feedbacks. Version 3 was already and emphatically rejected. This part is maybe getting some info for what bits the supporters felt most positive towards. Covid has substantial articles and is at Presidency of Donald Trump - and it has a section here in his biographical article, but Lead position was decided against. In the last rfc, (and this one seems headed the same way) noted at the top of this thread: "This RfC doesn't reach a consensus about whether to mention coronavirus in the lead of Trump's article." It also doesn't reach a consensus about what to say if we did mention it. — July 31, 2020 11. Literally no one in this discussion mentioned deplorables but you. The subject of the subthread was whether Wikipedia's voice was appropriate for this edit. Folks - you are perhaps having fun in that echo chamber, but it might work out better to address the concerns of other views or to at least acknowledge and show hearing in ways that aren’t dismissive and shows restraint about calling them deplorables. FWIW - is there anything of a purely factual and/or neutral content that you think could actually get widespread support now? — July 31, 2020 12. WP:SPEAKENGLISH Well, try 2 got reverted ... in lack of anything feedback I tried a second time with different edit but the wikilink was disliked, so will try it without wikilink. Just keep it simple. — August 1, 2020 13. WP:SPEAKENGLISH and tell the truth. User:Bdushaw a few facts off in that review, let me restate. Awiley did some paraphrasing of bits for A-M from a casually said from prior TALK as well as article. That later expanded a bit and he later added P. It’s not a careful examination of article nor all from him. Starship had previously done unrelated 5 sets of urls titled with kinds of “slow”, they were not part of the current A thru P items and only A is about “slow”. MrX summarised only the minority of editors who wanted anything as to what bits they’d like. Those opposed were expressly disinvited and their inputs are not reflected. The question of whether there is to be Covid in the lead is not unanswered. The answer in the consensus list is “no”. Those who object have no “obligation to suggest appropriate text”, that is kind of the point. If anything, the BRD guidance is for the *proposer* to listen to the objections already given. — August 1, 2020 14.WP:SPEAKENGLISH and tell the truth. Tsk. Well, I could use your phrasing and frame it there’s clearly significant opposition, and that clearly there is no consensus to include anything. I however can back that up with fact of a numbered consensus said that twice, and by this thread the revert and amount of oppose in the top with unusual amount of ‘oppose all’. So that should be your starting point. And that WP guidance the ONUS is on proposer, along with BRD to address the concerns. Instead there seems a persistent behaviour of presumptive declaration, denying or simply ignoring any other views even exist and overstating support. (This apparent announcing a count limited to non-opposition as a ‘consensus’ being a case in point.) Well, it’s an approach I don’t think improves content or leads to consensus, but for now I don’t see any willingness to address things so think it will remain at no consensus for anything. — August 1, 2020

I would happy to elaborate on any of these examples if you like.

I know that numerous editors have given you feedback about the quality of your comments in the threads in which they occur. Do you need me list those as well? There have been a few discussions, requests, warnings, and a sanction, yet it seems that you have not adapted your approach. In fact, I think it's becoming worse.

• Sanction - March 4, 2019
• Warning - July 19, 2019
• Discussion - August 18, 2019
• Discussion - July 13, 2020
• Warning - July 14, 2020
• Request - July 23, 2020

I am asking one final time for you to please practice good talk page communication going forward. I believe that would entail posting less often; writing in complete, non-slang English sentences; citing sources to help resolve disputes; not posting false comments; not repeating your arguments; not making outlandish demands of other editors; not giving remedial instructions to experienced editors; not disparaging high quality sources that are used extensively throughout Wikipedia; not using troll comments as a springboard for criticizing your fellow editors; not using bizarre formatting in your comments; and basically just following common practice and WP:TPG. Sometimes it helps to read your comments out loud before you click submit. I hope this helps. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 18:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)