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)

RfC at Trump

I reckon you should probably self-close that or withdraw it for now, I don't think it's ripe just yet. I'm not really clear that the competing versions are properly understood yet, for example. I suggest waiting until some concrete alternatives are in play and then try again. Guy (help!) 14:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:JzG This bit seems addressable. A couple editors said to try a separate thread for it... I had first thought “report” was an easy fix of accidental oops in a prior TALK thread that fell idle at a confusion over date... it had been “whistleblower complaint” in discussion up to then. But a couple editors said it’s intentional and so here we are. I see other issues with that para, but one bit at a time... Markbassett (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, as I said on the article talk page, you have opened a very broad RfC on the entire paragraph. If you intended to confine it to report vs. complaint or to August vs. September, you should reformulate it that way with two binary questions. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO it’s asking only about what to say preceded the inquiry. It is not intended to limit it to a binary on “whistleblower complaint” or “report”, there are more options in just the several past examples shown, and something else may be better yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark, it is probably best to weed through the cruft, and include what we know to be factual information per WP:DUE with less emphasis on opinion-based allegations behind a partisan-based impeachment inquiry. Time just published an article that may prove helpful. Zelensky said repeatedly, "Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo." The The Times UK headline reads: "The Times view on the Trump impeachment inquiry: Going Nowhere". There is a pretty high likelihood that, since RECENTISM is at play here, quite a few changes will be necessary to achieve NPOV, especially when academics and historians start publishing with an enlightened retrospective. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Atsme I expect there will be CCC further shifts later such as in a couple months when there is some conclusion perhaps. WP:DUE seems clearly to favor “whistleblower complaint” and was mentioned by me, but other choices/reasons may be advanced and have more influence. In the meanwhile, there seems more effort being put into stopping any identification of community view on a simple wording point rather than just finding out what it is. That too may be the future - that folks will push to block any community view. CHeers Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mark - I'm about to turn in for the night, but in closing, I'll simply say what you already know; i.e., consensus rules. Be patient and as more facts emerge, then the facts will change consensus. No need to waste positive energy over it this early in the game. As they say...Wait for it. Hell, we've already waited 2 years for the Mueller investigation gouging, and it came and went like greased lightening. What's another year going to hurt? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Atsme Unfortunately, at the moment I’m more focused that a sidethread dominated by 3 editors just got to shut down wider discussion and seeking consensus on a small wording item where all the relevant facts are in hand, by crafted narratives and ad hominem approach. In the longer run I expect a great deal will change... with crafted narratives and ad hominem approach still in play. Not that the wrong couple words significantly shift the issues of that article, let alone the world, but disappointing to have even the small things made impossible. Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

As you know, we adhere to NPOV according to the prevalent POV. Material is cited to RS but reliability and/or relevance is determined by prevailing consensus. Does that sound about right? I went back and read the BLPs of former presidents, and they are greatly improved by editors who focus on doing just that as (a) each administration changes, (b) the fervor plays out and (c) academics/historians publish their retrospectives. In the interim, as long as fervor is still in play, an editor who attempts to defend him/herself or an article against crafted POV narratives and ad hominem approaches by those who share the prevalent view is awarded with a lovely t-ban that forces a shutdown of wider discussion in the consensus building process. It makes everything run much more smoothly because, as we all know, opposition causes disruption whereas like minds rarely have reason to debate, except maybe over grammar. Oh, and be extremely careful about your choice of words - it appears that it’s ok to tell someone to f-off as long as you don’t include the reason. 😂

No, there is no consensus-first requirement for the Trump lead

Re: [3]

There is no such requirement, so please don't make that assertion again. Only those few parts of the lead specifically covered by existing consensus require prior new consensus to change (admittedly there is some disagreement on what constitutes existing consensus). Everything else is fair game for BOLD. You can BRD-revert such a change because you don't think it improves the article (with a clear edit summary stating why you feel that way), but not merely because it lacks prior consensus. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflicts)

User:Mandruss - And I did not say there was a "requirement", I asked them to TALK and said there is a local convention. Try reading again the words in context of the practices here and it being para 5.

• The edit comment has a directive or request "(Revert LEAD good-faith edits - for this article, get consensus on lead edits in TALK before any changes)" You could read that as simply BRD if you want, but I meant it as a generally you're going to get reverted so might as well start with D.
• The TALK phrasing is "per the local convention - for this article, get consensus on lead edits in TALK before any changes". And for the lead edits in current events, I think that's common and not a bad idea.
• The history in TALK has a number of threads discussing lead edits. It's not the only way, it's not even the most common way -- but it exists. (e.g. "Talk:Donald_Trump#Summary of policy actions in lead section" "Revised Mueller description in the lead per consensus in talk." "restored original lead after providing sources in the body paragraph, as requested") That is not usual, it seems a local convention from the contentious nature of the article. I also see folks restoring stable lead paras or reverting out cites defending a no-cites-in-lead convention, and otherwise restoring para 5 of the lead.
• In any case, pinging three editors who were silently getting run over to come TALK doesn't seem a bad thing or outside BRD. If you oppose the discussion, eh.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If you revert with that as a rationale, that's a requirement in my book. But if you're going to draw a subtle distinction between requirement and local convention, there is no local convention that I'm aware of, either. Try reading again the words in context of the practices here and it being para 5. I read the words (of the edit summary) again, and they say nothing about para 5. They do refer to the entire lead, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - I find it odd that you interpret revert edit summaries as "requirements", I use them per WP guidelines that they should be a summary of the edit and in case of revert for the reason(s). And yes, English has different words... someone is not saying something is a "requirement" if they are saying the word "convention". Perhaps "frequent practice" would have suited you better ? And para 5 is the context -- that this is a discussion of editing the area of lead remarks about impeachment proceedings. In any case, I get the impression you disfavor pre-discussion of leads so will count you as OK with folks like me making an edit there now and again without prior discussion. (Though I think I'd again favor trimming some line(s) rather than adding more.) But probably not — after all, I think the local convention is talk about it first. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"funding request for CDC"

I think you will find more mention of the funding request for CDC, appointment of Pence, - Mark, you mentioned these in the Trump's response to the coronavirus discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by the CDC funding request, even after Googling it. Did you mean the $2.5 million requested from Congress to tackle the virus? That's already in Presidency of Donald Trump#Public Health, as is the appointment of Pence. starship.paint (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint yes the $2.5bn is it. That request has WEIGHT, and that Congress tripled it. The article should be looking for items at that level of prominence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 - MrX 🖋 20:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MrX if you’re referring to my editing a list of RS that Google shows for “the China virus”, please cease being disruptive, making personal attacks, jumping to conclusions, and insinuating threats. That TALK thread is about the virus, my subthread is to identify what RS specifically used the phrase and gives links. Commentary and judgement may follow or exist elsewhere, but the subthread is “Just the facts of RS that used it” and anything else is OFFTOPIC and perhaps belongs in the parent thread or make your own subthread. Observe CIVIL and AGF please. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep pushing this China virus nonsense and I will request that you be topic banned. I hope that's clear enough. - MrX 🖋 21:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MrX ? I see you disagree with me about funding request for CDC, and/or about the WEIGHT of wording being just this weeks tiff far below other items, and/or are against seeking or adding in correct facts at SARS talk of which sites (with example URL) have used it. It’s actually hard to tell. If you feel observing AGF and CIVIL is not appropriate for you and that you should be allowed disruption and personal attacks of other views, then I urge you to request a topic ban as judgement of which of us has lost the plot. But I’d really suggest just try to decaf and look at facts as facts, and then figure out edits from whatever cites are. If some facts are inconvenient or others parse them differently is an inevitable but separate matter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Markbassett. They're not "some facts" - they're some thing else. At some point we need to return to earth. It's not a personal attack to note that you regularly cite Fox and other non-RS narratives, even in the face of a superabundance of RS reports and analysis to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For stength in the face of unmitigated bias and ignorance, I hereby award you this barnstar. MONGO (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)