User talk:Markbassett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to road, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.

Deletion discussion about Intelligent design (historical)[edit]

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[edit]

-- 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)


To avoid being blocked ...[edit]

snippet note quoth

Stop icon

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

snippet to hide off-topic discussion fm progressive tax talk -- at the top

off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

and at the bottom

Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

TALK at Creation-Evolution Controversy [about Outside the United States][edit]

It appeared that the other editors were not swayed by the facts that I brought up and I did not try to press the point beyond that. Dan Watts (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Surprise ! I've been blocked - and explanation only says "Long-term abuse: User:Philm540" ????[edit]

This happened sometime after my edit of 17:05 19 August and noon of 22 August, but there is no apparent reason for a block, even for a topic block, as far as I can see.

  • Nothing really said what this is about, there was nothing explanatory in the post.
  • I'm blocked so unable to post messages at the User:KrakatoaKatie to ask what this is.
  • I did not find my name in the Active Case list, nor the Archive or Full case list
  • I do not have anything on my talk page
  • I have not seen any heated warnings to me or heated mentions about at any recent Talk or edits that pinged misconduct
  • I see no unexplained activity in my contributions that would indicate account hacked
  • I'm also unable to see anything contentious in the last few days of my edits to cause this - the last few things I've done seem nothings, design review, a scheduling disambiguation, and some Talk items mostly from WP:RSN and WP:RFC/A. The RSN and RFC were on contentious topics, but my inputs were polite responses to questions.
  • Last edits on what seem hot pages were nothing much - 17 Aug removed dead wikilinking around a phrase at article Lost Cause of the Confederacy; 13 Aug put in book linking at History of Eugenics; 2 August, move a few ref tags left in the sentence to the part they supported at Creation–evolution controversy.


I see an odd message my Special Notifications a day ago "User:Markbassett/Sandbox was patrolled by DragonFlySixtyseven a day ago, but I'm not understanding what that means and see no reason that my sandbox would cause a block.

The complete text I see on edits now is as follows: - - - - Editing from 2600:1002:B000:0:0:0:0:0/39 has been blocked (disabled) by KrakatoaKatie for the following reason(s):

Long-term abuse: User:Philm540

This block has been set to expire: 19:28, 11 February 2016. - - -

Please remove and/or explain this block. Thank you.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Markbassett (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

seems a glitch - no info given in notice, not finding info, no recent activity known

Accept reason:

Ip-block exemption granted, see below. --slakrtalk / 03:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That means you're editing from a blocked range which isn't set to "anonymous users only". Rangeblocks are generally used as a last resort to curb a long-term or IP-hopping vandal's disruption. Individual IPs can't be blocked independent of the range. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Sorry for the confusion. We can likely grant an ip block exception (IPBE) for you to continue editing. I've gone ahead and requested a quick check for this, and if that comes back fine, everything we can grant the IPBE immediately. In the meantime (hopefully less than a day), be sure to read and understand the conditions for being granted IPBE. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
...and done. Let us know if you continue to encounter any issues. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 03:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
--slakr Thanks... I'm going to limit my use of free wifi for a bit and see if those IPs were the issue. Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

School and student project pages[edit]

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)

Creationism[edit]

You're at three reverts. Use the talk page please. --NeilN talk to me 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Already did . On just a 'this one is not appropriate cite to what the line says' nit ... Markbassett (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You are currently at 4 ([2], [3], [4], [5]). And if I include an extra 3 hours, it's actually 5 ([6]) This would lead to a block if I reported it at AN3. I would very strongly suggest refraining from any further reverts on the page and leaning exclusively on discussion for a little while. Keeping yourself at a 1rr or 2rr for a few days is a surefire way of avoiding this sort of problem. Best of luck.   — Jess· Δ 17:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Jess You've confused different items being edited:
* in the lead, the inappropriate cite on 'scientists say': second cite is not nor is he talking about them
* in the section 2.3.1, identifying who began calling it IDC as opposed the to the WP:WEASEL 'some'
Otherwise, see the TALK at creationism - it is discussed, although this all seems a bit overkill for fixing such tiny nit badnesses. Markbassett (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Mark, please read WP:3rr again. The rule applies to reverting the same or different content. I have no stake in the debate; you'll notice I hadn't engaged with this issue in any capacity. I was just pointing out that you had breached 3rr, which is a blockable offense. I didn't report you, but I wanted you to be aware of what was happening, so you could avoid that behavior in the future. I'd suggest sticking to a 1rr or 2rr for yourself on that page for a few days and engaging with others on the talk page a little more. Best of luck.   — Jess· Δ 20:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Jess Ah, you're correct I see -- ANY edit to the page counts, regardless of if they are different sections or different intents. Kind of leads towards ominibus edits, which I wouldn't like, or just going real slow, which I'm more inclined towards. (Except I may forget about it during a pause... eh, still better.) Markbassett (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
p.s. Further thought ... that TRR is open to ANY three edits to an article within 24 hours could be viewed as a TRR seems a bit flawed, not an issue for me often but on any active discussion it would be sure to occur ... maybe a village pump topic. Markbassett (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
In general, no. The point of EW rules is to encourage editors to work together, not against one another. If you've made several edits that have been reverted, the best course of action is to propose edits on the talk page before changing the article. You should not be hitting 3rr in the regular course of your editing, and if you are, it's a sign you could be doing a better job of engaging other editors before making controversial changes.
There are places where 3rr fails. Meatpuppetry on low-trafficked articles is one, and unfortunately results in an article reflecting inappropriate content for a while until discussion runs its course in a formal venue. Very rarely, two editors productively collaborating may break 3rr, but this even more rarely results in a report. The biggest issue with 3rr is when a disruptive editor makes a series of inappropriate changes that are all unique, without discussion or reverting, and 3rr limits more experienced editors from returning the article to its stable state. We have IAR and BLP exemptions for egregious cases... but really, it's important to recognize that every article is "in progress", and generally speaking, it's okay if it isn't perfect for a few days. Fixing these issues is less important than encouraging discussion and collaboration, at least in the minds of many editors, and it's for that reason posting to VPP is unlikely to result in any sort of change. Good luck either way, though.   — Jess· Δ 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Just a Friendly Suggestion[edit]

Heya, Mark. Just a friendly suggestion: you might want to put something on your user page, even if it's just an image or a single sentence, so it's no longer redlinked. I got a bit confused as to whether I was using the reply template correctly, for example, because your name was redlinked. When other users refer to you, it can also give the mistaken impression to readers (especially new users) that a user by your name doesn't exist. There's a variety of similar situations in which it would be more logistically ideal that your user page was bluelinked, aside from it just looking better - like you're an editor here to stay; as you've probably noticed, the majority of redlinked names are new users or single purpose accounts. As I said, its just a suggestion (and you're certainly under no obligation to do anything of the sort), but I thought I would propose it. Have a good day, my friend. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quinto Simmaco Understood, but WP:User pages has that open to choice and I chose to have and use my Talk page but had no purpose or desire for a User profile page, and did not want to redirect it to the Talk page as that seemed just confusing. I actually get a small side benefit that Red helps me find my posts in a Talk. Markbassett (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have a suggestion for that, as far as helping you to sight your posts. Go to this page, and copy the text there: User:Quinto_Simmaco/common.js, and paste it to User:Markbassett/common.js. It will highlight all of the posts you've made. It also has the added benefit of displaying the most pertinent and useful user data and page data at the top of any page, among other things. By this, I mean things such as when it was last edited, who created it, etc. For users, it displays their permissions, current status, how long they've been on Wikipedia, and the number of their contributions. It has numerous other benefits which I can't recall at the moment. Most of the veteran users here, especially administrators or those serving bureaucratic functions, have a similar script page with the same capabilites. User:L235 is the user who encouraged me to adopt those javascript additions. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you'll find it invaluable, and wonder how you ever did without it. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Sigh - so had to go to extra effort to zero it back out. Folks editing anothers user page without talk. Then had yet another do it so went back to WP:USER and found it again. Suppose I could do protection of user page but that seems a bit much. Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Before you add See also links ...[edit]

Hi, I just undid two of your See also links as the wikilink in question was in both cases already in use in the article text. A quick search of the article is required before See also links are added; and since See also is almost invariably less good for readers' understanding than a line of text and a proper citation, it's always worth considering whether you can spare a moment to add things to the text instead. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW as the discussion above mentioned, a redlinked username does give everyone the impression they're dealing with a newbie, and some of our colleagues are less friendly than they ought to be. The page doesn't have to give anything away.

Chiswick Chap - mm, think thanks for the undo pointer at Evolution, it's presence there wasn't visible to me there. Otherwise - I'm thinking "See Also" may be desirable, particularly at Modern synthesis. In that case, the section "Postscript" seems just ill-done and not very appropriate. It's mostly not that the section title implies Modern Synthesis is dead (though I've seen a genomics advocate quote saying that), it's that the text there is so little/wrong and seems a bit WP:OFFTOPIC to just insert a line saying 'there is this later topic(s)'... If it's a related topic, WP:ALSO seems indicated instead. I'll ponder a bit and maybe come back to the articles TALK on this. Markbassett (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:NOTMEMORIAL and victim lists in tragedy articles[edit]

I took the liberty of refactoring your !vote into an "Alternatives" section below "Oppose", and added my own to this category, if that seems sensible to you (if not, just remove the "Alternatives" subhead and we'll both appear in "Oppose", which is okay).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Markbassett. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Non-functional requirement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deployment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Merely a formality; it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Markbassett! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel(talk) 07:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Basic outline[edit]

I have prepared a basic outline here for you. Since only some of that type of detail is mentioned in RS, I don't see how we can use it without an OR violation. We simply document the time period over which they were written and how many there are: 17 memos, 35 pages, were written between June 20 and December 13, 2016. Do we really need more? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer less and more maybe. Since the items were individually released and did not have page marks or begin as'1', drop the first column numbering and page numbering in column two as not part of the item, and rephrase 'written from' to 'issued various dates between'? A length of each rather than pagination might suit. Think it would make a neatly presented table at 2 lines per report?
For RS sources, googling with site:Washingtonpost.com may help as they did at least a couple walkthroughs.
What were you thinking for title and placement of this ? Markbassett (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's now located here. Feel free to discuss there and make tweaks, but ping me since I won't get any notification. My watchlist is so large I can easily miss it.
I have never had any plans for using this unless RS made something of it. I'm not sure how this would be accepted at the article.
Here are the current wordings from the article:
  • "a private intelligence report comprising 17 memos that were written from June to December 2016".
  • "Steele delivered his reports individually as one- to three-page memos.[2] The first memo, dated June 20, 2016, was sent to Washington by courier and hand-delivered to Fusion GPS. The names of the sources were redacted, "providing instead descriptions of them that enabled Fusion to assess their basic credibility."[8]"
Would you rather see different wording there?
The public never received these reports individually. What we have is what BuzzFeed released, and I assume they were the ones who wrote the numbers on the pages, but I could be wrong. AFAIK, Steele has never commented on the page numbering. I suspect that if it was wrong, he would have commented. That's all we have to go on. If you find anything, let me know. The dossier has been written about in so many RS that there is a lot I haven't read. This is one of the most notable and sensational documents in recent political history. Fringe sources on both the right and left also discuss it, but we can't use that. I haven't even looked at those sources, except for when it's occasionally been "thrown in my face" online. It's hard to avoid completely. There is lots of speculation there which isn't worth considering.
Simpson has mentioned the page numbering, but it's primary source testimony:
  • Simpson: "Yes. Could I just clarify something? I assume this is exactly how it was published and someone mixed up the sequence of the memos. So the next memo's numbered 94 and is dated July 19th and this one is 95 and is not dated, I don't believe. Maybe that's why they got mixed up."[7]
In that source, the Senate uses Bates numbering for each page.
So the current page numbering may not be in the order in which the memos were written and sent. That would explain why they are not all in chronological order. I'm sure that journalists have been analyzing these memos for a long time, and done so in the correct chronological order. Many themes are repeated and developed throughout the dossier as he got more information. There are several story lines, but we can only document what secondary RS say about this type of stuff.
Most of the headings, except for the first one, aren't found in secondary sources, but of course there are several online sources for the whole dossier, but we can't use them. I generally use two, the original BuzzFeed Documentcloud source, and The Moscow Project, where a clean version is found. It's easier to search, but it lacks page numbers and also blacks out some lines of content. That has to be compared with the Documentcloud version. Some parts are blacked out in all versions. They contain information which could cost lives. Steele knows the names of many of his sources. Anonymous does not equal unknown. Journalists and spies have always used this system when dealing with anonymous sources. It is the public which doesn't know their names. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer - I think the table would be better as just title and date columns. it seems OK to present them in the order shown but nothing much seems lost when the added numberings are left off.

There is perhaps enough for a short paragraph below the table, although there are many statements made on a wide range of sites as possible material - not all of them would go in or all sources good, but here's a quick example: I've seen tables of allegation + source + circular 'Here'; Cost described here; and examining the number and appearance over if there is more here and here. But just the bare simple table would seem a good step to me. If you're not sure of that, perhaps discuss it at the TALK to see how others feela bout the table format. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately I saw your ping before leaving, so I'll leave you with the current status. I have already added this content. I'll look at your sources later. Thanks for finding them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, now I've had time to look at your sources. Unfortunately none of them are RS here. The idea that there is much more to the dossier (the missing pages) than were published by BuzzFeed is compelling and makes sense. I wonder if the FBI/CIA/NSA have those pages (too)? What we have is apparently just 17 memos out of possibly 80.6, assuming the missing pages were also memos of 1-3 pages each. (Calculation based on 17/35 x n/166.) It's all interesting speculation. Can we find that in RS? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Bronco article[edit]

Mark, you might find this page interesting with regards to the Bronco page. [[8]] Springee (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Looks like you are being mentioned on NeilN's talk page as a COI editor.[9] PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng - thanks, dunno what that is about. The diff link above did nto work but I found a ref there -- and I also got a ping because he did put in my user tag. I'll ask what its about. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

About that case I mentioned at the Donald Trump talk page[edit]

Mark, about the case I mentioned at Talk:Donald Trump: I guess you didn’t read the link.[10] This happened this year. He was 19 and about to graduate from high school. He was sent back to Mexico in April 2018. Three weeks later he was killed. He was granted DACA status in 2015 (you don’t have to be a high school graduate to qualify for DACA; being in school is one of the eligibility criteria.[11]) His status was terminated in 2017 when he was convicted for a misdemeanor. So he was no longer DACA, but the rest of the story is accurate. He was sent to Mexico - and was murdered within weeks. My actual point was simply as a counterpoint to Atsme’s comment “wouldn't it be a shame if they fled Central America to escape drug dealers and murder, and then ended up in Chicago.” As if to suggest that Chicago, or anyplace in America, is more dangerous than Central America. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Going by just homicide rate, the average crime rate of my adopted home city of Chicago is 23.8 per 100,000 from Crime in Chicago, which is similar to Crime in Colombia at 24.4 and Crime in Puerto Rico at 30.6. But those are the two lowest in central america. So yes Chicago is safer than most anything south of the boarder, but not night and day. If you want to get crazy Crime in Baltimore at 57.8. PackMecEng (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The murder rate in Mexico is no worse than Chicago and in fact is lower than nearly 30 cities in the US[12]MONGO 17:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Um, your own link says Chicago's murder rate is 17.52 (lower than Atlanta, Savannah, Memphis, Kansas City, Red Stick, Jackson Mississippi, Birmingham, and New Orleans - funny how you never hear people trying to use these cities as foils for their wacked views). Mexico's murder rate overall is 20.5. So yeah, it's worse. You should really be comparing cities to cities though and... hey, there's this thing called a "Wikipedia", which is an online encyclopedia, and it happens to have a list: List of cities by murder rate. Chicago doesn't even make the list.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
(and anyway, the kid was from Des Moines).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, those are per capita stats such as this report which also shows the total # of homicides. Chicago unequivocally leads the way in total homicides, so criticizing others for having whacked views is a shoe that belongs on the other foot. List of cities by murder rate needs to be fixed to reflect the correct information so such misinformation doesn't spread. Chicago leads in sheer numbers of homicides (762 in 2016, 650 in 2017) and that isn't going to change as long as the politicians who are milking that city continue to maintain control and do little to nothing about the drug cartels. It wouldn't be surprise me one bit if it turns out there are several corrupt politicians involved in that mess. Atsme📞📧 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course they're "per capita stats", that's why it's called a murder rate. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges. You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "murder" and a "homicide", which must be why you're posting a link about murders to argue about homicides. Our article is just fine. The fact that Chicago is ranked #25 , not "#1" should've alerted you to the fact. But like MONGO, you don't even bother reading your own links. Just let it fly with the ideologically driven BS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
No, the article is not "just fine." As for the discussion here, stop the wikilawyering and read the terminology in the cited sources. If you have a problem with what the sources say, you can always send an email to the publisher demonstrating how well-versed you are about the differences between murder and homicide. [pause for a round of applause] I doubt it will change the level of how dead those people are, much less the numbers - Chicago is still #1 in killings no matter how you try to spin it, or what you want to call it - and that's talking pure-D 🍎s to 🍎s. Atsme📞📧 00:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Omg. You're calling a disagreement about actual facts "wikilawyering". It's like as if we were arguing about what's 2x2 and I said 4 and you said "stop the wikilawyering". How does that make any sense Atsme? The article is fine, again, you just don't understand the difference between a "murder" and a "homicide" (hint: one is a subset of the other) and between "per 100,000 people" and "total" (hint: the second one isn't very useful because it says nothing about how dangerous a particular place is, because bigger places have more people ya know?). Hey, do you know what has more killings than Chicago? Texas! You see how that works? You pick a place with a higher population, you'll get more total murders (or homicides). There is a reason why it's always the rate that is quoted. I don't have a problem with the sources. I have a problem with your total and complete lack of comprehension of what the sources actually say (and your attempts to edit articles or comment in discussions on the basis of this total and complete lack of comprehension).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
i found the perfect background for your narrative. It comes to mind whenever I read your responses. 💃🎡 Atsme📞📧 00:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Reasoning with the unreasonable is a waste of time...don't waste your time. I recognized your point about Chicago and what the unreasonable don't get is like Mexico and any place there are some areas that are simply more violent than others. Much of Chicago is not crime ridden nor is much of Omaha where I live, but one section of Omaha was until recently the most violent place in America for African American males with a 37/100,000 murder rate...whereby as a state, Nebraska has a lower homicide rate than the national average. CNN used one example to make an example and it acts like this same sort of scenario never happened under Obama, which is a lie.--MONGO 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"Reasoning with the unreasonable is a waste of time" - says the guy who doesn't even understand his own source. I can offer you a mini course on basic statistics if you'd like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Melanie, I guess you didn't read the section Not a deportation, or He didn't know anyone in Mexico which also states: "Details are sketchy about how Cano Pacheco died." Yet, CNN used its propaganda arm to make sure readers will blame Trump and what they falsely refer to as "Trump's immigration policy" which is a big lie. ICE is enforcing federal laws that were passed by Congress long before Trump was president - and those same laws were being enforced under past presidents - the media has simply chosen to make it a big deal now because they hate Trump. Media always takes a "humanity" approach - it attracts more readers, and incites more people into action for all the wrong reasons. Don't forget the DREAM Act was a bipartisan bill that was first introduced in August 2001 to a Democratic Senate who failed to pass the bill. DACA was Obama's idea - a temporary workaround - because Congress would not pass the DREAM Act - it was never passed into law. The reason Trump rescinded it: Republican attorneys general and governors threatened legal action against the executive branch if the Trump administration didn’t rescind the 2012 DACA memorandum by Sept. 5, 2017. The Trump administration announced a “wind-down” of the program that day. The memo from the Department of Homeland Security said that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had determined that because DACA was set up through an executive action after Congress rejected legislation on the matter, it was “an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws” and “an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” Trump has said many times that he will sign DACA into law if Congress will fund the border wall that he promised the American people. Our entire immigration system needs major changes but first things first - like doing what we can to suppress nuclear war. I'm happy knowing rocket man has at least stopped test-firing nukes, and would think the rest of the world is equally as happy. Atsme📞📧 17:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Trump "has said many times" that he will sign a DACA bill if it funds the wall. In fact the Democrats offered him exactly that, earlier this year.[13] Many bipartisan bills have been proposed in Congress that include DACA and the wall. But every time, Trump winds up saying he won't sign it. If you want to see how impossible he is to deal with, just read this article about what has been going on today went on in January when all conditions seemed ripe for an agreement: How a day that started with a bipartisan immigration deal ended with a “shithole” It turns out that after the Dems agreed to the wall, he started ALSO demanding restrictions on immigration from countries he doesn't like. And if he gets that, he will probably come up with some other non-negotiable demand. He just isn't going to sign anything. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. And as for the DREAM Act, please see DREAM Act#Legislative history. The Democrats ALWAYS vote for it; the Republicans kill it. Yes, it was first proposed in 2001 to a Democratic senate House, but it was modified several times by Republicans and never came up for a vote. In 2007 it was introduced again, on a bipartisan basis, but was killed by a Republican filibuster. In 2009 it was introduced but not voted on. In 2010, it was introduced, again on a bipartisan basis; again it was killed in the Senate by a Republican filibuster. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread the date on the link I posted earlier. It was from January. But nothing has changed. As I predicted, now he has new demands:Trump says he won’t sign GOP immigration bill that would stop separating families at border, White House Backtracks on Trump Refusal to Sign Immigration Bill, White House reverses course, says Trump supports House GOP immigration bill. What will he sign, what won’t he sign? No one knows. Note that this is a Republican-written bill he is talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
User:MelanieN seems likely some DEMOCRAT torpedoed the January deal by leaking a story about ‘shithole’ remarks either to try for negotiating edge or just couldn’t resist political points and did not care about DACA consequence. (Possibly a far-right Republican instead did it, stopping amnesty being put ahead of hurting his own side.). And I suggest first for perspective also read the takes on this from something other than just leftist (Vox and Atlantic) publications, then second suggest presume being back to negotiations both sides are again asking for more than they actually would be willing to take. It should be obvious that interjecting any mentions of DACA, Dreamer, and the internal remarks are disruptive to getting a deal... it’s asking Trump to make Obama look better and use Democrat language, and to accept labeling himself worse as part of the package. Uunless all sides can find things that make them look good or benefit in the package it is usually not a deal. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Senator Durbin openly related Trump's comments to the media. Your overlay of partisan strategy reads like a remarkably flawed and cynical version of the US legislative process. Perhaps from following it over a relatively limited recent timeframe? SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice theory, Mark, but the timing doesn’t work. Trump, or rather Huckabee Sanders, disavowed the proposed deal in “mid-afternoon”, BEFORE the shithole comment was made public in “late afternoon”.[14] --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
User:MelanieN, User:SPECIFICO - no, timing is consistent, though motivations are just my speculations of why players played it like that. The lack of yet a deal was simple fact ... six people of both parties proposed something to the President, got rejected. Making the comment public torpedoed the proposal or any further work on it for at least the rest of ‘racist comments’ week. The comment apparently came in rejecting Durbin listing nations where he wanted Trump to reverse himself on Haitian etc protected status removal. Not part of earlier Trump positions, an add-on and an obvious negative for Trump though maybe negotiable if something was offered to Trump in exchange. He did voice something towards a merit based remake that would apply for Norway or Asians as part of disputing the nations Durbin listed, something like the Canadian system perhaps. But making the shithole comment public torpedoed the deal, put the nail in the coffin, made it a blame game, whatever metaphor you like. Again, try BBC or Foxnews or even Washington Post maybe, for more perspective. Such as any deal for Wall ‘should’ have terms specify it be funded and built before rest of deal takes effect. Having something maybe names DACA or asks for retractions makes it unpalatable.... the exact same terms under label Territory Realignment for Undocumented Migratory People (TRUMP Act) might get a better reception. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN - Dooh! I misread the Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals#Eligibility. My apologies, I read your post as an impossible hypothetical because DACA are almost all in their 20s and 30s, and I thought HS or military. Being now young adults they now get into such legal issues and get deported for that. Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. I had to look it up myself. It's hard to keep track of all this stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme -- Yes, CNN et al is running this one, wheras BBC.com or Foxnews.com sites do not give it coverage. Otherwise I'd say sensationalising it they spin this one only a bit and not too much distorted versus other sites say he was a HS graduate and deported. But they did go light on his drug convictions and not mention his fathers drug convictions. One could wonder if the going out at night to get food was a bit of a line, and the killing were him having further drug involvement or associating with locals who did, and it sounded like the killing was for the person he was with and he got caught up in that. Markbassett (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sean Hannity[edit]

Sometimes I have trouble understanding your comments, this one in particular. There's something off about the grammar that makes it difficult for me to follow. Perhaps you could re-write it? Also, as an aside, are you a native English speaker? I assumed you were based on your name and interest in American politics, but perhaps I was mistaken? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to answer? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The article section on his immigration stance being weasel (vague or ambiguous) was not changed by your edit, and any weasel vagueness about what calling him a label meant was not changed by putting in text the publisher. Markbassett (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)