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.
- 1 Deletion discussion about Intelligent design (historical)
- 2 Reinstating edit on Creation-evolution controversy
- 3 Your contributed article, Schedule disambiguation
- 4 Reference Errors on 20 March
- 5 To avoid being blocked ...
- 6 TALK at Creation-Evolution Controversy [about Outside the United States]
- 7 Your message
- 8 Surprise ! I've been blocked - and explanation only says "Long-term abuse: User:Philm540" ????
- 9 School and student project pages
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for October 1
- 11 Creationism
- 12 Articles_for_deletion/Cold_War_II
- 13 References
- 14 Just a Friendly Suggestion
- 15 Hello there
- 16 FYI
- 17 Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion
- 18 July 2016
Deletion discussion about Intelligent design (historical)
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.
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."; , 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)
Your contributed article, Schedule disambiguation
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Schedule disambiguation. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Schedule (disambiguation). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Schedule (disambiguation) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 20 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
To avoid being blocked ...
snippet note quoth
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
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
and at the bottom
TALK at Creation-Evolution Controversy [about Outside the United States]
Hi, I noticed you posted a message at User talk:Barney the barney barney but it's been 8 months since that editor was active and I'm not sure if or when he will return. Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Talk! Thanks for pointing that out. It was to ask for more description of what it was on Haldane's Dilemma he meant in tagging it fringe -- the topic and that conclusions are controversial seems clear enough, so I'm not seeing what the concern was -- and there's no talk section. I'll do due diligence and leave the post for a while before doing more. Markbassett (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Surprise ! I've been blocked - and explanation only says "Long-term abuse: User:Philm540" ????
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.
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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solution stack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SQL Server (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- 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 (, , , ). And if I include an extra 3 hours, it's actually 5 () 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)
- 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)
You have been invited to vote on the subject of this matter! Merge vote is optional, but this will be the true deciding factor of the article's existence! I encourage you to participate! :)
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like spam, since it did not cite an article or other specific. However, with scanning the contributions, I think it is a mis-fire re Stem-cell therapy that incorrectly rejected a National MS Society mention of JAMA report, both of which are the highest quality RS. If he meant the Stem Cell Therapy, what is 'good enough' if the National MS Society report of JAMA is not ? Not making sense here so I will post to the article TALK and undo the delete. Markbassett (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a Friendly Suggestion
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)
Hi Mark, just a quick note to explain myself. I really don't have any issue with anything you've said. I used your comment as an example of a point I have been trying to make about detrimental effects of the "public perception" addition to the original intent of the RfC. I thought you had rejected the WHO proposal based on the fact that it didn't mention public perception. I misread your comment though, so my apologies for the confusion. Enjoy!! petrarchan47คุก 00:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I have closed down the RFC's here and here as they are malformed messes which are not going to go anywhere. If you wish to re-open them, please rephrase them into a more appropriate RFC, otherwise standard discussion on the talkpage should suffice. I am also notifying the other likely contributors. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Levant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rolfing. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn - ??? there are several edits I've done and even undone some of my own, are you speaking of a general remark of caution ? If it is something in particular, please specify which of the edits there you are concerned about, and what is the concern you have and I'll respond. Markbassett (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are reverting a lot, at times repeatedly to your own "version". Generally if you get reverted by somebody else, you should take it to Talk (maybe following the advice of WP:BRD) and not just re-revert to the disputed version. E.g. there are reasons why text is quoted and your removal of the quotation marks is disputed, by me! The template is a formality, but is useful because if an edit-warring case is opened for you it shows you have been alerted to the WP:EW policy, and so ignorance is not an excuse. Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alexbrn - Umm. "Undo own" hardly counts as an edit war -- in doing small revertable edits I simply got to the end of three small edits and didn't like the result so undid each in sequence and did other parts. Quoting -- If you wish to specifically defend the enquoting of a line, please do so -- I'm looking at the line about ACS feeling "concern" over rolfing people with cancer, followed by a cite, and thinking that encyclopedic is to simply SAY it with the supporting cite. Unless there is some opposing party and we're making the side clear, or it is some special catchphrase ... I'm simply not seeing anything other than what seems basic fix needed. Markbassett (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)