Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 22 August 2015

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.

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 Misplaced Pages: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."; , 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 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

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Schedule disambiguation. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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:

• On the Schedule page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

TALK at Creation-Evolution Controversy

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)

Your message

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 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 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.

Markbassett (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=seems a glitch - no info given in notice, not finding info, no recent activity known |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=seems a glitch - no info given in notice, not finding info, no recent activity known |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=seems a glitch - no info given in notice, not finding info, no recent activity known |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock