User talk:Markbassett: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:43, 5 August 2020 editSoibangla (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users26,480 edits →Article talkpages ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:21, 5 August 2020 edit undoAwilley (talk \| contribs)Administrators14,150 edits →Article talkpages: no need for gravedancingNext edit →
Line 203:		Line 203:
	:::I have not seen any other editor demonstrate the persistent disruption and intransigence Markbassett has, not even remotely close, and if I did I would voice concerns regardless of anyone’s worldview. ] (]) 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)		:::I have not seen any other editor demonstrate the persistent disruption and intransigence Markbassett has, not even remotely close, and if I did I would voice concerns regardless of anyone’s worldview. ] (]) 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{u\|one person who has like minded political leanings who was recently almost topic banned}} I follow where the facts lead in an era in which many promote a post-truth ethic, and I did not come close to a topic ban, despite efforts of some to pile-on with irrelevancies to make it happen. ] (]) 18:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)		:::{{u\|one person who has like minded political leanings who was recently almost topic banned}} I follow where the facts lead in an era in which many promote a post-truth ethic, and I did not come close to a topic ban, despite efforts of some to pile-on with irrelevancies to make it happen. ] (]) 18:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
			:::: Soibangla, you did come close, and remain close to a topic ban. I suggest you focus less on your fellow editors and leave Mark, who is already topic banned, alone. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:21, 5 August 2020

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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

LISTGAP

Re:

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

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

Article talk page concerns

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

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

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

1. You created a new section to falsely claim that an edit proposal is "Generally running “Oppose all”". You provide no substantiation to the claim. At that point, 13 editors supported the content and 11 opposed it. I asked you to "PLEASE strive for clarity, brevity, and complete sentences in your comments?". MelanieN responded to your comments: "No, Mark, "Oppose all" is certainly not a consensus takeaway from the above discussion." With a 13:11 support:oppose ratio, I have a hard time believing that this was anything other than WP:GASLIGHTING or simply lack of competence. I've highlighted portions that are ungrammatical to the point of being incomprehensible. The post was disruptive.

Generally running “Oppose all” so now what ?
Things above seem to have gotten lots of pushback and diverging into side topics, so I thought it time to open a subthread looking for the now what...
1. Can we agree that response above is generally or commonly running to “Oppose all” ?
Not to do the !count thing, it just seems to me..... a lot of oppose “all” (unusually broad), does not seem anywhere near any one proposed line favored or a progress for defining need or approach to a consensus edit on even a part-line tweak.
2. If so, then now what ?
I think the original thread and all proposals are toast, and this one can close soon. But maybe there are some items worth note ? Maybe noting what general LEAD principles are of interest, such as edit body first? Or a side discussion worth spinning a new thread for ?
- - - -
— July 13, 2020

2. This doesn't make much sense. I guess it could have been summed up as "I agree."

User:Rusf10 Good points, that the word ‘false’ is presented an UNDUE number of times. That WP is giving unequal treatment would need to refer to some standard though for any correction - to determine if it should be less white-washing there or less tar-and-feathers here. Also —- perhaps you would want to present article content about the external view of ‘false’, of it being a POV narrative and unprecedented posturing over nits. WP doesn’t need to say the ‘false’ claims as if that is factual or at all important to BLP - it is also a context of being under partisan attack and biased media coverage. To some extent, having it seems just a partisan talking point - something pushed vaguely in every opportunity, regardless of relevance. To some extent it seems just media infotainment selling to a niche - something done by deeply adversarial New York Times and Washington Post and Toronto Sun. Finer discussion of ‘false’ seems more something for the Presidency article, but the frequency here and wording here deserves extra scrutiny and context if it’s going to be said so, so often.
— July 13, 2020

3. This example is more rambling than incoherent, but it stands out as a serious WP:CIR concern. You refer to starship.paint's extensive list of reliable source articles as "useless" and then you go on to cite townhall.com which is considered an inferior source full of opinion columns.

User:Starship.paint “cherry picked” is your word, and thank you for collapsing the useless lists. But what you need to respond to is that those failed ONUS because they’re not applied towards anything and because one can google up 10 cites for just about every POV, and it is a bit unusable for the thread to just drop in ‘here are some urls’ without context of how gotten and which proposed wording is intended to be cited for what. We’re not going to give 40 cites for any line chosen, and LEAD really should be from body content and cites not an unrelated score of urls. Just umpteen hits at undefined randomness is basically useless and TLDR. There are billions of links on web - saying a number like 10 or 15 as if that is at all significant is just silly, you need to show something like appearance in all POV publications or WEIGHT in millions for a topic, and explain the phrase it is intended to go to. I can equally turn up URLs for say Fauci praised President Trumps travel ban and travel restrictions. That you did an example (or above several) simply does nothing for DUE or OFFTOPIC or picking which particular hit for relevance and information instead of SENSATION or POV. So show a few million hits and maybe you’ve got DUE. Show it from BBC and not just NYT and maybe you’ve got widely said. Show it actually is part of an impact on President Trumps life and you’ve got BLP instead of OFFTOPIC. But showing me just 10 hits from the usual partisan sources NYT et al.... just isn’t anything. Not even showing enough DUE for a ‘critics said’.
— July 13, 2020

4. This is virtually incomprehensible, but it does seem to insult an editor who went out of their way to cite sources to support a content proposal which is exactly what we are supposed to do on article talk pages.

User:Starship.paint Thank you for collapsing that, but nope this cherry-picking google only shows that gives situation is unclear result - it included (a) “government slow”, as in Congress etc not “Trump”, and (b) demonstrated “critics” claim this, plus (c) did not consider the RS saying otherwise. Such as it being a mix of good and bad - e.g. Politifact saying “slow” is incorrect or BBC descriptions of things gotten right and wrong. Cheers Markbassett
— July 12, 2020

5. This one is blatant WP:TE and WP:GASLIGHTING. starship.paint meticulously compiled a list of high quality sources (20, not 10); categorized them according to each element of the proposed content; and quoted each one. Somehow that wasn't good enough for you. You wrote:

User:Starship.paint again you did not get the point -- that this dumping unexplained lists of about 10 cites is unusable and just meaningless. You didn't give context of how that was crafted; or which edit wording it was intended to support; or even if those are cites in this article or the other one or intended to be added somehow. You just dumped a load into TALK. thank you for at least hatting it, but of circa one billion hits in Google finding a dozen for any particular POV does not do anything to show it is significant or that other POVs do not exist. {{Just say what was the point of the list and how you made it and how you intend it to be used -- and if your answer is to show 'only my view is right' then I'll be glad to come back with ELEVEN cites about other view, or maybe 10 cites to places saying silly stuff like that's a chihuahua on his head or he's really the love child of a werewolf.|#ffeee}} Again, just dropping 10 urls just doesn't ring as if that's a significant portion let alone as all the POVs.
— July 14, 2020

6. Here you repeat the falsehood that "Oppose all seems the consensus", even though six days earlier I had already documented 17 editors supporting the material and 12 opposing it (17:12). ValarianB and Emir of Misplaced Pages commented in the interim increasing the numbers to 18:13 in support.

Oppose all (seems the consensus) - while there were variations in the opposition, the prior discussion of this thread seemed the proposals 1 2 3 had a consensus of 'oppose' and phrasing of 'oppose all' was commonly said as each one was mostly opposed by folks rather than anything having a consensus. The A B C ... through P are topics and if you're asking are they contentious then I'd have to say it depends on the phrasing and the context. A topic of "slow" is different depending on if the proposed phrase is "initially slow" or "criticized as slow" or "falsely said slow"; and if the context is for a LEAD edit or a body edit, and whether the sole part of the paragraph of has more there.
— July 29, 2020

7. Then you double down on the first false "oppose all" claim.

User:MelanieN Factually the answers above *did* run to a lot of "Oppose All" -- with that exact phrasing in many cases and the general theme in many more of the discussions also having a strong 'no not that' flavor. The phrasings as shown in proposals seem toasted enough to me, and note the discussion moved along from there.
— July 29, 2020

8. And again. This is now the fourth time you claimed that Oppose all seems the consensus.

User:Scjessey - Oppose all (seems the consensus) - factually is part of my input. Yes 'none of the above' isn't desired, but that doesn't mean 'none of the above' isn't part of my input - and the above snippet of MrX is a different flavor of intent that seems simply incorrect since this thread isn't yet looking at the "determine specific wording", which was part of why I'm at Oppose all. Where the thread was looking for some sense of what's more or less contentious -- I have explained that depends on the phrasing and position -- and where the ending question of which is "notable enough for Lead" -- I give oppose all because that's not a valid basis for Lead content. While I could try to give some ranking as to what seems body larger or WEIGHT more prominent -- even that wraps into it depends on phrasing and position and would still leave all these selections as 'oppose' for content and conflict reasons. My responses would be 'not X: blah bla bla, it should ask bla beeh bla'. Although the phrasing topic is not the question asked, that seemed to me an important sidenote to mention and it seems evidenced at F/G and I, J, and L. I also see A as conflicting with or competing with M because of the wording, both being some prominence to a sub-area of criticism and how it's phrased. So !vote is oppose all, bu good for eliciting concerns.
— July 29, 2020

9. Here you feed a concern troll and use it as an opportunity undermine every other editor who has collaborated to improve the article. I also have no idea why you need four space between each sentence.

User:Mitchellindahouse - Welcome. I agree the article is biased, mostly written by critics and heavily based on sources that are critics, and has had many remark about the bias. I figure it as largely due to WP goes by WEIGHT supposed to convey in proportion to the coverage and mainstream media -- is what it is. Plus WP editors here go a bit beyond that in selection bias and phrasing, but then everyone comes with their own Bias. I suggest that if you see something specific and clearly wrong go ahead and make a WP:BOLD edit on that, and be prepared to TALK about it here as it may well get reverted.
— July 29, 2020

10. Here, you make the blatantly false statement that "Version 3 was already and emphatically rejected." against clear evidence posted to the contrary here: User:MrX/DT_lead_COVID-19 (options A-E) and here:

User:Bdushaw - For what help it may be, I think the “version 3” refers to the first subthread of “We have to agree and specify wording”. The top thread “Covid-19 in the lead” was originally about whether to mention “Obamacare” or to use “Affordable Care Act” and had a few variants of one proposal, then came a “We have to agree” section with 5 variants of a different proposal. That whole “We have to” section had mostly objections, and unusually said “all” in many “Oppose all” feedbacks. Version 3 was already and emphatically rejected. This part is maybe getting some info for what bits the supporters felt most positive towards. Covid has substantial articles and is at Presidency of Donald Trump - and it has a section here in his biographical article, but Lead position was decided against. In the last rfc, (and this one seems headed the same way) noted at the top of this thread: "This RfC doesn't reach a consensus about whether to mention coronavirus in the lead of Trump's article." It also doesn't reach a consensus about what to say if we did mention it.
— July 31, 2020

11. Literally no one in this discussion mentioned deplorables but you. The subject of the subthread was whether Misplaced Pages's voice was appropriate for this edit.

Folks - you are perhaps having fun in that echo chamber, but it might work out better to address the concerns of other views or to at least acknowledge and show hearing in ways that aren’t dismissive and shows restraint about calling them deplorables. FWIW - is there anything of a purely factual and/or neutral content that you think could actually get widespread support now?
— July 31, 2020

12. WP:SPEAKENGLISH

Well, try 2 got reverted ... in lack of anything feedback I tried a second time with different edit but the wikilink was disliked, so will try it without wikilink. Just keep it simple.
— August 1, 2020

13. WP:SPEAKENGLISH and tell the truth.

User:Bdushaw a few facts off in that review, let me restate.
Awiley did some paraphrasing of bits for A-M from a casually said from prior TALK as well as article. That later expanded a bit and he later added P. It’s not a careful examination of article nor all from him. Starship had previously done unrelated 5 sets of urls titled with kinds of “slow”, they were not part of the current A thru P items and only A is about “slow”. MrX summarised only the minority of editors who wanted anything as to what bits they’d like. Those opposed were expressly disinvited and their inputs are not reflected. The question of whether there is to be Covid in the lead is not unanswered. The answer in the consensus list is “no”.
Those who object have no “obligation to suggest appropriate text”, that is kind of the point. If anything, the BRD guidance is for the *proposer* to listen to the objections already given.
— August 1, 2020

14.WP:SPEAKENGLISH and tell the truth.

Tsk. Well, I could use your phrasing and frame it there’s clearly significant opposition, and that clearly there is no consensus to include anything. I however can back that up with fact of a numbered consensus said that twice, and by this thread the revert and amount of oppose in the top with unusual amount of ‘oppose all’. So that should be your starting point. And that WP guidance the ONUS is on proposer, along with BRD to address the concerns. Instead there seems a persistent behaviour of presumptive declaration, denying or simply ignoring any other views even exist and overstating support. (This apparent announcing a count limited to non-opposition as a ‘consensus’ being a case in point.) Well, it’s an approach I don’t think improves content or leads to consensus, but for now I don’t see any willingness to address things so think it will remain at no consensus for anything.
— August 1, 2020

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

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

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

I strongly concur with all of MrX's comments. I have found your Talk style to be so disruptive that I have abandoned disussions in exasperation, in cases I otherwise would not. I hope that isn't your intent. soibangla (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX Sorry, too much length and diversity made that post unmanageable. I get that you’re having general trouble reading my posts but otherwise it’s a bit vague plus TLDR in getting to something specific it is looking for. It seems too much a laundry list of just complaining which of my points you don’t like rather than engagement. I in turn fuss over your numerical errors and such, but that’s how it goes. I suggest if you pick one item to discuss or one point or change, things might go better. Meanwhile, in semi-response to what I can see among the various bits, I’ll respond to a few

1. I never got a response when I asked

“user:MrX OK, you're being unclear. Was that 'No' for #1 ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)” I did not feel you were directly responding, and this post makes me think you did not understand.

2. I don’t know why you were interested in a count but I can see your method needs work as it’s hugely off. Your link says 32 edits (this month?) as COVID, but auto-counting instead of looking has misled you. If you look at your link you will see a lot of Lafayette park and Deployment of troops to Portland among the several sub threads discussing Covid, and about 15 posts overall. When some are a near-simultaneous grouping of a large one followed by one or two tiny ones (some even have a comment like “tweak” or ‘forgot signature’) that’s a single post. Perhaps count signature lines or total bytes edited.

And then check your own totals and those of others - this came off as “I wish inconvenient truths would shut up” rather than “you post almost as much as SPECIFICO” or why frequently having something to say or someone asking for something would matter.

3. If you don’t feel that “1. Can we agree that response above is generally or commonly running to “Oppose all” ?” That’s your take. I however saw four “oppose all” in a row, (preceded by an “oppose”, support 1, support 3, and two more “oppose all”...). I think oppose “all” is unusual, especially when that’s being the general run in responses. As to your remark of 13 and 11 ... that’s far from the right count for the context - at the time of that post I think “Oppose all” was the most common response at 6 of 15, the others being something like a mix five for version 3, three version 2, one version 4, and one simple “oppose”.

4. For the post mentioning rusf, one would need to read it in context of his post. Generally I don’t think you should read the post as just “I agree” or it would have been shorter.

5. For the post about the long listing of cites in an argument as useless. They were noted as only an example that one can Google, not providing a relevant context or POINT. Volumes of copy-paste need not apply.

Finally, I ask you to note D in BRD is for “discuss”, and try harder to let people TALK and value their inputs. If you’re not getting something, please ping me then so we clarify it in the TALK and the TALK winds up understanding all inputs. Saving it all up and posting here will not help the TALK content of weeks ago. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not the response I was hoping for after spending a large amount of time providing evidence and explanations of how your talk page comments are far more disruptive than helpful. I was expecting at least some self-examination and a commitment to communicate better. Your response is tantamount to ignoring the concern altogether. I'm astonished that that you believe I should have to ping you for a clarification of each of your unintelligible comments, rather than you accepting some responsibility for writing them in reasonably clear English in the first place. It's ironic that you find my appeal to be "too much length and diversity", yet almost all of the this consists of your own posts from just the past two weeks.

I believe your talk page participation is disruptive, for these reasons taken directly from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

4. Does not engage in consensus building:
a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors might:
6. Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, or Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

I also believe that you have been gaming the consensus building process by WP:FILIBUSTERING and WP:GASLIGHTING.

I brought this to your talk page out of respect, to give you an opportunity to objectively understand the concerns about your pattern of talk page editing. I had hoped that you would adjust your approach so that the disruption would abate. Regretfully, I can see now that that's not likely to happen. - MrX 🖋 12:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You should give careful consideration to WP:ARBAPDS#Consensus and WP:ARBAPDS#Behavioral standards. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

user:MrX] Again, the substantial length made this *factually* mechanically unmanageable to read or respond to, and the lack of ping at the point for confusion would *functionally* have been of more use to the article TALK thread. The folded amount of three weeks TALK unfolds in any reply on my mobi, causing a couple minutes delay to scrollscrollscroll before getting to the bottom for a reply. And yes, a ping in the TALK where there was confusion would have been better to get a point immediately clarified in the discussion for the possible benefit of all and the article or for the stopping of any pattern of confusing input. Asking weeks later in a private TALK exchange may help you understand better, or may express an accumulated thread to help me see it was not understandable, or may alter my behaviour in the future -- but it's just too late to help that particular article thread.

A smaller and more focused amount here with explicit goal, or multiple separate threads generally would work better. For this post though -- in lack of a specific request, I gave a general commentary to the first several as at least a start, because that alone took me considerable time. (scroll two minutes up, scroll two minutes down to enter, scroll two minutes back up to read, scroll back down to enter ...) And I would have hoped for at least somewhat of a further exchange with that content, even if it was you had other basis causing rejection of my points. I can come back and continue with the rest if you want a complete set, or for different discussion.

For how I was being heard in some confusion and my own wish for you also to better D - Discuss in the future ... I suggest simply let others talk instead of (observed in that thread) a run of dismissing comments under each opposing view, and to avoid the observed overstating a position and miscounts. Discussion is a two-way street and messy process, and quite often there simply will still be more than one view of things. This thread being an example. A presumptive approach or closed attitude and demand for one position just doesn't seem useful. An open discussion in the article TALK is I think the only way to get anywhere credible or respectable. Accepting other views exist and are valid is necessary to that.

I do feel we have some points ironically in common here. I too am disappointed in your response after I did some effort, and might have wished for at least some self-examination, and feel you ignored what effort there was and the content of my post. I also have an impression of you -- in that very same thread -- as not responding to my question, disregarding other editors inputs, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and acting counter to policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, or Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles.

You might as well enjoy the different views -- life would be so boring if everyone thought the same. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, I truly don't understand why you referenced the length of my post as your reason for not "*factually* mechanically responding" (not sure exactly what that means), even though you did respond at length. You even managed to lash out at me personally in you last paragraph. Saying that I was "campaigning to drive away productive contributors", without any evidence, is nothing more than a personal attack. Regardless, I don't see much point in continuing this since we disagree on the premise of the discussion, and continuing it would risk you violating your topic ban. Best wishes to you. - MrX 🖋 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Article talkpages

Based on the above thread, MrX believes that your talkpage arguments are both incoherent and excessive. I don't necessarily agree with this assessment in totality but recommend you work to streamline your commentary and use reliable source references as much as possible to back your arguments and...restrict yourself to only one or two comments per Rfc or discussion. I also recommend for your own sanity that you venture outside the realm of politics and current events and find arenas that bring you more joy. Revisit the political arenas only when totally necessary to vote in an Rfc or make a singular standalone point perhaps not more than once even would be best. Long ago when I first started I noticed there was usually a lot more ability to work out deals or compromises, but over the last half dozen years Americans in particular have become much more polarized in their politics and consequently this is evident in the current editing environment on this site. During this transformation, I also noticed that deals are hard won, even in most cases not possible and arguing is usually a waste of time as no one is changing their minds ever. Therefore, your comments might be 10 but your vote is still just one, so repeated back and forths do little more than clog up talkpages, lead to further frustrations and contribute to carpal tunnel syndrome!--MONGO (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:MONGO Thank you. Ironically that above thread was for a mobi mechanically excessive and unfocused -- too long a single block if you reflect how many thumb passes it takes to get to the bottom each time I would write a bit of response so I'm writing a tidbit to something read two minutes prior. There didn't seem generally to be an actionable request or positive suggestions or a desire to have anything explained or debated in a sidebar - it read as a laundry list of presumptive judgemental views such as my noting there had been a run of "Oppose All" inputs was declared 'false'. Perhaps MrX was just not open to allowing that I might have other views for things in that above thread. I could wish that things in RFCs were more open to there simply are other views and have RFCs run to just let folks give their inputs to see what are all the points are in the mix, but it seems the general practice runs to posting debates at disliked views. In that particular set of five thread/subthreads, I don't think a single post would suit -- I will offer the thought that it was several different topics at least, and note MrX, SPECIFICO and Starship in particular did a lot in number and volume, and I along with MelanieN, Atsme, Scjessey, PackMecEng, etcetera wound up doing a number of posts as a natural part of three weeks flow for several topics.

I can and do agree that some of my posts are too long and/or not understandable. I'm definitely less than perfect, and know I do each of those in emails so it's going to happen elsewhere. A ping at the time might help by getting clarification or give guidance when it could be of help.

Venturing outside politics -- actually, I think mostly my inputs have been elsewhere, in both number and article content at least. The contentious articles do however have the most formal and informal RFCs, bring up the most interesting WP policy points, and suck up the most back-and-forth TALKs per microscopic change. Kind of like they embody the political nature and so is appropriate to the genre, but it can be annoying at times when seems that TALK just will not allow other views to be voiced/counted/heard as at all valid and see for others to just shut up and go away... a refusal to exhange or allow discussion. For what it's worth, I think the polarization on partisan basis started back in the 1970s, and has been affected by the second 'death of truth' in the 1990s and the social media blitz since the oughts. Ah well, it would be a boring old world otherwise, eh ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The difference between this thread and the one above it is that you and I are writing to each other and not at each other. The fact that you do not share the above complaintant's world view is the primary reason they complain. They may have had similar complaints about someone they do share a world view with, but I fear it is unlikely they would have made the complaint, nor supported it had another made it. That this never went to Arbitration Enforcement and came here with a request that myself and others (who routinely do not share a world view with the complaintant) were asked to not add to that thread, indicates an effort to railroad you. Yet one person who has like minded political leanings who was recently almost topic banned, determined since they were not named, that now would be the time to post a near personal attack, yet the complaintant does not seem miffed by that editor's contribution....and noticing admins do zero about it. This topic ban allows you to distance yourself from them...consider it a gift.--MONGO (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with:

The fact that you do not share the above complaintant's world view is the primary reason they complain. They may have had similar complaints about someone they do share a world view with, but I fear it is unlikely they would have made the complaint, nor supported it had another made it.

I have not seen any other editor demonstrate the persistent disruption and intransigence Markbassett has, not even remotely close, and if I did I would voice concerns regardless of anyone’s worldview. soibangla (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

one person who has like minded political leanings who was recently almost topic banned I follow where the facts lead in an era in which many promote a post-truth ethic, and I did not come close to a topic ban, despite efforts of some to pile-on with irrelevancies to make it happen. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, you did come close, and remain close to a topic ban. I suggest you focus less on your fellow editors and leave Mark, who is already topic banned, alone. ~Awilley (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)