This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apokryltaros (talk | contribs) at 03:01, 29 May 2014 (→But the Thing Is). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:01, 29 May 2014 by Apokryltaros (talk | contribs) (→But the Thing Is)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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
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)
But the Thing Is
You do not conduct a strawpoll for "editing style" by deliberately misinterpreting other editors' comments while deliberately ignoring said editors' concerns and fears about the section being empty or filled with blatant undue weight towards religiously motivated science-deniers..--Mr Fink (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- posting back;;; Content in response to straw poll should not be off-topic, then complain when that is pointed out, or deleting the whole thing. I discarded those as a nothing on the topic, and notified you of such. If you want to not participate, or want to say the poll is not ready, or to head it towards an abort there are better ways to make that input. I think we're long since done here.
Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I and the other commentors tried to repeatedly communicate we should not be voting on the editing style of a section that was bloody obviously going to be either empty forever, or be filled with blatant undue weight towards religiously motivated science-deniers to you repeatedly but you were far too busy misinterpreting whatever we were saying into votes for your poll.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- umm read the WP guidelines -- maybe better to just say not ready within the announced topic without going to other questions or the heat or voicing speculations and suspicions. Since I set it as a poll on section/subsection placement for a week, I simply did not go off-topic or break guidelines in my own poll. Markbassett (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I and other commentors tried to communicate that it was simply not time to begin polling for editing style for the proposed section because you did not assure us that the section would not be empty or filled with blatant undue weight towards religiously motivated science-deniers repeatedly, and you ignored everything I and others said, repeatedly, save to deliberately misinterpret it into a vote for poll. It didn't bother you that everyone was complaining about this rather than vote?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- umm read the WP guidelines -- maybe better to just say not ready within the announced topic without going to other questions or the heat or voicing speculations and suspicions. Since I set it as a poll on section/subsection placement for a week, I simply did not go off-topic or break guidelines in my own poll. Markbassett (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)