User talk:Mvbaron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SummerPhD^v2.0 17:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I was aware of the DS, but I wasn’t AWARE of that one :D Mvbaron (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Edit war with Chas. Caltrop at Newspeak.

Boxed material all from a single edit – rev 971318978 by Chas. Caltrop; possibly copied from elsewhere.

Thanks, for the edit-war set up with yourself as fake vivtim, acting in behalf of Robert J. Jensen, Owner of Wikipedia. You need a copy of his chicanery, for your A.N.I. lawsuit

Hello Chas. Caltrop, I invite you to discuss your reverts at the talk page of Newspeak. I have twice given reasons for my additions at the talk page, you keep reverting with blanket edit summaries. Please also do not mark reverts/substantial contributions as minor edits as you did at Newspeak. --Mvbaron (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply

Later, I shall find time to fight Jensen's edit-war with you. Meantime . . . you dumb-down the article to your heart's contempt. I've concluded an eight-month hiatus, and the first thing is Jensen's troll dogging my steps. Do you think you'll be a credible victim at the A.N.I.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas. Caltrop (talk • contribs)

content above boxed for transparency, at 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC) by Mathglot (talk)

I ... have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. I have no intention to fight any edit-war, but would please invite you to discuss changes to the article Newspeak at the talk page. Best --Mvbaron (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Manual vs automatic archival

Mvbaron, your recent manual archival at Talk:Newspeak (from, (to) looks correct to me. You're welcome to do it that way, if you're comfortable with it. But here's another, possibly safer method that will accomplish the same thing. As you probably noticed, undated threads don't get archived. But there are various methods to date old, undated threads: one is {{unsign}}, another is {{xsign}}. If they signed, but didn't date a thread, then try {{undated}}.

And then there's the signing/dating method I use now, which is a script from User:Anomie/unsignedhelper, which I find very handy. You can look and copy the first two lines of my common.js and it should just work, once you've read the doc. Only works on the last comment in any thread, but that should be enough for the archive bot to find and pick it up eventually. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, oh thanks. Right, that's a lot to learn! I'll read through the documentation. Thank you! Mvbaron (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading my last comment, I realized it might not be clear: the "siging/dating method I use now", means, the method I use to update the unsigned or undated comments of others. For my own comments, I just sign with WP:4TILDES. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

ah no, I understood that haha Mvbaron (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Erm

	Welcome
	Ere, ave a noyce chokkie! Twang (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh thank you! :D That looks delicious.--Mvbaron (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert

See revert. Relevance is that those genetic "reports" (SNP, through saliva) allow people to see exactly how much (in percentage) they descend from other ethnic groups. It's relevant to the page as it shows the people conducting the test just how "pure" (or how little "pure" -in racial/ethnic terms-) they really are It's not intented to be promotional, but I doubt there's a page on wiki focusing exactly on reports indicating such info, and 23andMe is the only organisation I know that does this, and it already has a wiki page indicating they indeed make such reports.--Genetics4good (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Genetics4good, hi! thanks for the explanation. (should we no move this to the talk page?) To be honest, I don't see the connection and I couldn't find it in the article. I don't doubt that some white suppremacists do think a lot about genetic tests, but I don't think this is particularly interesting. The link to that one company I think is WP:OR at that point - but maybe we can find some reliable sources to connect the two topics? Best Mvbaron (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

After reconsidering, no never mind as I didn't do enough research first and misinterpreted it. The page mentions is about the belief that "white people" (so not just caucasians or something) are superior in all or some aspects. These "white people" are not a particular race but many races which have a white skincolor. So really, even if you could find a relation between superiority in one particular aspect, you couldn't tie it to "white people" as they are not a race. So irrelevant.

Probably more interesting is looking into the "race" concept (which is outdated). For instance, even the ethnic group "caucasian" (which is one of those "white people") or other similar groups seem outdated. What exactly is being proposed to replace this (it seems there's a move to genetic clines and clusters, see Race_(human_categorization)#Clines_and_clusters_in_genetic_variation. Exactly which list of clines, clusters and "clines and clusters" exist to divide people in, and replace those old concepts of race ? Perhaps we need an image of those new groups on a map, through wikipedia graphics lab ? --Genetics4good (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! thank you for reconsidering :) it is refreshing to actually discuss content with editors. I am sorry I mislabelled your good-faith edit as promotional.

And, yeah I suppose it would be an interesting topic - although "race" was never somthing I was particularly interested in or read much about tbh - never understood what "caucasian" was supposed to mean... But the idea of a map might be a good idea, though I suppose White supremacy is very much the wrong venue for that. All the best Mvbaron (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing references

Please don't remove references from an article unless they are not reliable sources. In general, it is preferable to have more than fewer. (t · c) buidhe 07:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

okay, fair enough. However, I do know about RS - and I have only removed references that were a bit silly in their amount (do we really need three refs for a sentence that only states that the attacks happened close to the synagouge?) Also one ref was duplicated there. Mvbaron (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Hegemony

Hi, thanks for your recent interaction on Cultural Marxism. As per MOS:SEEALSO, what appears in a "See Also" section is not determined by whether a particular topic explicitly mentioned/appears elsewhere in the article. To quote the guidance specifically: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics...". Now while Cultural hegemony is not part of the conspiracy theory, it is a tangentially related topic as is other Marxist criticisms of culture, and therefore I believe there's an encyclopedic value in mentioning it in the text. It has a value in a similar way that we put information about Earth's rotation in the "See also" section of the Flat earth 'theory'. Alssa1 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Alssa1, Hi! Thanks for posting your reasoning about that see-also link - although I much rather had this discussion on the Talk page of the relevant article, so I shall be brief: Even though you are correct about SEEALSO, my edit description was perhaps misleading. What I wanted to say is: I can't see Cultural hegemony being even a tangentially related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, aside from the fact that both feature the word "cultural". But I am happy to discuss this matter on the Talk Page further of course. Mvbaron (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting moves

Although I've moved all the related to the archives of Talk:Baháʼu'lláh; you should request for moves correctly unlike you did at the RMT where you requested a single talk page be moved to six different location. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TheAafi, thank you very much! RIght, it seems I forgot to update the archive numerals after copy-pasting. I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused. Mvbaron (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hegel

Why are you butchering Hegel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.115 (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

hi, what do you mean? Mvbaron (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry that we misunderstand each other

I never said that you said I was stupid. I’m the one who said I was stupid, and after all, I should know. You accused me of playing games, which is in effect a form of dishonesty. I object to that accusation, which I was intending to rebut in a humorous way. I’m sorry we seem to misunderstand each other. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sweet6970! I'm sorry, I will strike my comments about you playing games - I was annoyed that you brought up a good point with the rewriting of the passage (which I support) and then immediately followed it up with something (to my mind) so obviously ridiculous that I could only interpret it as trying to play games. I'm glad that this is not the case (I think the past history of trolling on this page made me abandon AGF, I apologize). Anyways, postmodernism is quite obviously not some grand conspiracy to undermine "our western values", but I think we both know that so any discussion about that is moot. PS: are you planning on adding that proposed paragraph of yours, I think it sounds good. Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your gracious response, and for striking your comments. I hope we can get on better in future. Regarding my proposed wording (which would replace the current paragraph derived from Lux & Jordan) – I am waiting to see what responses there are from the other editors of that page. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Neural Darwinism

Hi Mvbaron,

Thank you for the internal link info. This my first major effort on wikipedia... still learning the rules and process... your help is much appreciated. Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jtwsaddress42! Great to hear that my suggestion was helpful! And I know right? Wikipedia markup is just so confusing sometimes? I can’t edit without all these template and help pages :) btw, another great template is Template:citebook, I saw that you added references under the ref-tags, but it is very helpful to use the citebook templates - it’s a bit more complicated, but if you’re citing the same work multiple times it pays to go the extra mile. Mvbaron (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi MvBaron,

Thank you for the feedback on page editing. I meant to follow up on your suggestion for citebook templates, and also about the layout notice, but got caught up in trying to generate content first and then wanted to go back and do presentation formatting. Now that I've seen the example, I'll make an effort to apply it.

I now realize that Wikipedia requires smaller-bite size chunks that can stand on their own when submitted...

Thanks also for the feedback on quotations. I'll try to work them into the section when appropriate, but will drop the idea of heading each section that way, since it's not according to the rules! I felt that tying each section to a direct quotation was the best way to keep the focus close to the actual concepts of Neural Darwinism and would clarify/moderate my paraphrased version of what he has to say.

I'm trying to be cautious and not inject my own interpretation, so it helps to have an impartial editor... If you have the inclination to point out statements that you believe need direct reference and citations for, I'll do my best to see if I can track them down and make the citations.

Propose moving this to the talk page for further discussion

Lastly, I was thinking of organizing the overall layout of the article similar to the way Edelman does in Neural Darwinism, since this is the core work. He divides the book into three main sections, Somatic Selection, Epigenetic Mechanisms, and Global Functions. I was thinking that the main sections might go: Introduction to Neural Darwinism Population Thinking - Somatic selective systems Topobiology - Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms Building a theory of global brain function TNGS - The theory of neuronal group selection Reception etc... After the intro, the next three sections would layout the necessary background, science, and philosophy required to make sense of what TNGS is trying to do and why Edelman takes the approach he does. The TNGS section would layout a concise, but properly detailed, statement of the theory and it's postulates. By doing it this way, the subtopics can be organized in a coherent fashion that is consistent with the way Edelman presented the work.

Anyway, I was hoping to hear your thoughts on this matter, if you don't mind... and, I apologize for the long-winded post!

Thanks Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

hi Jtwsaddress42 thanks for you message! I think for your first project on wikipedia this is very polished, heck, you probably added more content to wikipedia than I did :) Nevertheless, I am happy to discuss my thoughts on the points you raised here. And, I'm glad you find the layout/referencing suggestions I made helpful - it sure took my some time to figure out wikimarkup!

• I now realize that Wikipedia requires smaller-bite size chunks that can stand on their own when submitted... Tbh, I don't think this is really needed, loads of edits can be unfinished - but of course this incurs the chance of other editors (who have watchlisted the page) changing your unfinished stuff. (as I did hehe) I don't mind this, but I often also first formulate stuff in my sandbox or an external text editor even and then put it into article-space. This is kinda up to you I think.
• will drop the idea of heading each section [with a quotation], since it's not according to the rules Ah, I don't know if it's technicaly against any rules, I just think it makes the article look like more like an essay and not an encyclopaedia. BUT: WP is a collaborative project, so by any means feel free to revert my BOLD change and if I feel strongly about it it is up to me to discuss it on the talk page. :)
• I was hoping to hear your thoughts on this matter, if you don't mind I gladly offer my thoughts! I'll moved the bits about the article to the talk page, if you don't mind. That way we can discuss the article in a better environment than my talk page!

Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

QAnon Talk Page

Sedeanimu (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Thanks for the heads up on the edit war rule. I felt that me going on that path was informal, but wasn't sure how I would convey my point:

But I think this will lead to a circular argument. However, I will reiterate that I believe you should not have bold assertions in the introduction, and one especially on an ongoing issue.

Historical dogmatism is surely present in Wikipedia, as is most scholarly books, I do not think this is a good approach, but if it is not an event which has significance to the current politic of the present times, then it is generally ignored. Multiple times do I see it though, two examples are E.P Sanders "A historical Jesus", in which is just states that he existed and lived in x place with bold assertion, without evidence, which could mislead the reader. Another was a book named "Histoire Romaine" by Rollin, where he said "x character did y", and "z did g", and now some of his history has been challenged, and overridden with other dogmas.

Given this, I am not fond with dogmatism. Now obviously there are things that are most plausible like: "when one jumps on earth, they fall", I believe Renee Descartes would question this, but encyclopedias are not supposed to be Descartes; point being it is circumstantial. However, things are still unfalsifiable, secondly, sometimes accepted dogmatisms have shown to fall flat on their face, in retrospect. Proving that people did not do something is nearly impossible unless they are tracked with a live camera for the rest of their lives. Obviously, the direction I'm going may seem over pedantic, but it's the only way I can best articulate what I mean.

In particular, this article wouldn't be an acceptation. Especially to cover the entire article as "untrue". But I once again said in my original edit that criticism was fair, but I suggest that it stays in the articles content, and the arguments be fleshed out as citations. This website isn't a public academic journal or research article, it is supposed to be a reference article. So, I believe that the consistency should be maintained that instead of saying an assertive like "this *is* not true", it should be "x people (or) most (scholars,etc) believe: y dogmatism"

So, my new edit would to either remove it, and leave the analysis to other sections, or to rephrase it. I believe rephrasing is important, because once again it is ongoing. Say we lived in the era of Sigmund Freud, then wrote an article on homosexuality. One may say, "homosexuals *are* x". This is clearly not true, and even for his time, such a dogmatism would be bad.

It is of my opinion that all assertiveness should be removed, one should not be sure as this leads to ignorance, which leads to confusion or suffering. Christians believed Jews were demons for a time, and they were the authority. Again it seems overly pedantic, but this article pertains to an ongoing political issue, and I think one should not be too keen to first of all create an article, and if they do, add assertiveness to such an article. Once again the Neutral Bias policy exists, so I also think this aligns with Wikipedia's philosophy, if the creators had no ideological leanings

Thank you,

J.A.

(P.s This is the last I will have to say pertaining to this, because I barely care to continue at this point in time. But I urge you to read, maybe learn some mathematical logic, or read books on philosophy if you are in disbelief; "Mathematical Logic" authored by H.-D. Ebbinghaus is a good one.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedeanimu (talk • contribs) 08:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah no problem, edit-warring and WP:3RR is a wikipedia rule that gets enforced rather strictly, it is always better to discuss a change that gets reverted by someone on the talk page first :) (see: WP:BRD for some nice overview). Thank you for the book recommendation! Mathematical and formal logic is indeed a very interesting topic I still don't know enough about.

However, one thing that I also often forget is that Wikipedia articles are not academic or scientific articles, they are meant to summarize a wide variety of reliable sources on a certain topic, and we as editors are never meant insert our own conclusions drawn from the sources.

Regarding the specific edit on the QAnon page you made: I think there are two things to note: (1) the change was to the lead section of the article. such changes are the hardest, and are the ones that get reverted the most. (2) QAnon is really a conspiracy theory that all reliable sources describe as debunked. If you think this assessment is false, then you will need to find reliable sources that describe the opposite - that is the slow Wikipedia way unfortunately...

Good luck --Mvbaron (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

Hey, why did you remove my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainchupacabra (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Zainchupacabra You are talking about this edit: (DIFF Special:Diff/1017267327 ). I reverted it, because you added "relentless internet troll" to the article, and it isn't clear what that is referring to - AND that phrasing never appeared in the quoted source. Feel free to make another sourced edit to the page, I only reverted this one because I found it was unclear. Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ivan Štironja on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pavol Hnilica on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jan Żaryn on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

What's Wrong with this section on white privilege?

I'm adding new information to Wikipedia so that people can see the counter arguments and so that they are not biased, so what is wrong with this section?

In January 2019, the term white privilege has been criticised as being a racist and divisive term by The Oregonian.

In June 2021, the United Kingdom's education committee’s report found that white working class pupils were being let down with white privilege being being blamed as one of the reasons for the devisiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccurateJournalist (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello AccurateJournalist! I reverted this proposed addition to the article White Privilege because these two sources don't meet the standards for Wikipedia. (1) is an opinion piece that is not really notable, and (2) is a WP:PRIMARY source (government reports usually can not be used for wikipedia articles. May I ask you to open a new section at the Talk page? I saw that you tried but there were some format problems, but it seems you have managed to add the section here just fine :) So we could continue the discussion there. Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please look at the Psychology of reasoning talk page

Please look at the Psychology of reasoning talk page section Lets add "in cognitive science it's know as the cognitive science of reasoning" in -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uni3993 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

talk page archiving

FYI, per this there's now Help:Archives (plain and simple). —valereee (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

woah that's amazing!!! thank you so much! Mvbaron (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Short Descriptions

Please see WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I do know that; and I also know this qualification: be short – no more than about 40 characters (but this can be slightly exceeded if necessary). The two edits of yours that I undid were not an improvement in my opinion. but as always: I'm happy to discuss it on the talk pages. cheers -- Mvbaron (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)