User talk:City of Silver

This user is online, or has forgotten to update this message after finishing a wikisession.

_{(If there have been no edits from this user in the last 60 minutes, it is safe to assume that this user either forgot or is lurking.)}

Welcome toCityOfSilver's talk page! For simplicity's sake, I try to keep conversations in as few places as possible. Any replies I have to anything said to me here will be found here and nowhere else. Conversations from somewhere else should not be continued here. · You can click here to leave me a new message. · Please leave messages and comments rather than warning templates. CityOfSilver's archives · Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4 · Archive 5 · Archive 6 · Archive 7 · Archive 8 · Archive 9

New Page Reviewing

Hello, CityOfSilver. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Whether or not I end up applying, I want you to know that I'm really honored and humbled that you think I have this sort of potential. I was really impressed by that flowchart until I realized I'd have to, uh, know the whole thing so while I like to think I could do this, I have a ton of homework to do before I know for sure. Thank you again! CityOfSilver 04:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

lol. I went through your contribs before suggesting, and I didnt find any issue. :)
In the beginning, the flowchart, and the process in general look very complicated; yes. But once you've understood it, in the practice it doesnt seem complicated at all. So I would suggest you to read tutorial at leisure time, and keep an eye on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Then if you think you up for the task, you can request for the right. :)
And at any time (whether you have the right or not), you can ask any questions to me, TonyBallioni, or at the talkpage. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind comments about the flowchart (that was a contribution of mine). It is best used as a tool while reviewing, and since you only follow one path for any given article, it ends up being a lot simpler than it looks. You'll find that there are a lot of similar articles in the feed, so once you've figured out how to review one, you will be ready to review other similar articles with a minimal need to check for additional stuff. Also, you don't need to feel like you are obligated to review anything; if you don't feel 100% confident, do the stuff you are confident about and then leave it as 'unreviewed' for another reviewer to look over. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I actually considered pinging you in my message up there but if I'd made that chart, I'd have needed to hibernate for like a year so I figured maybe I wouldn't bug you. It is an incredible effort. Thank you for this note; deciding if I should go forward is going to be a process but these sorts of messages make me hope I'm right for this. CityOfSilver 18:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about Intelligent Design

Recently I found the wiki page of Stephen C. Meyer to state that he promotes the "pseudoscience" of intelligent design. I am curious as to what exactly makes his work pseudoscience. Stephen works according to the scientific method. The inference of what can be taken from the science does not discredit the actual results. The scientific results are there, regardless if they were attained by an evolutionist or a creationist. I will mention ID does not infer God, rather it infers "intelligence". Of what kind? We don't know, but we should find out how this intelligence works. I will refer you to this video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQf29Pden30&t=3s . Starting at 17:42 to 20:20. Then also 30:00 to 33:05. Please listen to these parts and I look forward to your response. Preceding comment added by MattBrando (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@MattBrando: If I were the supreme, unquestionable dictator of Wikipedia, one of the first things I would do is remove the word "pseudoscientific" from most articles that use it. I can't really comment on whether it's right or wrong but in most instances, it definitely seems to have been added as a deliberate, confrontational effort to marginalize people. This has been a problem on here for years, and it ranges across countless topics: once we have a widely accepted way of doing things, anyone who does anything differently gets treated like an idiot. To wit: the widely accepted way of doing things on here is to accept the theory of evolution as generally true, to accept it as generally (but not entirely) incompatible with intelligent design, and to define intelligent design as generally false and/or unprovable. Consequently, its proponents have no substantial voice on here.

I watched the first of two part of that video you recommended (I can't watch the second right now) and I noticed that Meyer never actually says "pseudoscience" or any of its variations. The word he keeps using is "unscientific." While I'm not an expert, I think it's possible for something to be both scientific and pseudoscientific while it's not possible for something to be both scientific and unscientific. The widely accepted stance is that ID is pseudoscience. If intelligent design is pseudoscience, any advocate of it is a proponent of pseudoscience.

But that inference might be the key. Your best bet regarding removing the word from Meyer's article is to back up your edit with our policy forbidding synthesis statements. Basically, if we say something on here, it's because a reliable source explicitly says it, not because a Wikipedia editor combined multiple claims from reliable sources and inferred something none of the sources say. See WP:SYNTH. Step one would be removing the word with an explanation that says "unsourced." You would probably get reverted almost instantly by someone who should add sources, which would probably just be the sources we use at the intelligent design article. At that point, you could revert again because that's technically a SYNTH violation: if those sources don't specifically name Meyer (and I bet they don't) and say he is a proponent of pseudoscience, we can't make that claim here. This likely wouldn't work because the article's tricky rhetoric describes ID as pseudoscience but doesn't say Meyer is a pseudoscientist. And it definitely won't work if someone finds a reliable source clearly using the "p" word to refer to Meyer. And fair warning: anything you try will cause a strong backlash. I have no idea how to deal with that sort of thing. CityOfSilver 18:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: I find it interesting, that you would prefer not to have the term "pseudoscience" on Wiki. Yet, you will actively edit a page to say "pseudoscience". If your opinion is that this word is used to intentionally discredit work without proper cause, then should you not actively work to edit these pages, to something more appropriate? If it has been a problem for years, should you not work to fix it? Wiki depends on donations. It is supposed to be an unbiased website. Your comments display a very unscientific way of thinking. It reminds me of how religion used to do things in the past. I will now post some definitions for you-

Science-

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Pseudoscience-

"a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method."

From just these two definitions. You can see how calling Stephen Meyer and his work "Pseudoscience" is intentionally trying to discredit his legitimate scientific research. The distinction between "unscientific" and "pseudoscience" is negligible, I believe Stephen was referring to both these terms, as they mean pretty much the same thing.

"If intelligent design is pseudoscience, any advocate of it is a proponent of pseudoscience."

As I have pointed out, this statement is based off of false accusations.

"Basically, if we say something on here, it's because a reliable source explicitly says it, not because a Wikipedia editor combined multiple claims from reliable sources and inferred something none of the sources say."

This is a curious statement as I have yet to see a link to such "reliable source". If you could provide that, that would be appreciated. Seeing as how it is part of the websites requirements.

"This likely wouldn't work because the article's tricky rhetoric describes ID as pseudoscience but doesn't say Meyer is a pseudoscientist."

This statement is just semantics. If you call someones work "pseudoscience", you can make the connection that the advocate is a "pseudoscientist", this is what happens in reality. People do not distinguish the two.

I am curious as to what "citing" you would require for Stephen's work to be considered science? If I cite his lectures and you actually watched them or read his book. That would be all the proof you need, that he does indeed do real science. I am fairly disappointed in the current viewpoint of wiki editors. The viewpoint is irrational and extremely biased. If there were a way to fix this, I would encourage you to look into it. This type of thinking is not helping the website and it's credibility. I will refer you to the wiki of "Polystrate fossils" located here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

If you read that page, you will discover some pretty biased writing. Example-

"This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon[11][12][13][14][15] and Rygel et al.,[16] have published detailed field-sketches and pictures of upright tree-fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. In the case of the upright fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists – again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin – found that the upright fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments."

If you are paying attention when reading that. It is making a distinction between "creationists" and "geologists". It is okay to call a creationist a geologist, if that is his or her profession. I don't believe it is okay to call evolutionists geologists, while ONLY calling creationists "creationists". Do you see what I'm getting at? In that article, it cleverly makes you believe that the creationists are NOT doing geology. When in fact they are, just as much as any evolutionist.

"I have no idea how to deal with that sort of thing."

Well, seeing as how it is your job to edit these pages. You can start by researching the things you are editing and making sure it is accurate. Instead of just listening to what your apparent biased sources are telling you.

I really hope you take my comments into consideration when editing in the future. I made an account simply to show you the bias and it seems you are already aware. I will not be relying on or using Wikipedia to research anything anymore and I will point out these flaws to anyone who refers me to Wikipedia. If you guys want donations, I suggest being unbiased and using the actual definition of science. Instead of the definition that apparently must filter through evolution first, before it becomes "science". I hope you don't take this as a personal attack or anything like that. I'm just pointing out my view on this and I have shown examples. Thanks for your time. --Preceding message added by User:MattBrando at 19:23 (UTC)

@MattBrando: The temptation here is to fisk this but Wikipedia's markup is quite a bit more difficult than Blogger's so I won't. I'll try to go through this as much as I can, though.

I am opposed to the word "psuedoscience" because it's marginalizing and offensive, not because it's false. There's nothing inherently wrong with the word except that it's a discussion-ender, an academic way of calling someone unintelligent.

I have no desire to contribute to a debate over semantics. If you accept the word "pseudoscience" to match that definition you added, then that's that. I said that I have no concrete knowledge on the rhetorical

"You can see how calling Stephen Meyer and his work Pseudoscience' is intentionally trying to discredit his legitimate scientific research."

This? Right here? If you want to move forward, move way, way away from things like this. Specifically, your use of the word "intentionally" is a textbook example of someone impugning others' attitudes and beliefs and it's arguably a personal attack. Those are bright-line banned; see WP:NPA. If you find yourself calling other users liars, uneducated, deliberate bad-faith actors, or anything like that, take a step back.

As I've said: if it is accepted that intelligent is pseudoscience, then its proponents are advocates of pseudoscience. That is a simple logical construct; you could replace "intelligent design" with "phrenology" and it would still be true. Calling it "based off of false accusations" is a statement you keep making in one form or another but it's not one you've sourced. And before you try, I'll recommend again you look at WP:PRIMARY. Meyer could be biased to believe he's right about things he's not right about he is not considered a reliable source about himself. (This would be true for anybody. If we're using Richard Dawkins's words to source absolutely anything controversial about his research, it would be a violation.) So far, you've said several things here where it seems like you haven't looked at WP:PRIMARY. Meyer is not a reliable source about Meyer and if you respond to claim that makes no sense or is absurd, it'll be the latest thing you've said that indicates you haven't read that sourcing rule.

The first sentence of the intelligent design article concludes by calling it pseudoscience and immediately after that, there are links to three sources. I categorically refuse to get into the weeds with how reliable those scholars (Maarten Boudry, Massimo Pigliucci, Matt Young, and Taner Edis) are. If you'd like to fight that fight, I can't support or oppose you because I have no expertise.

"seeing as how it is your job to edit these pages" It is not my job to edit these pages. I wish Wikipedia paid me but it doesn't.

I'll also note that, to my memory, I've never explicitly given my personal opinion on this debate. CityOfSilver 03:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver:

"As I've said: if it is accepted that intelligent (design) is pseudoscience, then its proponents are advocates of pseudoscience."

Yes, you did say that and you also said this-

"At that point, you could revert again because that's technically a SYNTH violation: if those sources don't specifically name Meyer (and I bet they don't) and say he is a proponent of pseudoscience, we can't make that claim here."

And this-

"This likely wouldn't work because the article's tricky rhetoric describes ID as pseudoscience but doesn't say Meyer is a pseudoscientist."

And THIS-

"And fair warning: anything you try will cause a strong backlash."

So, ^THIS^ is the wikipedia gold standard on what constitutes science now? Painting people into boxes, in order to get the answers you want? You say you haven't given your personal opinion, but you as the editor, have clearly shown who you agree with, by your edit choices. Here, I'll repeat what I said above in case you missed it- "I suggest being unbiased and using the actual definition of science. Instead of the definition that apparently must filter through evolution first, before it becomes "science"."

A message for User:MySuperBelt85

I don't know if you've noticed but you and I actually haven't gone back and forth in a pretty good while. There are 37 editors watching my talk page so if I'm inactive, your attacks get vaporized before I've ever even seen them. Now, that doesn't work for either of us. I don't want any of these three dozen fine editors to waste their time on you. You want to punish me for my insolence but I'm not suffering your wrath if your attacks are always gone before I see them. Next time you need to scratch that itch, could you hold off until you've checked my contributions to make sure I'm on here? Thanks a lot. CityOfSilver 18:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

removed incoherent message written by a shitposter who, because I stopped him from adding a lie to an effing video game article, has said a bunch of times that I'm the person in this discussion who doesn't have a life. This person is in his thirties. COfS

All this gibberish notwithstanding, is "you will be the first one to see my posts" a promise? You'll wait until I'm on here to attack me? Because again, you keep getting reverted but not by me. I'm not being ironic or insincere here: you're trying to troll me but if you won't make sure I see what you're doing, you're failing at trolling like you failed to add that lie to Mafia III. CityOfSilver 02:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

I'm sorry you took offence at me templating you for not bothering to warn an editor for vandalism when you clearly stated it was vandalism. I added personal, specific comment to that effect and apologized for doing so. Since you clearly have access to a revert button, you likely have access to a tool that will allow you to quickly template such behaviour. Do it or don't bother to revert. It steals the opportunity that others who will warn unconstructive editors that their behaviour is unacceptable. So please decide if you're here, or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You sound like an honest, kind and intelligent person. This website will infuriate you to no end. Only kindness is welcome here, honesty and intelligence are purposefully missing. That will be considered an "attack" on "someone" I'm sure lol

Re: About your comment on the article for "media conglomerate"...

Well, since you saw fit to remove the comment during your recent archiving activities, and the comment wasn't responded to, I will re-post the comment here:

This was a month ago so I'm a bit rusty on this. The article could potentially get a section or a paragraph from every single one of the world's 50 most populous nations but most of its text was and is about the United States. (The "Country Examples" section is 553 words long and 430 of those are about the US; five categories in the "Notable examples" section are about American, America-centric companies while no other country has two.) Thus, your explanation, "Removed Globalize/US tag because the issue has been fixed", was confusing and I was remiss not to say so. Would you mind linking me to a few edits, whether you or someone else made them, that worked towards addressing this issue? CityOfSilver 18:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, not sure how to link to whatever edits, but I would think that, since more & more international companies (such as Sony-Japan, Bertelsmann-Germany, Vivendi-France, Televisa-Mexico, Grupo Globo-Brazil, & ABS-CBN-Phillippines) have been added to the "Notable examples" table (making it so that it no longer consists of just American ones), that is one way the "Globalization"issue has been addressed; also, the fact of the companies (Yomiuri Shimbun Holdings, ProSiebanSat.1, Hubert Burda Meda, Fuji Media Holdings, ITV, Mediaset, Axel Springer, JCDecaux, China Central Television, Asahi Shimbun Company, Grupo Globo, Baidu, and Bertelsmann) listed in "Country examples" is another way the issue has been addressed.

So, the thing is, I don't think it matters whether or not there is more than one company listed for a specific country, as long as there is at least one company per country listed.

In the end, that is why I believe the "Globalize/US" tag no longer needs to be at the top of the article, as more & more international companies are being added to the article here & there every so often.

But, in the end, if you still believe what you stated above, then I suggest a solution to our dilemma: start a discussion about the presence of the "Globalize/US" tag and have a voting section beneath the discussion, so that people can vote whether the tag remains, or if it gets removed. See how many people believe what you do & how many believe what I do. Have the discussion/vote run for a specific amount of time. Then, when that period of time is over with, whichever stance (yours or mine) has the most support/votes is what gets done to the article; meaning that if more lean in your favor, the tag stays & I won't bring up its removal again/anymore, but if more lean in my favor, then the tag gets removed & stays off the article.

So, what do you think about my proposal? 2602:304:CEBF:8650:E004:548B:7400:5233 (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)