This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In your arbcom comment here[1] you've mixed your metaphors. Please don't do that. It opens up a can of worms that needs to be derailed before it can take flight. Mr. Language Person (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Your assistance is welcome if you have any interest in Grange Furniture or Prelle Silk. Merci. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain all/most of his uploads should be deleted. I'm giving him a chance to come clean about it... J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
I saw this edit of yours: [2] how can you see how many people that are watching your talkpage? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, I replied on my talkpage. BTW, I'm probably going to be passing through Marseille in a few months. If you're still there, would you like to get together for a coffee or something? I always enjoy meeting another Wikipedians. :) --Elonka 17:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You asked to be kept informed, so FYI, the AE thread has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Per Honor et Gloria. --Elonka 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I know you haven't participated in the mediation lately. But I think this one thread could really benefit from your take:
Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you added a reference to Orborne 2007 to Auguste Pavie in 2008 (and later fixed it to Osborne 2007). Did you mean the book Osborne, Milton (2006), The Mekong: Turbulent Past, Uncertain Future, Allen & Unwin, p. 129–134, ISBN 1741148936 that is among general references or some other? Thanks. Svick (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
G'day Mathsci. I don't know you and you don't know me but so long as we're being called a cabal we may as well act like one, right? (j/k)
So I'm somewhat perplexed as to what (if anything) to do about User:Abd and possibly also User:GoRight (who exhibits similar editing characteristics). As you've already noted, Abd appears to be angling towards some sort of "mistrial" claim because he's blocked (ironically for comments made in the request), because "any useful clarification would require more discussion than can be accomplished at RfAr/Clarification"(?), and because he claims I interfered with his request by pointing out that we've been here before. This is presumably a prelude to another timesink RfAr.
If he would just respect the editing restriction as intended (which surely is obvious unless you have a severe case of selective hearing) then many of the problems would go away, but as it stands he has a remarkable ability to turn even routine matters into full on goat rodeos. Perhaps we have little left to do but wait for him to hang himself by getting "community banned for persistent disruption and wikilawyering"? -- samj inout 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You added a clause regarding the availability of test data from around the world, with which I agree, but I was wondering if you would object to "relative scarcity" or perhaps "paucity", as this would indicate the deficit itself. Or perhaps you have a better phrasing in mind? --Aryaman (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I just want to tell you how impressed I am by the colaboration between you and Aryaman, and the result - I think it is a very well-writtn, informative, clear introduction. Kudos! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the links for Nesbitt Appendix B and Makinstosh. I have found both very useful. Do you have some more specific thoughts on the best way to use these sorts of secondary sources in a Wikipedia article like this? You mentioned using the actual 9 categories that Nesbitt uses. That seems sensible. What is the proper way to phrase this on Wikipedia? Something like: "Nesbitt outlines 9 arguments . . . " Thanks for any guidance. David.Kane (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there are probably three things to do:
Mackintosh's book is extremely neutral, well-written and accessible, so might be the right place to start. The environmental point of view is also well represented in the book edited by Fish that I mentioned to Varoon Arya on the mediation talk page. I would get other people to help, because this is a lot of work. Mediation can probably stop fairly soon. If these become the three goals for the article, then developing these parts van progress more slowly according to everybody's availability as an editor. Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC) .
I've fixed the map, I uploaded the wrong file type. Sorry about that. If you find any mistakes in the map, please inform me. I've already found one in regards to the Breton Language spoken in North-Western France. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is supposed to provide a global perspective on Race and Intelligence but your proposed lede is US focused. Should your links to various racial groups be more global and less US specific? David.Kane (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mathsci, I just wanted to confirm that you're of course entirely correct in regard to your recent comment about the nature of mediation. In other words, mediators attempt of foster consensus, and don't have any personal authority to impose a preferred version. PhilKnight (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Mathsci - you know, I'm largely sympathetic to your position. I personally like your (aryaman's) lead better (except for some qualms with the last paragraph) and I wish you would sit down and discuss the matter a bit. I'm pretty sure that if you do we will have this resolved to your satisfaction in very short order. can we do that? --Ludwigs2 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried a compromise draft of the two leads here. Since you and David.Kane seem to be on the opposite sides of this, can you two tell me if this would work? --Ludwigs2 20:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
could you see if this argument could benefit from your views? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This is tangentially related to R&I, so I thought you might be interested. A new editor, James p. robuck (talk · contribs), has substantially re-written the biography of Roger Pearson, a proponent of eugenics and founder of the Northern League (neo-Nazi). I believe the edits have tended to skew the biography in favor of the subject, but I'm not familiar enough to say for sure. Any ideas? Will Beback talk 01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
And thanks again for all your hard work on History of Race and Intelligence. David.Kane (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. With regard to the sources for the History section on the Race and Intelligence article, the policy is that we do not need to include the sources from a daughter article in the main article unless specific facts in the summary are likely to be challenged. See [9]. Let me quote the main part.
There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
When adding material to a section in the summary style, however, it is important to ensure that the material is present in the sub-article with a reference. This also imposes additional burden in maintaining Wikipedia articles, as it is important to ensure that the broad article and its sub-articles remain consistent.
The reason that I want to remove the sources is that I am trying to encourage the usage of fewer/better sources in the main article, i.e., more secondary sources. Instead of having 100+ sources (which was true a month ago) and having every Wikipedia editor giving his own special interpretation of some journal article, we are better off focusing on a few good secondary sources. Leaving out these sources is, I think, helpful to that cause (even though several of them are excellent secondary sources). For example, citing Richard Lynn (which, obviously, we need to do in the daughter article) makes it much harder for us to keep out citations to dozens of Lynn's articles and books in the main article, without getting into lots of unproductive debates about WP:UNDUE. Anyway, just wanted to explain my rational for leaving the citations out. Enjoy France! David.Kane (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Occam wrote the comment on the R&I talk page, in the section on Richard Lynn. He accused you of wrongly deleting his stuff, and provided a link to the history article, and then says he is going to rewrite the second paragraph on IQ in other countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have pointed out, on the talk pages of both the R&I article, and the History of the controversy article, where exactly Captain Occam accused you of edit warring at the History of the controversy article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It was a mistake, but the reason was I was just following Captain Occam's ramblings, and he brought up Richard Lynn. If you want to change the title of the section, just go ahead. I am sorry or the confusion. I was trying to respond to the comment by CO which, frankly, I still find confusing. I have asked him to explain himself and I do not know why he will not. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Spring and the beginning of the term ....
I just restored some (not all) of your material for the section on international IQ. My main motive is, I think they are right that the section was growing too long (and the criticisms of lynn et. al, could be made more economically) and secondly to show them the spirit of compromise. But I do not want them reverting any of this. Please keep an eye on it. I wish Muntuwandi and AProck were active. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Mathsci. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I know I just warned you about this for Race and intelligence, but I wanted to remind you that you're very close to violating 3RR for the R & I history article also. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you please collect yourself, then refactor your comment at WQA [10]? --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mathsci. I'm writing to warn you that your behaviour is providing a lot of material for a potentially damaging RfC/U. It would be in your interest to adjust your conduct. I would particularly draw your attention to misrepresentation of other users, which can be easily cross-referenced. Thanks. mikemikev (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as the speedy deletion template has been removed by two different users, I recommend that you take this to WP:AFD, because speedy deletion would be controversial. Regards. Claritas (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Was that ever sorted? Lost track. Justin talk 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |