User talk:Gwilson

Intelligence
Your edit makes no sense. "this fails to support the claim..." has the opposite meaning of "which would support the claim..." If this was an honest mistake, I ask you to be more careful in editing technical articles in areas for which you do not have sufficient expertise. If it was intentional, let me caution you against vandalism. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "I still believe my edit did not give the sentence "the opposite meaning". I explained this to you on the talk page. You have not commented on this. I can only assume that you now acknowledge my wording, while not your preferred choice, says what was intended and not the opposite as you originally stated. Yet, you have not reverted the article to my text or, ideally, produced an improved version. Why?"
 * I would like to kindly request that you to have a bit of patience. That is not a criticism of you; just a request. I have an extremely busy life, and I often have much more to do than edit Wikipedia. You made your last post on the article's talk page about 24 hours ago. I have not even read it yet. I am involved with a number of articles in addition to this one, and I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Sometimes it takes me a few days to respond to a post. Please, this is not a matter of life and death. I don't intend to ignore the Intelligence article indefinitely, but I cannot always respond immediately. I also have stated that I would like to see what other psychologists might have to say, and that may take some time. The need for me to respond here is another delay.
 * Again, I don't mean to be rude or critical, and the Intelligence article is important to me. But it is far from the most important thing in my life.
 * Regarding your original edit giving 'the sentence "the opposite meaning'", I still believe that to be the case. The fact that I have not said differently in the past 24 hours does not change my opinion. I have not yet read any other suggested changes you may have made, but I will respond after I do so. Regarding your comment that I have not "produced an improved version", I consider the original statement prior to your original change to be a better version, but that doesn't mean I think it needs to be the final version.
 * I hope you understand what I am saying and do not take offense. I also hope that you will give the needed changes in the article a reasonable amount of time and not make reverts without adequate discussion. It is not unusual for such differences of opinion to take days, weeks, and even months to get ironed out.
 * Regarding what others write on my talk page, I remind you that you do not know the history of someone else's comments. You know nothing about the other editors, their vandalism habits, or whether they have a history of making negative comments on others' talk pages. If you wish to remind me about what others say on my talk page, that's your choice. For example, if you look at the edit immediately above yours on my talk page, you will see that an editor called me an "asshole faggot" because I politely reminded him not to add unsourced information to articles. You can make of that what you wish. I personally never assume anything about an editor based on what others say on his/her talk page (except for blocks). Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "I don't think we necessarily have to wait to hear "what other psychologists have to say". I think we both understand the point the sentence is trying to make, our dispute is more about logic and grammar than psychology."
 * I respectfully disagree. A core principle of Wikipedia is that "Wikipedia works by building consensus". When there is disagreement, often it takes more than two editors to reach consensus, especially when the two involved disagree. This is more than logic and grammar. Phraseology in science is important. The phrase "fails to support" is only one example (and I'm not saying the passage must use that phrase; I'm just offering that as an example of a phrase that can have very different meaning to a layperson and an expert). I respect the opinions of other Wikipedian psychologists, so I prefer to wait. If needed I will post an RfC to get a broader set of opinions.
 * With all due respect, I don't intend to let your impatience with the standard processes of consensus force me into accepting any version, mine or yours. And also with all due respect, if I don't have to continue responding to your complaints, then I may have time to read what you have written on Talk:Intelligence and respond to it.
 * You are perfectly entitled to disagree with any of this. You are even entitled to change the article in any way you see fit, although doing so without adequate opportunity for a broad spectrum of editors to weigh in will ratchet up the likelihood of edit warring and POV-pushing. I am not accusing you of either of those. But I am again asking you to have some patience, and to give me a chance to do things according to Wikipedia's usual procedures. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "I just want to add that the verbal back and forth has taken up a good deal of valuable time for both of us. That time would have been between better spent coming up with improved language for the page in question."
 * I am in complete agreement on this point. In consideration of that, would it be inappropriate for me to request that I not have to respond to issues until I have had an opportunity to read and consider what you have written on Talk:Intelligence since my last edit there? I hope you will agree to that. If you want an apology from me for my tone or careless wording in earlier edits, then by all means I offer you a heartfelt apology. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)