User talk:Jordan19967

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. While everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your contributions, such as your recent edit to Christianity, did not appear to be constructive and was automatically reverted by DASHBot.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * DASHBot produces few false positives, but they do happen. If you believe the bot has reverted your edit wrongly, it is helpful if you report the error so the bot does not make the same mistake again. Please:
 * Click here to submit a false positive report.
 * [ Edit this page] and remove this message.

Thanks, DASHBot Anti-Vandalism (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Christianity. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Geoff Who, me?  21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart
I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)