User talk:NewRuins012

Welcome
 Hello, NewRuins012, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

NewRuins012, good luck, and have fun. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Intelligence quotient. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The concerns you've raised in your edit summaries have been raised here before. Indeed, they've been subjected to intense scrutiny and debate for several years. Please familiarize yourself with the talk page discussion, including the archives for this article alone, instead of attempting to assert your view unilaterally. In particular, you should be aware that there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors which follows the scientific consensus that genetics do not explain group-level differences in IQ:. It might also be helpful to familiarize yourself with the arguments and sources discussed at Heritability of IQ. Generalrelative (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

There is no scientific consensus that genetics do not explain group-level differences in IQ. In fact, quite the opposite, as most scientists, biologists, and researchers agree that genetics are, to one extent or another, responsible for IQ difference between social demographics. Do they entirely land the focus on genetic factors? No, as that's stigmatised. Rather, they place blame on both environmental and biological factors, which they claim are the cause of racial disparities within this particular category. So, no, you're not following the general consensus. However, even if you were, you'd still be incorrect to leave up a portion of that Wikipedia article which states that race is a social construct. This is an opinion, not a fact, and is phrased intentionally to downplay racial realism. When hovering over the citation, it is stated that most anthropologists agree race doesn't exist (not stating which percentage, suspiciously), which isn't really evidence of anything. Even if all scientists agreed race wasn't real, it still wouldn't prove this. But, the beliefs of anthropologists, people who don't even study race, are irrelevant here.

There are individual examples where a certain degree of bias is acceptable, in order to maintain social harmony, and also pay respects to specific individuals. For instance, referring to trans people by their preferred pronouns is, through linguistic implications, pointing to their gender identification as valid, as a fact. This is an opinion. However, it makes sense, regardless, seeing that some pronouns have to be used, so it might as well be the correct ones.

Do not edit Wikipedia articles in a biased manner. I did not edit it to remark that race was real, or that the majority of anthropologists agreed with this sentiment. No, I removed an incorrect portion of the text. (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Intelligence quotient; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Discretionary sanctions notification
Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, stop replacing sourced information with your unsourced claims. You need to present sources, you can't just say "no, I know what the scientists think" and not present proof.  You have already been blocked from two articles for doing that, continuing that behavior in other topics is likely to get you blocked from the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not. I added no sources. Since this was external to the article itself, outside of it, I don't need to present proof. You can research it for yourself. Most scientists do believe this. Likewise, any source you've provided on that page, it can be countered by other sources which display a different story.
 * Please learn what the "un-" prefix means. It means "not," and this is something that people learning English learn fairly quickly as it's a not uncommon part of tbe language. I said you "added no sources," when I said you replaced sourced info with unsourced claims. Your actions were not external to the article, and articles are dependent on external sources (not on you insisting you're right).  If the sources you claim exist did exist, and they vastly outweighed the sources used in the article, then you should have brought them forth as you have been repeatedly instructed to do with other topics.  Because you have utterly failed to comprehend that, and because your response looks like trolling in its inability to understand clear sentences, you are now blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Since you refuse to acknowledge WP:V in a variety of topics
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do need to present proof. You have been told this repeatedly over a variety of topics . For you to fail to acknowledge that at this point means you either can't or won't understand the social contracts of this community. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)1