User talk:Nick Connolly

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! DangerousNerd talk  01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Bindeez
Sorry you don't get to play with yours anymore ;) Nice pics always make an article, thanks for the quick upload. --Stephen 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for Revenge of the BindeezNick Connolly 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Elementary cognitive task
A tag has been placed on Elementary cognitive task requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elementary cognitive task
I have nominated Elementary cognitive task, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Elementary cognitive task. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Beaujean and Osterlind paper
I'm curious, have you seen the Beaujean and Osterlind paper (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.10.004), and do you have any thoughts on it? --Legalleft (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I haven't read it in great detail but my impression is twofold:firstly the basic principle is sound and far reaching. Classic IQ tests are (IMHO and probably that of Rasch and general IRT modelers) sources only of ordinal data - that is they are rankings. As the hot topics, such as the achievement gap for ethnic minorities and the Flynn effect, are primarily about arithmetic differences the kind of data that IQ tests generate just isn't up to the job. To measure differences you need measurement data and that requires a measurement model such as the Rasch model (or only the Rasch model in some opinions). Simply put IQs are like 1st, 2nd,3rd and arithmetically 27th -17th =10th doesn't make any actual sense. Secondly, I was taught that you have to use IRT from the ground up. I'm less familiar with using such tools retrospectively on tests that weren't designed within the framework of a given model. Consequently I'm not entirely sure that their approach was right. I've used Rasch model based measurement scales on tests of mathematical ability but not retrospectively. Either way its an interesting development.Nick Connolly (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "I was taught that you have to use IRT from the ground up. I'm less familiar with using such tools retrospectively on tests that weren't designed within the framework of a given model." Sort of what I was thinking too. Thanks. --Legalleft (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
I appreciate your constructive role in the discussion. Do you think there is enough agreement to move forward on my first proposal? I ask because it seems to me that you and Ramdrake, working together, would be able to work out an appropriate article, one that covers the controversy that is notable, rather than try to make claims about the controversial science ... this would be a content rathe3r than a POV fork and I think you and Ramdrake are both well-suited to develop such an article ... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the main point of remaining contention would be the name of the article.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick, would such an endeavor interest you? I'm open to suggestions regarding the name of the article, or this could be arrived through larger consensus later.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm not interested in an edit war :) - clearly people will make contributions to this article that articlulate some unpleasant views. So that other articles (eg proposals 2 & 3 of Slrubenstiens) remain unembroiled - the race-IQ/Intelligence article needs to be the place where those views get air so long as notability is established - i.e. those views have been discussed in peer-reviewed academic journals. Gievn that the journal Intelligence does publish such stuff that is not a high bar. The task would not be to keep such views out but to keep such views in context. If a random racist comes along and just plonks in some sopabox diatribe we can delete it with ease. If criticism of Jensen et al is deleted then we have a uniform standard to apply and to which we can reasonably demand others follow: A standard that is politically independent.


 * 1. the article covers the debate rather than attempts to say what the actual relation is (readers will have to draw that conclusion)
 * 2. notability and relevance have to be established: a given book or research paper has to be the subject of peer review and has to have been explicitly linked to both race and IQ or intelligence.
 * 3. assume good faith (even from people with dodgy views). We don't delete willy-nilly if an edit doesn't appear to meet point 2 we look it up and look up papers critical of it. This may result in writing-for-the-enemy, but that serves the broader aim of the article: what is it that the Race-IQ people think, why do they think it and why do people claim they are wrong.
 * 4. stoicism that would make the Dalai-Lama look quick tempered in the face of trolling. The talk pages will be troll magnets.
 * 5. be wary of attempts to solve meta-arguments. This issue in particular has a higher level discussion on what is the mainstream position and to what extent the view of Jensen et al are fringe of pseudoscience. I'm still not sure how to handle this within the article.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick, do you think that we could expand that into a set of guidelines to propose on the talk page? --Legalleft (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Do you want to propose it on the talk page? I'll support it. --Legalleft (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me to your set of guidelines. Great work!--Ramdrake (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

trolls at Race and Intelligence?
Nick, I just left this message on Brusegadi and Wobbl's talk pages. I share it with you because I think if there is any serious progress with this article you will be part of it, so I wanted to shar emy concern with you:
 * With all due respect (and I mean that) I think your comment to Confederate till death was unconstructive. Any response to him is feeding a troll.  There was an RfC on the neutrality of the article and the overwhelming response was that the article violates NPOV.  I made a four-part proposal that one person liked so much, he gave me a branstar.  My proposal was not meant to be the last word but a starting point for substantive and productive discussion about how to move forward.  I beg you to reread the discussion and look at how effectively Jagz and Confederate till death have utterly derailed my or any attempt to move forward.  Look carefully at their comments and you will see disruptive editing that does not address the problems raised by the RfC nore adds to any proposed solution - just disruptive editing.  The sad thing is, people keep replying to them, and more and more empty, meaningless talk accumulates - yes, I am including your comments which, though well-informed and reasonable, in this context (replying to a troll) just contribute to their aim to disrupt any productive work.  And at this rate in a week or two enough of the talk page will have to be archived, that the RfC and my proposal will disappear, and we will just be left with a debate the terms of which are dictated by Jagz and Confederate till death.  They will never stop - the question is, will the people of good faith, like you, who respond to them, who feed them, stop?  I do not mean to offend you, I know you act in good faith.

I know you have not been feeding trolls but I am concerned that a constructive discussion you were prominent in has been or seems to be in the process of being derailed, and hope you can help. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

race and intelligence
You are wrong that no one objects to my proposal. Jagz has made consistent and strenuous objections, e.g. here. As long as he does we need mediation as I entirely reject his vision of the article. I do however hope you and I can work together, which is why it is important that you accept mediation and I hope you will consider accepting User: Tim Vickers, I think he would be very effective. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I stand corrected; I didn't think Jagz had actually overtly objected, and I'm fairly sure he hasn't actually put up a counter argument of any substance to your proposal. Alun and Legalleft seem to be broadly in tune with my proposal - which is progress. I think the remaining problem is the questionable-science/fringe-science/pseudoscience meta-argument. Please bring in anybody you may think could help. Some sort of Deus-Ex-Machina may be needed to move forward now. Nick Connolly (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Ignore this...
I seem to be having problems editing anything. Seems to be working here... Nick Connolly (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

R&I
Hi Nick, there is a new attempt at mediation for "Race and intelligence". The only person who refused mediation previously was Jagz and he's left the article. Any interest? Alun (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Yes -ish, I've been on a semiWiki-break due to general work demands (and my aging home machine behaving erratically).Nick Connolly (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:BindeezInTray.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)