User talk:Sigmundur

Image copyright problem with Image:LiarsDiceGameBoard.png
Thanks for uploading Image:LiarsDiceGameBoard.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * well, I mailed the guy who did it originally into a PDF, no answer. I compiled it to a png myself but I'm not going to try to take the credit... I don't think he cares if it's here (and would probably like it since he's distributing it freely) and I think it'd be relevant... maybe someone remake it some day?

"Stata is a joke..."
Hey Sigmundur,

I saw your comment on the Stata wall. I agree that Stata is not the best statistical software- although I don't know if I would call it a joke :). It is nice because it is pretty cheap for students. What software do you use? I find SAS to be extremely powerful (but also pricey). In any case, I admit I do not know that much about statistical software. However, if you do, I think it would be great if you added a section to Stata's page comparing it to other statistical software, or simply highlighting its weaknesses.PGScooter (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * oh hi. Answered to your talk page. --Sigmundur (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

+Rollbacker
✅ - I saw nothing wrong with your edits, and accordingly have granted you the use of the tool. Also qualifies you to use Huggle. Please be sure to read WP:ROLLBACK prior to using the tool, as misuse (even inadvertant) can result in any admin removing your access to rollback. Best wishes to you Fritzpoll (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * oh, cool, now I's gots absolute powar, mwahahaa. Accordingly, I'll sweep clean my user page. If the rollback now is anything to mention anyway >_>  Sigmundur (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * aww, this wasn't quite what I thought... now it only applies to the top. I mean, it'd be useful to be able to revert to a past revision ('cause the undo just undoes the particular past edit, right?). The rationale is that it's not really anything very special: I could always go to that revision, copy it and paste as the current edit. Then I wouldn't even have to summarize it in any special way. I mean, it's easy to do; I just wish I could automatize it... --Sigmundur (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Supply-side_economics
Hello--Would you be willing to trim your recent comment? It's (as you note) mostly a rant, with only a teeny bit about improving the article. I was tempted to just revert it, but you might want to revise it to keep the good bit. C RETOG 8(t/c) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Deletionpedia
Wikipedia policy states that talk pages are for discussions around improving the article, and are not a general forum. We can't give out awards for "best deleted article" or something, on the article page, because that would not conform to our neutral point of view policies. And if that's not appropriate for the article page then it's not appropriate for the talk page either.—greenrd (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * that has nothing to do with NPOV, which as I see it is mostly a humble request to keep the politics out of an encyclopedia; it's not really aimed against irrelevance or nonsense. As for the other point, if we can't give out awards for what-not on a talk page, where CAN we do it then? As far as I've understood, the talk page is the most informal forum there is, and usually it seems to be mostly concerned with talking about the SUBJECT, not so much about technical issues of the article. --Sigmundur (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * oh, btw, for a good way to notify about unfit text on talk page, see the notice above by CRETOG8. Good style. --Sigmundur (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Li Ang (Go)
Hi! I know it's been a long time, but to answer your question here, your edits were made to a duplicate page named Li Ang (Go). (notice punctuation). A diff can be seen here. It seems that the article was redirected to Li Ang (Go), but your edit wasn't copied to that article for some reason. I still think it should be added to the article. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MOP (Internet site)
A tag has been placed on MOP (Internet site) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jarkeld (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea, it was a bit useless... I made a subpage to my profile out of it. Wikipedia should have a process to lower the barrier of starting an entry! Revisions would be a great way. Have a "pre-release" revision when all links are still red and "released" revisions when the links will be blue. --Sigmundur (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review: Alexei Kosygin
Thanks for taking your time reviewing the article. I really appreciate it.. Just tell me what to do so it can pass :D --TIAYN (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it didn't pass? I passed it but apparently there's still someone who has fixation to fail it... I'll check. I'm not going to fight for it; what I did was in genuine belief that the article is at least superficially very nice. --Sigmundur (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You reviewed the article, not that other guy, which means you passed the article. --TIAYN (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yea, so I thought. Well, keep up the good work. Nice to see that you actually listen to feedback.--Sigmundur (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Topological error in your SVG
The svg you submitted, which is a non-technical explination of a path through different topological spaces is good, but it has one error...

If you trace the path, it nexer actually goes to the red portion of the topology, so the seperated one that shows red is wrong.

...I assume you wanted the path through all colors, not skipping one.

@SawyerIII @SawyerIII1776 @DoctorATAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyeriii (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh hi, I think I answered somewhere, probably to the talk page of the actual article. --Sigmundur (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eb logo smaller.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Eb logo smaller.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * fix'd --Sigmundur (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Zero Hedge
Do you understand the significance of what Zero Hedge is and has done? I have only had this "advertising" complaint about one other article I've worked on (also not one I started), one that originally came from a promotional brochure. That article was very difficult to write because there was little about it that didn't come from a source intimately connected with the subject and I completely re-wrote the entire article. With this article, I expanded it and added citations, but it was also difficult because of the choice of the contributors to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, it has a huge reputation in the financial community and is a very important website, well deserving of a Wikipedia page. I'm a good writer and I am careful about how I write here. I'd like to know just what you object to in the article. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. As you mentioned, the page "originally came from a promotional brochure". Even if you "re-wrote the entire article", it's still written in a form of a short story rather than encyclopedia article. I'm not disputing its "huge reputation in the financial community" or that it's "a very important website"; that's how I happened upon it, I was sort of interested. But the thing is, I never read the article, because it is... well, a corporate story. A promotional brochure. Completely off the top of my head, Zero Punctuation provides an example of how you should (please!) try to re-arrange the article. I could do it for you, of course, but since you seem to take the page rather personally ("do you understand the significance of..." as in "are you stupid?" or "I'm a huge fan and your gut feeling is wrong"). So a couple of things that Zero Punctuation writers have got right:
 * short opening. Please don't tell the whole story in the first paragraph. That makes it sound like a f** vision statement or a sales pitch.
 * name the sections after, you know, topic and not an era in the glorious history of Zero Hedge or a suggestive title (like in a novel). My suggestion (really just quick idea, not maybe the best):
 * Blog profile
 * Writers' background
 * Revealing Goldman Sachs' flash trading (or similar that makes it apparent right off the bat what the section is about)
 * (more interesting details)
 * See also
 * References
 * Get to the gist: what it is, why it's special right now. Save the important events as final sections after the introduction. I want short summary at first, or I get tired and stop reading. I want VERY basic information (like Zero Punctuation) next, otherwise I again feel like you're just trying to make me read stuff I don't want to read (yet?). You know, like an ad.


 * The article has good and interesting information, it's just hard to pick out of there without reading the whole thing, which is not what I necessarily want to do. I should be able to find the relevant basic stuff by just briefly eyeing at the article, that's the point of all this "encyclopedic" stuff.


 * Gaah, I probably should've just fixed it instead of ranting here (:  but I'll let you do it, you probably know and care more about the Zero Hedge anyway. I'm fine if you just remove the ad template yourself, just wanted to point out this I guess... --Sigmundur (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hate to say it, but you need to read things a little better. Not only did you tag the article unfairly (not having read it), but you completely misread what I wrote here on your talk page. The Zero Hedge article had nothing to do with a promotional brochure (if one even exists). The reason I wrote the question "do you understand" was because quite frankly, I didn't see how you could write what you did after having read the article and now I see that I am right. You did not understand because you did not read the article. You read a few words, made a snap judgment and tagged the article. Sorry, but editing requires reading. No way around it. Marrante (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please continue to the talk page. I DID read the thing after I wrote that piece of text, actually. And my points are still valid, it's not an encyclopedic article, and people will not enjoy reading it. --Sigmundur (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am continuing on the talk page, but I checked here and you repeated the same claim you made there, that "people will not enjoy reading it". That's quite a pronouncement you make. Care to back it up? The page gets generally 3000+ hits a month. That's a lot of unhappy readers. Odd that you're the only one who's complained. Marrante (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, whatever. And I repeat a claim because I think it's valid. And no, I care not to back it up, and no, I don't care if Wikipedia has one article with potentially good content that's badly presented. It's not the only one. --Sigmundur (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm sorry that I'm rude in essentially each answer. But if it's as you said, that I'm the only one that is bugged by the form, then fine, I'll give up. But you're also the only contributor to the article, and that's quite untypical of Wikipedia really. Often there are a lot of contributors, and annoying whiners like me are silenced by saying that we think this is ok. And usually it is a lot better when there are many writers. --Sigmundur (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted for your rudeness. We can agree to disagree. But "if it's as [I] said"? No ifs about it. Look at the edit history.


 * Before I conclude, let me address a couple of issues you raised. First, I'm not the only contributor on Zero Hedge. It was created August 23, 2009 and had over 70 edits before I made my first one, just over a month ago. Secondly, it may be unusual for you to see one person working on an article; for me, it's the norm. Very few of my articles (meant in this sense) are changed beyond the most minor of things, a typo, an added category or some technical thing, a forgotten date or dab. The one time someone did flag something, it was a POV flag; the advertising (plus unref and wikify) flag was placed before I came to the article. It needed an entire re-write, itself a challenge because of a dearth of third-party source material. When I felt it appropriate, I removed the flagged issues as they were addressed. Three months later, the POV flag showed up. Five months after that, someone came to weigh in and said the POV was fine. He removed the POV flag and no one has said boo about it since. That article generally gets ±1000 hits a month. More writers do not necessarily result in better writing. Too many cooks can also spoil the pot. Marrante (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:James Joseph Dresnok.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:James Joseph Dresnok.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Proxy unblock

 * I highly doubt we can do that, but you will have to use the unblock instructions that show up when you try to edit, as we can't see the IP information otherwise. It may be more necessary for you to request WP:IPBE.  Note: please don't use adminhelp and an unblock - only the unblock is needed. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Still blocked, here's the info:

Start of block: 00:58, 26 March 2009 Expiry of block: 00:58, 26 March 2014 Intended blockee: 216.108.224.0/20 My ip: 216.108.224.136 You can contact Zzuuzz or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'e-mail this user' feature unless a valid e-mail address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 216.108.224.136, and the block ID is #1369447
 * The advice says I should put here another unblock template so here goes... --Sigmundur (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a case at WP:OPP, which is the proper venue for discussing proxies. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

IPBE
Hello Sigmundur. I have granted you WP:IPBE so you can edit through the Great Firewall. Please read the policy. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * very cool, thanks! --Sigmundur (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I got lately a "you have new messages" which pointed to talk page of an ip (174.something). That ip apparently had been spamming Anontalk-links to random articles. Could this be related to this proxy? --Sigmundur (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible. Those edits would have been made by an unsecured (open) HTTP proxy. Using any proxy is a bit like picking up a half-eaten sandwich off a park bench. You don't know where it's been, who you're sharing it with, or what it's going to do next. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

clearer if the quantifiers are in the beginning ?
I corrected from
 * X is a completely regular space if
 * given any closed set F and
 * any point x that does not belong to F,
 * then
 * for every y in F there is a continuous function f from X to the real line R
 * such that f(x) is 0 and f(y) is 1.
 * In other terms, this condition says that x and F can be separated by a continuous function.

(This was introduced in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tychonoff_space&diff=next&oldid=463867677 with saying clearer if the quantifiers are in the beginning. Yes, clearer but wrong in this case.)

To
 * X is a completely regular space if
 * given any closed set F and
 * any point x that does not belong to F,
 * then
 * there is a continuous function f from X to the real line R
 * such that f(x) is 0 and, for every y in F, f(y) is 1.
 * In other terms, this condition says that x and F can be separated by a continuous function.

Carefully with correcting from ambiguous to unambiguous - do your hit the proper case? Best regards 90.180.192.165 (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? Could be. I'm sure you've worked that out. Good catch then! --Sigmundur (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although that's super-weird... take a ball F and a point outside it x. Then there would be f so that the whole ball y in F would be f(y) = 1. Ok, fair enough, but how is that different from saying that for every point y in the ball, you can construct a function so that f(y) = 1? It could be the very same function as a matter of fact. Does the latter open up some possibilities that the first doesn't allow? Can't see really. Maybe you have examples? --Sigmundur (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what should I say? First, a basic course in (general) topology should make clear what is the true meaning of the notion. And those how attend such a course are supposed to know that the order of quantifiers matters. I see you have some “grade” (if not influence!) on wiki; could you help to push that the articles are edited (or approved) by someone with related qualification? Thanks for any affort, this is clearly important for math on wikipedia.
 * The (nontrivial) cases where one can exchange quantifiers are rare, and usually came out as a surprise, became important tool and explicit attention is payed to them.
 * Second, you are asking how is “there exists f s.t. for all y in F, f(y)=1” different from “for all y in F, there exists f s.t., f(y)=1”. So, it is obviously different (order of quantifiers) and if it is equivalent, it is your burden to prove that (The proof can not be done by an example; your ball is no more that an example). In the context of the article it is not equivalent. I can offer you some (informal) help to see that. 1. If your ball is compact, there is a standard compactness-related procedure (use also continuity and some min/max machinery) to show the two statements are equivalent (Note that the statements here are not stated completely -- they are stripped of the context, but there is not enough space to put it fully. Anyway I am now offering some informal help. Also note that, if you consider a “ball” in Euclidean or metric space, then the two statements, for compact, are true; so proving an equivalence is a strange game.) 2. If you are in metric space, the two statements are true hence “equivalent”. In this case I am not willing to play the strange game of proving the equivalence. They are simply both true since, as the wiki claims, every metric space is Tychonoff (in the meaning of the original sources!). 3. In general case, they are not equivalent -- however, if you got so far, you see that A. you have to forget about metric spaces and their nice properties. An example will be somewhat more difficult. Now, observe that, in your wording, the set F plays no role and you simply request that every x and y, (y different from x) there is a continuous function separating them. This is Completely_Hausdorff_space and wiki says that every Tychonoff is completely Hausdorff but “One can find counterexamples showing that none of these implications reverse”.
 * I would be glad if wikipedia would be reliable in mathematics and it is far from being so. (The same for other sciences, but with mathematics it is special, because in mathematics, the truth is far more absolute and the opinions are not relevant if the social system around is not flowed.) --90.180.192.165 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, well, you know, I agree, in a perfect world there would be no mistakes etc. but the same critique goes for any encyclopedia or indeed text-book. They contain errors. Here you're clearly right and my modification (even if done in good faith) was clearly wrong. This is how Wikipedia works, we can hope it constantly becomes better. It's already a formidable "source" for learning stuff, way more comprehensive than most text-books. Now I said "source" because Wikipedia is NOT a source, and that is a point most people seem to blissfully miss. Wikipedia is NOT MEANT to serve 100% accurate knowledge, but rather reference sources that may or may not be correct but should at least mirror the contemporary state-of-the-art. Saying that Wikipedia has "too many mistakes" can easily be countered by pointing out that anything written here without adequate sourcing is wrong by Wikipedia standards, too. You can help by adding { { cn } }-templates . And whatever is written here weighs less than actually going to the source if you need the information to be completely accurate. I personally find Wikipedia great in expanding my world view, and in good faith try my best not to introduce inaccuracies. That said, I do know my basics of modern analysis and first-order logic; this time I seemed not to pay proper attention. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Sigmundur (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Best wishes 90.180.192.165 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed
Hello Sigmundur,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! WorldsApart (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great project; I don't do English news through RSS so... not really for me. Good luck! --Sigmundur (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, and the well-wishes! WorldsApart (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Eb logo smaller.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Eb logo smaller.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Eb logo smaller.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Eb logo smaller.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the expert attention tag to IQ Reference Chart
Hi, Sigmundur, thanks for adding the "needs expert attention" tag to the IQ reference chart article, which indeed needs expert attention. I see I am one of the few users who has commented at all on the talk page of that article in the last few years, and you are one of the few editors in the edit history of the article following any of the usual Wikipedia guidelines. (I recognize Aprock as another editor who has consistently helpful contributions to any article he edits, and a couple other editors.) I expect I will be rewriting that article in full soon, after testing revisions in my sandbox. Please feel free to let me know what you think about the revised condition of the article once it is posted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Endgame Singularity.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Endgame Singularity.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart (an article you tagged as needing expert attention)
Hi, Sigmundur, I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged (by you) 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. Thanks for drawing my attention to the editing needs of that article with your tag. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look in
... at the Western culture article, where you now may be beginning to have a consensus to change the article, in the directions you proposed earlier (where you called attention to length, and sourcing). See last Talk entry there, and comment as you see appropriate. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)