User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji/Archive 1

Belated welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, WeijiBaikeBianji, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Thank you for the welcome message. I really appreciate it. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream Science on Intelligence
Thanks for explaining your changes. I agree that your revision is more accurate. That topic is very contentious, so be prepared for extensive discussion about most changes! Again, welcome. Jokestress (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure anything I edit on that topic will be, as Wikipedians say, "edited at will." (Didn't that used to say "edited ruthlessly"?) Oddly, I have seen multiple reprints of the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" article, some of which include the original lead paragraph that DID mention the book The Bell Curve (as I confirmed as I was browsing around and editing), and some of which jump right into the propositions on intelligence. It was one of the latter reprints that was nearest my keyboard as I started editing. (I have a photocopy of the original 1994 printing in my office, but buried under other papers at the moment.) I see Gottfredson's 1997 follow-up in the special issue of the journal Intelligence is thoroughly discussed in Mainstream Science on Intelligence here on Wikipedia. You may enjoy the subpage on my user page (now about half-finished) with bibliographic references about the general topic of intelligence and related issues. I thought there should a repository that Wikipedians can use to look up research on that ever-contentious subject. I'll be on another library run tomorrow in my off-line real life to gather more sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jensen (1969)
At some point, I hope to re-add the article about Jensen (1969). In the meantime, you should feel free to edit it here. David.Kane (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * David, as you see I haven't taken you up on your kind suggestion yet. I think you have seen from the article talk page on Race and intelligence that I think it would be user-friendly to have a separate Wikipedia article on the Jensen 1969 paper and reactions to it, the better to keep related articles at reasonable length. But because I still have a lot of sources to type into the citations list--and I also like to read them as I go along--I doubt that I will be doing much substantive editing of articles, in article space or in anyone's user space, until I have updated the citations list. I hope that meanwhile the ArbCom case provides guidance about a better way forward for editing that and other articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology
Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. ---kilbad (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't forgotten your offer of a chance to help. I have saved the information about how to log in and I will see how that fits in my schedule. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ---kilbad (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for the Barnstar. My main interest is to try to clarify the scientific mess which surrounds dyslexia, so that there can be a better awareness and understanding of Auditory Processing Disorder which is the underlying cognitive cause of my own dyslexic symptom. dolfrog (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be particularly interested in reading more of the sources on auditory processing disorder, about which I could find few sources the last time I looked (which was at least a year or two ago). I will be especially curious about what the research literature says about causation and remediation. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography
I have had another look at Intelligence Citations Bibliography, one can only assume good faith that most of these titles exist, there is no online validation provided so that all editors can find a copy of each of your citations. The real problem here is a lack of access to these sources, which you have read, we also need to be able to read them, at no or little extra expense. There are a number of search engines you could use so that you can find the supportive information to fill out the information required for most citation templates. dolfrog (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, I am still adding details. And one kind of detail I particularly like to add, in view of Wikipedia guidelines, is links to as much publicly viewable free online text as I can find related to those sources. But, alas, to build a really good encyclopedia here on Wikipedia, we are going to have to go beyond free online sources to sources that are printed on dead trees and stored in libraries. I have no idea how interlibrary loan services work where you live, but it is often possible for many Wikipedians in many places to access books stored far from their own town by requests through their local public library, which is quite a change from the 1980s when I started researching these topics. For Wikipedia to be as well sourced as possible, some Wikipedia editors will have to read the full text of articles (not just abstracts) and even much or all of the text of whole books (not just webpages). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not limited to only accessing abstracts, and read many full research papers. Using Online Computer Library Center ID as part of a book citation can be very helpful to locate a local library copy. here is sample page result and you might find these citation generators useful Reference generator and Wikipedia template filling dolfrog (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the convenient links. Many years ago, I worked my way through university studies in part by doing data entry for what is now Worldcat. I will be looking locally for a way to get past paywall restrictions on some journals that I can access abstracts for online, but not full text at the moment. Currently my workaround for that issue is to physically travel to the university library to read the articles on dead trees, as I did the weekend before last. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, Wikipedia's actual policy says nothing about needing free or easy access to a source. A good source is a good source, even if access to it costs a small fortune.  See WP:PAYWALL for details.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, WhatamIdoing, thanks for the link clarifying the Wikipedia policy pertaining to the issue brought up by me as I remembered a comment by another Wikipedian on the citations list I have been compiling. On my own part, I want to take care personally to read sources before I make edits on the basis of those sources. But I'm glad to see that it is permitted to link to sources that may be behind paywalls for some large subset of Wikipedians--they are still good sources, after all, and those who can gain access to those sources help Wikipedia by referring to those sources while editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.
 * BTW, if you have access to more resources than the average internet user, you might consider keeping an eye on WikiProject Resource Exchange, which is the centralized location for getting help with less-accessible sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip about the resource exchange. I would be glad to help. I have excellent access as an alumnus to a huge dead-tree library system, and I hope to transition into better full-text online access. (I had full JSTOR access for a while through an affiliation that has now expired. Back then, I was downloading articles right and left, many of which still have to be added to the citations list announced here. I need to speak to a reference librarian at my alma mater about what channels might exist for me to restore such lavish online journal access.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Outsider view here (I'm taking a break, but I'm commenting having edited in this area previously). It's to be stressed that sourcing for medical articles should be based on secondary sources: go by WP:MEDRS. I strongly advise you to go by the advice of WhatamIdoing. Dolfrog appears not to grasp that personally selected primary sources are not acceptable sourcing for articles. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I'm having a pleasant conversation about how to edit well with some more experienced editors, I'll mention here one of my all-time favorite webpages about how to read and evaluate research articles: Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation by Peter Norvig, chief of research at Google. Of course that webpage links to other good literature, both primary source and secondary source, about how to do research and how to interpret research. Good stuff. Yes, WP:MEDRS is correct that for many issues certain kinds of secondary sources are actually better sources for Wikipedia articles than primary sources in the same discipline, even primary sources from the most prestigious journals. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a lovely link. Perhaps it should be added to WP:MEDRS.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While WhatamIdoing is correct in theory, in practice you will find yourself doing more work and sometimes producing a lower-quality product when you use paywalled sources because it severely restricts the editorial review of your work. Also, it is hard to find consensus that such sources are indeed "the best" when only one or two people can see them. I was recently involved in a RfCU of one our most prolific editors (Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85), who used an enormous amount of such sources. We have discovered that a substantial proportion of his edits completely misrepresented the sources he added (if you have extra time, help clean up at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85). Therefore, I will be routinely asking that you provide quotes supporting your statements; you may also find that your sources may be replaced by freely-accessible sources making equivalent arguments, and future editors will have a lot of difficulty defending your sources in the future. Also note that the legality of Resource Exchange is unclear and not all interlibrary loan requests succeed. The problem of misrepresenting or misreading sources, incidentally, extends to everyone - we're all human. I recall that Eubulides, who mainly wrote WP:MEDRS, misrepresented a brief blurbish summary of a lit review as the actual lit review and source for a controversial statement, and refused to provide the full-text, substantially obfuscating the actual source of the statement (I can provide more detail if you're curious). II  | (t - c) 17:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * * Hi, II, as I mentioned in the article talk page of the article at which we met, your concern about people misrepresenting sources is fully warranted there. I want to be as verifiable as possible wherever I edit on Wikipedia, and especially when I edit on the especially contentious topics related to that article. (Alas, I happen years ago to have developed a research interest that continually crosses that minefield of political controversy as I follow the sources to other issues that I actually find more interesting.) Your comments are helpful in guiding me to which sources can be relied on to be visible to other editors, the better to ensure that the articles are relentlessly fact-checked and cite-checked. I think for the rest of the time I am on Wikipedia, my procedure will always be first to gather sources, then to share the sources with other Wikipedians, and only then to wade in with substantive edits on articles. Other Wikipedians are always welcome to comment on the quality, availability, and meaning of the sources for any article we all happen to visit. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A possible miss understanding
I was reading a research paper last night "How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading" by K. Raynor, B. R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenber. Which talks about "writing systems" in general and then goes on to talk about an "English writing system". I think at that point in the paper they were discussing the "English Orthography", which is part of the much larger "Latin Alphabet" writing system. I am aware some of the cultural differences of word meanings that exist between the various English speaking nations, and I was wondering how the term "writing system" is used in the USA, when discussing the English language etc. dolfrog (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dolfrog, to give you an immediate answer, I have that publication at hand, having downloaded it this January, and I will read it carefully and digest it and reply with what I think will answer your question. Thanks for bringing up that source, which is a good source by experienced researchers on the subject. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

IQ reference chart
Hey, thought I'd ping you just in case you aren't watching the IQ reference chart page. As I explained on that talk page, I think this deletion merits a little discussion, and your reasons for deletion aren't entirely clear to me (I can think of a few reasonable ones...). As I noted there, it looks to me like the article is salvagable with improvements. --CAVincent (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads-up. I've replied on that article talk page. There are various ways to go in fixing the article, and I'm happy to discuss the possibilities with you and other editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re
I think you are doing great work with sources. Unfortunately, I have no time to do the same, especially on such boring subjects as race. Instead, I prefer to be bold. There are so many pages in a terrible shape... One should simply look at them and fix, fix, fix.Biophys (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm warming up to being more bold. Sources help the boldness do better clean-up. I hope overnight into tomorrow to start cleaning up an article that has been around for years with no sources whatever, which of course has had some bad effects on the accuracy of the content. See you among the articles. Thanks for your kind words. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Revamping the Alexia article
Hi WeijiBaikeBianji The Alexia (acquired dyslexia) article needs a radical review. The current content does not reflect the research of the last decade or so, and there are also a series of sub articles to be revised as well. As you are rightly said earlier Stanislas Dehaene is one of the leading Alexia researchers of the last decade. I have outlined to topic heading and potential new articles on Talk:Alexia (condition). I hope you can help with this project dolfrog (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dolfrog, I'm about two weeks behind in posting the results of my library run for secondary sources on dyslexia and related issues. The sources will be posted on a user subpage I have already started here, and I will put a link to that after the revisions on the WikiProject Dyslexia discussion page. After I've let other editors look at the source list, asking for their suggestions, then I'll plunge into more substantive edits. By the way, I have restored my JSTOR access so that I should have full-text access to most journal articles reporting primary research, but findings from those will have to be integrated into Wikipedia articles based on reliable secondary sources. See you over at the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Other voices
Hi. It's look like you're relatively new here and doing a great job. You should know, however, that this recent edit of yours was inappropriate. Talk page comments made by other editors should never be deleted unless they are blatantly disruptive (and even then, it's sometimes in the interest of the historical record that they be retained). Neither you nor anyone else has any business eliminating the sort of comment you deleted. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dan, thanks for letting me know. I misread that as a diff in the article when of course it was a diff in the talk page, where indeed the other editor's post should be allowed to stand. Thanks for correcting my mistake right away and posting your kind reply here. I see that article is churning through a lot of edits since Featured Article status was won through the work of many editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and getting the main page spot which it has today defines the blessing-as-curse. I just saw on your profile that you're a homeschooling parent—there may be no better experience to prepare one for being a Wikipedia editor! Best, DCGeist (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

R&I
I also look forward to collaborating with you on revamping the article according to proper Wikipedia rules once the air starts to clean up. ;) One thing which you need to know, though, is that as a person, I have a very fragile and precarious health (end-stage renal failure along with other comorbid conditions) which make it so that I may end up in the hospital abruptly, and when that happens, I unfortunately disappear from Wikipedia altogether, sometimes for rather long stretches (last one was about 3 months' forced "vacation"). Therefore, I should not be considered overly reliable for anything long-term, but I'm always glad to lend a helping hand when I can, or to let someone pick my brain (so to speak) when needed. Regards, --Ramdrake (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia Alexia / dyslexia project
Hi could you add a reference link to the book by Stanislas Dehaene regarding phonological dyslexia to the resources section of the new Wiki Project Dyslexia Alexia resources page. dolfrog (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Award

 * Thank you. That's very kind. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just copied the award template over to my user page, where it will reside until maybe someday I have a permanent award subpage. (Presumably after a while I will have to start archiving this talk page.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling
Thanks for your interest in the project! I have left a reply to your query on the project's talk page. Also, please add your name to the list of members. Cheers, PrincessofLlyr  royal court 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sick and tired
Thanks. You have been a star. The fact is, without (relatively?) new blood like you to wok on articles Wikipedia would collapse. I try to keep en eye on articles I want students to be able to read. But we really need more good editors. And what is at stake at ArbCom is some of our best editors, mathSci for example, but Ramdrake, and one day it will be you and Professor Marginalia, really could be driven away. WP needs to be abl to tell the diference between well-informed and wellontentioned editors and their opposites ... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

interdisciplinary dialogue
Thanks for your comments! If you do not know it, I think you should buy this book (which is in paperback): Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 95% Chimpanzee - I promise you, you will really enjoy it and learn a lot, it is beautifully written and clear and thoughtful. It is just a beautiful book, reading it will be a treat! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read the Jonathan Marks book right after it was published. I agree it is a delightful read, full of thought-provoking ideas. I especially like his passage about when he asked a group of genetics researchers who believes that there is a gene for what names people give their pets. :)  It's a long, slow slog to digest the research about what makes people people, but the slog is rewarded with many surprising insights along the way. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Marks is well-resepcted and i am trying to figure out how to incorporate some of his points in the the article. This article will always be beset by real NPOV problems by which I mean the topic strains NPOV. I think marks is right to compare race today to the heliocentric theory of the sun in the 16th century. Anyone is a real expert on the matter (by which I mean, biological anthropologists like marks) knows that it is a cultural construction. But just as Galileo's biggest enemy was not the Church but rather other academics who believed that whatever Aristotle said was the truth, we have to contend with the fact that biological anthropologuists, who are virtuallyu unanimous in this view, are simply ignored by the majority of non-scientists, and a significant number of biologists who do not specialize in the study of human evolution and genetic variation. How then to handle this? There are some at the Race article who think that there is a "social science" view and a "biologist" view and the article should be divided into these two views. That is simply a guarantee that the scientific view of race will not be communicated clearly. I am at my wits end about how to handle this - I hope you can think of something. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! I just discovered that one really good book on the subject of the article now has full text online. Another good set of books, widely available in public libraries, are the books by Sean Carroll Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. The latter, especially, makes very clear the distinction between genes that influence phenotype, and thus are under selection pressure, and genes that don't influence phenotype, which thus are good evidence for tracing lineages. Sometimes two genes very close together on the same chromosome can differ greatly in how much they are subject to selection pressure. That is why geographic races traced by genes that vary from population to population only by vagaries of founder effects and random mutations may have little or no relation to important phenotypic traits, which respond to selection pressure that rapidly changes gene frequencies. That ties together well with a point made in the book above about how anomalous IQ variation is from the point of view of evolutionary biology. If IQ has to do with "general intelligence," it's under strong selection pressure for everyone everywhere all the time. If IQ is highly variant in the human population, either the way it is estimated (the authors said "measured" as I recall) is inaccurate, or it is not really closely related to general intelligence (or, I would add, possibly both). To edit the article effectively we need to follow up on subtle logical points like that that are brought up in the best sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Christ. "IQ is selected for therefore every population has the same IQ." Never ceases to amaze me. mikemikev (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mike, be more polite in your language on my talk page. You should also be more polite in what you post on article talk pages and article edit summaries. And stop deriding sources that you haven't read--read more and learn something. The anomaly noted by the cited source has important implications, and you have incorrectly summarized it because you haven't read the source. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You know Weiji, it's kind of funny being condescended to by you, and told to 'learn something', at the same time as being reminded to be polite. It's all the more odd since it seems doubtful that you've ever studied cognitive science or evolutionary genetics. Perhaps you feel you have the moral high ground. Maybe you should think about approaching this delicate subject neutrally and scientifically, rather than selecting 'reliable sources' which confirm your bias.
 * Marks is a well known egalitarian apologist, with about as much credibility as Gould. My summary of his 'argument' is accurate (well perhaps I should have written general intelligence instead of IQ (quicker), but the point is clear). If you want I can break it down into words of one syllable. Is this one of the 'reliable sources' you keep admonishing us to use? mikemikev (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On being an editor
I'm glad you found the book helpful. If it doesn't address some problem you've encountered that you wished it did, please let me know - I can both offer some advice and possibly tweak the Wikipedia version of the book. And yes, you're right that in my ideal world, no editor would add information without adding a cite. I realize that (a) that would reduce participation and (b) isn't going to happen, given Wikipedia's current culture, but it is something that I think good editors should observe. (For example, I don't think that being bold is about making major revisions to articles without citing sources, no matter how accurate one considers one's knowledge of a subject to be.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words ...
But I think I was a little more worked up about VC (who has a very devious way of swooping in and editing articles out of nowhere). Maybe a weeks vacation will clear my mind. Fare well, you have a much cooler head than I. aprock (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the pat on the back, and let me compliment you as well. And you manage stay cool even in the midst of messy situations--that is such a big help. Enjoy your break. I may be enjoying one myself soon-(fingers crossed). Professor marginalia (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

NPOV proposal
Weiji, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Check the discussion, Lead_section specifically stated "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section."--TheLeopard (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind reply. My friendly response is that there are just one or two terms for that exact language in English, of which "Modern Standard Chinese" is by far the most commonly used. The article does, as you point out, have a detailed discussion of the several names that the language has in Chinese. My edits are directed toward native speakers of English who are looking for information and making sure they are reading the correct article with English-language terms. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK
Ok. --Davide41 (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear from you. I definitely agree that that article needs sources that respond to the author's conclusions, for neutral point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

IQ reference chart
Hi WeijiBaikeBianji, I am a member of many high-iq societies and I studied a lot IQ testing and psychology, the reference charts are in my opinion obsolete and it should also be made a distinction between ratio IQ and deviation IQ, the chart posted by me is the most accurate in my opinion and also the references, that I found very reliable compared to old psychology manuals. Especially important I found necessary to add the distinction between ratio IQ and deviation IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRaven10 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you are new here and still learning about signing your comments. Welcome aboard. I replied about that IQ reference chart article on your talk page. Like most of the articles on Wikipedia, that article needs improvement through better sourcing, which I have been gathering  sources to perform. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We can discuss this topic more deeply but I don't like using Wikipedia as a tool for doing that, if you would like to exchange an email we could talk privately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRaven10 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was referring to the issues pertinent to editing an encyclopedia, which is what we are here to do. Every new editor takes time to become accustomed to the culture here. I'm still quite new here myself. (I recommend books that helped me become oriented to the culture of Wikipedia on my user page.) As occasion comes up to discuss specific edits on one article or another, the place to do that is on each article talk page. General discussions of sources or of rearrangements of articles may be on-topic on the talk pages of the affected articles, or on WikiProject pages for projects that look after the articles, or on specific Wikipedia space pages that relate to applying Wikipedia policy to editorial decisions. I voluntarily keep  various source lists on my user space after observing that most of the articles on Wikipedia need better sourcing but that there aren't many pathfinders to the literature for most subjects on which there are Wikipedia articles. Anyone is welcome to comment on those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding, I will try to add more sources for the article in the future whenever I can. Could you please delete this discussion from your talk page now? I would really appreciate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRaven10 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please do not add inappropriate and unexplained external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Conscience. If you feel the link is relevant to an article, please explain why rather than just posting the link to multiple talk pages. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added the explanation as you requested. I generally add quite a few links to useful information on article talk pages, as in this instance, and that has not been controversial before. Thank you for explaining how the situation looked to you as an editor who watches the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion there. --McGeddon (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was quite right of you to check what was going on, and I appreciate the reminder to make my rapid edits more understandable to the other editors who work to keep Wikipedia in good shape. See you around various articles. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Ok. I'll be back to check! Thanks for the invitation. --Davide41 (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement
Thanks-I'm struggling to find the best balance between "explaining" and "belaboring" :). Professor marginalia (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL. I wish the veterinarians would declare the horse dead so that its grooms can stop flogging the poor beast. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from the GOCE
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 21:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

IQ reference chart archiving
About this. Unfortunately its not yet the time to archive the talk page. The thresholds can be read at TPG. --Kslotte (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you have some specialized interest in such issues. Thanks for the link. Do you read the link as saying it is impermissible to archive before the talk page reaches a certain size, or just that it is prudent to begin archiving once it reaches a certain size? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

request for clarification (R/I)
I have made a request for clarification which mentions you. Please find the request here:. aprock (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

you are annoying little creature
you are only 3 months and now an expert?

you go back and teach primary school kiddies math, leave the real world for big peeps doing real job, not little peep job, okie?

bye bye now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbysox89 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess SineBot showed me who left this message after you forgot to sign it. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And I see you haven't learned yet that any editor of Wikipedia can read your diffs. Take a deep breath, relax, and learn the ways of this community. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Contact info
I'm surprised at your knowledgeability on behavior genetics- there's a number of things I'd like to discuss with you. Do you have an email I can send to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannoro (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, good to hear from you again. Yes, Wikipedia's anonymity-preserving (for the recipient, but not for the sender) email link is enabled on my Wikipedia user account. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Where would that be located? Mannoro (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have to expand "Toolbox" on the left side of this page to see a link "E-mail this user." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely don't see it. Clicking toolbox just brings up general options. Mannoro (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize I had to validate my email to view your email setup. I sent you a message, but you haven't replied yet. Mannoro (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can confirm I have received that message. Just before you wrote your email, I tried experimenting with surfing Wikipedia as I.P. user (not logged in), and I noticed that that link doesn't even appear. So now I better understand who can email me through Wikipedia. Do you expect to set up a user page? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Test and Standardized test
Just a gentle reminder about the idea of merging the test and standardized test articles. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Daniel, I'm just becoming unburied from that other series of articles. While I was looking at how that category was structured, it occurred to me that Test can be a high-level general article, much as Intelligence is among intelligence-related articles, and then Standardized test can be a more focused article, much as Intelligence quotient is. Both articles are quite long and could still grow more. I think the same is true of the two articles you have kindly reminded me about, so I do not advocate merging those, but rather taking each in a distinct direction of development, with sources, to make clear what topic each article covers. I picked up some new sources this weekend that should help with that editing process. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That may not be a bad idea. Have you looked at educational assessment? I am not sure if I understand the purpose of that article. It seems to overlap with the other articles and lacks specific examples. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rescue
It's certainly rescuable. And it would normally be the sort of thing that I'd take on, just to show that it could be done. I did. But I have my hands full with Baptist articles. So be aware that this is probably on your shoulders, since you've volunteered in the AFD discussion. I'll just leave you with a few more sources. I recommend Greenspan2008 as apparently a fairly good overview of the state of the formal literature on the subject, albeit that unlike several of the others xe doesn't mention Loewenfeld's work. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

wikithanks
thank you for your kind note. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind note. Some of these articles need copy-editing. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride
Not that it matters, and not that there aren't great reasons to oppose his RfA, but I don't think the r&i arbcom case and the BLP arbcom case involving MZM are remotely equivalent. For one, the motivations of the 'involved' parties are diametrically opposite (agendas versus the good, if misguided, of wikipedia). Just noted your oppose and have been very impressed by your approach and demeanor in the r&i case so thought I'd bring this up. (So don't take this wrong way!) --RegentsPark (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by. I'm still learning here, so I'm glad to hear that perspective. Seeing what you said there was weighty to me, as I have been impressed your posts on issues wherever I've seen them. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikify Drive
Since you signed up for the September 2010 GOCE event, I wanted to invite you to participate in a similar event: the September 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. In case you didn't know, "Wikification" is the process of formatting articles using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and adding internal links to material. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors. Thanks!

 ℳ ono

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 00:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

GOCE drive has begun
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Joanna Krupa
Could you better explain why you made this edit? I don't see what's wrong about the Huffington Post source, if that's what you were getting at... Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 03:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a source that is (correctly) not considered a reliable source for biographical details about living persons. The whole general class of sources called self-published blogs has that problem for biographies of living persons see the WP:BLP policy for more details. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

October drive
Sorry, guys. The wikification drive has been bumped to October. You might have noticed already, however. I'm amazed how many people came on as soon as I sent out the invite. With a few more, we can easily meet our goal. Just remember. Concentrate your firepower on the 2008 articles, and you should have no problems. Great work! Also, if you have time, please also invite other users to participate. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Reviews of and commentaries to Lynn and Vanhanen
E Miller - Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, 2002
 * Differential Intelligence and National Income. A Review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations

SM Barnett, W Williams - Contemporary Psychology, 2004
 * IQ and the wealth of nations: Review

T Volken - European Sociological Review, 2003 - Oxford Univ Press
 * IQ and the wealth of nations. A critique of Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's recent book

S Kanazawa - Intelligence, 2006 - Elsevier
 * IQ and the wealth of states

JM Wicherts, CV Dolan, HLJ van der Maas - Intelligence, 2010 - Elsevier
 * A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans

Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, January-February 2010, Pages 30-37 Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas
 * The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers

Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 30, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 111-112 Randall K. Filer
 * IQ and Global Inequality, R. Lynn, T. Vanhanen. Washington Summit Publishers (2002). 400pp., $17.95, Paper, ISBN: 1593680252, ISBN-13: 9781593680251.

Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 20, Issue 3, June 2010, Pages 135-151 Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Jerry S. Carlson, Han L.J. van der Maas
 * Raven's test performance of sub-Saharan Africans: Average performance, psychometric properties, and the Flynn Effect Original Research Article


 * Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and global inequality, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta, GA (2006) (Pp. xx+400), ISBN:978-1-59368-025-1 (hard cover) 978-1-59368-024-4 (paperback).Intelligence, Volume 36, Issue 6, November-December 2008, Pages 731-732 Michael A. McDaniel


 * Black Intellectual Genocide: An Essay Review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Berhanu, Girma, 2007 Education Review. ; 10:6


 * Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 5, September-October 2007, Pages 489-501 Jay L. Zagorsky

Deborah L. Whetzel and Michael A. McDaniel
 * Prediction of national wealth Intelligence, Volume 34, Issue 5, September-October 2006, Pages 449-458

Thomas W. Teasdale and David R. Owen
 * A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 39, Issue 4, September 2005, Pages 837-843

Garry A. Gelade
 * The geography of IQ, Intelligence, Volume 36, Issue 6, November-December 2008, Pages 495-501

Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsboom and Conor V. Dolan ·Maunus· ƛ · 01:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.CPersonality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 2, January 2010, Pages 104-106


 * Thanks. Step two is seeing how much Lynn's views are taken up in any of the standard reference works on IQ. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The preprint for A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is online, and it presents some good reasons to be skeptical of Lynn's work. I like this quote:"For instance, Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) accorded a national IQ of 69 to Nigeria on the basis of three samples (Fahrmeier, 1975; Ferron, 1965; Wober, 1969), but they did not consider other relevant published studies that indicated that average IQ in Nigeria is considerably higher than 70 (Maqsud, 1980a,b; Nenty & Dinero, 1981; Okunrotifa, 1976). As Lynn rightly remarked during the 2006 conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), performing a literature review involves making a lot of choices. Nonetheless, an important drawback of Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s reviews of the literature is that they are unsystematic." II  | (t - c) 02:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it appears the data-gathering for that book was remarkably poor. I found a website with lots of article .PDFs that helps to spread the literature around. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And I see that Wicherts's academic website has links to several interesting and useful articles for editing Wikipedia articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy
Hi, I made a query about the use of sources in this article at WP:NOR/N.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Benoit
Hi Weiji,

Since you removed the tags from Benoit, would you please supply the proper stress? — kwami (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(PS. In words like pliocene which do not actually have 2ary stress, we haven't been transcribing it. American dictionaries tend to use secondary stress marks to show a vowel isn't reduced, not because it's actually stressed, whereas the OED does not. As a rule of thumb, there is no word in English which has 2ary stress after primary stress, because 1ary stress is final stress, while 2ary stress is non-final stress. See Ladefoged, A Course in Phonetics, §5.4 "Degrees of Stress")


 * I've checked sources. I thought most French words don't have distinctive stress. Sure enough, my Merrian-Webster Webster's New Biographical Dictionary, which generally (but not always) gives English pronunciations for all the surnames it contains, shows no stress on either syllable of that surname. The name is not an entry in the Cambridge pronouncing dictionary. I personally happen to have a two-syllable English (Norse-derived) surname that's really without a stressed syllable, although the Cambridge dictionary treats the most nearly analogous common noun as having primary stress on the first syllable. P.S. Just saw your P.S. about syllable stress. Where is a talk page about those IPA conventions on Wikipedia? I'm familiar with Ladefoged's writings, but one thing I notice about them is how often Ladefoged disagrees with other authors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen quite a few people quote L on that.
 * English lexemes have stress. If your dictionary doesn't have it, it only means the dictionary is inadequate. Our transcription is still wrong as is. I'll have to answer the other ? later. — kwami (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case (based on other entries I have found in the same dictionary), it probably means that the lexicographers who compiled the dictionary found that most speakers of English pronounced the name in a French manner. (There are Spanish surnames in that dictionary that similarly have transcription appropriate only to Spanish, not to English.) I am rather more persuaded by the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary editors (and the cast of thousands who agree with them) than I am by Ladefoged about the issue of notating primary and secondary stress on English words. But, yes, Ladefoged is a good read precisely because he lets you know exactly how he feels. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt monolingual English speakers can pronounce a name without stress. It just doesn't happen in English. It's either BEN-oyt, ben-OYT, or be-NOYT. If it doesn't have an English pronunciation, that's another matter, and we should remove it altogether.
 * As for French words, you're right, they don't have distinctive stress in French, but they do in English. In the US people tend to assign final stress, while in the UK they tend to have initial stress.
 * Dictionaries vary on this, as linguists do. If I remember right, Chomsky & Halle posited 2ary stress as you do, but Kenyon only allowed it before 1ary stress, as IPA for English does. The OED takes the latter approach, Random House the former. So if my dictionary uses the Random House convention, I can drop it without any loss of information, but if it doesn't, then it would be OR to add it in. Thus since we want to be consistent, it's better not to indicate post-1ary 2ary stress. This is covered in the examples at IPA for English, with note at fn [21], which has been there for several years. (I don't remember and can't locate the original discussion at this point.) — kwami (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll check the footnote--thanks for pointing me to the specific place. I'll probably leave some of the other entries in the Category:Wikipedia_articles_with_nonstandard_pronunciation for other editors then, and stick with the less fussy cases. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, don't do that! Much better to have a minor discrepancy between the transcription and the key than nothing at all, or some of the truly confusing transcriptions in those articles. I've got an AWB bot to automatically delete post-1ary 2ary stresses in English IPA templates, which is how I noticed this in the first place. It's just a matter of when I next scan the 11,000 articles with those templates. (It's been a while. This time I got 700 hits, though almost all for other errors such as illegal vowels: is "/a/" supposed to be /æ/ or /ɑː/, etc.) — kwami (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

History of the race and intelligence controversy
The two new books by Tucker you cite at the R&I talk page have been used at the above article - if you have just read the books, you are in a good position to read over that article and ensure that they are (1) accurately represented and (2) made very good use of

Best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought only one of those books was cited there, but I'll check again. I've not read that article line-by-line yet, but I have encouraged Victor to follow up on Mathsci's drafting there with his editing, and in turn I'd like to look it over as it goes through more edits. What I took greatest note of on that article, on David's suggestion, was how the citations are set up so that there are page-specific notes and a general bibliography for the whole article. I like that citation format so much that I hope to adopt it for many other articles. See you on the various articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Research
Thanks for doing active research on Tucker, et al. I hope you'll share more of the fruits of your efforts with the project, but you've already helped. If everybody just moves the marker forward to the extent they can then a topic improves, even over hundreds or thousands of edits. (Of course there has to be a ratchet to keep the progress moving forward.) Hang in there.  Will Beback   talk    11:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, thanks for your kind words. I find that different kinds of work require different kinds of working conditions. For articles that have already gone through dozens of edits, what is desired is what is called "manuscript editing" in the business, and that's a different process from turning a stub into a longer, better-sourced article. So I've first of all been expanding stubs (or article sections) for which I happen to have an abundance of sources. But the several articles that you and I both watch are due for extensive manuscript editing, and user Aprock has suggested that usually the least disruptive way to do that, if several other editors are watching, is to propose article section rewrites in article talk page sections. I'll try that out for some of the more contentious articles and see if that helps. All that kind of thing has to take second place to my paid work off-Wiki, but I'm glad to see that a lot of editors share a vision of continually improving Wikipedia so that it is by far the world's best English-language encyclopedia. A diff I saw yesterday reminds us what conscientious editors are up against here. -- 15:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

IQ malleability
You cited Kaufman's IQ Testing 101, pages 220-222, as a source for the claim that "IQ is believed by many to be immutable". I think this claim is a straw man at least as far as actual IQ researchers are concerned. Even "hard hereditarians" like Jensen and Rushton would not argue that. I don't have Kaufman's book, so could you give me a direct quote from it on who actually believes that IQ is immutable?--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. I encounter people every day who think that IQ is immutable, but to be sure they are not experts on the subject. Might it be better to cite some of the sources you have at hand to emphasize the point that the experts are (almost entirely) united in saying that IQ can change over the course of an individual's lifetime, and has often been observed to do so? That would involve restructuring that paragraph (to which I would have no objection at all), and perhaps that will allay both of our concerns there. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole section about IQ malleability is pretty much worthless, because it relies on random primary sources whose results are of unknown significance instead of discussing the topic on a more general level using reliable secondary sources. I'd like to know what Kaufman has to say about this, so if you have the book, could you please cite it for me?--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Guild of Copy Editors at 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

Assessment
Hi - the links i posted aren't actually commercial products. They are free resources about assessment. www.intel.com/education/elements > Assessment in 21st century classrooms is a free course http://educate.intel.com/en/AssessingProjects/index.htm is a free library of assessments anyone can adapt

They're similar to the George Lucas Foundation resources listed on the page?

Thank you, Alison Elmer - 8/10/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonElmer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at those after I take care of some other Wikipedia busyness. Thanks for your reply. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, wondering if you had a chance to look at the links I tried to post? I am new to this, and did not intend them to be "vandalism". They are free online resources that I think support the topic. If they don't meet the criteria, i'll understand and stop asking - but i would appreciate your guidance! Thanks, AlisonElmer (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Alison, thanks for following up on your earlier question. I'm new enough here myself that when we last corresponded, I was working from an informal understanding of what usual practice is here. But now I've learned about the specific page about Wikipedia's external link guideline, so let's look at that together and see how that fits the links that you think will help articles. I'll check some examples I've seen since on other pages and how those compare. Then you and I will be both more consistent with the guidelines in the future as we edit articles. I appreciate you checking to make sure. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there WeijiBaikeBianji, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:WeijiBaikeBianji/History of the race and intelligence controversy draft. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting issue to consider for further edits of the actual article in article space. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback SpikeToronto
—  Spike Toronto  17:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 05:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Reply to message
WBB-No, sorry, I am no expert, I was just frustrated by the PC element of even the professionals writing in the field. I read in the 1970's that race could be determined after death, so I linked those links to the (in my opinion) biased "Human" sites in Wiki. I don't know if you are a major player, and able to make significant changes, but comparing IQ is more silly than comparing height of races, height can be quantified! IQ on the other hand will change based on culture and environment. Any race today would score differently on an IQ test than that same race, say 300 years ago. It is simply different thought processes and information are more important and available. The same is true across cultures. (And if you are going to adjust the test for the time-period, you'd need to adjust for the culture.) There are lots of references about Humans being alike or different that are emotionally based (again in my opinion) even from experts. I'd recommend removing cultural and personal and other more subtle cultural distinctions from these articles. My recommendation is distinguish by measurement, and if you can't, let it be. Sorry for the rant, but I noticed that the gait of many people in Asia was more side-to-side than other peoples I knew, and wanted to read about it, and any competitive advantages it had, and I ran straight into "we are all identical," and "IQ nonsense." Just to annoy some more, the interbreeding arguement for the "everybody's the same" proponents for unquantify-ability of traits, annoyed some more. What are we, dogs? I am sorry I don’t belong to any wikicommunities, and certainly don’t have the expertise, other than that of your run-of-the-mill researcher, to comment on anthropology, but I think the wiki-anthro-community should develop some rules and scrub this topic. The first rule of course being, if it can be measured regardless of perspective (bone shape, muscle wear, cavity size), keep it, otherwise throw it out-or at least put it in a social or secondary role. Some people may want to know the physical differnces between race in an unqualified, unbiased, and metered way. Thanks for hearing me out.GESICC (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)GESICC

Thanks
Thank you for all of you hard work. I've been watching your edits. futurebird (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. I've been dismayed by some of the sources I have been reading that I didn't previously know about, but it's better for me to understand the world I grew up in. I understand that you are very busy with your studies currently, but I hope I'll see you on some of the same articles as you find time. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Assessment with Wikiproject: U.S. public policy
Thank you for assessing with the PPI, assessing with this project will probably be different than assessing with other projects in Wikipedia. It's different because the many of the articles are stub, start, or C class, and we are not working to assess long lists of articles, but will have multiple reviewers assessing the same set of articles. We are looking for Wikipedians who want to take a more in depth look at assessment and help define what is article quality. Please go to the WP:USPP Assessment page to find more details and  your assessment page with the first group of articles for you to evaluate. Thanks and happy editing, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 07:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Roger Pearson edits
Look, you saw my documentation of the changes I made to the Roger Pearson. Regardless of whether the "talk" was in the wrong place, you had no right to willy nilly throw them out. If you have a problem with anything I have done, ask me about it first. The existing article was a smear job and I think you know it.Teddyguyton (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your post here. I have seen no evidence whatever that the article as it was before you encountered it (which is largely as it was before I first encountered it, a few months ago) is a "smear job." It may be that some of the statements in the article (which are just about all cited in detail to reliable sources) still need some refinement. The usual place for discussing improvements to articles is on the article talk page, as I mentioned to you, knowing that you are a new editor here. The main basis for changing article text is a sourced rationale for changing the text that is already there, a rationale that would persuade editors of any point of view. Most of the articles on Wikipedia could still be improved by referring to more and better sources. If your particular interest is in the article Roger Pearson, the way to promote change in that article is to refer to what all the various sources about his life say and how they jointly provide evidence for what should be in article text. Laudatory sources are not preferred over critical sources, nor are sources by the subject of the biography preferred over sources by observers of that person's life. See WP:BLP for links to most (but not quite all) of the relevant Wikipedia policies. Note that by any reasonable definition of "public figure," Roger Pearson is a public figure under United States law. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

PPI Assessment Follow-up
Hi WeijiBaikeBianji, recently you signed up to help with assessment on Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. It's a lot to digest, and totally understandable if it's not what signed up for. However, there are also some exciting perks to this project: 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating, and 5) other interesting benefits you will find with participation.


 * The first group of articles requesting your assessment has been posted. I was hoping to do a preliminary comparison of the data on 8 October 2010. The second assessment request, which is part of the same comparison, will go out about the same time. To help with organization, if you haven't posted any assessment scores on your assessment page by 8 October 2010, I will delete your assessment request and you will not receive further requests. I hope the unusualness of this assessment research does not discourage your participation; if you are not interested working in the research I hope you will continue to assess articles within the project. If possible let me know on my talk page if you don't wish to be a part of the research, or perhaps if there was some confusion or bad communication; what the public policy team, and I, in particular, can do to make it more positive for volunteers. Remember, I am new to Wikipedia and trying to learn the best way to research this project, to hopefully integrate the amazing resource that is Wikipedia onto more university campuses and classrooms. Thanks, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify October 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, you have been sent this notification because your name appears on the list of participants for the WikiProject Wikify October 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive yet you have not had any wikified articles.

Regards,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 05:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

WP:USPP, still interested?
WeijiBaikeBianji, you signed up to assess with WP:USPP. If you are interested in public policy or assessment, check out your assessment page, because there is a lot happening on the project. Most of the recruitment for the assessment team was targeted, so I know you have a lot to offer to the research goals of this project. I posted the second assessment request and there will now be a weekly update on the project assessment page. If you are no longer interested in working on this project, I promise this is the last message you will get, but I hope you decide to check it out. Regards, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Audiology Online
Why is audiology online an unreliable source. And why is Jack Katz an unreliable source. This is ASHA based dolfrog (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you very much for the compliment. I'd be glad to see and discuss whatever sources you come up with. Thanks again! Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Meetup

 * Cool. R.S.V.P. on the announcement page. This will be my first meet-up. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of disruption
I suggest you substantiate or strike it. mikemikev (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you cease posting to this user talk page, and take it up with the usual Wikipedia dispute resolution channels if you want a reality check on your behavior. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ? As you know I just reported it at Arbcom. I fail to see how 'my behaviour' has anything to do with it. I will continue to post here as your behaviour necessitates, but will quit the well meaning attempt to inform you as you please. mikemikev (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess now we can all see what the Arbitration Committee decided about the matter and  how that worked out for you. There is no doubt that civil, collaborative editing and referring to quality sources is very important. I'm glad that the dispute-resolution procedures on Wikipedia emphasize those principles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have to keep an eye on this to get a reality check on things here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still looking at what administrators and other experienced editors have to say.requested enforcement closed with no sanction -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Who likes to read and understand sources?
Here's a general question for anyone who happens to watch my talk page: do you like to read and to think deeply about reliable sources on some difficult subject? If so, I'd love to discuss with you what some of your favorite sources are. What makes those sources good-quality sources? What Wikipedia articles do you edit on the basis of those sources. A rather odd experience I have on Wikipedia is asking people for suggestions of sources frequently, but only occasionally hearing such suggestions. I'm sure that there must be Wikipedians who cherish learning about and using good sources, so I'd like to hear more about that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just been looking at goals announced in the Wikimedia strategic planning process. It occurs to me that improving content quality will have to involve finding and using better sources for most Wikimedia projects, so again I will ask who likes to look up good sources. Let's discuss how we can use better sourcing to build better content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I should follow up on this question now that new editors are visiting this page. What are some of the best sources you have found for articles you edit on Wikipedia? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
A thread concerning your involvement in the race and intelligence dispute has been started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All is well that ends well. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple intelligences
Psychometricians have always regarded Gardner's "theory" as absurd, because it contradicts what is, to quote Ian Deary, "perhaps the most replicated result in psychology", namely g. The Visser et al. study is one of several that have directly disproved Gardner's nonsense. I would ask you to provide a source for your claim that Visser's results are contrary to those of other studies, but I know you would not and could not do it anyway, so I won't.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is something out there that we would all recognize as a secondary source on the same issue, I would welcome its inclusion in the article. (I rather suspect that are multiple authors who have written such a thing.) That could include something as simple as a secondary source author being convinced by the same primary source recently cited in the article. In general, this is the direction I see Wikipedia moving in: more use of mainstream secondary sources, and less attempt to be an abstract of recent primary research findings. That's what makes an encyclopedia an encyclopedia, and that is all that the tag was about, just Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that sentiment, but my criticism was of your false claim that there are studies that contradict the results of Visser et al.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I really have seen reports (but they may refer to study results that haven't been replicated, and I don't have these citations at hand) that suggest that what Gardner would call "bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" and "musical intelligence" have very weak correlations with g. (If I remember correctly, some of those study results go back before Gardner's first publication on his hypothesis.) If a lot of researchers have studied this issue within Gardner's framework, relating their results to the usual approach for finding a general ability factor, there may be a lot of literature that establishes the statement now in article text (you see I didn't revert that) or perhaps some disagreement in the literature because researchers aren't agreeing on their procedures. The thing to do would be to look at the current secondary literature (which I am looking at for other issues, by your earlier request) to see what it says. Have a good evening. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten that Visser et al. tested "bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" as well (the Wiki article says that "_most_ of [Gardner's intelligences] are heavily dependent on the general factor of intelligence"). I would think it does not always load on g for the simple reason that it is not a mental ability. Musical ability seems to always have a small but significant g loading. Anyway, I came across this suggestion for extending Gardner's arsenal of intelligences that I liked: "Another talent that needs to be explored is the special ability of some people to convince others that certain ideas have merit, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. It's about time that we recognize the special intelligence involved in becoming a successful con artist.";)--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom request for clarification
Please take note of WP:RFAR. Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. I have replied at the request for clarification. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for next Minnesota meetup?
Hi, Ben, do you have any suggestions for a next date or place for a Minnesota meetup? I was disappointed to miss last Sunday's meetup once a work meeting coincided with the time announced for the meetup. I would be happy to arrange a meetup soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We were sorry to miss you. An out state meetup was has been suggested. Myself and probably several of the others would drive to an out state meetup if we were available to do so but this only makes sense if there are enough local people to make driving some distance worthwhile. This probably means somewhere like Duluth or maybe Rochester. I think the first step would be to survey interest from people in those areas (maybe check the edit logs for pages for those cities or nearby locations) and see if they have any ideas. As far as timing goes I think it's probably best to wait a while, at least until after the new year when things slow down for people again. --BenFranske (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

/* Ethnicity and race */ linked race
Thanks for the heads up about the race link thing. I put the link in because when I went to the article, I went directly to that section (via the contents link) and thought it would be useful for people who do likewise (it was for me, as I promptly followed the link). I was unaware that its not supposed to be linked again in the new section. My apologies. Sxoa (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No apology necessary. I completely understand why you wanted to add a wikilink. Sometimes I feel the same way. It's just that I think the manual of style here tries to get all of us editors to set up one wikilink for a key term early in an article (and I figured that article had already linked to that term) and then use the regular word without a link for the rest of the article. I hope I'll see you on other articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Society deletion from High IQ society (again)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to High IQ society. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

In this edit you deleted content and wikilinks, not "deleted link(s) to personal website" as you claimed, as if this deletion would then be justified under WP:ELNO. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What evidence does any editor have that that is anything other than one individual's personal website? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)