User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji/Archive 2

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive
 Ⓢ ock   00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Source of Flynn effect
My dear WeijiBaikeBianji, I know it exists a long battle between Knol and Wikipedia but Knol is not necessary self edition. For example, most of my pieces under Knol are just electronic version of published paper like the one of Charles Jencks who was published into one of our national architecture Newspaper, A+ and the one on Flynn Effect is in fact the electronic version of a paper published under one of Mensa Newspaper, the ComMensal. I have no problem with this but better, sometimes to verifiy this is no just self-edition but electronic donation of a paper only available on paper ;-) Regards --Hcrepin (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Two examples, both are really published but I used the sending of my copy to editor to copy it on Knol: http://knol.google.com/k/introduction-à-charles-jencks : Source: A+ juin-juillet 1997 n°146 http://knol.google.com/k/la-problématique-sociale-de-l-évolution-intellectuelle-de-nos-sociétés : Publié dans: ComMensal n°8 pp9-12, Septembre 2009


 * Thank you for your reply. If I understand correctly what you are telling me (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding), perhaps the problem here is a copyright violation issue as well as a sourcing issue. A source is still a good source even if it is not free and not hosted on the Internet. On the other hand, Wikipedia has  guidelines about reliable sources and a  policy about linking to copyrighted works. My concern is simply to make sure all the policies and guidelines are followed here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How can I violate copyright when those one are mine? Simply those sources have no public access from Internet, that's the problem. Then, you mean, this is acceptable if those sources doesn't mention the knol copy?--Hcrepin (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Meetup

 * Thanks for the notice. I look forward to meeting the wikipedians at the meetup. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Human intelligence template removals
Hi - I'm very puzzled by your removal of the template from Creativity and Genius. I reverted the one to creativity, with my reasons explained on the talkpage. Looking at your user page I find you're involved in gifted children programmes - which makes me surprised that you're disputing the academic link between intelligence, genius and creativity. Are these removals based on some broader decision by the community, or is it your own opinion that they should be removed? If it's the latter, it seems awfully bold.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, VsevolodKrolikov, I'm glad you'd like to discuss this. What do the best sources you have at hand say about the relationship between human intelligence and creativity? One issue, which lingers from the decision in a recent Arbitration Committee case, is what is meant in English Wikipedia by the term "intelligence." The current article Intelligence has had a lot of good work put into it over the years, but it doesn't even begin to guide readers to the different ways that the term "intelligence" is used in the psychological literature. The  professional literature I have at hand in my office suggests that the answer about how creativity relates to intelligence (or how genius relates to intelligence) depends crucially on the definition of each term. To answer your immediate question, all of those templates seem to have been put up in just a week or so after the template was created by a newly registered wikipedian. I have asked him what his rationale is for putting the template so prominently (top right) on so many articles (and why not other articles?) and thus far his response appears to be that he was being bold as he opened use of his user account here. I don't think consensus either for or against the template in any one place has been established. (Nor is there yet observable broad consensus on the design or layout of the template.) And that's fine. But I'd appreciate a little bit more discussion about what should be in the template and how it should be used, because of course articles can always be linked to other articles simply through wikilinks, which may be less visually dominating of the articles and more informative for readers besides. I see the Wikipedia Manual of Style leads off with a section  follow the sources, so I will appreciate your  suggestions of further sources as we discuss the articles you are watching. By the way, have you seen the book Sudden Genius? (Oxford University Press, 2010) yet? I haven't even had time to log it into my source list yet, as I recall, but I've begun reading it and find it an interesting review of the literature on genius. See you on the article talk pages. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weiji, first of all, you simply must not undo reverts of your bold edits in the way you have done. You are fully aware that what you did was disputed. It reeks of POV warring to then reapply those edits. (See WP:BRD) Secondly, that several editors support the inclusion of the template shows that there is implicit consensus about its existence. If you want to talk about the template, talk about it without edit warring over it. Otherwise it just looks like you don't like it and don't care what others think. Finally, if there is dispute over the term "intelligence", Wikipedia should try to have as broad a classification as the good RS will support. Disputes over what is intelligence can be expressed within articles within that classification.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, it seems that WeijiBaikeBianji has followed the letter of WP:BRD. An editor added the template and WeijiBaikeBianji removed it. Per WP:BRD, it should now be discussed and not re-added till there is consensus to do so. This is only meant as a BRD point and please do not consider it a comment on the appropriateness or not of the template. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the case of Flynn effect, Weiji re-removed the template, which is clearly not BRD, and what I was referring to (and the removal seems the strangest of all the ones he's done). Furthermore, if you look at Talk:Race_and_intelligence, you'll see how it's pretty clear that a consensus exists to support the template - a consensus of which Weiji is aware. He should discuss before removal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the talk page of R&I (I had not seen that). My comment was directed at the Creativity article where you restored the template (which is against the spirit of WP:BRD). I have no comment on the usefulness of the template but do note that the discussion on R&I is a day old and that discussions on that topic are contentious. Personally, I would wait longer before determining that there is consensus to add the template and would be wary of extending the discussion to other articles without an explicit discussion on individual talk pages. I also looked at Flynn Effect and the situation is similar there. The template was added by the editor who added it at Creativity, reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji, re-added by another user (it should have been discussed instead) and then you and WeijiBaikeBianji engaged in a mini edit-war on the template (not a good idea). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The template was added over a month ago, and the article has been busy since then. Characterising its removal as a revert is stretching things a little (is there no statute of limitations on inclusions?). Weiji has been in disputes about that template before. He was aware of the discussion on Race and intelligence, and did not choose to self-revert. In short - he knows that removing the template from various articles is controversial and does not have the support of editors. That the discussion is a day old is misleading - it was the continuation of other editors disagreeing with the removal. His reasoning also appears to be against policy, insofar as he wants a particular POV definition of the topic (aka the "truth") to operate. If the discussion on R&I turns round to support the removal, I'll be happy to apologise, but looking at the arguments I don't think I was particularly premature in saying that consensus was, and is, against his blanket removals.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I have no opinion on the template itself. If the consensus is to keep it, that's fine. It the decision is that it isn't appropriate, that's fine. I couldn't find a prior discussion on the inclusion/removal of the template at the R&I talk page (or at any of the pages from which it was removed by this editor). And, prima facie the reasons given for removal were not unreasonable so asking for a discussion is not unreasonable either. There is no hurry and well discussed consensus decisions stick better than hasty undiscussed one.--RegentsPark (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This does appear to be spread across several pages. There's the discussion at Template_talk:Human_intelligence which isn't very detailed, but the final section would indicate more than one other editor supported the template, which for me would undercut any attempt to be bold about things. Discussion is of course important in such matters. It's worth noting that Weiji did not continue the discussion there, but preferred to plough ahead with removal. The blanket removal of the template from several articles, with edit summaries questioning not the template, but content issues (the connection between the article topic and intelligence) suggest to me that this is about more than the procedural propriety of the template's inclusion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that discussion. Note that the discussion was initiated by WeijiBaikeBianji as is proper. The only other editors involved are the two editors who added the template so it doesn't indicate anything about consensus. Templates, in particular, should be well discussed before being added to articles. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on - I didn't say that the template talk discussion showed consensus. Rather, Weiji did not respond to the substantive arguments made there after he had invited them, indicating that he had not tried to follow through on discussion, as would have been proper. To ask for discussion when one has not taken up the chance in the most appropriate forum is, well, not the best way of going about things. Regarding consensus, my contention is that consensus formed when he tried to remove the templates subsequently, and that he hasn't done the best of jobs responding to that body of opinion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) I don't want this to be a protracted discussion - I'm just pointing out that this editor has followed the letter of BRD. But, I am curious about your comment about not responding to 'substantive arguments' at Template_talk:Human_intelligence. I see no substantive arguments. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The questions put were "What is the purpose of this template? What is the source for its structure?". The substantive answer was a template about intelligence articles will help reader interested in intelligence to navigate. That is why Wikipedia have [sic] templates for similar articles. (This doesn't answer the second question, but that second question, as I have stated before, is based on a misunderstanding that wikipedia chooses between combatants in academic fights. Subject templates should be neutral.) It seems like a reasonable enough argument. Useability is a consideration in wikipedia. Weiji did not respond to this point. In fact, Weiji has never made any argument against this template that I have seen. He's just removed it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess interpretations of substantiveness differ. To me that seems a tautology while what would be more useful would be why the template should exist at all, why it should be included in the set of articles where it was included, is the set of included articles reasonable, why is 'human' necessary, etc. These are the procedural questions that I would expect to be answered (and I know little, if anything, about the subject matter). The way I see all this, someone boldly added the template, WeijiBaikeBianji reverted it, and you attacked him using BRD as your explanation. But, as I've said above, the Bold part was the initial inclusion of the template and the reversion was WeijiBaikeBianji's removal. Once removed, BRD says that the issue should be discussed and WeijiBaikeBianji attempted to discuss it but, as far as i can see, didn't receive a substantive reason for further inclusion. Whatever the benefits of using that particular template, lambasting him or her with you simply must not undo reverts of your bold edits in the way you have done. You are fully aware that what you did was disputed is simply not correct. From a pure BRD perspective, you should not have reverted WeijiBaikeBianji's reversion and, like I've said before, in controversial areas it is always better to discuss first and include later, especially when, as you say, that addition is disputed. (I'll let you have the last word because, obviously, we don't agree on this.) --RegentsPark (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you discussing this while I was at work. Really, truly, I'm not saying my mind is made up about whether or not to have some navigation template on some set of articles. Maybe that's a good idea. Because top templates (as contrasted with bottom templates) are very visually dominating of a page, I would expect them to be developed by consensus. Because the template links to several articles that are currently under active arbitration sanctions (and, similarly, some of the articles to which the template has been transcluded are under those sanctions), it seems to me that we editors may as well take special care to refer to sources and to discuss together before assuming that the placement of the template anywere, or its current configuration, enjoys consensus. I would like to forge consensus based on core Wikipedia policies and on the best available sources, and for that discussion is necessary. See all of you on the appropriate article talk pages. Feel free to suggest sources meanwhile. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that there is dispute over the status of what you did, I've struck my comments about BRD. I've no interest in ratcheting things up. What I think you've done is not be simple and clear in what you want - which is to contest the template. If you had put something to the effect of "template contested" as an edit summary across all removals, rather than individual article reasons that were inconsistent with each other (the removal at the Flynn effect look very odd when put alongside your reasons for deleting at Creativity and at Neuroscience and intelligence), it would have been much clearer. I agree that there hasn't been a great deal of debate about the template, although I maintain that several other editors over the past month preferring that the template in general remains indicates a consensus. Consensus does not always (in fact, probably rarely) happen through formal procedures of approval. It's usually only when a dispute arises that cannot be informally resolved that procedures are resorted to. As you are not sure even if you oppose the template, the dispute is unclear. You don't appear to have raised any objections in line with the basic principles of wikipedia. To operate the template on a particular definition of intelligence is, in this subject area, not neutral, as there is no consensus. Anyway, I'll make more substantive comments about the template on the Race and intelligence page. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Psychiatric help, re: Human intelligence template, ritualistic repetitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Human_intelligence&action=history

Do you need help? Woodsrock (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, thanks. Do you? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, perhaps. Woodsrock (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (WeijiBaikeBianji)
Hello, WeijiBaikeBianji. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at    :Requests for comment/WeijiBaikeBianji, where you may want to participate. SightWatcher (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

WP:AE
FYI Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Standard Mandarin
Weiji, if you support the move from Standard Mandarin to Standard Chinese, would you mark it by writing a comment with Support? That way we can get a better feel for the amount of support versus the amount of opposition. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wondering if you have source suggestions
Hi Weiji,

Thanks for your message. I developed an interest in some intelligence-related articles since reading Delusions of Gender. Honestly I think that Sex and intelligence and its related articles are a complete mess. I'm still pretty inexperienced, so I don't really know where to start in fixing all of that. It seems like you already have a very comprehensive list of sources, but I'll see if I can find anything to add. --Aronoel (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, good, Aronoel, you've read the book Delusions of Gender. As you can see from my source lists, I have a big, long reading queue, which is why I especially like to work with editors who are devoting their reading time to complementary sources. Yes, sometimes it's hard to know where to begin to fix some of the older articles, but feel free to make suggestions to me as I plunge in on articles that happen to be on your watchlist. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sources, Formal and informal
Hi - Many thanks for your kind note, most impressive source list[s], I have to say. I mainly source each article independently on a fairly random basis, using talk pages for hints, what I know on the subject already, what I can find on the web, and in library catalogues accessible to me. Hopefully this gives a fairly broad view of the subject - balance, as they say - and if not, hopefully some other Wikieditor will jump in with useful suggestions/contradictions etc!

I also like picking up tricks from other editors - and discovered a Column Template on a site this W/E: v. useful for breaking down long "See Also" or internal article lists, I like it!Jacobisq (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Beta Gamma Delta hopefully becomes

Alpha Beta

Gamma Delta

Well, that's not quite what I meant, but you get the idea!Jacobisq (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jacobisq, that's an interesting tip. I'm still trying to figure out different approaches to column formatting for longer lists (say, for notes or bibliographies in articles). I'm trying to digest what is most browser-independent, as apparently Microsoft Internet Explorer and Firefox (to give two examples) don't always agree in how they render Wikipedia pages visually. I'll have to be attentive to what I can test with different browsers as I edit new pages. I appreciate your advice on content editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

AGCT
Thanks for the notes. My work focus has been more on the artificial type of intelligence than on the human. If we can show that one of our systems bests humans for the most part, we ought to pay attention and maximize the use thereof, within limit (man-in-the-loop metaphor applies). That, by the way, could very possibly include legal applications. I know of one case where a 17 year old took both the ACT and the AGCT, within the same year but within very different milieus, and the scores were two standard deviations apart. That is, using the accepted IQ analogs produced assignments that illustrated a very big deviation. Outlier, or potential case study? Who knows?jmswtlk (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A very interesting question. In a "journal club" for psychology graduate students (and professional researchers) at my alma mater, I see psychologists grappling with the issue of when interesting questions are best suggested by looking at central tendencies of group data, and when those questions are best suggested by looking at unusual individual cases. I think a lot of researchers have missed out on some interesting discoveries by not following up on odd anecdotal observations, even though they will have to convince their fellow researchers by eventually finding some central tendency in a larger data set. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Madison Grant etc.
I think it is a bad idea on your part to mass insert further reading sections including only J. P. Spiro's "Defending the Master Race" in to articles that are only tangentially related to the topic of that book. If there is information pertaining to the topic of the article in the book, you should integrate that material - leaving it in a further reading section doesn't help anyone much. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is content about all those article subjects (many of which have long been tagged as need more sources) in the book. I'm on a few-day lag between returning that book to one library today, and then checking it out from another library on Monday. Generally, I figure it is a courtesy to other editors to let them know about a source that relates to a Wikipedia article, so that the other editors can check the source before I do a lot of edits. That's something I'm doing with other sources for other articles at the moment, also timed in part to library due dates. Yes, all of those sources will eventually be added to article text (and thus eventually removed from further reading sections). Meanwhile, there is immediate usefulness in getting sources associated with articles, per FURTHERREADING. P.S. I suppose you didn't grow up with the Thanksgiving holiday at this time of year, but did you have a chance to celebrate? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Next drive
As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.

For the December Drive Coordinators,.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 02:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 00:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Opinion requested on the use of SHPO sources
As you were at the meet-up at the Minnesota History Center, and an active member of the Minnesota WikiProject, I would like to ask you to please come and share your opinion on the use of certain sources that were found at the State Historic Preservation Office and whether or not they violate WP:RS or WP:OR in how they are being used. The discussion is taking place here. --Bobak (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your accusation of harassment
I see you're back. I wanted to respond to your comment at AE here- It looks like arbcom doesn't think I'm a puppet or I would have been blocked or topic banned by now. There haven't been any admins who feel I've been harassing you either. If you can keep the agreement you made to VsevolodKrolikov about avoiding the behavior described in the RFC/U, I feel that cooperation and mutual respect between us will come easily. If you can't, things may continue to escalate. A lot of people are paying attention to your behavior now, so it'd be a good idea to keep that promise. -SightWatcher (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nordic race
I think you'd be interested in taking a look at this article. It is a GA.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Maunus, I am just back from the International Society for Intelligence Research conference, now experiencing the Minnesota blizzard, so I am still catching up here. I see you mentioned a particular article as a GA, and at first it came up as a redlink for me. I recall seeing it earlier as one Wikipedia article among many, so after a moment I realized I needed to change the capitalization in the article wikilink you kindly provided here. Yes, the article linked relates varying (especially, historically varying) points of view on the issue the article discusses. I think, based on the sources I have just been reading, that the article now overemphasizes the old, discarded views (as its title demands in part) while underemphasizing current views. But that is a problem that is fixable with more references to current reliable sources. Much of the tone of the article, and the historical treatment in chronological order, is a good example for fixing other articles. Improved sourcing and more historical organization of article content generally will be the way forward to fix multiple articles on multiple topics: visit top-quality academic libraries (as I do more than once a week) and attend conferences with professional scholars (as I just did) and gather sources. Then add the sources to articles and discuss what the sources actually say among other wikipedians. That process could take the article you mention here up to FA status, and could improve many others of the  articles on Wikipedia. I hope you are getting outdoors for exercise in daylight as I do. Thanks for the suggestion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

POV comments
Please, stop with your POV comments in articles. Articles should be written in neutral point of view not biased point of view. Write that "(neo)lysenkoism" is a common term of abuse for scientists who call white supremacist dogma into question is the same as write that "academic racism" is a common term of abuse for scientists who call cultural marxism dogma into question. --Dezidor (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read this complaint several times and I just can't make heads or tails out of it; but he definitely seems upset over something. --Bobak (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting about that after surfing by this page. I had to think for a while about what the article looked like beforehand, and how it has been edited since, before I fully grasped the context of the complaint. I think there are some facts about American history underlying the issue that aren't readily apparent to persons less familiar with American history than you, Bobak, are, and I suppose further editing will have to clarify those facts for Wikipedia's worldwide audience. The main thing is to stick to what the most reliable sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology membership
I see that within the last year you have made at least one substantial comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, but you have not added yourself to the project's official member list. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I will try ...
to keep an eye on your edits. Alas, I just do not have the ime to put into WP right now. But I will try to keep n eye on things. The key is always to produce good content, that does not violate NOR and complies in spirit as well as letter with NPOV nd V - MathSci is excellent at this. I think you can almost always rely on the views of several other editors you know: Aprock, Maunus, Professor Marginalia, Vecrumba. Ramdrake does not often edit, but he is highly educated, experienced, and eliable. Wobble has not edited in a year, maybe he has retired, but boy did he know biology. On biology there are some people who do not follow the pages you care most about, but it is worth your following their work because they are model wikipedians, serious researchers, calm, committed - user:Guettarda and user:Dave souza. Check out their work. If you ever ned fresh eyes and an objective view, you can count on them to be fair and objective and sensible.

I think you have done a lot for WP, and deserve a lot of credit. You have done great ork - please kep it up! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your helpful advice and your kind words. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems a bit weird that you're not asking people like me, Maunus, Victor Chmara or VsevolodKrolikov to keep an eye on your edits. Makes more sense to me that the editors with the most useful advice about your behavior would be the ones who've criticized it in the past, not the ones who tend to agree with you.


 * That's okay, though...I think everyone will keep an eye on your edits anyway. I haven't been editing these articles much lately because I don't care about all this mikemikev sockpuppet stuff, and looks like Vsevolod is on wikibreak right now. But I think we're all still around in general. If you really care about improving your behavior like you promised Vsevolod, I feel that you should be glad about having people to point out your flaws from time to time, since it's a very helpful thing for self-improvement. If you can listen to and appreciate criticism of your behavior from editors who provide that, you'll be able to better work with everyone, not just the group of editors you chose to contact.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems a bit weird that you're not being more specific here. After all, you already announced that you are watching all the time. What suggestions do you have? What good examples can you point to (as Slrubenstein did) besides the one other editor you have mentioned (who had already come to my notice)? By the way, do you have any suggestions for good sources about the articles that we both have edited? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, other than the ones I mentioned, Ludwigs2 would be good too. I haven't seen him around much lately but he does seem very insightful from what I've seen. As for specific suggestions about behavior, we had an RFC about that and rehashing the advice given there would be pointless. As long as you can listen to the advice from the RFC and to other editors in general, I think things will be fine.-SightWatcher (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the subtext of this thread, I would propose that any editor concerned about their manner of editing and looking for a method for improving would not be well-served by seeking the advice of people s/he has been in conflict with (as they are likely in need of help too) (Ludwigs2 alas was involved in a protracted conflict with MathSci, but others too, including myself). I would propose that the best method is to find a couple of superb editors who have not been at all involved in any of thse edit conflicts.  That is why I suggested watching how Guettarda and Dave souza edit- how they contribute to articles, how they contribute to discussions, and how they handle edit conflicts.  I think both of thse editors are universally respected, both for their contributions to articles and for their moderating efects on conflicts.  Just watch how thy edit, and you will learn a lot about how to be an effective and constructive editor.  I have seen both contribute to articles on biological-related topics, so their interests are close enough to yours to be relevant.  But as far as I know they have not contributed to articles or discussions or conflicts concerning race or race-related topics.  If they have, it must have been a long time ago.  So they are completely neutral in terms of any conflicts concerning race.  Get out of the conflict zone for a while, learn from other editors working on other articles, and if you ever had any doubts about how you work with others to improve articles here, I bet they will evaporate.  I personally think you have a lot to contribute to articles on race-frelated topics and would not want to see you lower your level of involvement, but if we really are looking for neutral ways to learn how to be a better editor, I think this is the way. Alternatively, find some FA articles you really think are top-notch and track th edit history including the talk page to see how people contributed and collaborated. You do not need direct advice (let alone policing of your edits) but if you have any insecurities, just learn from others whom you admire or whom you know to be widely admired. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment My understanding is that the RfC was invalidated because of concerns of meatpuppetry and the participation of three or four editors who are still topic banned. All the signs seem to be that any indication of a continued campaign of harassment/intimidation or attempts to influence articles by bypassing topic bans would result in an amendment to the original case, affecting all those involved. Happy New Year, Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I make no prediction about the future disposition of any user conduct issue here on Wikipedia. I note for the record that I have frequently solicited comments about my editing and genuinely wish everyone here a happy new year and a collaborative editing environment. Editors who read reliable sources carefully to find out what the sources actually say can enjoy a great deal of learning while working with other editors to improve the  articles on Wikipedia. Editors who take care to consider whether the published facts in reliable sources match their presuppositions about a subject can become broadly educated persons, which should be the goal of any adult who has completed primary and secondary education. Definitely, let's make sure that each editor who surfs by my edits checks the sources, as I am always interested in correctly understanding the sources and becoming aware of new sources.  Sharing sources is an enjoyable activity on Wikipedia and one of the best ways that Wikipedia can help learners around the world and help the broader world of specialized scholarship on controversial subjects. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Be happy to
Happy to help when I can, WBB. But I can't promise to spend much time for another week or so. And you're being provoked deliberately - I'm sure you know that ;). Don't pay any mind to it. Some pests are good at making themselves obvious what they're up to. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Have a happy new year. I always like to get reality checks, so I appreciate you stopping by. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Race
Hi. I think that with the race article, using the summary of views (essentialist, taxanomic, lineage, population) to structure the first half of the article makes a lot of sense - it both helps organize the material and sets limits on what belongs.

I do not remember who added or contributed to the "cladistics" view. I do not care whetehr we keep it or note. What is more important to me is that we have material illustrating the "lineage" view (and I think this is cladistics). And more important is I think we need to get people to distinguish between:
 * the view of race = population (Mayr's view, which actually many although not most physical anthropologists do accept, so we need to cover it - and organize it in a way so that the view is adequately covered as well as the criticism) and
 * new attempts to salvage "race" using data from the human genome project, and advances in molecular genetics. I do not remember if you were around but an older version of the article did just that, or tried to here - maybe you think there is something in here that can be rescued and put in the article?  I think it is worth doing because some people will inevitably always pass by and insist on adding stuff that cites Cavalli Sforza or stuff on genetic distancing - even if they use F-statistics, they are still not doing old-fashioned population genetics, and the difference has to be made clear to readers.  I am going to paste the same message at Maunus's talk page. I appreciate your help with this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Who likes to read and understand sources? (Part 2)
Here's a general question for anyone who happens to watch my talk page: on what subject do you like to read and to think deeply about reliable sources? 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? One of the most interesting questions to ask fellow editors on Wikipedia is for suggestions of useful sources. I've learned about some good sources here on Wikipedian, so I'd like to hear more about that. The goals announced in the Wikimedia strategic planning process point to improving article content quality as an important goal. Surely one step for improving content quality will be finding and using better sources for most Wikimedia projects, so your suggestions of good sources are very valuable for all Wikimedia Foundation projects. What are some of the best sources you have found for articles you edit on Wikipedia? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've heard from some editors who have gathered some great sources, and I'd love to hear from more. What suggestions do you have for source lists to share with other wikipedians, to help the second decade of Wikipedia be better sourced than the first? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 21:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Shockley
You should know better than to make an edit like this.   Will Beback    talk    23:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Will, thanks for your comment. I'm not sure who is watching that page, but every time I surf by, the text is changed in consistent POV-pushing ways, without discussion on the talk page. If you would like to open discussion on the article talk page about what the NPOV way to describe Shockley's activities is (in view of the published sources), I would be glad to join the discussion. And if you would like to edit the article text in some manner that better reflects how the sources describe Shockley's activities, I welcome you to do so. Again, I note that edits are happening to that article, anyhow, with little or no discussion on the talk page (and apparently most often in one POV direction from the hands of I.P. editors), so I do what I can in the way that reflects the sources I have devoted much effort to collecting. Anyone whosoever is welcome to  suggest further sources and anyone is welcome to discuss reliably sourced, neutral point of view improvements to the article on the article talk page. P.S. The description of Pearson was sourced through the source that was already cited there. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless Pearson self-identifies as a white supremacist it's an opinion. It may be accurate, but it's still an opinion and should be attributed.   Will Beback    talk    00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The source already cited in the article (which I've had at hand from my friendly local library for quite a while) was fully adequate for sourcing that statement, and was a fudge for the description that was in the article before my edit. (A fudge because it misrepresents how that author describes him.) But there are other sources and any number of those could be added to the article. Or, in the alternative, that person's view of Shockley's critics (who are, in most cases, living persons for the purposes of applying Wikipedia BLP policy, which seems to be your concern here) could be entirely deleted from the article about Shockley, as a fringe point of view not found in reliable sources. In all cases, it's important to check what the sources actually say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not followed the details of this, but I was asked to comment in general, so I will say that it is almost never valid to write something like "X is a white supremacist[ref]" because that expresses what is clearly an opinion in Wikipedia's voice: Wikipedia is stating it as a fact (like "the Earth is round"), whereas a label like "white supremacist" is poorly defined and boils down to the opinion of the observer. It may be that in the view of 99% of rational people that X warrants the label, but it is still not a clear fact (and it would never be possible to verify "99% of rational people"). If WP:DUE, such a label should be attributed ("Y said X is a white supremacist[ref]"). Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While I review WP:BLP some more, I'm going to omit the section that refers to Shockley being "demonized" (that's Wikipedia's voice) entirely. Surely some of the people accused there of "demonizing" Shockley are still living, and that kind of statement needs much better sourcing than it now has in the article. Wikipedia's voice shouldn't be accusing anyone of demonizing, by the principle mentioned above. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not Wikipedia's voice because it's not stated as fact. All it said (which you removed) is that this is Pearson's opinion which it is. BLP policy says you can include criticism of living people as long as it's clear it's just one person's opinion- otherwise we could never include criticism of living people at all. I'm going to add back the material you removed. I don't feel that you should keep trying to change this. It looks suspiciously like the POVish behavior that was complained about in your RFC/U which you agreed to stop.-SightWatcher (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors are watching. What's really at issue here is WP:BLP "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." The source was poor (self-published) and the article currently doesn't give due weight to the well documented connections between Shockley and the quoted defender of Shockley, who both have been funded by the same advocacy organization. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not self-published, it was published in a magazine called The Scorpion. Your reason for removing this changes every time you remove it. First you said it's stating it in Wikipedia's voice (which it clearly isn't), then you said the source is self-published (also clearly isn't). I don’t think this is even a BLP issue at all since none of Shockley's critics are being mentioned by name.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, there’s something I’d appreciate your input about that would be a lot more helpful than edit warring here. I've asked if anyone can recommend a source that sums up the race and intelligence debate while listing nutrition as a possible cause of the racial IQ gap. No one has come up with any and I know you like recommending sources, so feel free to post there if you have any ideas.-SightWatcher (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

W., please don't revert again today, per WP:EW.  Will Beback   talk    04:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The passage removed by WeijiBaikeBianji was from the European New Right publication "The Scorpion" edited by former British National Front organizer Michael Walker (see pages 192-193 of Facism by Roger Griffin, Oxford University Press, 1995). What is ascribed to Roger Pearson in the article is in fact a statement of the personal views of the reviewer Mark Ashton, who seems to be unknown and unnotable. So WP:V fails  (see first paragraph). The ENR publication "The Scorpion" itself more than likely does not satisfy WP:RS. A quotation from Pearson would be fine, if it was properly ascribed and had been repeated in a reliable secondary source. Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the review again I think you're right, the word "demonized" was used by Ashton, not Pearson. I fixed that part of the article to be accurate now. I'm not convinced The Scorpion isn't a reliable source though. Maybe someone should ask about this at the RS noticeboard if they want. In the meantime, I'll try to find Pearson's book online somewhere so we can quote him on this directly, I agree that would be best.-SightWatcher (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The views of an unknown reviewer writing in a non peer-reviewed publication of the New Right would seem to be WP:UNDUE in this kind of article, even if the context were made clear. The word "summarizing" was used, but that is not quite correct: Mark Ashton was "reviewing" the book. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think "summarized" is okay here. Even though the article's listed as a book review, the article content is more about giving a brief synopsis of the book than it is about pointing out its strengths and flaws. I'll try to find Pearson's book so we can cite him directly instead of citing Ashton. Might take awhile though- I doubt my library will have this book but I'll try ordering it on interlibrary loan.-SightWatcher (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What's really at issue in a biography article about the no-longer-living person William Shockley is his own views and the views of contemporary observers of his public activities (many of whom are still living), for which there are abundant sources of much better quality than are now mentioned in the article. There is definitely a due weight problem in the article at present, as there has been every time I surf away from it for a while. I have cited better sources (which in turn cite many other good sources in their meticulous footnotes) briefly in the article and with more discussion on the article talk page, and it's time for encyclopedia editors actually to look up the sources (as I do) and balance the article to fit the core neutral point of view principle of Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Math Citations
Here are some suggestions for your math ed citations. I work mainly with the problems college students have with mathematics, so they may not be of particular interest to you, but I think they belong in your list anyway. Full Disclosure: The ones marked with asterisks are mine!

I have run out of time but I will send some more later.

–Charles Wells

SixWingedSeraph (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Current web sources
Abstractmath.org*

Explaining Maths

Gyre&Gimble*

Handbook of Mathematical Discourse*

Intute

MAA Focus

Math on the Web

Mathematics Education research Blog

MathWorld

Pat’s Blog

PlanetMath

Plus Maths Magazine

Papers
Atish Bagchi and Charles Wells, `”Varieties of Mathematical Prose”*

Atish Bagchi and Charles Wells, “On the communication of mathematical reasoning”*

Gizem Karaali and Bruce Yoshiwara, “Life After Wolfram|Alpha: What You (and Your Students) Need to Know”

Publications of David Tall I have great respect for David Tall’s work. Much of it concerns secondary education.

Charles Wells, Communicating Mathematics*

Books
Advanced mathematical thinking. Edited by David Tall. Mathematics Education Library, 11. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 1991.


 * Many thanks, SixWingedSeraph. I appreciate having some expert advice about literature on that subject. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

10Wiki Meetup
It was nice to see you at the 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind words and your level of excited energy you bring to better the articles on Wikipedia. See you in cyberspace and possibly at the next Minnesota Meetup. CJLippert (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment request
Hi, I wonder if you could give your opinion on the name of the Nations and intelligence article here .--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of IQ testing environmental variances


The article IQ testing environmental variances has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article is a POV fork that represents the "environmentalist" perspective in the Race and intelligence debate. However, there is no need for an article like this, because both environmentalist and genetic viewpoints can be and are discussed in the main article. In fact, most if not all views expressed in this article can be found in the main article, too.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a surprise
This has implications for how Wikipedia articles are sourced. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology
You might be interested in this article which is currently dominated by self-acknowledged pro-EP activists.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 16:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Chris Brand
Hello and happy 2011! User:Sturunner just tried to abuse speedy deletion to get the Chris Brand article deleted, so I have just spent a little time updating it with reliable sources (I started the article before the WP:BLP policy was even created). I think it is still too weighted toward controversies, because that's what the mainstream media has reported. Still, I think it would be helpful to have a section devoted to his work on inspection time. Would you be willing to help me with that? Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Otis-Lennon School Achievement Test - your article
APNewsfeatures (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)My brother was given the Otis Alpha test in 1956 (3rd grade)in public elementary school. He was also given the Otis beta test in 1958 in public Elementary school. These predate the Otis-Lennon and were mass administrations of intelligence tests in the public school system. APNewsfeatures (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Skepticism project
Hello WBB. I saw your "name"/user listed here.

Since you added it there, have you ever seen any activity at all in this project? Thanks for any tips you may have on these "projects." warshytalk 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was expecting to see more activity than I have, but that is true of several other WikiProjects. Everyone is a volunteer here (except for paid flacks for companies or causes), so people get busy. There are some experienced wikipedians who keep an eye out on articles and mention those in the talk page of that project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, WBB. I've added the template and I'll be looking more around in the Philosophy projects area of WP. The "volunteer" learning curve is a pretty long one for me... See you around too. warshytalk 03:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Writing Systems
I have recently discovered the new Writing System Research Journal, which to date has published three issues. Very interesting content. dolfrog (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mentioning that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to help motivate small boys to learn...
Why can't whole families take something like an S.A.T. test (as a family) (working as a team) ???

If a family would do that several times a year, they could be proud of the progress that they are making as a family.

I know a family with 2.1 small boys. I think such a family exercise would help to motivate the young boys to learn/study and avoid marijuana.

Any suggestions about how to help them?

Roy D. Matheson email: servant52r@gmail.com

Truth.seeker1952 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth.seeker1952 (talk • contribs)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Source on one artist
I do not believe that "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" refers to inclusion on a list that is not controversial and which is well sourced in a linked article about the person listed, even if the source is not included in the list article. I readded one person to a list where you removed them with this as the stated reason, but I suspect you should have checked all the linked articles for good sources before removing so many all at once. Unsourced or poorly sourced refers to no source being able to be found, or only sources that are not considered reliable sources. Contentious refers to non NPOV and/or material about which there is controversy or, potential for edit wars and the like Felisse (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with Genetic Studies of Genius criticism
Hello, I left a message for you here. Thanks in advance for any help!  Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

General Question
I see that you are from the Minneapolis area (as I am) and I have been adding or correcting a few minor Wikipedia articles that I have accessed over the past year or so. I am not an editor nor a writer (30 years of civil engineering with some technical writing and I now work part time with disabled HS students). Also spent four years in the US Navy and two years in the Peace Corps in Samoa.

So my question is: am I treading on someone else's turf when I add to an article? The last one I added to was about Major Bowes' Amateur Hour. I was reading a letter from my Aunt written in 1938 and she mentioned going to the "Major Bowes' Jamboree" in Wichita, KS. I looked that up online and could only find the Wiki reference to Major Bowes' Amateur Hour. There was also one newspaper article, the JUNE 2, 1938, ERIE COUNTY INDEPENDENT, HAMBURG, N.Y., p. 5 "Shows of the Week" which mentioned the Jamboree.

So I thought it would be interesting to include the fact that Major Bowes, besides having a radio program, also had a touring group that went to several US cities, at least it went to Hamburg, NY and Wichita, KS. For all I know if folded after that. Maybe someone else can fill in more information.

Am I being helpful or is this just cluttering up the page? The newspaper also refers to "Ted Mack, former conductor of Shea's Buffalo Orchestra, returning in the role of master of ceremonies" in the article, a fact which is not mentioned either on the linked Ted Mack page or the Amateur Hour page.

Any helpful comments are appreciated. Jhenderson8 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Binet article
Hi, Every morning, I read the "articles of the day" on The Free Dictionary and, today I feel it is a good summary of what I remember of Binet's life and works. Tentatively, can I ask whether you would accept some editing to iron out the language? I realise that the Wiki asks for citations and other factual stuff and maybe, if I had time, I could pursue those but I am keen to make articles more easily readable. Although with very little effort, this article is comprehensible, there are some sentence structures and word uses that might impede someone reading it and thus gaining knowledge. Firstly are you happy if some editing were done in this fashion? Secondly, how would you prefer it to be done,? I ask this because, in the interest of making the article flow, some language in paragraphs would be better if the paragraph, not the content, were subject to major re-organisation ( this being a feature of this bastard language!) I can edit "on page" but would feel much happier to let the original author cast an eye over it first. Any thoughts? Intelfam (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Ian
 * 1) REDIRECT [] it was Binet's birthday. Being interested in the subject of psychology I read the TFD article and then looked at the Wikipedia one.


 * Hi, Ian, thanks for writing. I am not the original author of the ariticle in question, but even if I were, my response should be that Wikipedia says "anyone can edit," so feel free to edit the article on Binet as seems fair to the sources you know and helpful to readers all over the world. I have been doing rather more reading good sources recently than active editing here on Wikipedia, but I am happy to look from time to time at the latest changes in articles on my watchlist, and that article is one of the articles on my watchlist. Enjoy your editing, and thanks for saying hello here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Diminishing WISC-IV PSI
Dr. Bianji,

I'm a clinical psychologist in Georgia making quite frequent use of the WISC in psychological and neuropsychological assessments over several decades. A colleague of mine and I have recently noticed that an increasing proportion of children we test are appearing to be performing more poorly on the subtests that comprise the Processing Speed Index. He sees this more consistently; he's south of Savannah, while I practice north of Atlanta. We've discussed possible reasons - anomolous regional factors, diminishing pencil-paper skills due to increased computer utilization, increasingly depressed mood in children - but are uncertain whether or not this has been noticed by other psychologists elsewhere. I thought perhaps you, as a wikipedia editor for the WISC-IV page, might know to whom we could pose some questions about this.

Rees Chapman, Ph.D. On gmail, I'm at winwinsit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.111.154 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at Hennepin County Library
Minneapolis History edit-a-thon

We invite the Minnesota Wikipedia community and local historians to edit entries in Wikipedia on Minneapolis history. Please help us increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by utilizing materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own Minneapolis History topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections Librarians.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis

When: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 10-5 pm

10 am - 11 am Orientation to Minneapolis Collection

11 am - 5 pm Edit-a-thon Website: Hennepin County Library, Special Collections, Map & Directions

Parking: Metered street parking or pay ramp in basement, enter on 4th Ave --HCLschlubb (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:)
 Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

 Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove  and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  10:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Very useful resources on intelligence. Have a Kitten.

Dave Earl (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 

Wiknic location
As I said, the plan currently is to find a spot near Minnehaha Falls (either north or south of the falls) on the day of the event and put up large signs as last time; last year it was at Wabun Park by the Mississippi River, most of which is reservable. &mdash;innotata 14:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. See you there. --WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)