User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji/Archive 3

Wikipedia Loves Libraries event
In the area? You are invited to Wikipedia Loves Libraries in Minneapolis.

Hennepin County Library's Special Collections is hosting a Minneapolis history editathon on November 3. Help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by using materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections librarians.

There will also be an intro for people new to Wikipedia, and tours of Special Collections.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis

Special Collections (4th floor)

When: 10am-4:30pm, Saturday, November 3, 2012

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page. &mdash;innotata 13:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

/* Chinese translation */
Hello. I was on Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Chinese to English translators and wondered if you could translate some of the stub articles for the King of Eastern Zhou at Template:Kings of Zhou? Thanks.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mentioning that project. I think I can get the appropriate reference book into my office to guide my English writing, and then give it a go. I heard another interesting suggestion about articles on Minnesota history and biography to update at the recent Wikipedia Loves Libraries meet-up in Minneapolis. See you on the article talk pages. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ceiling effect/workpage
Hello WeijiBaikeBianji,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ceiling effect/workpage for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, feel free to delete, as I have a different workspace for that article revision now. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James R. Flynn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia meetups
In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetups.

To kick-off monthly meetups in the Twin Cities, two events will be held in Special Collections at Minneapolis Central Library this summer. These are mostly planned as opportunities for Wikipedians to discuss editing, but all are welcome!

Special Collections contains many valuable historical resources, including the Minneapolis Collection, consisting of files on hundreds of topics related to Minneapolis from neighborhoods to politicians (it's best to call or email in advance to request materials). Free wifi and several public computers are available.

Place: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis

Special Collections (4th floor)

Dates: Saturday, June 1

Saturday, July 6

Time: 12:30pm–2:30pm+

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. &mdash;innotata 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Meetups
You added your name as unable to attend to an event that happened earlier this year, rather than one of the future ones. There are two scheduled events (and the Wiknic which has not been finalised), so maybe one of those times works? &mdash;innotata 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That must have been an example of replying when tired. I'll check the page again and refactor. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Lova Falk  talk  08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: IQ classification
Hi, WeijiBaikeBianji. I've just got around to reading your message. I appreciate the overview and notice regarding article talk page discussion. Please do not interpret my tardy response as anything but a difference in priorities. I will be glad to weigh in as my abilities allow but I must tell you that article content is not my strong suit. Most of my time on this project has been spent on maintenance and clearing up graffiti. It's good to know that there are conscientious contributors such as yourself monitoring Wikipedia's articles. Thank you for your efforts. Regards  Tide  rolls  08:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How Wikipedia Works
I saw your note that you were inspired to edit by How Wikipedia Works. I'm so glad the book was useful to you! Let me know if I can ever help out. best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination for IQ classification
Hello! Your submission of IQ classification at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --FoxyOrange (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Intertel Nomination for Deletion
I think this is a very important and valid entry/article. Since such a group would only really appeal to 1% of the population, I don't think it's really surprising that it's difficult to find popular sources that mention it. However, I noticed there are a number of published books, news articles, and scholarly journals mentioned in the "Sources and References." It seems that since all of this is verifiable material and there isn't actually that much publicly available on the internet, that is precisely why you should keep this entry. This organization still clearly exists and is unique in its own right, and many high profile people and intellectuals know about it. Just my feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.130.39 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD nominations
Hi WeijiBaikeBianji: When nominating an article for deletion, please look at WP:AFDHOWTO and follow all three steps. Alternatively, the WP:Twinkle gadget automates the whole process making it very quick and easy. Your nomination of Intertel (group) wasn't completed and so hasn't been acted upon; I've relisted it now. – Wine Guy ~Talk  17:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

WP Psychology in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Psychology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey WeijiBaikeBianji. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September meetup
Hi WeijiBaikeBianji. I just saw your post over on Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota. I think that innotata had been organizing these, but I believe he was perhaps unable to do so for this month. If we don't end up having an event this month, hopefully we'll do something in September for Wikipedia Loves Libraries. Gobōnobō + c 21:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. I could do something simple and informal, probably at this end of town (western suburbs) for September if need be. We definitely want to celebrate Wikipedia Loves Libraries. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Model Minority
The information was not correct, it completely contradicts information from the ACS, the only source of such information. http://hmongstudies.org/2011ACS1YearEstimateHmongUSProfile.pdf This clearly shows 24.5% poverty rate, not a 2/3 poverty rate as was claimed. Again this is the ONLY valid source of such information. 98.255.208.10 (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That does indeed look like the best available source. Thanks for sharing the link. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey
... just wanted to say hello, and keep up the good work. I'm glad you're back and editing after your break last year - I was worried we'd lost you. MastCell Talk 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I went mostly into wikignome mode for a while, just touching up articles I happened to look up, but I'm in a big research phase over the next few years for my work that meshes well with cleaning up Wikipedia articles that have long needed cleaning up. Likewise, I am glad you are still actively editing, as I have seen you produce a lot of improvements in the world's largest free online encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi there, I noticed it's been more than 3 years since you added a banner to the Regression toward the mean article requesting expert assistance. Would you say this banner is still needed or is it safe to remove it? Regards. Gaba (talk)  19:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at the article. I may have some better sources at hand myself than I had back then. Thanks for checking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I had no idea. I had been very busy, but I had just started editing a couple of articles again and to finish the day, I read the village pump, the signpost. Oh interesting, “Psychology on Wikipedia”… and I was totally unsuspecting of what I was about to read.

Thank you so much for your kind words! I am still quite shocked and very happy. Thank you! Lova Falk  talk  17:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raun_Kaufman
Heey WeijiBaikeBianji,

On the 22nd of September you added "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (September 2013)" to the Wikipedia page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raun_Kaufman. i was wondering if you could clarify the changes necessary to comply to the content policies, specific examples would be really appreciated.

Greetingss Floflorisris (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane
Hi! Please fill out this short form to receive your Cochrane access in about 1 week. Best, Ocaasit &#124; c 17:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for IQ classification
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Psychological testing
Good work. I support your improvements to the article. I'm generally skeptical of ethnic technology claims as an editor who has done extensive work cleaning up dubious or misused sources in Indian, Chinese, and Islamic history articles. Reviewing the source in question, The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence is a reliable text written by leading researchers in the field, listed and starred on your userpage as one of your recommended citations for psychology. But to reiterate what you've said, the problem then is not reliability but verifiability. The handbook may be a reliable source for psychology, but unverifiable as a source for sinology. If there are no Western sinologists making the claim, then it's likely spurious and must be removed. Your research and background as a sinology major has been immensely helpful. Cheers,--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. The history of psychology is a tough subject to write about, as few historians have much of an interest in psychology, and few psychologists have much background in historical methodology. One very fun book I can recommend (it's available from used book markets now at an astonishly low price) is The Intelligence of a People by Daniel Calhoun, a historian who asks the question how one would know whether or not an entire country is becoming more intelligent. He provides a tentative answer to that question for the United States from the late 1700s to the middle 1900s with some fascinating historical materials. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation help needed

 * Hi, can you help me to translate the Chinese below:

...小米科技CEO雷军今日在腾讯微博诠释了公司名称由来的背后故事，他表示，小米要做移动互联网公司，并且要完成不能完成的任务. “很多人问小米这个名字怎么来的？大家第一时间想到的是小米加步枪. 其实，小米这个问题还有不少故事，首先小米拼音是mi, Mobile Internet，小米要做移动互联网公司；其次是mission impossible，小米要完成不能完成的任务. 最后，“小米”这个名字亲切可爱，你周围有叫小米的人吗？” “‘佛家一粒米 大如须弥山’小米，我们希望去掉高大全，从小处着手. ”雷军特意强调.
 * I need this translation to back up my opinion in article Xiaomi. Thank you --B3430715 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation and meaning?
Hi, I've volunteered a 3rd opinion at Talk:Xiaomi where the last translation request came from. The dispute is largely resolved and we're working on finalising the text but there's one bit of Chinese that Google/Bing aren't giving me a clear enough translation of: 佛家一粒米 大如须弥山’小米，我们希望去掉高大全，从小处着手. ”雷军特意强调. It's coming back as "Buddhism a grain as big as Mount Meru ' millet, we want to get rid of tall, start small. "Lei June stressed." This is in reference to the meaning of the company name "Xiaomi". I assume it just means that millet is smaller than rice and this symbolises the company starting out small and toppling bigger competitors, but the Buddhism/Mount Meru ref makes me think it might be mistranslated and/or have a deeper meaning from a proverb or story that I'm unaware of.

If you have time to give me your translation and any relevant context you know of that'd be great. It's not being used to decide an argument, just to help decide the text we'll be using in the article to give the CEO's explanation of the name. You can see the discussion here if needed: Talk:Xiaomi

Tobus2 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated sources?
Why this edit[]? I know you say in the edit summary "to update sources" but you removed Cattell Culture Fair III without explanation. Thanks. Tstrobaugh (talk)


 * It's a very infrequently used test. (It also has reliability problems.) Can you find a reliable secondary source that says otherwise? I had to find out which tests are in most common current use for IQ classification, and eventually found professional handbooks (more than just those cited) that address the issue of which tests are in current widespread use. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you made the edit, you justify your edit with sources. Isn't that your big thing? Everything has to be sourced from a list of sources that you choose? You're the expert right? Justify your edit and the comments you just made {It's a very infrequently used test. (It also has reliability problems.)}. Please cite sources for those two comments. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The cited sources list the current most widely used IQ tests in the English-speaking world. The table at the Urbina source is especially helpful in that regard. As I use Amazon.com "Search Inside This Book" just now, I can go right to Table 2.1 from that source, the Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, and inspect the source directly for a list of major examples of current intelligence tests. And I see one of several critiques of the Cattell test in standard professional handbooks on IQ testing is visible through a Google Books search."Culture-Free and Culture-Fair Assessments of Intelligence" Any such editing disagreement like this can be resolved in a friendly manner by referring to sources, and I would be happy to hear your suggestions for reliable sources about the topic of the article we are both watching. Thanks for your follow-up question. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually think you have some kind of agenda, so no, I don't consider you a friend. You're thinking is a bit skewed too, not an ad hominem, just an observation. Are you maintaining that because in one book there is a table of "current tests" that therefore the CFCIII should not be considered a current test? Is this the crux of your argument? If so then just one other source where it says it is a major test should tip the balance of the argument (using your parameters). So here it is [], please be so kind as to revert the edit now. Unless that is if you have some kind of agenda, if that is the case then please state your agenda so I can address it directly. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk)


 * If you would like to edit the article to your preference, citing that source, I will not revert. It's all right to assume good faith here. That's not only a basic principle of civility, it is also a Wikipedia behavioral guideline. By the way, I was interested to see some previous online discussion about book publishing and journal publishing by the publisher of that book. I state my agenda in my  How I edit page—I'm here to build a professional-quality encyclopedia based on the kind of sources that expert scholars use. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'll let your mistake fester, just to show that you are not trying to find the truth or "build a professional-quality encyclopedia", if you're so interested in sourcing edits you would have looked for a source for the edit that was already there or asked for more sources by citing a template (Template:Citation_needed), but you choose to delete, maybe you are not aware of your deletionist bias.Tstrobaugh (talk)


 * Well, pardon me for making the good-faith assumption (which I thought was warranted by the practice of most editors here) that someone adding an IQ test to Wikipedia articles on IQ testing must be a person who enjoys reading reliable sources on IQ testing. Meanwhile, I welcome comment from onlookers about how Nova Science Publishers compares to Cambridge University Press as a publisher of monographs on human intelligence research. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're still on this "one good source" kick? Like Diogenes? So all it will take is one good source that says the CFCIII is a "current test"? This is my point. what is your agenda? If all you need is one good (good according to you apparently) source, and only you know what a "good source" is, then just find the one good source yourself. I mean, after all, you're only trying to "build a professional-quality encyclopedia", right? So just do it.Tstrobaugh (talk)
 * Is there any academic discipline on the entire planet that doesn't make a distinction between better and worse sources and higher- and lower-impact venues of publication for new research? I am by no means suggesting that any important point in any Wikipedia article should be backed up by only one source, in principle. Rather, I am inviting you and all the other learned editors here to dig into multiple reliable sources on human intelligence, which I have been collecting into bibliographies since 1989, and which I share with everyone here freely, so that we can all enjoy seeing how the sources differ and on what points they are in full agreement. That's the delightful aspect of research—the pursuit of curiosity without fear or favor, to see where the research leads. Anyway, the gripe here isn't with me. The Wikipedia  Reliable sources content guideline was written without my input, and put in place in largely its current form before I became a Wikipedian. I came here to get with the program and follow that policy to build an encyclopedia. I would never do anything but praise anyone's efforts to follow that guideline and to ensure that article content in Wikipedia is well sourced. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that make the distinction that your sources User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations are the "better" or "higher", as you say, sources? First and foremost almost all scholarly information is disseminated in the form of Journals. I see you have some journals here User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations/JournalArticlesBookChapters if you could separate (from book entries) them I could perhaps see how many journals you have listed. A Quick "Scholar" search will reveal thousands and thousands of Journals. Why does your "bibliography" have any weight or importance at all? Why a closed list? I really don't see what this list (that you incessantly post as the biggest thing since the wheel on your edits) has any significance at all. I would in fact say that to stay on safe academic ground (as stated in WP:RS), is that peer-reviewed journals and articles are preferred. So as a task for you to convince people of the significance of your list could you explicitly state which of your entries are peer-reviewed and by whom (most books and thus the majority of your citations are not peer-reviewed)? If this doesn't look like I'm trying to help then I don't know what would.Tstrobaugh (talk)
 * Thanks for your follow-up questions. The information you seek is built into a Wikipedia guideline I've already linked to here, namely the reliable sources guideline. I have attempted to apply that guideline to the source lists I keep in userspace. Any user in general is welcome to suggest new sources for those source lists, and of course any user, even a Wikipedian without a registered user account like you and me, can surf by a Wikipedia article and insert content, sourced or not, for review by other Wikipedians. Generally, reading deeply in psychology is like reading deeply in any other specialized subject with professional secondary literature. Some statements are conventional, about matters you already knew about before you started specialized reading, perhaps things you already knew from your undergraduate education. Other statements are surprising, and prompt follow-up. Reading multiple sources—something I encourage in the most concrete way possible, by listing lots of sources—prompts questions as authors disagree with one another, and resolves questions as authors either "hand wave" or "show their work." I'm always way behind what I've circulated from libraries (and have even bought for adding to my home library) as I type up new bibliography entries. So there is more still to be added to those lists besides the dozens of references that anyone can see in the source lists. As before, if you have any suggestions for reliable sources on human intelligence testing, by all means feel free to post those on the talk pages of the source lists I keep, but especially on the talk pages of articles you enjoy editing. Sharing sources is part of our collaboration here as Wikipedians, and anyone can join in on gathering and reading and evaluating sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are reading what I'm saying at all. I cited WP:RS and how the citations that are "better" are the peer-reviewed ones. I then challenged you to align your personal favorite citations with wikipedia guidelines, ie. which of your citations are peer-reviewed?, otherwise what is the point of even listing them?, and you reply that you are behind in your bibliographies. These are not even peer-reviewed so what is the point? Are you following what I am saying at all? You list yourself as a native English speaker. Hello?Tstrobaugh (talk)
 * Let's take this to the article talk page of the article(s) you desire to edit. Having other editors look on at this discussion will surely be helpful. Hint: Cambridge University Press hires editors to review submissions to professional handbooks that include chapters by multiple authors. Those chapter authors are usually eminent academics who have gained tenure after publishing multiple peer-reviewed papers in high-impact journals. This is part of what distinguishes Cambridge University Press from Nova Science Publishers, which has no comparable peer-review process at all and does not gain submissions from such capable authors for the books it publishes. By the way, you could learn a lot about nonverbal intelligence tests in general, and about one in particular, by reading a prize-winning peer-reviewed article I happened to be reading for my professional work this evening. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I "could learn a lot". Your hubris knows no bounds. Since you apparently know what I know and don't know I suppose we can just "non-verbally communicate" from now on. Just wow, really. How about this "current" paper [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/10/16/1302751110.full.pdf Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical

abilities in childhood]?Tstrobaugh (talk) I have read that paper. I am familiar with the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth because an immediate relative is a study participant and because one of the lead investigators is a friend and fellow alumnus of my alma mater. So in general I follow the research literature on mathematically advanced learners very closely—teaching such learners and advising their parents is my occupation. By the way, what part of "Let's take this to the article talk page of the article(s) you desire to edit" did you not understand from my previous post? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The part I didn't understand is the part where you are master of the universe and we are all just puppets to your machinations. Did you understand that your precious list of "bibliographies" is of no import? That in your quest for "better" and "higher" (according to you) sources of citations you completely left out the highest form according to WP:RS (that would be peer-reviewed). I challenged you to upgrade your sources and you have not. This doesn't need to be on any other page but yours. I post where I think the problem is. Get it?Tstrobaugh (talk)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Paper needed
I don't guess you can find “The Pharos of Alexandria,” Proceedings of the British Academy 30: 277–92 for me, could you? I've asked at Resource Requests to no avail. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I will see what I can do. Thanks for asking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments on my talk page. I don't think this is worth bothering about actually, and I know I've got more interesting things I may need help with! Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)\


 * Any time. It's my pleasure. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Your request on sources on human population structure and genetic variation
Sorry for getting this to you late. I got busy and then the holidays came.

Due to the completion of the mapping of the Human Genome in 2003, you will find a lot of sources on this topic around the 2003-2005 time period. I tried to limit the list to only cream of the crop sources as I know you only want very high quality sources. Arguably you can't get any higher or better than "Nature" journals so I found you three from there. The sources discuss the findings from the Human Genome Project and its relationship to race. They discuss varying perspectives in the scientific fields from both scientists that accept the existence of biological races and from scientists that don't. They offer a lot of insight to the most common questions. These sources should greatly assist in improving the wikipedia articles on this topic and I hope they are what you were looking for. If you need anything else, I'd be glad to help.

Bamshad, M., Wooding, S., Salisbury, B. A., & Stephens, J. C. (2004). "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race." Nature Reviews Genetics, 5(8), 598-609. Jorde, L. B., & Wooding, S. P. (2004). "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'." Nature genetics, 36, S28-S33. Mountain, J. L., & Risch, N. (2004). "Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups." Nature Genetics, 36, S48-S53.

BlackHades (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will double-check the sources I found last week and yesterday. At a quick glance, I think I encountered all those through keyword searching. I'm doing a write-up (for article talk pages) about some of the key sources that fit the WP:MEDRS guideline just now as I see your kind reply. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See also: — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source suggestion. You may see above that I referred to doing a write-up of several sources I have found. I'm still doing that. I hope to post that Real Soon Now. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Coauthors/author2
Hi, I saw your comments at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser and wanted to discuss. As I was going through I was skipping some that were problematic, but for the most part I was allowing the change for parameters with multiple coauthors because it displays the same way. I can skip these instances moving forward if you're reopening the discussion about the coauthor psarameter but I'd like to understand your argument re: the CS1 templates. Thanks! &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 21:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We should discuss over at CS1, right? Thanks for checking in here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reflist of Marilyn vos Savant:
Hello! Could you please correct the reflist of Marilyn vos Savant. It broke with your edit on 11 September. --Pxos (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just fixed it; thanks. I'm looking forward to making the references more specific to exact pages, and I'll keep in mind how to make that transition. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Genius
Hi. I should give the links on the sources about disorders of geniuses, right? Commandos-rus (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sources are desired for Wikipedia articles. That is especially true about statements about living persons. See WP:RS for the general advice, WP:MEDRS for specific advice about statements about medicine (like mental illness statements), and WP:BLP for the general policy on articles about and statements in other articles about living persons. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Commandos-rus (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Our Fragile Intellect
Please read WP:DEL-REASON. We don't cite essays as a rationale for deletion. Also, your claim that there is a "general tendency on Wikipedia to not have stand-alone Wikipedia articles on minor primary research studies that are themselves not reliable sources" is something that you completely made up. That it is "minor" is of course your opinion, but it has been given significant coverage in RS. As for in being a primary research study, that is neither here or there. We have a great many articles on research studies, essays, books, and other types of publications. This is no different. As for it being a reliable source, your statement is tantamount to nonsense. Let me break it down for you so that even you can understand it: a notable author publishes a notable paper in a notable journal that is covered by notable sources. Any questions? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Viriditas, "In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred." Thank you for your speedy reply. You have won me over to your point of view on the continued presence of the article on Wikipedia. I discovered the article while looking over other articles about topics related to human genetics.


 * I happen to have the privilege of participating (as an alumnus of my university) in a weekly graduate seminar on behavior genetics (alas, that link just shows a log-in screen to most users), which discussed the Crabtree article and scholarly responses to it on 11 November 2013. So I have at hand two peer-reviewed articles replying to Crabtree's primary publication, namely




 * and




 * and I see that neither of those is mentioned in the article yet, which is a fixable problem. I am convinced by your rationale and the discussion at the AfD discussion (which I will join, with a  !vote to keep) that the article will be just fine once it takes up more of the scholarly response to Crabtree's article, which I will help it do by providing the sources for all editors to look on, and then using the sources to update the Wikipedia article. Thanks for writing. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)