User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji/Archive 4

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Books & Bytes Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013 (Sign up for monthly delivery) Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
 * Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
 * Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
 * New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
 * Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
 * Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
 * Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

The human intelligence template
Why did you remove the human intelligence template from six articles today? You removed it from Spatial intelligence (psychology), Fertility and intelligence, Height and intelligence, Evolution of human intelligence, Religiosity and intelligence and Sex differences in human psychology. You didn't say why you removed it, and it looks relevant to those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmct (talk • contribs) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, Prmct. (By the way, don't forget to sign your posts, especially on user talk pages.) I'm preparing to update several of those articles, and the template itself, and while all those moving parts are being restructured, it is hard to say what the template will look like nor what the articles will look like once the process of updating according to medically reliable sources is underway. You are, of course, welcome to provide a rationale for further article edits. I'd especially be glad to hear from you about sources you have at hand that meet the best standards of quality for fitting the  Wikipedia reliable sources guideline. Thanks for writing. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing the template makes it harder to navigate the articles. Could you please put it back until it actually begins to interfere with something else, and you aren't just afraid it might? --Prmct (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What article navigation do you think is useful and necessary besides the routine appropriate use of hypertext links in article text on each page? Which pages do you think users will miss out on (not think of searching for themselves, or not naturally arise as in-article link) without the template? (Simply put, I never saw, in my judgment as someone who has been an editor as a paid occupation, much use for that template in the first place, but of course I'm willing to hear and discuss the opinions of other editors.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The template helps me to see what human intelligence topics have articles as Wikipedia, and when each article has the template in it, I don't have to hit the back button or switch tabs when I want to look at the list of articles again. I think you should at least discuss removing the template with other people before you remove it, and find out if others agree with you that the template isn't useful. Can you at least do that? --Prmct (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the article updating project I mentioned above. You are a Wikipedian, and I trust you can decide for each necessary occasion what alteration of article text you stand behind as an improvement of an article. I appreciate your opinion, but I stand behind the edits I made earlier today and am going on to other edits. See my "how I edit" link (in my talk page signature) for more details about my approach. Best wishes for a happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the argument for removing the template. Not knowing what the template might look like in the future hardly seems like a good reason to remove them now. With the concerns raised by Prmct and the revert already done by Transhumanist, there's certainly a lack of consensus for removal of the template and the issue should be further discussed in Talk. BlackHades (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Master race
I see you have removed my recent edit on the master race article for good faith and that I removed useful sourced content?

Lets break it down to what I removed and why:

"Slavic peoples who the Nazis didn't view as Aryan" - firstly this is not sourced and is not even relevant to the topic, secondly Slavs were Aryan and were included in the definition given by Albert Gorter see the Aryan certificate. This article is not about whether Slavs were Aryan or Celts were Aryan or Romances were Aryan but rather the constitution of the Germanic peoples being the Aryan master race.

Also, I emphasized on the proving Aryan descent because this is relevant to the topic and was required since April 1933 and is relevant to the article.

I also used text from other articles regarding the Nazi racial theorist Gunther and you removed this, why? He was one of the leading people in the Third Reich who promoted the Nordic-Germanic master race theory and divided the Germans into several different sub-races besides Nordic. Of course Gunther's work should be mentioned here since he influenced so many other so-called racial theorists from that era and was the very key component for the Nordic theory. In the section Aryanism and Nazism I again put in text regarding Rassenschande because this is what the laws unofficially termed the sexual relations between Aryans and non-Aryans yet you also removed this.

The kidnapping I also mentioned which is mentioned in other articles the Polish people (and other ethnic groups) did not just fit the Nordic profile but were not seen as say Polish, Ukrainian or anything else but people of German descent living them areas.

Why is my edit a problem when its fair and actually contributes to the article in a positive way with sourced content?--Windows66 (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What sources do you recommend to Wikipedians who follow those articles (as I do) to read as they work on other articles? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to my last edit which is fully sourced and more accurate and not contradicted like the previous revision was.

A few good sources regarding Nazism and the Aryan race are:

The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution by Eric Ehrenreich.

"Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative System in Germany and Occupied Eastern Europe with Special Regard to Occupied Poland, 1939-1945 by Diemut Majer.

Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology and Genetics in the Dialectic of Volk by Christopher Hutton.

I enjoy reading a lot about the Third Reich and the prominent people of that era and have read quite a lot of books in regards to this article. I am aware that whilst some books state that Slavs and others (some even go to the extent of saying all non-Germans) were not Aryan this is incorrect and is not backed up by any official evidence, historical facts show that indeed Aryan in the Third Reich came to be known as any White European that was not of Jewish descent, this is backed up by the official definition given which stated all non-Jewish European peoples were Aryan.

There was no point in creating a new section on the master race article but rather on your personal talk page because it was you who reverted my edit and it seems nobody else seems to have a problem.

So what did you have a problem with to make you revert my edit and are you satisfied now at the current article as it stands or not?--Windows66 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The source list is helpful. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

So are you okay with the way the article is now?

I still don't understand why you reverted my edit for simply asking which sources Wikipedia users should read... people can use Google and find out for themselves surely.--Windows66 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Outline of human intelligence
Nice touch up. The Transhumanist 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your welcome. It's nice to know that there's a community of editors out there. I hope I can make even the slightest positive difference to this wonderful resource.

Drabekkyle (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Meetup on January 18
In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetup in commemoration of Wikipedia Day.


 * Place: Seward Cafe


 * 2129 E Franklin Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55404


 * Date: Saturday, January 18, 2014


 * Time: noon

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 04:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with claims related to Race, Race and Intelligence
http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/ On this website, there are arguments made from a race-realist standpoint. Can you find the problems in it and especially the criticisms of this research that have been published? I am very thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.46.54 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. I'm going on another university research visit today. Meanwhile, have you seen my Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians? The source list I keep in userspace is continually expanded, and it includes many of the major publications as indicated by the holdings of major research libraries linked by my state's interlibrary loan network. For most issues about human biology, the single biggest defect in sourcing Wikipedia articles is directly violating  the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources by using too many primary sources (preliminary research reports) and not using reliable secondary sources (upper division textbooks or practitioners' handbooks). The  guideline on reliable sources in medicine, which I learned about from other Wikipedians, is especially helpful for evaluating whether sources are primary sources--disfavored as sources about facts of the external world for Wikipedia articles--or reliable secondary sources, what the encyclopedia project here should be based on in general. There are other political blogs besides the one you found (I was just checking one of those that is in my list of browser bookmarks) that take too much care to selectively filter out studies that fit the blogger's point of view rather than the current consensus of researchers. I'll keep looking for good sources at professionally managed libraries like the library I'll visit later today, and I'll keep updating the source lists I keep in userspace so that you and all other Wikipedians can see what mainstream research says. Thanks for asking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for helping out, and I have seen your citation lists. Comes in use a lot to see what the mainstream science is saying. Once again, thanks. I will await your reply.70.49.46.54 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a chance to look at the blog you mentioned during my library run yesterday. The author goes out of his way to ignore a lot of the best literature on those topics, and to spin the rest. On my part, I much prefer the Annual Reviews articles, , , , and for overviews of most of the same issues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the above sources 70.49.46.54 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Scott Siskind
 * If it's not any trouble, would have some criticisms published directly or such to the sources used by that blogpost?70.49.46.54 (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence: Asian-Americans
I've noticed you've contributed much to the race/intelligence articles and thought these articles might interest you:

http://paa2009.princeton.edu/papers/90354

"Using data from recent Current Population Surveys (CPS), this study compares third-and-higher generation with earlier generation Asian Americans and non-Hispanic whites in terms of socioeconomic characteristics and demographics. The findings suggest a “third-generation decline or flattening” for Asian American and white men as well as Asian American and white women. For each of these groups, the mean of years of schooling among the 2.5 and third generations is lower than among the first and second generations. This pattern is most pronounced among Asian Americans. As for wage determination, the generational differentials can be explained by educational attainment and other basic demographic variables. Overall, these results suggest that assimilation beyond the first generation immigrants no longer improves socioeconomic attainments as expected by traditional assimilation theory. Furthermore, in the case of Asian Americans, cultural assimilation across the generations may actually lower educational attainment and thereby reduce wages contrary to traditional assimilation theory.

...

It is widely noted that Asian immigrant parents have higher educational and socioeconomic expectations and motivations for their children than do non-Hispanic white parents (e.g., Goyette and Xie 1999; Kao 1995, 2004). Asian families also tend to invest more aggressively in financial, human, and within-family social capital than families from other racial groups (e.g., Sun 1998). Yet, protective effects of ethnic cultures and resources decline according to more acculturation into the mainstream U.S. society (e.g., Kao and Tienda 1995). As third-or-higher generation Asians become more “Americanized,” they tend to embrace the prevailing U.S. norm that as long as good efforts have been made based on one’s ability, the outcome would be acceptable even though one has not achieved the best performance or reached a higher level of education (Chen and Stevenson 1989; Stevenson 1988)."

Likewise...

http://www.ibtimes.com/asian-americans-increasingly-defying-stem-stereotype-246578

"Shinagawa pointed out another interesting phenomenon; later generation (second, third, fourth, etc.) Asian Americans on average have markedly lower education and income compared to immigrant Asians.

In 2007, 33 percent of PhDs conferred in the U.S. were to Asians. However, of that 33 percent, only 2 percent were Asians Americans born or raised in the U.S."

These trends are reflected in their TIMSS/PIRLS scores, which are often used by people like Charles Murray and Richard Lynn as proxies for IQ.

http://i39.tinypic.com/zob4p0.png

Note that native born Asian-Americans perform worse than native born Whites in every subject.

My goal here is not to put down Asian-Americans, but I've noticed that lots of modern racialists like to use Asians as a battering ram against other minorities. Yet, as the above evidence indicates, even "model minorities" who start from a much more advantageous position than the others can still succumb to negative cultural influences which significantly hurt their academic performance. This suggests that culture does, indeed, matter greatly, even on exams like the TIMSS which supposedly test for 'g'.

If you have any contacts with academics in the field, perhaps you'd like to pass this information along? James Flynn who wrote an entire book on Asian-Americans might be particularly interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.3.68 (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Alfredo Zotti re: some information and help please
Dear WeijiBaikeBianji,

A few years ago, about ten years now, I created a journal called The Anti Stigma Crusaders Journal which I publish every month and send to many academics and mental health professionals throughout the world. It is a journal that is about mental illness and mental health stigma.

I was a sufferer with mild bipolar II and married to a woman who suffers with bipolar 1 disorder. We both live in Australia and are active online helpers for other sufferers. IN a typical day I help, as a volunteer, up to 40 people who write from all countries of the world. I am helped by some psychologists to provide adequate help even though I am not qualified. But I have a honours degree in social anthropology and I have studied 2 years in a clinical psychology degree.

Some of my journals can be found at www.alfredozotti.com

I also have a book coming out soon http://alfredo123.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/my-lifes-journey-with-bipolar-ii-disorder/

And I am also the son of Luciano Zotti http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciano_Zotti

I am telling you this to find out if there is a chance that I qualify as an important person who can be included on Wikipedia. I say this because if there is a chance this would help me with my endevours as a mental health helper who helps others as a volunteer. If I qualify perhaps you could help me to start a page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo Zotti (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What problem with Razib Khan
Why don't you consider Razib Khan to be a source for human genetic variation and race and genetics and other race articles? Is it because he is a proponent of biological races? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.171.228 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:RS -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Razib Khan runs a newsblog, so it is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.171.228 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I take it you neglected reading "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." from the linked Wikipedia content guideline before replying here. I have a very simple principle that I use consistently when editing all Wikipedia articles. I use reliable sources as other Wikipedians who began working on the project longer ago than I did define those. And on the most controversial topics, I take special care to travel to a major university to meet with actual scholars on those topics in their "journal club" for graduate students and then use the university's extensive library collection to look up  professional sources on human intelligence and  professional sources on human genetics. Any Wikipedian who lives within driving distance of a university could do the same. Many of these sources are available to people who live all over the world through various interlibrary loan arrangements (and when I add sources to articles, I do my best to link to free online snippets or free whole text of the sources if those are available). The reliable sources are a helpful guide to what to read first, what to read next, and what to read after that. Blogs (from any point of view) are not Wikipedia reliable sources. Blogs are a kind of website I read every day, but I don't expect to use blogs to edit Wikipedia articles.  Editing an encyclopedia is a volunteer activity pursued best by people who are familiar with reliable sources from academic libraries, where I have been reading about these issues for more than two decades. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The blog that Razib Khan writes is mediated by Discover Magazine, which is a reliable source, so the blog is checked for reliability and wikipedia allows such newsblogs as sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.171.228 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You should learn to supply references for your statements as you make them, as several of them have been wrong. "Until further notice this is my last post as a blogger at Discover Magazine." I'll let you find the reference. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We can use the blog posts he made at discover magazine, and leave the ones that weren't, so we will still be citing reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.171.228 (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not "we." I'll use better sources consistently, to improve content quality and form a more collaborative editing environment. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you WeijiBaikeBianji !
Thank you for you warm welcome, ho and by the way your cookies where delicious!
 * Thank you Hypersite (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC-8)

Thanks for the welcome! I have run into your nick some times when reading the talk pages. I hope I can contribute usefully, though I am bit reserved, as I am new here. Thanks for cookies! ;-) Puuska (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive
Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors



The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

– Your drive coordinators:, and To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)|}

Books & Bytes, Issue 4
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014 News for February from your Wikipedia Library. Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Outlines
Hi,

I noticed you joined the outlines project.

I have a question for you about your interest in outline development, if you don't mind...

What level of involvement are you interested in, that is, building a single outline really well (e.g., Outline of Buddhism), taking on a branch of knowledge (like Outline of geography, including all the country outlines), or taking outlines to the next level by building software (that applies natural language processing, text mining, and automatic taxonomy induction) to analyze Wikipedia and create outlines automatically?

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 23:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking. I am particularly interested in revising the Outline of human intelligence. I have it on my watchlist. I have looked at the outlines mentioned in the project pages as examples of good outlines, to know what to aim for. -- 03:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hippofrank's edits
This was my specific edit. Clearly explain which alterations did not conform to wiki policy rules.

Original version: There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined.[17][18][19][20][21][22] Nonetheless, some scholars argue that racial categories obviously correlate with biological traits (e.g. phenotype) to some degree, and that certain genetic markers have varying frequencies among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings. For this reason there is no current consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation.[23]

As noted, this statement is confusing and the part in bold is factually incorrect. My edit make the appropriate corrections. If you don't like my version, you can write your own. Whatever the case, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined must go.

Edited Version: While there is no consensus as to whether there are human biological races, it is agreed that gene frequencies vary among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings. For this reason there is no current consensus about whether traditional racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation. There is a consensus that certain commonly used racial categories as used in certain countries, for example, Asians in the U.S., are socially constructed and cannot be biologically defined. Regarding these non-biologically definable racial categories, some scholars argue that they correlate with biologically conditioned traits (e.g. phenotype) to some degree and therefore can be genetically informative.''


 * Hi. Don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages, whether they are article talk pages or user talk pages. Your contribution history precedes you, but I am still looking up the sources you cite. As we both know, the article in question has been quite controversial for a long time, so I have been gathering sources to review it from top to bottom. The sources you reference (remember, I have to go back to the article diff to see the references) are those you are relying on for each article text statement, right? Thanks for writing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking inside quotations
After your reversion of my edit, I checked the guidelines and found that you are correct, per the fourth bullet point of WP:LINKSTYLE. Thank you for calling my attention to this. That guideline suggests using Efn appended to the quote instead. I think adding an explanatory footnote with a wikilink would help readers who are unfamiliar with the mythological reference "Procrustean bed". It might seem tangential to the subject of the article, but it's in the quote, and will either confuse the reader who doesn't know the reference, or force the reader to waste time searching for a definition. What do you think? --Teratornis (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good catch on the alternative treatment of that issue. Thanks for letting me know about that mark-up. That sounds like a good idea. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to work something suitable in later. On re-reading the quote from David P. Barash, it seems the "Procrustean bed" reference is not merely tangential, but central to his technical criticism of Rushton's work. The rest of the quote appears to be mere pejorative labeling, so I don't think we need the footnote to explain what pus is. --Teratornis (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello new friend
Sorry I did not reply ,,,,did not notice the post till now with your second message. -- Moxy (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you pointed out that formatting detail. I torture-tested it on an alternative browser I use, and I was able to get a reference list to smoothly go from one column to FIVE by zooming in and out to different font sizes. That's slick. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So to answer your original question about formatting - from just a readers POV not that of an editor - and getting personal at the same time. I have MS in the early stage so not to bad yet - just some shaking. Thus I dont use a mouse and have software on my home PC to select the linked words etc..as I am getting ready for the inevitable.  At the  hospital were I spend lots of time and anywhere else for that matter I dont have the software like millions of other people that have motor skill problems. So to the problem... when using a mouse it is very very hard to get the mouse pointer over the "Show" tabs of templates because of how small things of this nature are - this would apply to the ► in charts and the side menus. Yes we all could just increase the zoom but many dont have a problem with font size for  reading. Would be great for physically impaired people if the show button and the like  were - bigger in nature - and/or if there was an option (one button) to make them all open including the side menu. I invite you to look at the article Canada and press tab till you get to the bottom templates and the show button then press enter just to see it...as this is what many physically impaired people have to do. Hope all this makes sense :-) -- Moxy (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Gene-talk in history section of Intelligence quotient
Thank you for your "thank you." Unfortunately, my attempt to introduce some more historicist language into the history section of the intelligence quotient article has produced what looks like the beginnings of an edit war. I have tried to explain clearly why this edit is necessary, on the user's talk page, but this seems to be going nowhere. Before I give up, I thought I would ask you to weigh in. Could you have a look at our discussion and tell me what you think? Thanks, JTBurman (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made the language as precise as possible, and added scholarly references from good academic journals. JTBurman (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I just got back from a trip during which I saw the edits via Wikipedia's mobile interface. I have Galton's book at hand. I'll take a look at the article now that I'm back at my office. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Otis–Lennon School Ability Test
Not arguing (I'm agnostic on the matter), but was wondering, why trim the external reference? —> "High IQ Societies and Tests Used for Admissions, Table 4. Intelligence Tests Used for Admission to the High-IQ Societies", Kevin Langdon (ed.), Berkeley, California: Polymath Systems Eurodog (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 5, March 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New Visiting Scholar positions
 * TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
 * Australian articles get a link to librarians
 * Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

WikiProject Genetics in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Genetics 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) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Open Differential Psychology " - reliable journal?
http://openpsych.net/ODP/ Is this above journal fit to use as sources in wiki articles?74.14.73.37 (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious. How come you haven't registered a user account here on Wikipedia? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have actually, just not logged in. But what do you have to say about the above query? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.73.37 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent European height due to selection?
Hey Weiji, is there any mainstream academic agreement with the argument that increases in height in northern Europe is due to evolutionary selection?74.14.73.37 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Preposterous genetic claims
You think? I despair. I try at times to keep the worst out but it isn't easy. Poor sources, interpretation of and cherry picking from decent sources, use of out outdated material, you name it. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it's a fucking nightmare. The mistaken, yet widely held, belief that DNA "makes you who you are" is reinforced in our articles at every turn. It's not supported by high quality mainstream sources, but any attempt to get this across in our articles is opposed with a flurry of, as you said, "Poor sources, interpretation of and cherry picking from decent sources, use of out outdated material." The arguments become tiresome. Alas. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is really nettlesome. I have a good new genetics textbook at hand (obtained by interlibrary loan) and I hope to add quotations from it to my quotations collection on human genetics, which I encourage all Wikipedians to use to improve the sourcing of articles here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroup U (mtDNA)
Is this heavy use of Ron Scott appropriate? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll check the medically reliable sources at the local university and see what uptake of the cited source there is in those. I'm having lunch with one of the local genetics researchers tomorrow after journal club, and although we will mostly be talking about behavior genetics, I think I can get some tips from him about whom to talk to about population genetics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hmm, I wonder if this refers to images I have added to articles. I will have to check. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. I see from your user page that you like to edit articles on a lot of topics that badly need more work, so all the best to you as you do article updates. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits on articles related to Behavioral Genetics
I recently found a blog post that used several excellent mainstream sources and basically summarized them. I realized that some of the information was missing from articles on Wikipedia that have to do with behavior and Intelligence and such, I thought that we can basically use the sources found in the blog analysis to add in the relevant viewpoints that are missing. Can you look once over the blog and the articles within it to see if these edits will be appropriate? I am convinced that all the cited scientific sources are good (and the interpretations are too).

The blog post in question are: http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/ http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/the-son-becomes-the-father/

The sources I'd like to use are all in the above posts74.14.73.37 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've found considerably better sources. You can find them in my user bibliography, which will receive another update soon. Happy reading. Many of my friends who research these issues are at the Behavior Genetics Association meeting this weekend, and I look forward to hearing from them about new reliable, secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverting edits of Hereditarianism
I understand that good sources are required for claims on living persons, but the fact that researchers like Deary and Plomin are hereditarian is well accounted for.74.14.73.37 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on you to provide sources. I know some of those researchers, and I think you are mischaracterizing their position, a common reading comprehension error I see in many articles on this topic and related topics. Not all behavior genetics researchers are "hereditarians" as that term is defined in the article. The Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons could not be more clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Please engage in the honest intellectual effort to look up the facts and cite those in any future article edits about living persons. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to link you to the studies of Plomin and Deary that show that they believe in the accuracy of hereditarianism as the article defines? You are well read in this topic, and as such you should know that this is not some far-fetched or baseless claim.74.14.73.37 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to cite any statement you make about a living person in Wikipedia article text, period. Please reread WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:RS and other core Wikipedia policies and content guidelines until you thoroughly understand those, and then we may have something to discuss here. You have to own your own edits and support them with sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Copyedits to SAT
Thanks for catching my goof. I misread the article and thought that "SAT" still stood for something. My main objective was to push the past name information up into the lead paragraph, because that's what people may see in the tooltip preview if their browser supports it — the first couple of hundred bytes of text — and the lead for SAT was very short and vague. I've rearranged my edit to preserve the original meaning. — QuicksilverT @ 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 6, April-May 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
 * TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
 * TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
 * New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

COI Tag
I appreciate the comments and concerns. I cleaned up the article to make it more neutral. I checked the references and they are complete on creative pedagogy. If you have some other issues, please provide some discussion on the talk page. Thanks wxster1Wxster1 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Michael A. Woodley - mainstream researcher?
Like in title, is M.A. Woodley a good researcher on topic of race and intelligence as well as psychometrics to cite for our articles?74.14.75.132 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I read Woodley's articles, having lavish access to full-text journal articles, but I also read many, many better articles by other authors. More to the point, primary research articles in general are not good sources for Wikipedia editing in general by the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources, which says, in relevant part,

"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. ... Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided."


 * Moreover, the topic of human intelligence (and, for that matter, the topic of "race" in humankind) is largely a topic that needs to be sourced to the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medicine. That content guideline says, "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to 'debunk' or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a form of original research and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles, which are not a venue for open research." I have, alas, repeatedly seen articles on Wikipedia within the scope of the  active arbitration remedies related to the topic of race and intelligence edited with too little regard for these important content guidelines, which are simply part of standard scholarly procedure for editing an encyclopedia.  We are here to build an encyclopedia, and I am very familiar with  reliable secondary sources on intelligence and  reliably secondary sources on race from years of reading and writing about those topics with repeated visits to a huge academic library system at my alma mater university and extensive use of interlibrary loan services spanning an entire state of the United States. I take care to recommend to Wikipedians with intellectual curiosity and university-level reading ability sources that will show what the current scientific consensus is on contentious issues and what advanced textbooks and practitioner's handbooks record as established fact after multiple researchers have digested current research. I encourage you to read those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your painstakingly detailed response. I have a request for you, if it's not too much trouble, are there any papers that have been published in response to Woodley's paper? In particular, is there any response to a particular paper that Woodley published along with another individual by the name of Elijah Armstrong? If there are any, and you are able to link me to them, I will be truly grateful.

All the best. 74.14.73.37 (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In your own words, why do you think this new paper is significant for editing any Wikipedia article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:28, 10 June determine)
 * I actually don't think as such, and that's what I want to determine, that whether these researchers are indeed mainstream or not, and I am humbly requesting your help since you have the means to find out as such. Other researchers I have come across, but am unsure of their view in the field include James Thompson and Gerhard Meisenberg. I cannot determine if these are researcher's whose views are mainstream, would you know about that?74.14.73.37 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Any primary research scholar is mainstream to the degree, and only to the degree, that the scholar's primary research articles become reflected in standard, widely adopted textbooks and practitioner's handbooks and other reference books that are professionally edited for a learned readership. I'm about to buy a new book on IQ testing today, and I will check it and all the dozens of books I have at hand in my office as I continue to edit Wikipedia articles. In general, if I commit an edit to article space, it's because in my judgment there is no serious doubt that the factual statement I put in article space is a mainstream conclusion of scholars familiar with the relevant professional literature. (Correspondingly, if I remove statements from article text, that is to honor Wikipedia neutral point of view policy on giving due weight to varying points of view, and that is to reflect the sources.) I'll keep reading the writings of many scholars, both primary research articles and secondary sources of various kinds, as I make further edits to Wikipedia article text over the next several months and years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So will you be able to report on whether the researchers that I referred to have been positively reviewed in secondary sources or negatively reviewed, or whatever else? Why I ask is because I am hearing about these hereditarian academics who seem very prolific but have no idea as per the validity and mainstream nature of their work, so I want to understand if they should be given any weight in articles.74.14.73.37 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not an academic, but I've read some of the research by James Thompson along with people like Heiner Rindermann and found it riddled with motivated reasoning. These people look for data that will reinforce their prejudices while ignoring whatever doesn't. Then they present the data in a dishonest manner, sundered from all context and nuance, in an attempt to overwhelm their readers with spurious correlations.


 * I'll give one specific example, lest you think I'm trying to dismiss them unfairly, from Thompson, Rinderman, et al.


 * http://www.iratde.org/issues/1-2009/tde_issue_1-2009_03_rindermann_et_al.pdf


 * On the surface, this looks like a dispassionate scientific study. But read it carefully and you’ll find statements like this:


 * “Different from the SAS, Scandinavia reaches in the cognitive elite not such a good rank (11. Finland IQ 121, 12. Estonia IQ 121 [the Baltics are added here], 16. Sweden IQ 120, 25. Denmark IQ 118, 34. Latvia IQ 117, 38. Lithuania IQ 116, 39. Iceland IQ 116, 41. Norway IQ 116). Maybe a homogenizing educational policy furthering weaker but disadvantaging high ability pupils leads to a smaller standard deviation and lower values for a gifted subgroup. Better are the traditional Commonwealth countries”


 * In other words, Scandinavia performed worse than what their prejudices felt they should, so they invented an ad hoc environmental explanation for this (“homogenizing educational policy”). Weird how they don’t give other countries the benefit of the doubt.


 * And this:


 * “Kazakhstan seems to be too good in cognitive competence levels.”


 * In other words, the data do not confirm their prejudices.


 * And this:


 * “There are some anomalies in data like decreasing rates of patents in UK and Switzerland or years without patents in Norway (changed into missing values). Nobel Prizes also seem to be given with political considerations, e.g. there is a serious decline of Nobel Prizes for Germany starting with 1933 (Nobel Prizes are given for life’s work achievement and not for one single achievement in a current year); related to the population size persons from Sweden seem to receive a Nobel Prize more easily, US-Americans less easily”


 * What’s not an anomaly is the fact that these people obviously made up their minds beforehand and simply looked for data to give their prejudices the veneer of scientific objectivity, so they could strengthen their lame appeals to prejudice and parsimony. As I said, lots of this hereditarian research is loaded with motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. Once you look at ALL of the data impartially, not just the cherry-picked data from the hereditarians, you notice that the picture is far more complex than they paint it. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.3.34 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 June 2014

Hi Weiji
Thanks for the link to your citation collection. The work you do with intelligent youth and all your contributions to wikipedia sound really interesting, and I'm glad that you're on board with the RUL project as well. I look forward to meeting you later this week. :) static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like the project is off to a good start. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for help
Weiji, any chance you could get around to expanding the Criticism section for Richard Lynn soon? I know you're familiar with the literature, and there's much more that could be added. I'm tired of encountering people who insist Lynn is an impartial and sound scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.10.119 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is always more to do on Wikipedia, and that isn't my highest-priority project, by far (nor is that exactly how I would characterize how I would edit Wikipedia article content about Professor Lynn), but there are of course many sources about Lynn's life and work--pro and con--that are underused on Wikipedia, and as I increase my posting to Wikipedia article space more and more references to the reading I've been doing for more than two decades about human intelligence and behavior genetics, gradually a more balanced view of several of the more prominent current scholars on those topics will emerge. Do you have any particular sources to recommend? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

WHOA!!!! that was fast!!!!!!!
''Thanks for helping me with that.  (UT--Kleinzahnfischotter (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)you put pictures uphow do 'Bold textItalic text''Bold text'--Kleinzahnfischotter (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Italic text--Kleinzahnfischotter (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic 2014 - Minnesota
Can you update Meetup/Minnesota with provisional details, I guess for Como and July 6, so that we can properly schedule this on the national WP:Wiknic page.?--Pharos (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2014
 * Done. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Thank you for your boldness.--Pharos (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Neuropsychological assessment page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=613327917 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F613327917%7CNeuropsychological assessment%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * Fixed. Thanks for the notice. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Duke TiP
I'll stop changing this, but honestly, I think it would be wiser to say 'southeast,' as some peoe take offense to the 'southern stereotypes' that exist in our country. Just because someone is from GA, for exams, doesn't mean that they are a 'southern' redneck or whatever. I'll stop changing the page, but those are my two cents. Also, why haven't you changed the caption of the photo? Look around. You shall see what I mean.


 * Thanks for the comments. I'll take a look. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it. I'm glad you understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgs17 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment
I reversed you comment again on basis of negative bias, and furthermore it says the same thing in the reviews. You furthermore havent debated the idea of adding it. DavidJac123 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I note for the record that the article lede is usually meant to summarize the article, and that the article has to reflect the several negative reviews the book has received to fit the Wikipedia core policy on neutral point of view. You and I don't get to make articles say what we want them to say, but only what the  reliable sources say. I wish you well in learning how to create new sections on user talk pages, and I recommend that you read widely in  reliable sources on the topic you are interested in for in-depth understanding of the issues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Race and genetics
Dear WeijiBaikeBianji, it was kind of you to regarble the sentence because the previous word appears to you to be sourced. However, the sentence does not make sense "Different clines align around the different centers, resulting in more complex variations than those observed comparing continental groups." neither in the context of the header nor as a stand-alone statement. Maybe you'd be kind enough to translate it into English, and explain what continental groups are and how they relate to the different centers if you understand what the sourced sentence is trying to tell the reader.Barefact (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. I read a lot of literature on this topic, and I'm sure what is meant there in the lede (and this should be clear from the cited sources in the body of the article) is that some scholars have supposed that "races" cluster by continents of origin, with Africans being systematically different from Europeans, and both different from Asians. In fact, what is observed (and, again, there are sources already cited in the article, although there should be more) is that local populations have a genetic resemblance to nearby local populations, even on different continents (e.g., across the Mediterranean Sea, or across the Red Sea) and somewhat less resemblance (within the overall human population framework of all of us being very closely related) to local populations far away on the same continent. That is what "clinal" variation is--variation that increases gradually, rather than abruptly, as distance increases. As the article points out in the immediate context, local geographical barriers like mountain ranges and rivers or deserts can matter, as can linguistic groupings as well. I think, based on your contribution history, which I looked up after my edit, that you would enjoy reading the bibliography Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, which I am planning to update later today. There is a lot of good research going on today about the inadequacy of the continental groupings of human populations to explain the observed population structure for Homo sapiens. Your point is well taken that that sentence could be a lot more clear, and indeed I have that article on my watchlist because it is in dire need of a top-to-bottom rewrite. (P.S. What's your native language? I used to have an interest in studying some languages from central Asia, but I ran out of time after I became absorbed in studying Chinese.) See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Related to previous edits
Hey Weiji, I have had a chance to look at your collections of resources related to race, intelligence, and genetics. I am leaving this message as a token of appreciation and as thanks for the good work you are doing in your research. It seems that the edits I had made earlier and ones I planned were problematic and based on a myopic reading of otherwise excellent mainstream sources. In the future I will make sure to use your excellent resources if I think I should make an edit on articles related to contentious topics of race and human intelligence, or if you don't mind, run my edits through you or other editors who frequently edit such articles. Once again, thanks.74.14.73.37 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

An SPI you may be interested in
I reported DavidJac and our numerous IP friends here. Let us see what comes of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Library Interns
Hey User:WeijiBaikeBianji: I was very excited to discover GLAM/Rutgers and thought I would point you to Our new Library Interns resource page. If you have access to a student hire/intern, it would be great to get them involved in it! Sadads (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Does mental retardation prevent carrying out the death penalty in the US?
You might correctly say that mental retardation is supposed to prevent carrying out the death penalty, and should prevent that, but, as an example, the state of Texas executed a mentally retarded man in 2012. See http://rt.com/usa/texas-executed-wilson-court-177/ The statement in the Wikipedia article Flynn Effect currently says that "... in the United States a diagnosis of intellectual disability prevents execution." But as we see from the Texas case, it did not actually prevent execution. Therefore my edit ought to be restored. Dratman (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't write the previous sentence (and wouldn't have written it that way), but I can rewrite the article text per what the current Supreme Court holding is. The term "mentally retarded" is now obsolete, as the relevant Wikipedia article was updated this year to reflect. Thanks for pointing to the news link (from the notoriously unreliable Russia Today, but I'll read the link anyway to see what it says). See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Linguistics and gender, and linguistics and facilitated communication
My internet does have an article on the psycholinguistics of grammatical gender as a start in that area for the site, though in spite of analyzing millions of data bites, the author does not seem to have identified hu'man' as a noun having a gender base!! Or did I hear that incorrectly? Loved the institute's article and analysis from a thesis in the Netherlands. I thought that article would welcome researchers in other fields to speak and communicate.

I'll add the facilitated communication article as a start in that area, too. Hope you enjoyed the holidays. In our fields, "speech communication" (education) is responsible academically to reach psycholinguistics, as are the specialty colleges (e.g., Gallaudet).2604:6000:A441:BB01:E9DE:9377:D058:91F5 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)JARacino2604:6000:A441:BB01:E9DE:9377:D058:91F5 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye on those article updates. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Flood control in the Netherlands
In case you hadn't seen it, you can vote on the Flood control in the Netherlands nomination for vital article at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. – Editør (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know with the direct link. My !vote is now recorded. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Feuilleton page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617242170 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F617242170%7CFeuilleton%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * Thanks, although I think you bots ought to get together and learn how to fix the errors you suggest that the humans fix, and let us work on the stuff that bots would never notice. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society Access
Hey WeijiBaikeBianji, please make sure to follow the instructions in the email I sent nearly 2 weeks ago to ensure that you can get WP:RSUK access, Sadads (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 7, June-July 2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
 * TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
 * Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
 * Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Vital Articles/Expanded
I proposed adding 大禹, 刘邦, 曹操 and 宋太祖 to the list – take a look if you're interested. Cobblet (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Concern
I really don't think your approach of adding long citations of policy and references to vaguely or tangentially related publications is helpful. I appreciate that you are trying to help with the work of creating neutral and informative articles, but really that is better done by actually using the articles in writing the article content. Everyone has access to those articles if they want to. The problem is that some editors are not interested in those articles and get their information from other less useful sources. They are going to keep doing that regardless of how many links you spread around wikipedias talkpages to your favorite publications. Also remember that the example of editing you set can be followed by other editors. And having hereditarian editors flooding talkpages with links to their favorites blogs or other sources is not going to help anyone. I really wish you could start helping out by writing content. Addition: The two articles that you linked at the R&I article could not be used in writing the article at all, because they make no mention of either race nor Intelligence. And they are not referred to by any reliable secondary sources about R&I. They simply are not eligible sources for this article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The content writing is coming. Those sources are useful for plenty of articles on Wikipedia, and I will be using them for some. I have been pleased to see that there are an increasing number of students joining editing Wikipedia who use sources mentioned by other editors to update articles. (That has spread around the work in updating some of the articles on particular IQ tests, for example.) In my off-wiki communication with members of the general public who use Wikipedia, many of those readers point out that all of the better print encyclopedias have always had further reading references at the end of most articles. Adding more of those--good, on-point further reading sources, to respond to the points you kindly make above--is a big part of improving article content quality here on Wikipedia. To a degree, I share some of those sources on article talk pages precisely for the benefit of my fellow human beings who, alas, gain their ideas about the topics within the scope of the 2010 ArbCom case solely from blogs or other low-quality sources. They deserve to have a chance to read better sources too. It is up to them to take the chance, of course. But don't worry about it. Maybe you can use those sources to improve articles that you have watchlisted, and that is what I expect to do once I finish replying to your kind message. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IQ and Human Intelligence 1st Ed Book Cover Image.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:IQ and Human Intelligence 1st Ed Book Cover Image.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: Friendly reminder
This was unneeded. Travis Daily (talk, edits) 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of IQ classification
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article IQ classification you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ulflund -- Ulflund (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Feel free to ask me questions along the way. I appreciate the help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actively Adding to your list, or Not?
I posted a suggestion to your User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations page over a month ago regarding Intelligence and Giftedness by Miles D. Storfer, Ph.D., but cannot see that you have retrieved it. Are you still soliciting suggestions, or do you have enough ideas already? Megapod (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. Just busy, that's all. I've by no means added to the bibliographies all the things I've been reading recently--my reading always runs ahead of adding entries to the bibliography. I read much of the Storfer book soon after it was published in the 1990s, and just borrowed it from a library today to check my recollection of what it has to say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of IQ classification
The article IQ classification you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:IQ classification for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ulflund -- Ulflund (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate your help with that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

G is for Genes by Kathryn Asbury & Robert Plomin
Weiji, have you read the above book? If so, would you say that it is a useful citation for behavior genetic related articles? Should we create an article for it? Are there any reviews that can be included in such an article?Wajajad (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)