User talk:Bluescientist

Hi, Bluescientist, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

Additional tips[edit]

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs

PS: This is not a bot and you did nothing to prompt this message. This is just a friendly welcome by a fellow Wikipedian.

Click here to respond to this message!

Rushton[edit]

My apologies for reverting your recent Rushton edits...but they seem to be drifting out instead of making things more clear...can we work on something a little more concise that will get your point across together? Please, no offense intended by the revert - I'm sure we can come up with good compromise language together that is compact and illustrates things effectively --JereKrischel 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bluescientist, I was looking at the source for the table put in there (Chart 1 on page 9 http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf), and it looks like you're doing some OR by expanding on it. If we're to include a citation like that, we should simply reproduce the table as is. --JereKrischel 02:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions[edit]

You commented in your change:

(How is the fact that genes and environment interact a contradiction? Don't know why you so stubornly insist on making thios one sentence so long winded.)

I was trying to find compromise language, since you wanted to remove "contradiction" entirely. Since the quote starts off with Rushton agrees that contemporary social and economic trends obviously confound the data he describes, he already agrees that his data is "confounded" (aka, contradicted). In order to make it less POV, I was trying to state that there were "specific" contradictions, not blanket contradictions, and that his assertions were "general", not specific. I was trying to make it more sympathetic to his POV, not trying to make things long winded. --JereKrischel 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so obviously a contradiction, why do you feel the need to point it out? The senetence is much more eloquent without making this superfluous point, and the fact that we such everything is alleged means Rushton can be wrong.

I made a slight change, removing the term "contradiction"...i think you're right, it reads better without the emphasis...hopefully it is a viable compromise! (BTW, thank you for helping make the article better!) --JereKrischel 03:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting data[edit]

I don't think we're here to popularize, or even decide what "interesting data" can be mined from Rushton's work - this is definitely getting into the Original Research area, and I think we're better off sticking to an accurate quote, rather than interpretive work. I think maybe this is where some of our disagreement comes from - Rushton's interesting data should exist in detail in his works we reference, not exhaustively listed in the encyclopedia article. Can you understand my hesitation? --JereKrischel 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you know if an unabridged version of Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior is available in electronic format? --JereKrischel 03:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Components Analysis[edit]

Hey Bluescientist, I think the section which slaps Jensen with a direct contradiction (the PCA tutorial), might be a bit harsh. Can you help think up wording which makes it clear that PCA is in fact arbitrary, but without seeming too critical of Jensen? --JereKrischel 03:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to all this later. Got to go.

Black people[edit]

Putting the {{sprotect}} tag on an article does not protect it. It takes an admin to actually protect or semi-protect the article. --Ezeu 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]