User talk:Mathsci/Archive 22

Happy New Year

In your arbcom comment here[1] you've mixed your metaphors. Please don't do that. It opens up a can of worms that needs to be derailed before it can take flight. Mr. Language Person (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did it for Ryan since he traditionally would be regarded as being from Up North (to be honest I'm originally from even further up there but still south of the border). Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Your assistance is welcome if you have any interest in Grange Furniture or Prelle Silk. Merci. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You always catch me when I'm in California, so I'm not sure I can be of much help at the moment. Happy New Year to you too. Mathsci (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Satt 2

I'm fairly certain all/most of his uploads should be deleted. I'm giving him a chance to come clean about it... J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

hey

I saw this edit of yours: [2] how can you see how many people that are watching your talkpage? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is one of the newer options on the associated history page. Mathsci (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hiya, I replied on my talkpage. BTW, I'm probably going to be passing through Marseille in a few months. If you're still there, would you like to get together for a coffee or something? I always enjoy meeting another Wikipedians.  :) --Elonka 17:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Elonka: I'm in Cambridge at the moment, but will be back in Aix-en-Provence at the end of March. Although Marseille is fascinating, Aix is a more charming place to have a wikipedia meetup. (In fact one of the pictures in the gallery shows the horodateur next to my apartment and the church where I am allowed to play the organ.)

@ PHG. I have a little bit of experience in contributing edits about the archaeology of Marseille and the Côte Bleue. For example I added details about the recent CNRS dig near Gare St Charles and wrote La Couronne, Bouches-du-Rhône while writing La Vieille Charité. Glanum is described as having hellenstic influences, because of contacts with Massalia, but as being originally built by Celto-Ligurians. It is situated outside St Remy next to St-Paul-le-Mausolée. This is not what you have written. Read this reference for example [3] or this [4], etc. Glanum was excavated by Henri Rolland (1887-1970) [5] [6] [7]. The well-established consensus is that hellenistic Massilia exerted an influence on the settlements in Southern Provence, but that is not what you have written. It seems to be agreed that the archaeological findings in Glanum date from the second century BC. Even with Marseille, you don't mention that extensive parts of the Greek port can be seen in the Jardin des Vestiges in the centre of town. The original settlement was in the Panier quarter of Marseille. That is recorded in books on the history of Mars{{eille (like the one used for writing the references in the main article). You seem to have gone one step too far in implying that the Greeks settled parts of Provence rather than that Marseille exerted an influence. You are simply misrepresenting the sources in order to push a personal point of view. I'm sorry, but that is not the way to contribute to this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

AE thread

You asked to be kept informed, so FYI, the AE thread has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Per Honor et Gloria. --Elonka 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears that the AE thread was not the proper venue, the request for the extension of the topic ban on PHG has instead been filed here. You may wish to move your statement to that location, or if you give me your permission, I can handle it. --Elonka 07:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

I know you haven't participated in the mediation lately. But I think this one thread could really benefit from your take:

[8]

Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Auguste Pavie

Hi, you added a reference to Orborne 2007 to Auguste Pavie in 2008 (and later fixed it to Osborne 2007). Did you mean the book Osborne, Milton (2006), The Mekong: Turbulent Past, Uncertain Future, Allen & Unwin, p. 129–134, ISBN 1741148936 that is among general references or some other? Thanks. Svick (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What else could it have been if I consistently use harvnb and harvtxt? Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just wanted to be sure. Svick (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd and GoRight

G'day Mathsci. I don't know you and you don't know me but so long as we're being called a cabal we may as well act like one, right? (j/k)

So I'm somewhat perplexed as to what (if anything) to do about User:Abd and possibly also User:GoRight (who exhibits similar editing characteristics). As you've already noted, Abd appears to be angling towards some sort of "mistrial" claim because he's blocked (ironically for comments made in the request), because "any useful clarification would require more discussion than can be accomplished at RfAr/Clarification"(?), and because he claims I interfered with his request by pointing out that we've been here before. This is presumably a prelude to another timesink RfAr.

If he would just respect the editing restriction as intended (which surely is obvious unless you have a severe case of selective hearing) then many of the problems would go away, but as it stands he has a remarkable ability to turn even routine matters into full on goat rodeos. Perhaps we have little left to do but wait for him to hang himself by getting "community banned for persistent disruption and wikilawyering"? -- samj _in^out 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, hopefully this will put an end to the madness (at least for me). -- samj _in^out 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As you might have gathered I have been away from home (on a conference), so have not been looking at wikipedia. The cabal thing is nothing new - just another way of Abd and GoRight trying to deflect attention from their own disruption. I think they are beginning to tire out almost everybody, including most of ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Meetup in Cambridge, 27 March

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

R&I: Availability > relative scarcity

You added a clause regarding the availability of test data from around the world, with which I agree, but I was wondering if you would object to "relative scarcity" or perhaps "paucity", as this would indicate the deficit itself. Or perhaps you have a better phrasing in mind? --Aryaman (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

R&I Intro

I just want to tell you how impressed I am by the colaboration between you and Aryaman, and the result - I think it is a very well-writtn, informative, clear introduction. Kudos! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about R&I

Thanks for providing the links for Nesbitt Appendix B and Makinstosh. I have found both very useful. Do you have some more specific thoughts on the best way to use these sorts of secondary sources in a Wikipedia article like this? You mentioned using the actual 9 categories that Nesbitt uses. That seems sensible. What is the proper way to phrase this on Wikipedia? Something like: "Nesbitt outlines 9 arguments . . . " Thanks for any guidance. David.Kane (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are probably three things to do:

• A rough historical account (without scientific details) of events that happened in 1970s following Jensen's 1969 paper in the history section, mentioning names. I mentioned a ref to Varoon Arya on the nediation talk page, but there are probably many others. For this we only need the source to be written by a good neutral historian (or equivalent commentator).
• An account of the hereditarian point of view following Rushton & Jensen (placed first because it was the first to be discussed historically)
• An account of the environmental point of view, following Nesbitt and others.
• Criticisms of both points of view, including remarks from neutral book reviews and other commentaries

Mackintosh's book is extremely neutral, well-written and accessible, so might be the right place to start. The environmental point of view is also well represented in the book edited by Fish that I mentioned to Varoon Arya on the mediation talk page. I would get other people to help, because this is a lot of work. Mediation can probably stop fairly soon. If these become the three goals for the article, then developing these parts van progress more slowly according to everybody's availability as an editor. Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC) .

Thanks. This is very helpful. David.Kane (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I go too far down the rabbit hole, do you think my current approach is fruitful, or at least not obviously stupid? It is informed by your suggestions above but not identical. I am using Nisbett's Appendix B as a way to organize the topics. Then, within that organization, including both hereditarian and environmental points. This requires some twisting and shuffling but will, I hope, allow future editors to make changes in specific sections as they see fit without generating endless rancor. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

European Map

I've fixed the map, I uploaded the wrong file type. Sorry about that. If you find any mistakes in the map, please inform me. I've already found one in regards to the Breton Language spoken in North-Western France. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

R&I

The article is supposed to provide a global perspective on Race and Intelligence but your proposed lede is US focused. Should your links to various racial groups be more global and less US specific? David.Kane (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

R&I MedCab case

Hi Mathsci, I just wanted to confirm that you're of course entirely correct in regard to your recent comment about the nature of mediation. In other words, mediators attempt of foster consensus, and don't have any personal authority to impose a preferred version. PhilKnight (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with you myself - I have no idea why my name came up in that edit summary, since I didn't exercise any 'personal authority' that I am aware of. This just seems like a fairly normal content dispute, and I've advised the parties (on DK's talk page) to take it up in talk. Honestly, the page hasn't required much in the way of mediation the last couple of days, so I've just been sitting back and waiting until I'm needed. was there something specific I did that you're objecting to, M? --Ludwigs2 17:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you have overseen the worst rewrite of a controversial wikipedia article in the recent history, against all consensus. No need to dissimulate. Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe 'dissimulate' is he word you want here. --Ludwigs2 23:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should I be interested in what you think, when your actions as mediator have seen the article degenerate as it has? Look, I edit lots of ordinary wikipedia articles in the arts and sciences. I have never seen the kind of unsourced POV-pushing that David.Kane has produced. Whatever made him think he could get away with that kind of nonsensical editing? Most of it can just be deleted without further comment. Why ask an editor with barely 400 mainspace edits to his name, and no major articles, to undertake a task way beyond his capabilities? Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

R&I lead

Mathsci - you know, I'm largely sympathetic to your position. I personally like your (aryaman's) lead better (except for some qualms with the last paragraph) and I wish you would sit down and discuss the matter a bit. I'm pretty sure that if you do we will have this resolved to your satisfaction in very short order. can we do that? --Ludwigs2 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I am sick and tired in this mediation of having to state the obvious. I am extremely busy in real life and at this stage am less than willing to keep having to repeat myself to a bunch of WP:SPAs with almost no editing experience. Mathsci (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an answer to my question. as I said, I (personally) prefer your version of the lede, and I'm sure that with a short discussion we can restore the bulk and sense of it. If you would prefer (for whatever reason), I'd be happy to do that on your behalf. would you like me to do that? --Ludwigs2 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am tired out by POV-pushers like David.Kane, who has driven me away from mediation by his edit warring. He has not paid the slightest bit of attention to my comments about sourcing, history, etc. It's a waste of my time dealing with WP:SPAs like this. You could not possibly represent me and it would be inappropriate as mediator. Let all your WP:SPAs do what they like with the article (that seems to be your legacy). Please don't waste the time of experienced editors ike me. Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on David Kane - he was chosen by consensus (I think precisely because he's less experienced, and doesn't seem to have a great attachment to any side), and he's doing the best anyone possibly could under very difficult conditions. I'm going to argue on your behalf anyway, because I happen to think you're right (mostly) about this, and I don't want the article to suffer. When you're feeling up to it, please check in and let me know if I'm missing something. --Ludwigs2 00:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

P.s. I have restored aryaman's lead for the moment, since that was the last known consensus version. just an FYI. do you want me to reinsert the NPOV tag as well, or are you satisfied for the moment without it? --Ludwigs2 00:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried a compromise draft of the two leads here. Since you and David.Kane seem to be on the opposite sides of this, can you two tell me if this would work? --Ludwigs2 20:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On Tuesday ...

could you see if this argument could benefit from your views? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger Pearson

This is tangentially related to R&I, so I thought you might be interested. A new editor, James p. robuck (talk · contribs), has substantially re-written the biography of Roger Pearson, a proponent of eugenics and founder of the Northern League (neo-Nazi). I believe the edits have tended to skew the biography in favor of the subject, but I'm not familiar enough to say for sure. Any ideas?   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. I looked at the new version and noticed that there was no mention of the book by Tucker, where he is discussed as one of the people supported by the Pioneer Fund (over 50 million dollars in grants for post war work in neo-Nazi causes). For the moment as part of WP:BRD, I reverted to an older version before the two recently arrived editors started editing. Could Truth and free speech (talk · contribs) and James p. robuck (talk · contribs) be meatpuppets or sockpuppets? The prominent mention in the lede that the journals with which he was associated, like Mankind Quarterly were peer-reviewed, is another tell-tale sign of attempted "sanitization". There are BLP issues involved, so the sourcing has to be quite careful. Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for evaluating the situation and taking appropriate action. Yes, it's quite possible that those accounts are the same person, or friends, but I don't see any way of proving it short of CU, and there isn't cause to make a request. Truth and free speech only edited for one day, so perhaps there won't be an ongoing problem.   Will Beback  talk  07:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak!

And thanks again for all your hard work on History of Race and Intelligence. David.Kane (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On sources

Hi. With regard to the sources for the History section on the Race and Intelligence article, the policy is that we do not need to include the sources from a daughter article in the main article unless specific facts in the summary are likely to be challenged. See [9]. Let me quote the main part.

There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

When adding material to a section in the summary style, however, it is important to ensure that the material is present in the sub-article with a reference. This also imposes additional burden in maintaining Wikipedia articles, as it is important to ensure that the broad article and its sub-articles remain consistent.

The reason that I want to remove the sources is that I am trying to encourage the usage of fewer/better sources in the main article, i.e., more secondary sources. Instead of having 100+ sources (which was true a month ago) and having every Wikipedia editor giving his own special interpretation of some journal article, we are better off focusing on a few good secondary sources. Leaving out these sources is, I think, helpful to that cause (even though several of them are excellent secondary sources). For example, citing Richard Lynn (which, obviously, we need to do in the daughter article) makes it much harder for us to keep out citations to dozens of Lynn's articles and books in the main article, without getting into lots of unproductive debates about WP:UNDUE. Anyway, just wanted to explain my rational for leaving the citations out. Enjoy France! David.Kane (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not regard History of the race and intelligence controversy as a daughter article. Unlike Race and intelligence, it is properly sourced. Personally, I am not at all happy with the Race and intelligence article and view it at the moment as completely beyond retrieval. I haven't a clue what to do to turn into a proper encyclopedia article. I will make small comments - adding sourced content (eg the book review of Nicholas Mackintosh) but can't debate any of the "science", if that's what is. So please leave in these secondary sources, if only as a guideline to other editors. It's hardly a big deal. The article is not long by my standards. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. If I ever succeed in getting R&I squared away (I agree that it is a mess, but hope springs eternal), then I will revisit this with you. By the way, any objections to me fixing the spacing of the sources? That is, instead of "[2] [3]" it should be "[2][3]". David.Kane (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

None at all :) It should be the way you say. Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"edit warring"

Occam wrote the comment on the R&I talk page, in the section on Richard Lynn. He accused you of wrongly deleting his stuff, and provided a link to the history article, and then says he is going to rewrite the second paragraph on IQ in other countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed out, on the talk pages of both the R&I article, and the History of the controversy article, where exactly Captain Occam accused you of edit warring at the History of the controversy article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a mistake, but the reason was I was just following Captain Occam's ramblings, and he brought up Richard Lynn. If you want to change the title of the section, just go ahead. I am sorry or the confusion. I was trying to respond to the comment by CO which, frankly, I still find confusing. I have asked him to explain himself and I do not know why he will not. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Spring and the beginning of the term ....

I just restored some (not all) of your material for the section on international IQ. My main motive is, I think they are right that the section was growing too long (and the criticisms of lynn et. al, could be made more economically) and secondly to show them the spirit of compromise. But I do not want them reverting any of this. Please keep an eye on it. I wish Muntuwandi and AProck were active. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that, while I restored some of what you wrote to the section, you are of course free to put more stuff back in. But please keep length in mind, it is a reasonable concern. Also, as a strategy, you may wish to bring up proposed edits on the talk page first. If your proposals are good, people will support you. And if you and I start doing this, others would have to start doing this too ... Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - and relative outsiders like myself would be able to work with you if we had a clear rationale discussed on the talk page, so you wouldn't have to do so much re-editing of the article itself. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Mathsci. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

I know I just warned you about this for Race and intelligence, but I wanted to remind you that you're very close to violating 3RR for the R & I history article also. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Could you please collect yourself, then refactor your comment at WQA [10]? --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz; that comment was not helpful in the least, it breached WP:NPA and was rude and uncivil.

Please strike or refactor the comment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have rephrased the comment in standard wikipedia language. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U

Hello Mathsci. I'm writing to warn you that your behaviour is providing a lot of material for a potentially damaging RfC/U. It would be in your interest to adjust your conduct. I would particularly draw your attention to misrepresentation of other users, which can be easily cross-referenced. Thanks. mikemikev (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

Seeing as the speedy deletion template has been removed by two different users, I recommend that you take this to WP:AFD, because speedy deletion would be controversial. Regards. Claritas (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

R&I

Was that ever sorted? Lost track. Justin talk 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still active on ANI. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)