User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A thoughtful researcher I admire

Thanks to all of you for the interesting conversations that occur here. We are here to build an encyclopedia, so let's discuss how to improve as many of the 4,656,163 articles on Wikipedia as we can. Tips from Wikipedians on how to edit better, and on where to find resources for sourcing better edits, are always appreciated. I see other user talk pages have announcements about where each editor will reply to posts. Usually I will reply to your comments to me, posted here, right here on this page. I'll do my best to learn to follow to where you want me to read your posts, and where to reply to them, if you have a differing preference.

Please see my how I edit page for a detailed discussion of my approach to editing Wikipedia. Note that I am rigid and inflexible in respecting the core Wikipedia content guideline of respecting reliable secondary sources, so I read actual books and review articles rather than blogs or fringe websites when searching for information for updating Wikipedia articles. Experience has taught me that it is pointless to prefer the world of blogs for information in an era when academic libraries are woefully neglected. Professional academic librarians (who are severely underpaid, in my opinion) are well qualified to advise you on what sources are reliable and what sources are laughable in the opinion of thorough, thoughtful scholars. Ask a professional reference librarian at an academic library for advice on what sources are reliable and mainstream. The librarian will be glad to help. (And, yes, anyone who answers questions like this should be paid more to answer the questions than is usually the case.)

Please note. Somehow some editor has been disregarding the immediately preceding paragraph here, so let me be especially clear. I happen to work on pages that are subject to active arbitration remedies, and the related ArbCom case included site bans for some editors who have returned to Wikipedia as puppets. I cannot always be sure that comments posted to this page are posted by someone who had nothing to do with the case that triggered those remedies. Therefore I will make full use of my right to remove comments from my own user pages. "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." I have the right to clean up my own user talk page and will do so. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we may as well remember that it's always hunting season for that kind of duck.

Editing statement[edit]

Terrific statement; hope all is going well for you on Wikipedia. I tend to check and verify sources, too - especially to see if they are being used correctly. Parkwells (talk) 22:11, 22

Thanks for your kind words. I see you have been doing some good work here on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update
Writing Magnifying.PNG

GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter.

Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!

Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far.

Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers.

Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk)

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

You have a reply at Talk:Genius (eom)[edit]

You have a reply at Template talk:Human intelligence topics#Template redesign and move (eom)[edit]

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

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!

GOCE February blitz wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Enforcement requested of disruptive behavior spanning multiple years[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleet (talkcontribs) 01:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder of the ultimately amusing 2010 RFC/U, which included outside comments like "I think that 'Example 1' and 'Example 2' are pretty lame reasons to open an RfC/U", and of course resulted in no sanctions of any kind against me. I note for the record that several of the complainants there have since been banned or blocked as a result of their own misbehavior through the discretionary sanctions set up by the same ArbCom case you reference (and all without any comment from me, on the initiative of other Wikipedians).an example sanction The comments about my behavior back then also included "Nomming non-notable WP:CLUB spam for deletion is a sign of a good editor." Yes, the AfD results back up that statement. The RFC/U was well summarized by yet another editor's statement:

WeijiBaikeBianji has put a lot of effort into bringing these troublesome articles up to snuff, with encouragement to do so from one of the arbitrators near the close of the arbitration.link He's been forthright about the direction he thinks they should go: elevating the quality of the sources used, bringing the articles more into conformity with the way the subject is addressed in other encyclopedias and secondary sources, eliminating or appropriately balancing the fringy debris etc. He's been very collegial every step of the way while working to get up to speed on wikipedia's somewhat byzantine customs and folkways. He's simply been going WP:BOLD because (as we all know) there's a tendency to "process" endlessly trying to "collaborate" so things stagnate and very little ever gets done.

The result in the current case is much like the result in 2010. One statement about my edits was, "The edits appear to follow WP:BLP policy on inclusion of unsourced material and as such do not fall under the scope of either 3RR or even discretionary sanctions". The overseeing administrator wrote, "The question is whether WeijiBaikeBianji engaged in misconduct by repeatedly reverting to remove Charles Murray from a 'list of notable hereditarians'. I believe that they did not. The entry for Murray in that list was unsourced, and the article about Murray does not mention the word 'hereditarian', let alone a source for that association." Again, the result is no sanction against me. I have never been blocked, and I have never been topic-banned, even though by coincidence my best sources that I use to edit articles on Wikipedia mostly take me to articles that have been subject to discretionary sanctions since 2010. As that administrator wondered, I also wonder, why not look up a source first before editing an article with a statement about a living person, especially after your fellow Wikipedian has asked for a source with a link to WP:BLP in the article's edit history? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
  • Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
  • New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
  • Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Blond Hair edits[edit]

It might be interest if we could find a picture of hmong blonde hair for the article. I havent for now found one with proper license.MicroMacroMania (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen many examples here. I live nearer to the Somali people than to most of the Hmong people in my area. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Lol... That seem to say something about where you live.. (which is?) But there is certainly some blond in the hmong people: https://www.google.dk/search?q=hmong+blonde&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=hCk2VLqGGMW7ygOQuoLICA&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Minor issue for article on this topic"?[edit]

Hi, in this edit, you reverted my edit with the comment "Minor issue for article on this topic, and not likely a reliable source." What do you mean by "minor issue for article on this topic"?

As of the source, if you think that's unreliable, there are scientific reports that we can refer to instead, even though I think the article was fine since it is easier to read than what a report generally is and since it links to one of those scientific reports. If you don't find a source reliable, you can always use a {{fact}} tag to tag the sentence as in need of a citation to a reliable source. —Kri (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful question. The core idea in my editorial concern about that article is that it currently doesn't reflect the due weight of mainstream, professionally edited publications on the article's topic, IQ. People have been coming by that article for years mentioning issues that they have heard of in connection with IQ, without checking reference books (textbooks or practitioners' handbooks) or review articles (which are different from primary research articles) about the broad topic of the intelligence quotient concept and IQ testing. So really important issues related to that topic are hardly discussed in the article at all, while minor issues (many of them) have a lot of words devoted to them in that one article with a much broader topic. The way forward to fixing the article is to check the sources (already mentioned on the article talk page) about what subtopics are of most central interest when discussing IQ, and perhaps to update other articles on Wikipedia as appropriate reliable secondary sources are found for issues closely related to those other articles. For a source that has good information about both human intelligence and human sleep cycles, I strongly recommend the textbook Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Lay summary (20 November 2013).  which is a book I learned about from a Wikipedian who is a professional genetics researcher. This book is very thoughtful and leads to lots of other good reading. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for helping my students work on the Cox article. Please don't hesitate to make suggestions! J.R. Council (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm delighted to see other people working on articles about psychology and psychologists. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]


Thanks for your invitation to contribute to the source list on race, biology, and genetics in your name space, but I don't want to edit race articles. Where I live we don't really believe that there is such a thing as more than one human race. In turn, I'd like to invite you to join us at WP:VA/E, the effort to refine the list of Wikipeida's top 10,000 articles. Even if you just drop by once a week and cast some votes, it'll help the project.

Concerning user:aprock's edit I think you are misinterpreting why he removed the see alsos. I think he was removing the link to Correlates of crime and weeded out some others in the process. Aprock has recently tried to clean up the Correlates of crime article by removing unsourced claims. The article is still a complete mess and should probably be deleted. I put the link back in because I'm not in favor of orphaning these problem-articles, which I believe aprock was trying to achieve. I think more editors should be attracted to improve the article or find enough support to delete it. Looking at the history, aprock has already tried to get it deleted, but it didn't work. Correlates of crime is a very bad article, on a doubious topic which wouldn't even be printed by the yellow press. It makes horrific claims each based on a single study (mostly by one author) on a topic where statistics might not be the most accurate or useful form of scientific research. If you'd want to get the article printed, you'd have to at least put it in conditional mood, which is of course not possible in an encyclopedia. So what should we do with this mess, tag it somehow, try to delete it again or merge it? Maybe we could move it to a topic that clearly states it's speculative research? Any help for this needy article is appreciated. --Melody Lavender 08:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick reply. I'll take a look at those issues in detail after I polish off a couple of non-wiki writing projects. Thanks for the holiday greetings. Have a happy Halloween. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit. Please Read. Thanks.[edit]

Writing "memory" and "perception" is redundant, as they both deal with mental constructs. Using "cognition" instead of gratuitous words when conveying mental facets is best. To make the lead more succinct, I decided to replace "memory" and "perception" with the word "cognition". I also added the word emotion to summarize the article's synopsis since evolutionary psychology also investigates emotional phenomena. If you disagree with this edit, please let me know why. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Nashhinton (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I scanned the article and now agree with the rationale you stated as you reverted my edit. Thanks for letting me know what you were looking at as you changed the article text, and welcome aboard. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Barbara Fredrickson[edit]

Hi. I noticed you put a COI tag on the Barbara Fredrickson page. Who do you think has a COI as editor? I couldn't spot it, but admittedly didn't sleuth through all the editors' backgrounds. I'm not doubting you, more curious than anything. Was just reading up on the whole case and it sparked my interest. Thanx! 95.92.40.90 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I spotted the edit that got your attention, just missed it the first time I guess. Hard to say the motive I guess, but yeah it's a single-topic editor and the edit in question was dodgy. Could be a helpful neighbor one supposes?  :) 95.92.40.90 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Gah forgot to log in, this is me. Just didn't want to pretend anonymity. StoneProphet11 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for saying hello over here. I usually spot situations like that by noting the nature of the edit and looking at the editor's contribution history. Often graduate students or other persons near at hand have a lot of unbalanced incentives for sanitizing Wikipedia articles about academics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Question of reliable source[edit]

Hello. You reverted this edit, stating that the article in question is not a reliable secondary source. I did not say it was a reliable secondary source, I said it was a reliable source on Wikipedia because it was peer-reviewed by a scientific journal. WP:RS specifically identifies this case in the "Scholarship" paragraph in that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." To my knowledge the journal "Intelligence" falls into this category. Please identify what further caveat beyond this makes the article unreliable at Wikipedia. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The immediate context of your edit[1] was inserting a wikilink to WP:RS in article text in mainspace. (Did you look at how that edit looked in the article after you submitted it?) Your wikilink insertion was next to a maintenance tag that (properly) calls for more secondary sources in an article that has long relied too much on primary sources (as the two kinds of sources are distinguished by WP:RS). I actually learned about this distinction between primary sources and secondary sources for purposes of editing Wikipedia from other Wikipedians as I began editing here in 2010. It is a good distinction to keep in mind, a distinction not emphasized enough in the undergraduate education of most educated people in the United States. I am a subscriber to the journal Intelligence as a member of the society that publishes the journal, and I am well aware that the editors of that journal describe it as a journal of primary research studies, primarily. So your edit, while factually correct in saying that Intelligence is fairly mainstream and often cited by researchers on its topics, was not responsive to the Wikipedia editing concerns for that article, which should be sourced much more to practitioners' handbooks and mainstream textbooks such as those identified for all Wikipedians in the bibliography for Wikipedians on human intelligence and psychology maintained in my user space. Thanks for writing. It will be a long-term effort to improve the sourcing of Wikipedia articles so that more Wikipedia articles are sourced properly as an online encyclopedia should be sourced, by citing reliable secondary sources (for example, textbooks and reference books for professionals in the discipline). See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your response. I apologize as I did not look at how the reversion appeared in mainspace. And I agree that there is a difference between primary and secondary sources. Yet, the use of primary sources is allowed, although caution must certainly be used. Editors here simply must be careful to present the analysis in a straightforward manner without interpretation. This is different than disallowing the use of primary research papers. In any case, I am not that familiar with the article or the author, so I'll simply list it on the talk page and let other editors weigh in. Thanks again for your time. Best, Airborne84 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)