User talk:Nectarflowed

Picture of the day

Warsaw is the capital and largest city of Poland, located on the Vistula in the east-central part of the country. It has an estimated population of 1.86 million, within a larger metropolitan area of 3.27 million residents, and it is a major cultural, political and economic hub. Warsaw originated as a small fishing town in Masovia, rising to prominence in the late 16th century when Sigismund III moved the Polish capital and his royal court from Kraków. It was the de facto capital of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth until 1795 and then the seat of Napoleon's Duchy of Warsaw. The 19th century and its Industrial Revolution brought a demographic boom. Warsaw was bombed and besieged at the start of World War II in 1939, and its infrastructure and population suffered during the systematic razing which followed the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. The modern city features many historic monuments, including the reconstructed Old Town, designated a World Heritage Site. This 2022 photograph shows an elevated view of Warsaw's Constitution Square, looking northwards down Marszałkowska Street.Photograph credit: Emptywords

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! [...]

• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

[...]

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] -Thanks, Meelar --Nectarflowed.

---

Thanks for the concise intro (and clarifications) to the stem cells article ;) --Nectarflowed 09:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Johnstone 00:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello, Nectarflowed. I don't know you and I am new to the whole wiki thing, but I do know that I have asked Oarih for his creditials in the area of stem cell research and I have not received an answer to that request. I am also asking you the same thing. What is your experience in the area of stem cell research? I am an attorney by training but I am a now a financier. I have been deeply involved in raising money for the last four years for a company that is in the stem cell research business. I have become quite deeply versed in the area and I work directly with some of the absolute leaders in the field. I talk with these folks constantly and I know that article that you and later Oarih have put together is an absolutely biased one-sided representation of the facts, politics and science in the field. I want to know what your background is. I have asked Oarih for his background on several occasions and I have not heard from him.----Keetoowah 04:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[resolved on Talk:Stem_cell] Nectarflowed 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

• Thanks for repairing my confusion of blastocysts and blastulas ;)--Nectarflowed 01:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Its a fairly common confusion.--Tycho 18:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Futurology → Future studies

You can go ahead and just use the "move" menu item to do this.

However, nearly all the incoming links point to Futurology, none point to Future studies, and you'd need to fix double-redirects (for instance futurologist points to futurology, you'd have to change it to point to future studies instead, etc).

-- Curps 10:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's all done now. In general if there is a problem doing a move, you can post to Wikipedia:Requested moves. It's better to do that than to put a {{delete}} notice on the page. -- Curps 10:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again. --Nectarflowed 10:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

philosophy of biology

I'm happy to see that you share my interest in this subject. I've just created an article of this name, turning those red links blue. Its a crude start, and I welcome help in development of it, if you'd like to try your hand! --Christofurio 16:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

And thanks for backing up the points I've been trying to make in the VFD debate over the philosophy of chemistry --Christofurio 00:29, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Christofurio, Yes, I wanted to thank you for starting an article on philosophy of biology; I've always thought it's a fascinating area. I'll enjoy making some contributions to the article. And, I'm glad I saw on your user page that philosophy of chemistry is up for VFD. I agree that it would be an unfortunate mistake to delete it.--Nectarflowed 01:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Glenn Reynolds

Hi,

Sorry, I guess I was a little annoyed while I was cleaning up the Glenn Reynolds article. I did remove more than the puppy blender comment, but on re-reading the changes I still think the article is better without the other text I removed, as well (it seemed kind of redundant). Is it ok with you if we keep the slimmer version? Let me know how you feel about it. --Daniel11 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Model minority

I'd like to say good job for the changes you've made to this article. Your edits have greatly improved it. — J3ff 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness

Hi man. You put a nice study to the article. I was just wondering about 1. year, 2. researchers, 3. reference/link. Would be great if you could just add it. Ben (talk) 18:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ben. I've included the necessary references. Check out the newly-linked interview if you're interested in it. Tell me if there's anything else I can do.--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 09:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, very cool. I read the interview, it was interesting. I was hoping for a research paper, though. So, I was searching scholar.google and found e.g. this here and a (very) short review "Future change in sexual behavior?". Well, cheers, Ben (talk) 13:16, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ben, thanks for passing on the great articles. (Sorry it's really taken me a while to respond - I've been swamped lately). I really think it's a shame only a fraction of the population gets to be familar with these kinds of topics. I also have enjoyed studying (formally and informally) abroad.. in Sweden, Italy, and Thailand. Can I ask what you're doing in Fuchu? Are you making use of your education in strange subjects?

I thought the neural network page move discussion had good points, and I see it's gotten resolved quite well before I had the time to contribute. Congratulations on the biological neural network article. Like you, I think greater depth of coverage of neuroscience topics would be great for Wikipedia. --Brandon ^(talk) 09:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Brandon! Nice post. Sweden, Italy, and Thailand? Sounds like a interesting choice. What I am doing in Fuchu? I am asking myself that question, too, from time to time. Basically I enjoy life and sometimes I do some research at Chuo University. I am also writing on my thesis in cognitive science (are you?).

Do you have plans or ideas for more neuroscience/cognitive science in wikipedia? Ben talk contr 11:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, you probably noticed some communalities in our homepages. I copied the "count your edits" and the picture of the day, from your pages. Thanks Ben talk contr 09:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

page move of Neural network article

hey Nectarflowed! There is need for a cognitive science opinion at Talk:Neural_network. I guess some people there never heard there was something like neural networks in the human brain and they don't know about the related research. I could need some support. Ben (talk) 11:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Refactored text

I am refactoring this section, "Featured picture: rat 'kittens' vs. 'pups" from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive, where it was about to be deleted permanently. Perhaps it could be moved to the image's talk page? I was about to do so, but couldn't figure out which picture you were talking about. Thanks, Rad Racer | Talk 02:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture: rat 'kittens' vs. 'pups

Today's 'Cat' featured picture writes that rat babies are called kittens. In the U.S. (west coast) I've only heard rat babies be called 'pups'. Perhaps this is a dialectic discrepancy?--Nectarflowed (talk) 03:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I've only heard them called "pups" also, but there is no shortage of Google hits that support the "kitten" name as well. Could they both be correct? – ClockworkSoul 03:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Asian American

Thank you for taking care of this article. Re the link to Wing Luke Asian Museum: I agree that it probably shouldn't be linked directly from this page. But my question is: You wrote that it can be accessed by category. Now call me stupid – i've been on Wikipedia for quite a while, but i don't see a straightforward way to get there (other than the detour over Category: U.S. ethnic groups, which is not intuitive for someone who would want to find this museum). Am i overlooking something? Are you aware of a category (or overarching article) that might fit? — Sebastian (T) 09:07, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Category:Asian-American-related topics

I propose we move this category to Category:Asian American-related topics, removing the hyphen between Asian and American. Using a hyphen emphasizes duality and should be used to describe things such as foreign relations between two nations, for example, Japanese-American relations. When describing people we should not use a hyphen. "Asian" is an adjective describing the American. Using the hyphen is a bad representation because it creates the notion of a hybrid. What do you think? — J3ff 03:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The proper place to put a category move is Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, see #5 at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#How to use this page. I've created an entry for this category move here; please leave a comment on that page. — J3ff 11:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James Cameron

In Britain he has a reputation for being anti-British, or more precisely anti-English; not sure how well founded that feeling is. There were mutterings in response to Braveheart, too, compounded by feelings that its star, Mel Gibson, is very anti-English. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think your edit was fine--just thought you probably didn't understand where the previous editor was coming from. I have found no factual basis for the allegations of bias, it's all circumstantial, from interpretations of the movie's iconography--David Warner as the thuggish English manservant guarding an imprisoned Leonardo DiCaprio with his revolver, the (fictitious) representation of one of the officers, William McMaster Murdoch, as corrupt, homicidal and cowardly, and so on. However English actors often play villains in Hollywood movies and many of the people on the Titanic were English so it's not a strong indication of national bias here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Cochran study

Could you inform me in which issue of J Biosoc Sci the Cochran/Ashkenazi IQ will be published? JFW | T@lk 10:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conversations

Hi Keetoowah, I'm glad to have been working with you on the stem cells article for this time. I've noticed, though, that your discussion entries seem to tend to be longer than is needed, and tend to make accusations. See you around, --Nectarflowed ^T 10:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nectarflowed: I did not know that you were the person that made the decision for everyone working on Wikipedia whether it is too long or too short. Thanks for helping me there.-----Keetoowah 13:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Dividing the population by "race" is just one way of dividing the population. If you were to divide the population by nutrition and the same disparity shows up how is it a "racial" disparity? This disparity is abstract and has nothing to do with descriptive words used to explain it. Framing this abstract disparity only in racial terms seems to me to be an attempt at confusing cause and effect. Repetition is combined with this cause and effect confusion to trick the mind into only thinking about the abstract disparity in racial terms, over time this wears people down into assuming that the only method of division used to describe the abstract disparity is the cause for that disparity. That is wrong. Why needlessly confuse cause and effect unless there is a purpose in mind? Neutrality is the prime directive of wikipedia and that includes the neutrality of language used to present a subject. zen master T 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Why ask me? I have no particular editorial authority. All I wanted was to get the personal attacks to stop. The way I selected for that was (perhaps) different form the way some other person might have chosen. Most people just want to be listened to. And I've been working on and off with R & I for over 3 years at Wikipedia. Take a look at the page history back to the beginning for topics like race, The Bell Curve, etc., and you'll find my name - especially on the talk pages. Huh? I'm rambling? Sorry. Where were we? Right, I like your idea about having the user express their opinions on the talk page. Sure wish I had thought of it first! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also, what's up with "personal attacks removed"? I can't figure out how or why you did that (not that I object, of course :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

"Dear Ed, [...] You locked a page and you didn't put a page lock message in the article. [...] You went to Maryam Rajavi page, and didn't take one quick look at when the disputes started and why and who is who? --195.29.186.146 ^{(personal attacks removed by Nectarflowed)}"

---

Above is puzzling, yet pleasant. Please elucidate, o liquid one! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the anon's inappropriate personal attacks and left a note to explain the ellipses. I left my name so he would know who did it if he came back and was concerned that his words were censored. Hope it was ok :) Nectarflowed ^T 19:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool! It's like a have a fan club or something. I liked your copy-edit at IQ test controversy, too. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Cochran

You really really did quite an excellent contribution to the article under the Ashkenazi intelligence heading. See you later :) --ShaunMacPherson 29 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)

Thanks, Shaun :) And thanks for starting his article; he does interesting stuff. I see your BA was in economics and psychology. Was that mostly behavioral finance, or did it also include contexts that are not necessarily financial, such as is found in neuroeconomics? Best, Nectarflowed ^T 29 June 2005 22:56 (UTC)

Arbitration?

Hello Nectarflowed, I was under the impression we agreed to arbitration for resolution of the race and intelligence dispute (you suggested it on that article's talk page)? But in the RfA you seem to be primarily interested in getting me blocked for name calling? Certainly everything on the talk page is relevant (including obfuscation and language confusion repetition) but are you interested in working towards resolving the race and intelligence dispute via arbitration? You say in the RfA "Zen-master's argument isn't under question here", is that really true and can I disagree? Could you clear up this confusion on the RfA page? Also can you specifically note I was not banned for name calling on June 30, you say "subject of a policy enforcement ban" which could easily be misread. Also in the RfA, are the three items you listed under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" really that, seems like they just more evidence of name calling ignoring the root dispute over the article's content and are certainly not attempts at dispute resolution? Perhaps you should move that list of three to your statement section? just wondering, zen master T 3 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)

Hi Zen-master, thanks for staying friendly with me. This RfA is nothing personal; it's just that I and other users on the race and intelligence talk page feel what has happened there for the last 2 and 1/2 weeks has not been productive and shows no signs of becoming productive in the future.

1. The name calling is exemplary of what we feel has been a disruptive style of involvement.
2. We don't consider there to be a dispute with the article, because we feel we've addressed the points given in your argument. For example, Ryan and Kizzle on your talk page took up your cause, but appeared to be satisfied with my response, and went on to other points. Willmcw has agreed with you on your opposition to the article, but hasn't expressed agreement with the specific argument you've been promoting. My personal opinion is that most people will be satisfied by the summary of your argument and my response that I gave in my RfA statement, but for what ever reason, in the perspective you're operating with, my response doesn't address all the points brought up in your argument.
3. Policy enforcement bans can be any length of time, and are usually for short periods, rather than permanent, in case that's what you were referring to. Now that you point it out, I see that the policy enforcement log page actually says it was for "personal remarks," not for name-calling. I'll change that on the RfA page. Thanks for pointing that out.
4. The 3 items listed under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" are there to demonstrate that intervention was attempted but didn't resolve the concern.

Best, Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)

So was your offer of arbitration made in good faith then? Why would I agree to arbitration if working towards resolving the race and intelligence dispute is not on the table? Does your and others' behavior have any bearing on my alleged "personal remarks"? Might the fact that the existence of a legitimate neutrality dispute being potentially subverted pertinent? I will give you a few more hours to clarify the RfA before I fix it: 1) I was not banned on June 30th 2) the three items are not evidence of dispute resolution 3) We agreed to arbitration on the race and intelligence talk page. If you continue to be unresponsive and don't fix the inaccurate RfA presentation I will be forced to consider this discussion as evidence against you in the RfA (a pattern of, at best, disingenuous presentation [including your most recent RfA edit]). zen master T 3 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Maybe this arbitration will resolve the race and intelligence dispute.

The Policy enforcement log reads: "2 hour block each to Drummond (contribs) and Zen-master (contribs), for repeated personal remarks directed against each other at talk:race and intelligence which disrupt discussion of improvements to the article."[1] How is that not a policy enforcement ban?

My most recent edit corrected the reason for the ban, which was disruptive personal remarks, not name-calling, as I had mistakenly written earlier.--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)