User talk:Ephery

Draft stuff

I am going to draft some R&I related material here.

Progress on Race and Intelligence has been made as a result of mediation

I started on Wikipedia in June 2006 and first became involved with race and intelligence related controversies in the fall of 2009. A mediation started in November 2009. Over the next 6 months, significant progress was made: compare the version toward the start of mediation with one near the end. Note how the new version was less then 1/2 the length (and now consistent with WP:SIZE) and how numerous formatting problems, incorrect citations, spelling errors, poor grammar, lousy writing and so on were fixed. Of course, the new version is not perfect, but uninvolved editors thought that it was an improvement over the old one. Important issues that had been the source of much conflict over the years were resolved. For example, "Research into race and intelligence is not "fringe", some of the conclusions drawn from that research are highly contentious and need to be presented as such in the article." This was extremely helpful since it obviates the need for fruitless and repetitive debates about whether or not WP:FRINGE applies to the work of Arthur Jensen and others. I think that Ludwigs2 deserves a great deal of credit for the success of the mediation. Note, importantly, that no other editor volunteered to do the mediation after the first two mediators left the process. Critics of Ludwigs2 should recognize that the choice we faced was not between Ludwigs2 and some hypothetical perfect mediator but between Ludwigs2 and nothing. We all owe him our thanks.

Progress on Race and Intelligence continues to be possible

True progress on Race and Intelligence and related articles seems to require a different editing procedure. Consider three concrete examples of such progress: the History section (here and here), the Debate Assumptions section (here and here) and the Lead here. All these cases resulted in significant improvements to the article and featured widespread consensus among editors of very different viewpoints. Common factors: 1) Drafting was done on the Talk page, not in the article itself. Only after the section was complete was it moved into article space. 2) Drafting occurred over many days, allowing all editors time to register their opinions. 3) Comments from all were repeatedly solicited and incorporated. 4) The entire section was edited at once, thus allowing compromise over what to include, what to exclude and the relative proportions devoted to different material. Standard editing procedures have produced seemingly endless conflict and edit wars at this article for years. I think that this new procedure --- which I call multi-day section-editing --- should be required going forward.

Guidance is needed on applying WP:BLP to contentious claims made about living persons

I suspect that many complaints about my behavior will center around recent disputes about material related to Arthur Jensen. The original debate is here. Several similar debates have followed, summarized here. Throughout, my behavior has been guided by my understanding of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons 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." The critical question, obviously, is just what "poorly sourced" means in this context. If a reliable source reports that person X says that Arthur Jensen wrote Extreme Claim A, do we just report that fact? Or should we demand to see evidence from Jensen's actual writings that he did, in fact, make Extreme Claim A? I would appreciate guidance from Arb Com on this situation. I argue that my interpretation has been made in good faith and, as evidence, cite the fact that uninvolved editors like Jimbo Wales, Off2riorob, and Rvcx were supportive of my position. (They may have changed their minds since then. See the full discussion for context.) Whether or not my deletions were right or wrong, it would be helpful if Arb Con were to provide guidance on this topic so that the policy is more clear going forward.

A list of sources that would allow for a thorough article to be written

Here is a list of sources that, alone, would allow us to write a thorough and complete article on Race and Intelligence. Restricting the article to these sources is not the Wikipedia way, but the standard approaches have failed for this article for years. Why not try something different?

• Ian J. Deary (2001), Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192893211
• James R. Flynn (2008), Where Have All the Liberals Gone?: Race, Class, and Ideals in America, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521494311
• Loehlin, John C.; Lindzey, Gardner; Spuhler, J.N. (1975), Race Differences in Intelligence, W H Freeman & Co, ISBN 0716707535
• John Loehlin (1982), Robert Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Human Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, p. 176-193, ISBN 0521296870
• Mackintosh, N.J. (1998), IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, ISBN 019852367X
• Earl Hunt and Jerry Carlson (2007), "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence", Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 (2): 194–213, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00037.x
• Nisbett, Richard (2009), Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393065057
• Neisser, Ulrich; et al. (1996), "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns" (PDF), American Psychologist, 51: 77–101 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Kenneth K. Kidd (2005), "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics" (PDF), American Psychologist, 60 (1): 46–59, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.46, PMID 15641921 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Special issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law:
  • Rushton, J. P.; Jensen, A. R. (2005), "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11: 235–294
  • Robert J. Sternberg (2005), "There are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005)" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 295–301, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.295 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Richard Nisbett (2005), "Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005)" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 302–310, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.302 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Linda Gottfredson (2005), "What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 311–319, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.311 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson (2005), "The cultural malleability of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic hierarchy" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 320–327, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.320 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen (2005), "WANTED: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy" (PDF), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (2): 328–336, doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.328 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Do any of these sources not belong? Are there other sources that are must additions?

Submitting evidence

I noticed your edit summary - no, evidence doesn't have to be submitted in one piece. It does need to stay under the word limit and avoid personalizing things, but you're welcome to work on it as you have time. As things get started, usually the drafting arbiter will give a timeline or let people know when a proposed decision is in the works so that they can be certain to have their evidence together by that time. Hope that helps. Shell ^babelfish 18:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Traveling

I am on the road and will only have intermittent access until June 27. David.Kane (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassador at Harvard

Hi David, thanks for your interest in the Wikipedia Campus Ambassador role. More details about this role can be found at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador. Here is also a little bit more information; in a nutshell:

The Campus Ambassadors are crucial components of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative. Volunteers in this position will be in charge of training and supporting the participating professors and students on Wikipedia-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add references, how to add images, etc. Campus Ambassadors will also help recruit other people on campus to contribute to Wikipedia articles, for example by setting up Wikipedia-related student groups and by organizing "Welcome to Wikipedia" social events. In general they will become known as Wikipedia experts on the university campus (in your case, on the Harvard University campus). The estimated time commitment for this role is 3 to 5 hours a week, possibly slightly more at the very beginning and very end of the semester. The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.

If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador at Harvard University, I would like to send you the application form. What email address can I send this to? (Feel free to email me this info if you prefer: alin@wikimedia.org).

Thanks. I look forward to hearing back from you soon!

Annie Lin, Campus Team Coordinator
Alin (Public Policy) (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why less is not more

Do not feel beset over the suggestion that limiting sources for R&I, at least as a trial, has not received a vote of confidence. I believe the solution lies in appropriate representation of viewpoints as described in scholarship such as Hunt's and Carlson's—which is different from "embattled hereditarians versus embattled environmentalists." R&I is not a replay of the Hatfields and McCoys. More sources will provide the means to inject current scholarship while making for less whipping of authors for works published decades ago (while still accounting for their impact) and, most of all, telling a far richer account of the R&I subject matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji considers you an agenda account (I think).

I suspect that WeijiBaikeBianji's last comment here is intended to be directed mostly at you, since you're the only editor who's recently removed a significant amount of content from the race and intelligence article. I thought I should point this comment out to you, in case you want to reply to it.

I notice from Cool Hand Luke’s comment here that he considers the presence of agenda accounts to be the primary problem with this article, so whether you or I get lumped into that category may be a matter of more than just whether we have a derogatory-sounding moniker attached to us. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Race and intelligence. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't try to generate a mini army, via canvassing off-wikipedia, to gain ownership and control of the point of view of article content on wikipedia. It appears that you have been canvassing off-wikipedia to draw like minded editors to backup your point of view and win content disputes. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. The concensus at Admin Noticeboard is that your allegations of outing and requests for administrative action against an opponent in a content dispute were without any merit. Please try to be more cautious when making allegations and requesting admin action against other editors. Assuming good faith, when dealing with your fellow wikipedians will make yours and everyone elses edit experiences on wikipedia much more pleasant and productive. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs for disruptive editing

This editing is the behavior currently under arbitration, which you appear to have felt free to continue without regard to what the pending Arbcom case ruling will likely say and without regard to existing Wikipedia policy.

As you are continuing behaviour which you have been repeatedly told by multiple persons is inappropriate, I have blocked you for 24 hrs.

It is unusual that any party in an Arbcom case is blocked for conduct during the case. However, that is because the vast majority of those who are involved in such cases cease most or all controversial behaviors during the duration of the case. There is naturally much higher scrutiny of everyone's actions during such periods. Please be advised that disengaging from content edits related to the disputes here would be a wise choice going forwards, until the decision is finalized. You appear not to be able to edit in the topic area without engaging in controversial edits, so simply avoiding it is a much safer approach.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: How to contact admin

I'm not an Admin. Since you are now blocked, the fastest way to contanct one is to just ask to be unblocked and then an Admin will contact you. If you visit the talk page of an Admin (or any editor for that matter), you'll see on the right hand side of your screen in the toolbax the "email this user" feature if the editor as enabled email. You can then communicate your request privately to the Admin. Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, darn it. Forgot to put this on when I blocked. The instructions for an unblock request are in the block template. My apologies for not including the block template at block time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

{{unblock|Although this block will soon expire, I would still like to appeal it because I believe that it is "not necessary to prevent damage or disruption". I will voluntarily avoid editing Race (classification of humans) (the location of the edits that Georgewilliamherbert objected to) for the duration of the original block, but being blocked entirely prevents me from participating in a current Arb Com case. Although various editors have complained about my edits elsewhere, no one has (I believe) accused me of disrupting those proceedings.}}

Thanks! David.Kane (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tivedshambo said he was unblocking me but the unblock does not seem to have worked

{{unblock|User:Tivedshambo said he was unblocking me but the unblock does not seem to have worked. Could someone check to be sure that I am unblocked?}} David.Kane (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, there was an Autoblock that I've cleared now. Please try again if you can edit now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Now working. David.Kane (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I forgot to check for autoblocks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-blocked

I have blocked you for a further 24 hours. As I stated above, I made it a condition of unblocking you that you did not edit Race (classification of humans), or any related pages, for the duration of the original block. However, you immediately edited Race, Evolution, and Behavior. As before, you can use {{unblock}} to appeal. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

{{[[Template:I would like to appeal this reblock. This resulted from a good faith misunderstanding on my part. Instead of reading Tivedshambo's unblock statement closely, I skimmed it. (This is, obviously, my fault. But, in mitigation, I will note that my main focus was on figuring out how I could still be blocked when Tivedshambo claimed that I had been unblocked. Surely, I should not be punished for his mistake?) My initial appeal stated clearly that "I will voluntarily avoid editing Race (classification of humans) (the location of the edits that Georgewilliamherbert objected to) for the duration of the original block . . . " As soon as I read Tivedshambo's statement: "This is on the proviso as you stated, that you do not edit Race (classification of humans)," I assumed that I was good to go, as long as I did not touch that article. That was, after all, the proviso I stated. Of course, I should have immediately noted that Tivedshambo was insisting on a proviso much more extensive than the one that I had "stated." But I did miss that. Moreover, even if I had looked closely at that, it would not have occurred to me a book entry like Race, Evolution, and Behavior (which I have had almost no involvement in) is actually a "related" page. (No one at the Arb Com case has, for example, suggested that an article like Race, Evolution, and Behavior is part of the Race and intelligence nexus of articles.

But the more important point, I think, is not this wikilawyering on my part. Look at the actual edits I made in Race, Evolution, and Behavior. They are as innocuous as can be. Indeed, they are exactly the sort of editing that these articles need more of. Is this the sort of editing that Wikipedia admins seek to punish?

Summary: This block "is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption." None of these edits has been damaging. None have been disruptive. The only purpose of this block seems to be punishment for a good faith mistake on my part.|I would like to appeal this reblock. This resulted from a good faith misunderstanding on my part. Instead of reading Tivedshambo's unblock statement closely, I skimmed it. (This is, obviously, my fault. But, in mitigation, I will note that my main focus was on figuring out how I could still be blocked when Tivedshambo claimed that I had been unblocked. Surely, I should not be punished for his mistake?) My initial appeal stated clearly that "I will voluntarily avoid editing Race (classification of humans) (the location of the edits that Georgewilliamherbert objected to) for the duration of the original block . . . " As soon as I read Tivedshambo's statement: "This is on the proviso as you stated, that you do not edit Race (classification of humans)," I assumed that I was good to go, as long as I did not touch that article. That was, after all, the proviso I stated. Of course, I should have immediately noted that Tivedshambo was insisting on a proviso much more extensive than the one that I had "stated." But I did miss that. Moreover, even if I had looked closely at that, it would not have occurred to me a book entry like Race, Evolution, and Behavior (which I have had almost no involvement in) is actually a "related" page. (No one at the Arb Com case has, for example, suggested that an article like Race, Evolution, and Behavior is part of the Race and intelligence nexus of articles.

But the more important point, I think, is not this wikilawyering on my part. Look at the actual edits I made in Race, Evolution, and Behavior. They are as innocuous as can be. Indeed, they are exactly the sort of editing that these articles need more of. Is this the sort of editing that Wikipedia admins seek to punish?

Summary: This block "is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption." None of these edits has been damaging. None have been disruptive. The only purpose of this block seems to be punishment for a good faith mistake on my part.]]}}

Note to reviewing administrators

For my part, I'm inclined to assume good faith here. I admit to making a couple of mistakes: Firstly I didn't check for autoblocks, and secondly, a comment I meant to leave for David ended up on the wrong page (due to my having too many windows open at once). And maybe I should have made the conditions clearer. However, I'll leave the unblock request up for second opinion. Feel free to revert the block if you feel it's justified. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. And, Tivedshambo, no worries. I realize that blocking vandals and other miscreants is a thankless task and that being blocked from Wikipedia for 24 hours is hardly going to kill me. But, at the same time, I hope that blocking admins will take special care before blocking established editors. David.Kane (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My block is over

I am making a good faith assumption that my blocked time is over since the original 24 hours has expired. I realize that the above reblock and unblock make this a somewhat difficult story to follow, but if anyone (or at least any admin likely to get angry) thinks that I am currently blocked anywhere, please tell me here. David.Kane (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Race (classification of humans)

I would like your input on Talk:Race (classification of humans)#Recent edits ([1]). Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Provided. Thanks for asking. David.Kane (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Anticipating ArbCom rulings

Hi. Wikid77 here. At this point, there is little anyone can do to change the outcome. People have warned me to accept admin actions: be contrite, rather than demand justice; and apologize if they misunderstood, and promise to avoid conflicts in the future. I think, currently, most ArbCom events tend to topic-ban all people who could not reach consensus by themselves: it is typical for both sides of an argument to receive a 6-month topic-ban (or 3 months?), even for innocent people wikihounded or baited by troublesome users. Think of ArbCom by this false exaggeration: "If you couldn't reach consensus with devious troublemakers, then you are guilty of bothering us with facts about some topic we don't want to know" (false, but reveals the attitude). For most people, there is pressure to quickly decide a case, and move on to the next case (groan) they don't really want to handle.

Unfortunately, contrary to the content-focusd advice given to editors ("focus on content not contributors"), some ArbCom decisions tend to do the opposite: they hunt to ban contributors making slight accusations, and ignore "content" issues which require thinking about a topic. This gives the appearance of being the biggest "wiki-hipocrits" in the history of wikidom, but those people are just following procedure, not choosing to do the opposite action. Also, always think of how such people will react when being bothered by problems in your life. Most people really do not care, all that much. Stay away from troublemakers: there is little chance of getting a fair judgment. At this point, the term "wiki-justice" seems to be a myth.

Now consider the future: if you can avoid troublemakers, then you can edit, or expand, dozens of articles about some other particular topic, but once you are confronted by WP:wikihounding, it is a good time to switch subjects. Be happy to edit in hundreds of other topics, until you confront troublemakers in one of those topics, as well. In the long-term future, there are proposals to run ArbCom events which actually look at the contents of articles, decide NPOV balance, and set rules for how much can be said in each type of article, without actually banning anyone until they violate those new article-editing rules. Some people claim such events have happened, in limited ArbCom cases. However, currently, most ArbCom decisions seem to focus on restricting the people, rather than expanding articles in acceptable ways. I think of these years as the "Dark Ages of Wikipedia" where the focus was on blocking, threatening, or ostracizing editors with strong opinions, rather than a focus on setting plans for how people could work together on such articles, editing in acceptable ways. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these words of wisdom. Much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is not a reflection on your character or integrity, it is only an imperfect assessment of a situation and, unfortunately, a system which picks the "most guilty" explanation of anyone's behavior, protestations of assuming good faith (which I have no reason not to consider genuine) to the contrary. As far as I can tell, nothing I said at my own arbitration counted for a hill of beans. That is simply how the system works. I've chosen to sit out my 1 year topic ban by finding another subject of long-standing interest. Objectively, the "situation" is no better or worse at "Race and intelligence" and related than any other WP conflict I've witnessed. In some ways (being attacked just for showing up), it's worse, leading to the circumstance you find yourself in. There is life after topic bans and blocks; use the time to purge yourself of the toxicity. It's only when you're forcibly removed from a situation that you see how bad it was. The feeling of being wronged that you undoubtedly feel now will never improve; however, you will find yourself eventually thankful for the restoration of balance which could not have occurred otherwise. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane, I agree with the above. It is easy to overlook all the time wasted by trying to fight other people, in limited areas. Instead, focus on the tangent subjects: if the trouble centered on the races, then step-away 1 level to racially limited places: Utah cities mostly white, Mississippi cities mostly black, or Japan mostly Asian. Then step another direction: "Dawn of man" around Africa's Great Rift Valley, such as hominids, Australopithecus africanus, with genetic traits of the fovea or occipital condyles, or hoax Piltdown Man. If avoiding human genetics, perhaps focus on the Great apes (with Orangutan), or monkeys, such as Colobus or Rhesus monkey (source of bloodwork Rh factor). If you want to avoid animal genetics, then perhaps focus on botany, such as Gregor Mendel's work mixing genetic traits of plants, or mutations with cdiff disease, etc. Some people shift to 10 articles about their hobbies, or the colleges their friends/brother attended, or favorite cars they liked, or just click Special:Random article 15 times to find an interesting one. Once you focus on a broader scope, you might even wish you had changed subjects months earlier. Then, remember: people are trying to change policies so that, years in the future, disputes will be resolved by setting rules for how people can balance opposite opinions in articles, rather than how to ban the people with particular viewpoints. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА and Wikid77 for this advice. David.Kane (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

DC and contributions

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate in the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team (WP:CONTRIB for short)! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to WikiProject outreach, article improvement, donor relations, and more—in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks—whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you.

If this sounds interesting, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the team talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 02:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm also a local DC Wikimedian. We'd love for you to attend the next DC meetups. I'm specifically contacting you as you expressed interest in the Campus Ambassador position, and both the DC Wikimedians group and the Wikipedia Contributions Team have a lot of interest in working along with the Campus Ambassadors. You can reach me on my talk page, or by email at drosenthal@wikimedia.org with questions; I can't guarantee that I'll be checking back on your talk page often enough to hold a sustained conversation there. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 02:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gaudino.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gaudino.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Result of a request at WP:AE where your name was mentioned

Hello Ephery. Please see this closure of a request for enforcement of the Race and intelligence Arbcom decision. Though your name was mentioned, no action regarding you was taken. Your existing topic ban from R&I remains unchanged. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)