User talk:Memills

Welcome!

Hello, Memills, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

new best friends?

Dr. Mills, you know evolutionary psychology very well. I'm excited at the idea of having an actual expert on hand, though I doubt that editing WP is worth a lot of your time. As for me, I am well-read in ev psych and am a committed fan. You and I have crossed swords on the EP article, and that's OK. The big picture is that we are natural allies. I'm a good writer, and I know WP editing policies really well. I've edited contentious religious pages for years, and I know how to work with POV editors. Wherever you go on WP, you're going to face opponents who will think up any reason they can to stymie accurate reporting about EP. If I'm there editing with you, I can help you get the articles in shape.

As for the disagreement we are currently having over treatment of the controversy, anything detailed on the "controversy" page is summarized on the main page, and the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the whole topic. I know you're fighting for accuracy, but on WP it's against policy to use a "criticisms" page as a way to keep material off the main page. I agree that the hypothesis thing is whack, but it's the only well-sourced criticism we have right now. Provide us with a good source for what the more important criticisms are, and we can use those, too. I'd ask that you see if you can't extend me a little trust, like one good adult male primate forming an important political alliance with another, and see where we get. Leadwind (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Dr. Mills, I appreciate the work you are doing with sourcing the article on Evolutionary Psychology. If you provide page numbers for your citations it will be easier for readers (and for me) to verify that the citations support what they claim to support. I think if we keep focusing on adding sources and support claims by specifying who in particular holds which views we can come a long way towards improving the article in a neutral manner without too many disputes. Thanks, again.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

priniciples of EP

I hope you agree that the merged list of principles will be easier for a reader to comprehend than the two lists were. And thanks for your edits. While I'm trying to make the article read better (so readers can get more out of it), I do need an expert like you looking over my shoulder to make sure I get it right.

Now here's a crazy question... You wouldn't happen to have an EP textbook just lying around that no one wants, would you? When my late wife was a professor, she could sometimes score me some good books. Anyway, if I had an EP textbook, even one that's a little out of date, I could sure go to town on the EP page and on related pages. I've already spent a good deal on Dennett, Pinker, Wright, & Nicholas Wade (my new favorite EP author), but textbooks are pricey. I fully expect a No, but on the off chance... Leadwind (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on evolutionary psychology

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring discussion

You are a topic for discussion here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Evolutionary psychology. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  06:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Memills (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked for the following reasons:

• The conflict among editors involved in the dispute had already come to a compromise to work together on the Talk page. See the bottom of this Talk page [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Section_on_Abnormal_Psychology section.
• I had a misunderstanding of the 3RR rule, which I understanding now (specifically, the 24 hour rule).
• At the top of the same section, I brought the issue to the Talk page, and noted that we were close to violating the 3RR
• I was reverting deletions primarily made by user LogicPrevails. That user made 7 reversions in this same time period, also violating the 3RR, but was only given a warning.

Thanks for your consideration. Memills (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Let me address the points one at a time:

• We achieve consensus BEFORE edit-warring. 6 or 8 reverts is ridiculous
• The WP:EW and WP:3RR rules are clear and you were advised of them - in fact, you don't have to break 3 reverts in 24 hours to get blocked for edit-warring. 6 is just plain block.
• You are responsible for YOUR 3RR violation, so you clearly DID understand the rules
• WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

accidental deletion

From looking at this diff, [1] you have accidentally deleted Maunus's comment. I think you'd best fix this yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I have posted an ANI report about an issue in which you have been involved.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This might be of interest to you

Wikipedia:RFAR#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Pseudoscience. Please do not try to litigate the Evolutionary Psyclogy issue there, or even others' conduct. The only purpose of that amendment request is to allow WP:AE threads to be started in similar circumstances, where uninvolved administrators can examine the matter, instead of the free-for-all, ad nauseam discussion that ANI usually becomes. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)