User talk:Publius Obsequium

Publius Obsequium, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Publius Obsequium! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are your favorite sources?

Hi, Publius Obsequium,

I see you've just begun editing several articles on my watchlist. Welcome aboard. As usual, most of the 6,847,136 articles on Wikipedia still need a lot of improvement, so I'm wondering what sources you would particularly recommend reading for fixing the articles that you follow. I have a set of source lists linked on my user page, and I'm always happy to hear suggestions of reliable secondary sources on the topics I follow. Perhaps you will find some of the sources listed in my source lists helpful as you look over Wikipedia articles. Definitely I'd be glad to hear your opinions on new sources to add to the lists. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk on the relevant article talk page about some of your latest edits

Hi, Publius Obsequium,

Since I see you're still new here, I thought I should mention that the Wikipedian guideline on reliable sources reminds all of us editors to prefer authoritative secondary sources rather than keyword-searching primary sources when editing Wikipedia articles. We can discuss each recent edit on the appropriate article talk page. See you there. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 02:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=6ybvGHdBVVUDi1D_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_8030X3IBTgtZroN&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Hello, I'm Marteau. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Starbucks, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Marteau (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

In this edit, you asserted that "stereotype threat is no longer considered a valid phenomenon in the field." Can you please substantiate that claim? I'm not necessarily challenging it; I'm neither a psychologist nor a psychometrician so I don't follow all the minute details and developments of testing and measurement theory and I'd like to know more about this topic. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elkevbo, this is due to the finding that stereotype threat is not replicable, and is likely due to publication bias! I can give you some sources for further reading if you'd like :) Publius Obsequium (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on SAT

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235378030_An_Examination_of_Stereotype_Threat_Effects_on_Girls'_Mathematics_Performance. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. I have also removed it from Stereotype threat, which is likely where you copied itr from.

In the future, when copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello, I'm Firefangledfeathers. I noticed that you recently removed content from Intelligence (journal)‎ without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Joseph of Cupertino shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please discuss suggested edits on Talk:Joseph_of_Cupertino, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I noticed some of your edits on another article. Could you please also look at the recent history of Nations and IQ? That article needs more attention, from more people than just me and Generalrelative. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]