User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji

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 6,877,676 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. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit)

Accusation of disruption

I suggest you substantiate or strike it. mikemikev (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you cease posting to this user talk page, and take it up with the usual Wikipedia dispute resolution channels if you want a reality check on your behavior. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

? As you know I just reported it at Arbcom. I fail to see how 'my behaviour' has anything to do with it. I will continue to post here as your behaviour necessitates, but will quit the well meaning attempt to inform you as you please. mikemikev (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess now we can all see what the Arbitration Committee decided about the matter and how that worked out for you. There is no doubt that civil, collaborative editing and referring to quality sources is very important. I'm glad that the dispute-resolution procedures on Wikipedia emphasize those principles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to keep an eye on this to get a reality check on things here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking at what administrators and other experienced editors have to say.requested enforcement closed with no sanction -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Invitation

There are currently 2,901 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Who likes to read and understand sources?

Here's a general question for anyone who happens to watch my talk page: do you like to read and to think deeply about reliable sources on some difficult subject? If so, I'd love to discuss with you what some of your favorite sources are. What makes those sources good-quality sources? What Wikipedia articles do you edit on the basis of those sources. A rather odd experience I have on Wikipedia is asking people for suggestions of sources frequently, but only occasionally hearing such suggestions. I'm sure that there must be Wikipedians who cherish learning about and using good sources, so I'd like to hear more about that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just been looking at goals announced in the Wikimedia strategic planning process. It occurs to me that improving content quality will have to involve finding and using better sources for most Wikimedia projects, so again I will ask who likes to look up good sources. Let's discuss how we can use better sourcing to build better content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I should follow up on this question now that new editors are visiting this page. What are some of the best sources you have found for articles you edit on Wikipedia? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PPI Assessment Follow-up

Hi WeijiBaikeBianji, recently you signed up to help with assessment on Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. It's a lot to digest, and totally understandable if it's not what signed up for. However, there are also some exciting perks to this project: 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating, and 5) other interesting benefits you will find with participation.

The first group of articles requesting your assessment has been posted. I was hoping to do a preliminary comparison of the data on 8 October 2010. The second assessment request, which is part of the same comparison, will go out about the same time. To help with organization, if you haven't posted any assessment scores on your assessment page by 8 October 2010, I will delete your assessment request and you will not receive further requests. I hope the unusualness of this assessment research does not discourage your participation; if you are not interested working in the research I hope you will continue to assess articles within the project. If possible let me know on my talk page if you don't wish to be a part of the research, or perhaps if there was some confusion or bad communication; what the public policy team, and I, in particular, can do to make it more positive for volunteers. Remember, I am new to Wikipedia and trying to learn the best way to research this project, to hopefully integrate the amazing resource that is Wikipedia onto more university campuses and classrooms. Thanks, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify October 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, you have been sent this notification because your name appears on the list of participants for the WikiProject Wikify October 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive yet you have not had any wikified articles.

Regards,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 05:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

WP:USPP, still interested?

WeijiBaikeBianji, you signed up to assess with WP:USPP. If you are interested in public policy or assessment, check out your assessment page, because there is a lot happening on the project. Most of the recruitment for the assessment team was targeted, so I know you have a lot to offer to the research goals of this project. I posted the second assessment request and there will now be a weekly update on the project assessment page. If you are no longer interested in working on this project, I promise this is the last message you will get, but I hope you decide to check it out. Regards, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Audiology Online

Why is audiology online an unreliable source. And why is Jack Katz an unreliable source. This is ASHA based dolfrog (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you very much for the compliment. I'd be glad to see and discuss whatever sources you come up with. Thanks again! Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

November copy edit drive

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Meetup

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 31 October 2010
	Time: noon
	Place: Midtown Exchange Global Market, East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 44.9493°N 93.2612°W / 44.9493; -93.2612

Cool. R.S.V.P. on the announcement page. This will be my first meet-up. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

A thread concerning your involvement in the race and intelligence dispute has been started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

All is well that ends well.[1] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple intelligences

Psychometricians have always regarded Gardner's "theory" as absurd, because it contradicts what is, to quote Ian Deary, "perhaps the most replicated result in psychology", namely g. The Visser et al. study is one of several that have directly disproved Gardner's nonsense. I would ask you to provide a source for your claim that Visser's results are contrary to those of other studies, but I know you would not and could not do it anyway, so I won't.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is something out there that we would all recognize as a secondary source on the same issue, I would welcome its inclusion in the article. (I rather suspect that are multiple authors who have written such a thing.) That could include something as simple as a secondary source author being convinced by the same primary source recently cited in the article. In general, this is the direction I see Wikipedia moving in: more use of mainstream secondary sources, and less attempt to be an abstract of recent primary research findings. That's what makes an encyclopedia an encyclopedia, and that is all that the tag was about, just Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, but my criticism was of your false claim that there are studies that contradict the results of Visser et al.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I really have seen reports (but they may refer to study results that haven't been replicated, and I don't have these citations at hand) that suggest that what Gardner would call "bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" and "musical intelligence" have very weak correlations with g. (If I remember correctly, some of those study results go back before Gardner's first publication on his hypothesis.) If a lot of researchers have studied this issue within Gardner's framework, relating their results to the usual approach for finding a general ability factor, there may be a lot of literature that establishes the statement now in article text (you see I didn't revert that) or perhaps some disagreement in the literature because researchers aren't agreeing on their procedures. The thing to do would be to look at the current secondary literature (which I am looking at for other issues, by your earlier request) to see what it says. Have a good evening. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten that Visser et al. tested "bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" as well (the Wiki article says that "_most_ of [Gardner's intelligences] are heavily dependent on the general factor of intelligence"). I would think it does not always load on g for the simple reason that it is not a mental ability. Musical ability seems to always have a small but significant g loading. Anyway, I came across this suggestion for extending Gardner's arsenal of intelligences that I liked: "Another talent that needs to be explored is the special ability of some people to convince others that certain ideas have merit, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. It's about time that we recognize the special intelligence involved in becoming a successful con artist.";)--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom request for clarification

Please take note of WP:RFAR#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I. Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have replied at the request for clarification. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Wikify

A message from WikiProject Wikify! Thanks for participating in the October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive! We made significant progress, wikifying hundreds of articles. However, the backlog still needs a large amount of effort--discussions about the next drive (in December) are underway. Until then, happy editing!  Ⓢock  00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for next Minnesota meetup?

Hi, Ben, do you have any suggestions for a next date or place for a Minnesota meetup? I was disappointed to miss last Sunday's meetup once a work meeting coincided with the time announced for the meetup. I would be happy to arrange a meetup soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We were sorry to miss you. An out state meetup was has been suggested. Myself and probably several of the others would drive to an out state meetup if we were available to do so but this only makes sense if there are enough local people to make driving some distance worthwhile. This probably means somewhere like Duluth or maybe Rochester. I think the first step would be to survey interest from people in those areas (maybe check the edit logs for pages for those cities or nearby locations) and see if they have any ideas. As far as timing goes I think it's probably best to wait a while, at least until after the new year when things slow down for people again. --BenFranske (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

/* Ethnicity and race */ linked race

Thanks for the heads up about the race link thing. I put the link in because when I went to the article, I went directly to that section (via the contents link) and thought it would be useful for people who do likewise (it was for me, as I promptly followed the link). I was unaware that its not supposed to be linked again in the new section. My apologies. Sxoa (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I completely understand why you wanted to add a wikilink. Sometimes I feel the same way. It's just that I think the manual of style here tries to get all of us editors to set up one wikilink for a key term early in an article (and I figured that article had already linked to that term) and then use the regular word without a link for the rest of the article. I hope I'll see you on other articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Society deletion from High IQ society (again)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to High IQ society. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

In this edit you deleted content and wikilinks, not "deleted link(s) to personal website" as you claimed, as if this deletion would then be justified under WP:ELNO. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What evidence does any editor have that that is anything other than one individual's personal website? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive

 Ⓢock  00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Source of Flynn effect

My dear WeijiBaikeBianji, I know it exists a long battle between Knol and Wikipedia but Knol is not necessary self edition. For example, most of my pieces under Knol are just electronic version of published paper like the one of Charles Jencks who was published into one of our national architecture Newspaper, A+ and the one on Flynn Effect is in fact the electronic version of a paper published under one of Mensa Newspaper, the ComMensal. I have no problem with this but better, sometimes to verifiy this is no just self-edition but electronic donation of a paper only available on paper ;-) Regards --Hcrepin (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Two examples, both are really published but I used the sending of my copy to editor to copy it on Knol: http://knol.google.com/k/introduction-à-charles-jencks : Source: A+ juin-juillet 1997 n°146 http://knol.google.com/k/la-problématique-sociale-de-l-évolution-intellectuelle-de-nos-sociétés : Publié dans: ComMensal n°8 pp9-12, Septembre 2009

Thank you for your reply. If I understand correctly what you are telling me (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding), perhaps the problem here is a copyright violation issue as well as a sourcing issue. A source is still a good source even if it is not free and not hosted on the Internet. On the other hand, Wikipedia has guidelines about reliable sources and a policy about linking to copyrighted works. My concern is simply to make sure all the policies and guidelines are followed here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How can I violate copyright when those one are mine? Simply those sources have no public access from Internet, that's the problem. Then, you mean, this is acceptable if those sources doesn't mention the knol copy?--Hcrepin (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Meetup

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: Saturday, 20 November 2010
	Time: 1:00 - 3:30 (click here for full agenda) R.S.V.P. by Nov. 17 for free lunch + parking
	Place: Minnesota History Center 345 Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, Minnesota 44.95°N 93.1055°W / 44.95; -93.1055

Thanks for the notice. I look forward to meeting the wikipedians at the meetup. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Human intelligence template removals

Hi - I'm very puzzled by your removal of the template from Creativity and Genius. I reverted the one to creativity, with my reasons explained on the talkpage. Looking at your user page I find you're involved in gifted children programmes - which makes me surprised that you're disputing the academic link between intelligence, genius and creativity. Are these removals based on some broader decision by the community, or is it your own opinion that they should be removed? If it's the latter, it seems awfully bold.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, VsevolodKrolikov, I'm glad you'd like to discuss this. What do the best sources you have at hand say about the relationship between human intelligence and creativity? One issue, which lingers from the decision in a recent Arbitration Committee case, is what is meant in English Wikipedia by the term "intelligence." The current article Intelligence has had a lot of good work put into it over the years, but it doesn't even begin to guide readers to the different ways that the term "intelligence" is used in the psychological literature. The professional literature I have at hand in my office suggests that the answer about how creativity relates to intelligence (or how genius relates to intelligence) depends crucially on the definition of each term. To answer your immediate question, all of those templates seem to have been put up in just a week or so after the template was created by a newly registered wikipedian. I have asked him what his rationale is for putting the template so prominently (top right) on so many articles (and why not other articles?) and thus far his response appears to be that he was being bold as he opened use of his user account here. I don't think consensus either for or against the template in any one place has been established. (Nor is there yet observable broad consensus on the design or layout of the template.) And that's fine. But I'd appreciate a little bit more discussion about what should be in the template and how it should be used, because of course articles can always be linked to other articles simply through wikilinks, which may be less visually dominating of the articles and more informative for readers besides. I see the Wikipedia Manual of Style leads off with a section follow the sources, so I will appreciate your suggestions of further sources as we discuss the articles you are watching. By the way, have you seen the book Sudden Genius? (Oxford University Press, 2010) yet? I haven't even had time to log it into my source list yet, as I recall, but I've begun reading it and find it an interesting review of the literature on genius. See you on the article talk pages. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Weiji, first of all, you simply must not undo reverts of your bold edits in the way you have done. You are fully aware that what you did was disputed. It reeks of POV warring to then reapply those edits. (See WP:BRD) Secondly, that several editors support the inclusion of the template shows that there is implicit consensus about its existence. If you want to talk about the template, talk about it without edit warring over it. Otherwise it just looks like you don't like it and don't care what others think. Finally, if there is dispute over the term "intelligence", Wikipedia should try to have as broad a classification as the good RS will support. Disputes over what is intelligence can be expressed within articles within that classification.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it seems that WeijiBaikeBianji has followed the letter of WP:BRD. An editor added the template and WeijiBaikeBianji removed it. Per WP:BRD, it should now be discussed and not re-added till there is consensus to do so. This is only meant as a BRD point and please do not consider it a comment on the appropriateness or not of the template. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of Flynn effect, Weiji re-removed the template, which is clearly not BRD, and what I was referring to (and the removal seems the strangest of all the ones he's done). Furthermore, if you look at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Human_Intelligence_Template, you'll see how it's pretty clear that a consensus exists to support the template - a consensus of which Weiji is aware. He should discuss before removal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the talk page of R&I (I had not seen that). My comment was directed at the Creativity article where you restored the template (which is against the spirit of WP:BRD). I have no comment on the usefulness of the template but do note that the discussion on R&I is a day old and that discussions on that topic are contentious. Personally, I would wait longer before determining that there is consensus to add the template and would be wary of extending the discussion to other articles without an explicit discussion on individual talk pages. I also looked at Flynn Effect and the situation is similar there. The template was added by the editor who added it at Creativity, reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji, re-added by another user (it should have been discussed instead) and then you and WeijiBaikeBianji engaged in a mini edit-war on the template (not a good idea). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The template was added over a month ago, and the article has been busy since then. Characterising its removal as a revert is stretching things a little (is there no statute of limitations on inclusions?). Weiji has been in disputes about that template before. He was aware of the discussion on Race and intelligence, and did not choose to self-revert. In short - he knows that removing the template from various articles is controversial and does not have the support of editors. That the discussion is a day old is misleading - it was the continuation of other editors disagreeing with the removal. His reasoning also appears to be against policy, insofar as he wants a particular POV definition of the topic (aka the "truth") to operate. If the discussion on R&I turns round to support the removal, I'll be happy to apologise, but looking at the arguments I don't think I was particularly premature in saying that consensus was, and is, against his blanket removals.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no opinion on the template itself. If the consensus is to keep it, that's fine. It the decision is that it isn't appropriate, that's fine. I couldn't find a prior discussion on the inclusion/removal of the template at the R&I talk page (or at any of the pages from which it was removed by this editor). And, prima facie the reasons given for removal were not unreasonable so asking for a discussion is not unreasonable either. There is no hurry and well discussed consensus decisions stick better than hasty undiscussed one.--RegentsPark (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This does appear to be spread across several pages. There's the discussion at Template_talk:Human_intelligence which isn't very detailed, but the final section would indicate more than one other editor supported the template, which for me would undercut any attempt to be bold about things. Discussion is of course important in such matters. It's worth noting that Weiji did not continue the discussion there, but preferred to plough ahead with removal. The blanket removal of the template from several articles, with edit summaries questioning not the template, but content issues (the connection between the article topic and intelligence) suggest to me that this is about more than the procedural propriety of the template's inclusion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that discussion. Note that the discussion was initiated by WeijiBaikeBianji as is proper. The only other editors involved are the two editors who added the template so it doesn't indicate anything about consensus. Templates, in particular, should be well discussed before being added to articles. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on - I didn't say that the template talk discussion showed consensus. Rather, Weiji did not respond to the substantive arguments made there after he had invited them, indicating that he had not tried to follow through on discussion, as would have been proper. To ask for discussion when one has not taken up the chance in the most appropriate forum is, well, not the best way of going about things. Regarding consensus, my contention is that consensus formed when he tried to remove the templates subsequently, and that he hasn't done the best of jobs responding to that body of opinion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) I don't want this to be a protracted discussion - I'm just pointing out that this editor has followed the letter of BRD. But, I am curious about your comment about not responding to 'substantive arguments' at Template_talk:Human_intelligence. I see no substantive arguments. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The questions put were "What is the purpose of this template? What is the source for its structure?". The substantive answer was a template about intelligence articles will help reader interested in intelligence to navigate. That is why Wikipedia have [sic] templates for similar articles. (This doesn't answer the second question, but that second question, as I have stated before, is based on a misunderstanding that wikipedia chooses between combatants in academic fights. Subject templates should be neutral.) It seems like a reasonable enough argument. Useability is a consideration in wikipedia. Weiji did not respond to this point. In fact, Weiji has never made any argument against this template that I have seen. He's just removed it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess interpretations of substantiveness differ. To me that seems a tautology while what would be more useful would be why the template should exist at all, why it should be included in the set of articles where it was included, is the set of included articles reasonable, why is 'human' necessary, etc. These are the procedural questions that I would expect to be answered (and I know little, if anything, about the subject matter). The way I see all this, someone boldly added the template, WeijiBaikeBianji reverted it, and you attacked him using BRD as your explanation. But, as I've said above, the Bold part was the initial inclusion of the template and the reversion was WeijiBaikeBianji's removal. Once removed, BRD says that the issue should be discussed and WeijiBaikeBianji attempted to discuss it but, as far as i can see, didn't receive a substantive reason for further inclusion. Whatever the benefits of using that particular template, lambasting him or her with you simply must not undo reverts of your bold edits in the way you have done. You are fully aware that what you did was disputed is simply not correct. From a pure BRD perspective, you should not have reverted WeijiBaikeBianji's reversion and, like I've said before, in controversial areas it is always better to discuss first and include later, especially when, as you say, that addition is disputed. (I'll let you have the last word because, obviously, we don't agree on this.) --RegentsPark (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you discussing this while I was at work. Really, truly, I'm not saying my mind is made up about whether or not to have some navigation template on some set of articles. Maybe that's a good idea. Because top templates (as contrasted with bottom templates) are very visually dominating of a page, I would expect them to be developed by consensus. Because the template links to several articles that are currently under active arbitration sanctions (and, similarly, some of the articles to which the template has been transcluded are under those sanctions), it seems to me that we editors may as well take special care to refer to sources and to discuss together before assuming that the placement of the template anywere, or its current configuration, enjoys consensus. I would like to forge consensus based on core Wikipedia policies and on the best available sources, and for that discussion is necessary. See all of you on the appropriate article talk pages. Feel free to suggest sources meanwhile. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that there is dispute over the status of what you did, I've struck my comments about BRD. I've no interest in ratcheting things up. What I think you've done is not be simple and clear in what you want - which is to contest the template. If you had put something to the effect of "template contested" as an edit summary across all removals, rather than individual article reasons that were inconsistent with each other (the removal at the Flynn effect look very odd when put alongside your reasons for deleting at Creativity and at Neuroscience and intelligence), it would have been much clearer. I agree that there hasn't been a great deal of debate about the template, although I maintain that several other editors over the past month preferring that the template in general remains indicates a consensus. Consensus does not always (in fact, probably rarely) happen through formal procedures of approval. It's usually only when a dispute arises that cannot be informally resolved that procedures are resorted to. As you are not sure even if you oppose the template, the dispute is unclear. You don't appear to have raised any objections in line with the basic principles of wikipedia. To operate the template on a particular definition of intelligence is, in this subject area, not neutral, as there is no consensus. Anyway, I'll make more substantive comments about the template on the Race and intelligence page. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Psychiatric help, re: Human intelligence template, ritualistic repetitions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Human_intelligence&action=history

Do you need help? Woodsrock (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks. Do you? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. Woodsrock (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (WeijiBaikeBianji)

Hello, WeijiBaikeBianji. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WeijiBaikeBianji, where you may want to participate. SightWatcher (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC) .

WP:AE

FYI Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Captain Occam Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)