User talk:Aprock

Welcome!

Hello, Aprock, 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! Bearian (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tulip Mania

this edit may be going to far. I agree with your other two but I think that it is important as a summary of the whole topic to note that the literature of the time was mainly pamphlets distributed by groups and individuals who were interested in convincing the reader that speculation was a moral evil. Mackay and others read that literature literally and it took some time to dig through it and attempt to get some kernel of truth from it. We aren't even done (from a research standpoint) and we may never be done. So I would say that it belongs in the lead. Just my 2 cents. Protonk (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics

Do you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics? We can always use more good editors, and editors who work towards presenting a neutral point of view WP:NPV. Hope to see you there. best, lk (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it referenced, but I'm not really all that experienced of an editor. And to be honest, much of my interest in Wikipedia is self education. As I read articles in that umbrella, I will try and help out where I can.

Palin and Congress and Bridge to Nowhere

I also saw someone took out the line on Congressional earmark and reversal. So I reverted old, consensus version and proceeded ahead after Edit conflict. Turns out you had put it in as well. I hope you don't mind I stuck in the old more detailed version (with source) instead of your briefer mention.GreekParadise (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your input on the triple-cite (quadruple, but one is there twice) sentence in Sarah Palin. I am sorry if I sounded testy, but I am a researcher by training, and looked on the Talk pages of some of the persons involved (I know that was sort of wrong). Some appear to be too careless about their Talk pages, I fear. Again -- thanks for your forbearance. Dave Collect (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That sentence was a nightmare. Looking at it now, the entire world seems to have piled on. I doubt the bridge issue will be stable till after the election. Aprock (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aprock, what happened here is Collect, in the middle of an edit war, accidentally deleted a sentence that had been unchanged for two weeks. (I know Collect does not think he accidentally did this but he did.) I actually think it's a good sentence because it condensed four accurate sources into one and as you know, WP:SYNTH only applies when quotes are taken out of context. I urge you to read the four sources, and if you can come up with a better sentence or two, I'd really like to see it. If you like, I can show you what it looked like two weeks ago with all of the quotes, before I condensed it. I'm more than willing to expand the sentence; it was only condensed by me to respond to criticism that it was too long. And if you have a suggestion, I'd like to see it (whether on main talk page or my personal talk page.)GreekParadise (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to get to heavy into this at this point, since we're months away from a final product, but my basic feeling is that that sentence doesn't read well. Aprock (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I also wanted to apologize here. I truly thought what I wrote was your name...I never thought twice...didn't dawn on me till the other editor, who has been in on the days long discussion about the bridge(s) and the title, etc., mentioned it. Also, I notice GreekParadise above. He has done extensive research and is committed to his edits regarding Bridges to Nowhere. He has been involved with this section for weeks and deserves to be heard. Thanks--Buster7 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I did see your original comment, and I had not planned on changing the title as the conversation had been taken up again. Aprock (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tulip mania a go go

Dear Aprock,

They finally put Tulip mania up on the "Today's Featured Article" schedule for tommorrow (almost today)! With today's (yesterday's) vote on the bailout plan and -777 on the DJIA, it looks like it's gone up on probably the most interesting day possible!

I've read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches on how to monitor changes in the article during the day. Will you join in on monitoring?

We'll see what happens. Frankly, I expect that there might be some problems with people calling today(y) a crash of unprecedented proportions, the sky is falling, and saying the article has an ostrich-like POV. Not to get too defensive, but there are a few "Crash crazies" out there. I worked a lot on an article that became known as January 2008 stock market volatility trying to convince people that the world had not ended on Martin Luther King's birthday. (See the 1st day's edits, the article then was known as Black Monday (2008)).

Well, it could be interesting. Any help appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I might be a couple of days late here, but I'll take a look at it today.Aprock (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Parable of the broken window has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Kingpin13 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "looks like OR with no explanation". Could you explain please? Ta - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't really, it just looks like removal of content with out discussion. But if it is OR, then it shouldn't be there, so thanks for removing it. Sorry for the hassle - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually when you get a blank revert like that I find that it is a lag problem.

At Parable of the broken window, I suspect the other editor was attempting to revert the same edit you were... but yours lagged in. The database servers are usually quick... but not always.sinneed (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AI

I meant no harm in removing the tags at the AI page. When can we wrap up the discussion, since it seems to have fizzled? That includes the neutrality & the merge issues. Lately the main concerns have been about extraneous things (sometimes soapboxing) and not the theory. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How long?

How long do you propose waiting for Ramdrake? David.Kane (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a deadline. If he says he's working on it, I assume he is. If you're in a hurry I suggest going to his talk page and asking him. Aprock (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

R & I

There was no consensus to make the change in the first place. There is consensus to revert. 7:3 at the last count. You read that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemikev (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

mainstream POV, or POV-pushing?

Would you mind responding to this: [1]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence

Sorry, I don't think I am going to participate. That article is a lost cause - A Sniper is protecting it as if his life depended on it. It is clearly neither notable or neutrally written and should be either merged or delete. But I have sufficient hours of my lifespan arguing about that already.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Best thing I've ever seen Maunus write. ;) A Sniper (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, it is not acceptable to me to let you own that article and remove improval tags without doing anything to improve the article - that would be an unjustice to wikipedia readers who deserve and expect to be informed about whether theories are accepted or rejected by the scholarly community.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I have filed a wikiquette alert[2] about the situation at Ashkenazi intelligence and an alert at the fringe theories noticeboard[3]. Apparently IU haven't spent enough hours of my life on this crap after all.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, what's up

If you're significantly dissatisfied with me as a mediator, mention it on the mediation page. I'm more than happy to step down if that's the case. if you really think it needs ANI attention, open a new thread. but sorry, that thread is just pure tendentious bullshit from Beyond My Ken, without any relevance to the mediation. don't confuse any valid issues you might have with his crapulence.

If you've got a more pertinent problem, let me know what it is. --Ludwigs2 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's bullshit, then someone else will take care of it. Any problem that I've had, I've brought up on the mediation page. A.Prock (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I wish you hadn't put me in the position of having to decide whether to take you to ANI myself for disruptive editing, as I said I would if someone unarchived it. If you agree with them, that's one thing, and I'd be willing to discuss that. but it pisses me off to see that kind of stupid, tendentious shit get support from otherwise reasonable editors. Frankly, I just don't feel like putting up with the libel, but you've boxed me into a corner where now I have to.

no worries, I'm going to let it pass, but in the future if you have an issue with me, please approach me directly about it. Don't feed the trolls for no good reason. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First, apologies for my bad temper. I just can't stand wiki-jerks, but that's got nothing to do with you, so I don't need to vent in your talk.

second, I left a note on the mediation page saying you could edit in the correct 'significance' thing, but I don't know if you saw it. just a heads up. --Ludwigs2 03:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Weekend + kids = slow moving edits. A.Prock (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

re: mainspace vs. subpage

As I said, I'd rather just keep going ahead with this in mainspace. it's easily remediable later if we choose, and not (to my mind) a huge issue. this is just another procedural monkey-wrench.

that being said, what is your objection to doing it in mainspace? I'm not certain I understand the objection. --Ludwigs2 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with mainspace is that it is quite easy to confuse a draft for a final revision. My concern is that is very likely to happen here, and what turns out to be an unacceptable draft will be pushed as a final mediation result. I'll be waiting the his version is done before commenting on it. A.Prock (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

well, that is a concern. maybe I'll whip up an article space template that says this is a draft version. should help to keep things clear. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Twin studies

Hey, I am hoping you can help me with a possible problem in the current R&I draft. It currently gives great weight to the adoption study by Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman. A colleague told me that the study is not only flawed in numerous ways, but that this is acknowledged by the authors of the study. If this is so I think it is important that we ensure that the article describe explicitly what those flaws are, at least (or especially) those acknowledged by the authors. But I don't have the study at hand, and am not as familiar as you are with the possible problems. I am asking if you can look at the article, see if you agree that the authors acknowledge serious flaws, and then either propose the appropriate edit to David Kane, or just make the appropriate edit after he has finished the next revisions.

Weinberg, R. A., Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). "The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence." Intelligence, 16, 117-135. (note 46 in the current draft; the section on child-rearing)

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I, I see that this article is still given prominenc in the current revision. Have you had (or will you have) a chance to look at the article and see if it is as problematic as someone told me? I'd really welcome your input here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your vies are really needed ...

... here (Race & IQ) Slrubenstein | Talk 23:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

quality of data

I'd really appreciate your input here, especially regarding proposals by DJ and Captain Occam. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little disheartened by the failure of mediation right now. I had hoped that things wouldn't return to the constant edit warring, but it seems it has. The whole article has entered into a state of utter morass. I'll take a look, but it's hard for me to see anything constructive coming to that article until the underlying problems are resolved. A.Prock (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

R&I

I think your ideas about completely revising that section are good. Could you draft a couple of paragraphs? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to dredge up some time to make a proposal tonight. I'm pressed for time at work, and going on vacation on Saturday. A.Prock (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Many of us are pressed for time, I know we need to pick our battles carefully. I think your input at R&I is absolutely essential but obviously you need to work on those sections You think most important. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

As Race and intelligence is under an 1RR restriction, the FAQ is as well, and you have violated it. I suggest stopping now: other admins may decide to block anyway.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In this diff, you reverted CO's addition of "amended to reflect the actual consensus at the time". While that was not a revert in full, it still counts. See WP:REVERT for details on the definition of reverting.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs I see that you are clearly correct. I accept full responsibility here. I was aware of 1RR and should have been more careful. If you feel a block is warranted, I will not protest in any way. aprock (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In conflict with mediation page content?

Curious about your 1RR accusation against Occam, you (prior) removed the statement regarding hereditarian viewpoint with the summary "This statement was not at any time a part of mediation consensus. ever." But looking at the mediation page, one of the resolved items in the list states "Hereditarian viewpoint - The "hereditarian" viewpoint is not "fringe" science, and should not be presented as such in the article." I'm not terribly interested in past conflicts at the R&I article, however, your deletion and edit summary don't reflect the content of the mediation page. Any insight you can provide is appreciated. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Excuse me barging in on your Talk, I'm here because User:tariqabjotu has suggested you stay off his Talk page so I don't know if you'd want to talk there. I can assure you this admin really doesn't like people questioning his actions or calling him on policy, this is not the first time he's responded in a cranky and uncivil manner. I don't think you should have to put up with it, anyway most admins don't act that way. RomaC ^TALK 18:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the note. Thank you. aprock (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are achieving your goal; keep up the good work.

Hi, Aprock, I see you write on your user page that "My primary goal is to keep an eye out for subtle POV content and try and re-edit such information to be more more neutral through talk and consensus." You're doing very well at that, and I am taking you as an example as I begin to wade into more substantive edits on the more controversial articles related to the topics I research. I appreciate you keeping your cool, and documenting what you find concerning. I would be honored to have you keeping an eye on me to make sure that I do a good job of upholding Wikipedia policies as I edit more. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy proposal advice?

Aprock, I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 8 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) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Request for arbitration enforcement

Ferahgo the Assassin has opened a thread about my involvement in the race and intelligence articles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji You are mentioned (by link to a particular talk page thread) as an editor who has observed my editing behavior, but I don't so far see notification on your user talk page about this, so I thought it would be a courtesy to you to let you know that Ferahgo the Assassin's request for enforcement is currently under discussion. On my part, I would consider it your courtesy if you found time in your busy schedule to comment there, and I will read anything you write with great interest. Best wishes for much recognition of your contributions and much personal satisfaction from your volunteer participation in building Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what I could say that hasn't been said by anyone else. The most important issue here is probably the fact that while you've made edits that others did not agree with, you've been willing to collaborate. Others have made this point, so having me make the point is redundant. aprock (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "intelligence" in Wikipedia articles

Hi, Aprock,

As usual you are doing good work in a contentious editing environment on the various articles related to IQ testing or connected subjects. I see that there has been a repeated issue that comes up in edits of article text, and has also come up in the current inconsistency of terminology in some article titles. That is the issue of whether the term "IQ" is essentially a synonym for "intelligence" in the human context or not. Alas, the current article Intelligence here on Wikipedia does not do a good job at all of discussing this issue, and sometimes the issue is latent rather than overt in editor discussion about edits to article text. I think the underlying problem is (and with a lot of transcription typing that it looks I'll be forced to do I can demonstrate this with sources) that we have a fallacy of equivocation going on in some discussions, because authors in the relevant fields use "intelligence" in a broad sense, in some cases, referring to all aspects of human cognition, and in other cases to the narrower subset of cognitive abilities estimated by IQ tests. For many psychometricians, IQ is the operationalization of intelligence. Thus referring to an IQ score as an "intelligence score" is habitual standard usage among such authors. But many psychologists disagree that IQ tests capture all relevant aspects of human intelligence (including the late Lewis Terman and a majority of the respondents to the Snyderman and Rothman survey), and thus knowing that a source is written by a psychologist doesn't always establish what the author means when referring to "intelligence." Eventually, all of the Wikipedia articles will have to be rewritten to make clear to innocent readers what is going on with the disagreement about terminology. (And this, by the way, is part of what motivated my bold attempt to retitle some articles. Reasonable minds can differ about what articles best fit what titles, and indeed if an article's scope of content changes during editing, the title that used to fit may not fit any more. But as a help to readers of Wikipedia, the terminological issues should be as clear as possible.) What do you think about this? I have recently been following up my own suggestion from a few months ago to read as many subject-specific encyclopedias as I can that have articles about intelligence to see how those tertiary sources treat the definition issue. They pretty much all do much better than Wikipedia, so far. I'm trying to figure out how to boil down dozens of sources, perhaps explicitly quoting a couple dozen on relevant talk pages, to help reach editor consensus on this. Otherwise, I fear, there may be quite a bit of fruitless reverting back and forth about wording when what is really crucial is the underlying concepts. All the best, -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as I expected, Earl Hunt backs up the point above in his new book, which I am currently reading. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nordic Race

I think you'd be interested in taking a look at this article. It is a GA.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange

Is there a particular policy against repeating the name of the accuser? I ask because it is by no means a secret. Dylan Flaherty 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There is extensive discussion of the issue on the talk page archives. Most recent is here [4]. aprock (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm skeptical of the utility, given the fact that their names are now in the mainstream media, but I'll go along with it. For now. Dylan Flaherty 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year ...

to you as well! Orwarding ... I appreciate your thoughts. Alas, I probably have the highest typo count of any WP editor. I suspect it is in part a combination o very mild dyslexia and very mild carpal tunnel syndrom, which means I iften (see?!?!?!) do not hit some keys fast enough or hard enough. Or maybe i am just really sloppy. I really wish I worked harder when I took typing in Jr. High School. Anyway, I hope you have a very happy New Year, Slrubenstein | Talk 08:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

Are allowed, just as print sources are. Just because something can't be read in english over the web doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or is invalid. There is no policy which prohibits foreign language sources.--Terrillja _talk 05:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP and WP:NONENG. aprock (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

English sources are preferred. Having non-english sources does not violated BLP in itself, especially for people of international interest or who are from non-english speaking countries.--Terrillja _talk 06:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Better to discuss on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would consider undoing your edit per WP:BRD as your bold edits have been reverted and there is a discussion open. There is no need to edit war and the information is sourced, so there is no need for immediate removal.--Terrillja _talk 06:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I made no bold edits. I reverted. aprock (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your initial edits were to remove information referenced to the official Department of Prosecution of Sweden. Those were bold. They were reverted. Then you decided to revert again, rather than sort it out in discussion. I was suggesting that you undo your revert that occurred while there was an open discussion.--Terrillja _talk 06:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in getting into a semantic debate with you. But if you'd like to discuss article content, by all means do so on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm discussing your actions. Not the content of the article itself. As such, this is the applicable page. BRD isn't a semantic debate, it's quite simple. Either you leave an article as is and use discussion or you don't. I again urge you to undo your edit as there is no policy which supports the removal of content sourced to non-english sources other than quotes.--Terrillja _talk 07:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think my actions violated some policy, then please bring them up on the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding WP:BRD (apparently again, according to a comment on your talk page). Bold changes, if reverted, need to be discussed; the changes may be added after consensus supports them. The changes stay reverted during the discussion. Please continue at the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Stay reverted, aka maintain the status quo before any reverting took place, yes. That's why it's BRD, not BRRD I wasn't making the bold edit, only reverting it. Thus, my revert should have been the last revert. Well if anyone actually followed BRD, which apparently is optional for some users.--Terrillja _talk 07:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no explicit reason to remove foreign language cites from articles, also if you want to remove one, please don't just remove it and the content it supports, please post to the talkpage so that interested users can find a replacement citation to support the content, its not difficult to google it and find an English source rather than remove it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There was just an RfC about this topic. The response from uninvolved editors was quite clear. aprock (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

assange

I did comment on the talkpage and I am available now for discussion - please do not continue reverting your desired changes. Off2riorob (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As you are deleting my posts from your talkpage I have responded fairly imo by deleting your posts from my talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Assange (discussion copied from Off2riorob's talk page)

AGF - You wrote: Well, I haven't put it back have I, there is currently now that you have commented, four users that want to remove it and two that don't, two of those users that want to remove it are pretty much single issue Assange contributors. Looking at the contribution history of the five editors who voiced opinions, I can only wonder if you're again not being careful. Please remember to assume good faith, and to not make assumptions that can easily be verified as false. aprock (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I will defend my comments if required on any noticeboard, see here - your own contribution history is clearly and indisputably recently reflective of a single purpose account in relation to assange. A simple glance reveals if you are pro or anti the subject Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what my contribution history looks like. Any suggestion that I am a "pretty much single issue Assange contributors" is laughable. If you really have an issue with my edits or edit history, I suggest you bring it up on the appropriate noticeboard. If not, then I suggest you not make reference to it on article talk pages. aprock (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For the last fifty two days you are a single issue account in relation to Assange - I am in my rights to mention that anywhere - also as I said a simple glance at your contributions of the last couple of months reveals a clear position POV in support of Assange. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you think my edits have been problematic in any way, please bring them up on the appropriate noticeboard. If you think my article edits have introduced and POV issues of any kind, I strongly urge you to take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am making the issue clear now and did on the talkpage - thats enough for me right now that you know I know and other users are notified of it, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notified of what? That you don't know how to read edit histories? aprock (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you know your own edit history and can not dispute my comments about your contributions. Please don't think you are contributing secretly or in a vacuum where no one is allowed to mention your contribution history, regards. Also if you insist on removing my posts from your talkpage what right do you think you have to post and get replies here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC) deletes in question: [5][6]

Deleted by Off2riorob: Again, if you think there is a problem with any of my edits, then please do bring it up on the appropriate noticeboard. Splitting the conversation across two talk pages is silly. Given that the issue at hand is your misrepresentation of my edit history, this seems like the appropriate talk page, but it makes no never mind to me. If you feel strongly about it, we can move the entire conversation to my talk page. aprock (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by Off2riorob:Since you're sure to delete this comment as well, I've copied the entire discussion to my talk page. Cheers. aprock (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also: [7], [8]

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[9] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Assange time line

I apologize if my frustration shows. It is not personal. I am perhaps a bit more familiar with the need of conveying content (instead of just words) when switching from one language to another than some others, and those who write for UK newspapers are not always good at it, as people in the UK tend to be more monolingual than their European neighbours. Hence my tendency to sympathize with contributors from Sweden. I was referring to playing the game of 'tag', not to "playing editor", because of the frequent addition and removal of the same (fairly minor) content for the Assange article. I don't speak Swedish but on the basis of the European languages I do know it is easy to verify that the Svea Court did indeed issue a "häktning" decision (häktningsbeslutet), with decision number Ö 9363-10 (see Court press release Svea hovrätt avslår Julian Assanges överklagande av häktningsbeslutet (Ö 9363-10) KathaLu (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The frustration level on wikipedia can be surprisingly high sometimes. I should also note that I am totally for using foreign language sources in articles, but generally in conjunction with English language sources, especially in BLP articles. aprock (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that English language sources are themselves fed by English language sources and can be biased because there is no corrective mechanism. When they report about a national case, many national readers and national editors are aware of how things are done in their country, and factual errors in reporting are quickly corrected, as are very obvious attempts at manipulating public opinion. This happens to a much lesser extent or not at all in reporting about news from other countries, because of a lack of general knowledge about that country and its society. I am only mildly interested in Assange, my participation in the article is driven by a long-lasting interest in this kind of bias. It is fascinating to watch how the PR/news machine is getting started up today, ahead of tomorrow's court hearing. Fed by Assange's lawyers and supporters we read about the Australian prime minister who should get Assange home, US-orchestrated smear campaigns, the dangers of being in Sweden and the hideous dealings of the Swedish prosecution, death in Guantanamo etc. Rarely do you hear from Swedish sources, and if you find the odd article about it in English, like here here, it drowns in the mass of all the other articles, which in turn are fed into Wikipedia. Result: such Wikipedia articles are not neutral. KathaLu (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the appropriate way to handle these issues is to accurately translate the foreign language source, so that the translation content can be verified, and the translation can be corrected if need be. Just inserting contested foreign language content without doing the work of making it accessible causes more problems than it solves. aprock (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Assange and the offenses again

Hi, I am not sure how to read your comment "If you can find a reliable source that says that all secondary sources are based on ... Swedish Statute Book, and can provide a reliably sourced translation of that book". I suspect it is another way of accusing me of ORing and SYNTHing. I feel I now know everything there ever was to know about Assange's case (i.e its legal aspects), and the desire to share my knowledge with others is fast ebbing away. The article's section that I have followed has taken another turn for the worse over the last few days which has again steeled my resolve to leave it to whoever can be bothered to edit it. For me, it is simple: the offenses are stated in the EAW. The EAW consists of a Swedish part and the same part again in English (the content of which has been translated by the Swedes into English). The offenses are described in the form of references to the relevant paragraphs of the Swedish Statute Book or Penal Code. There is an official Swedish translation of that Code. I provided a link for both, namely www.fsilaw.com (Assange's lawyer website), which has a copy of Assange's bilingual EN-SV European Arrest Warrant, and www.regeringen.se (Swedish Government website), which has a copy of the Penal Code in EN as well as in SV. I do not really need to write this into Wikipedia. If people want to waffle about minor rape, sex by surprise, rape (lesser crime) or whatever they find in badly researched and repeatedly regurgitated articles, I can let them do so, can't I? Take care, KathaLu (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written on reliable sourcing. For content to be included, reliable sources which cover that content are required. aprock (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum. KathaLu (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't high school where you get to write a paper without proper citations and get a B+. Here, if you have no citations, you have no contributions. aprock (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a reference to US culture! Qed just means that I see my assumption that your intervention focused on formalism instead of content confirmed. KathaLu (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I understood what you wrote. You on the other hand appear not to have understand what I wrote. Content that does not follow policy does not belong. If you're interested in contributing content outside of wikipedia policies, you are free to start your own blog. aprock (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am out of the Assange article but since I may participate in other articles (in the English Wikipedia as well as in another language version) I read again WP:PSTS to freshen my memory. And there I read again that careful use of primary sources is allowed and is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. I do know that I researched everything I posted with scientific rigour, I stricly adhered to the WP policy on the use of sources and whenever I took the description of a fact (i.e. description of criminal offenses) from a source (i.e. EAW and Statute Book) I also quoted corresponding articles from mainstream reputable newspapers (i.e. Guardian). I am not arguing with you, aprock, you can reign supreme on the Assange article and, adhering to the policy of good faith, I do assume that you only want to improve the article. We obviously do not have the same idea of what constitutes a good article. KathaLu (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And you'll note that as the policy outlines, the sources should be discussed on the talk page. Which is exactly what we did. Outside editors had their own views, and in the end, properly sourced content is what wound up in the article. I'm not sure what your question is here. Maybe you found the process was too cumbersome? I might agree except that without such a cumbersome process, the encyclopedia would quickly degenerate in a flurry of vandalism. aprock (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that I look at dozens of sources covering the same point before I make a decision of whether to include it and how to put it in words, I have no problems with the fact that the process is cumbersome. What I find too frustrating after a while are cases like this, i.e. where the sole base are media reports in one language about events that happen in a different culture and language, with the result that the collective intelligence of media reporters and Wiki editors is lower than for reporting about national events where there are more inbuilt corrective mechanisms. I live and work in a multicultural multilingual environment where the 23 languages of the EU are official languages and where there is great expertise and awareness of the legal differences between the 27 EU Member State - it's a very different world ;-). KathaLu (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you be any more condescending? aprock (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find anything condescending in my words, other than perhaps an unfortunate choice of words for "collective intelligence". But I feel that I am overstaying your hospitality on your TP. In any case: thank you. KathaLu (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ny

Hi, I don't really think removing Ny s name falls under blp name, why have you chosen today to remove it after all this time? Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, don't worry, your edits been reverted by another editor. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

R&I

I would be happy if you would stay and help work out the problems. If you just leave without making specific which problems we are talking about Miradre and Boothello are just going to remove the tag again. And as I am the only one of the many people who I know find the current state of the article imbalanced, willing to engage the topic at this point they will have no problems brushing me off with cosmetic changes in response to any concerns I mention. I realize its been a long stretch and you are probably tired of the topic, but I think it is important that the article is not allowed to stand as it does now suggesting that Rushton, Lynn and Jensen are the state of the art.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment. The biggest obstacle in the whole endeavor is that the entire subject is essentially an homage to hereditarianism. This is in no small part because those scientists are squeaky wheels. I'm slowly coming to the realization that the article is going to have to be about the battles of Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen to legitimize their research. In the end, the research of Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen is a dead end, and all about statistical woo. The rise of genetic research into intelligence will likely eclipse their lifes work. Part of the problem with editing the article is that it takes much more time to write good content based on sources. This compares to the specific example of summarizing the APA report that Miradre butchered by paraphrasing a single bullet point out of context. He has more time to do superficial edits than I have to do quality edits. aprock (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Aprock, you wrote, "Part of the problem with editing the article is that it takes much more time to write good content based on sources. . . . He has more time to do superficial edits than I have to do quality edits." Yes, that is exactly the problem. To add content to the article that does justice to the sources actually feels like work, for which an astute editor like you should be paid much more than Wikipedia pays anyone outside the Wikimedia Foundation office. So most editors resort to doing that which is quick and dirty. Unfortunately, a subject like the topic of the article under discussion is not a subject that is served well by quick and dirty treatments. Please let me know how I can help raise the standard of editing on that article and the other articles related to the August 2010 Race and intelligence case. I've been thinking about what channels there are for editors who actually know the sources to help improve articles in such contentious editing environments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR edits

Hi Aprock. Thanks for pointing out that I was in violation of 3RR. I lost track. I always used the talk page before editing. With no malice intended, let me point out that you made 4 changes during this time period. I am sure neither of us wants to engage in edit-warring so let’s commit to reaching a consensus before any further edits on NPR. Thanks.Grahamboat (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I completely understand your concern, and making the copy clearer is always a good thing. aprock (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Roku Edits

Aprock, we (Roku Inc.) would like to update our page to reflect the most current information on the product and our history (all sourced and sited). How would you suggest I update and avoid the information being seen as non-objective adverts? Cheers! Roku DK (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic

Hi there! In the past, you've expressed an interest in local meetups of Wikipedians. Well, here's your chance! On Saturday, June 25, we'll be joining Wikipedians in cities all over the country for the first annual Great American Wiknic -- the picnic that anyone can edit! We'll meet up at a park in SF -- hopefully in the sun -- all other details are still in deliberation!

If this sounds fun, please add your name to the list: Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Wiknic and add that page to your watchlist. (And of course, feel free to edit that page with your ideas, questions, etc.) I look forward to wiknicking with you! -Pete (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello again. I see that you have made several unexplained or unclear reverts of my edits. I have started talk page discussion for them all so we can resolve our differences. Please explain yourself there. Thanks! Miradre (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Aprock, please see this Arbcom decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision

In particular, "Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility."

Aprock, please do not accuse me of vandalism when I have clearly in many edits explained when I have removed or changed something. That is at least borderline incivility.

Please explain you edits on the talk page in the section I have created for this.

Also, you seem to be following me around and reverting my edits. This unfortunately looks like wikistalking.

Miradre (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)