User talk:Aprock/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Continued incivility

Desist from further incivility. It is not vandalism when edits are clearly explained. You may have a different opinion but that still do not make my edits vandalism. If you continue I will report you.Miradre (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to revert your vandalism when I see it. aprock (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see an administrator has resolved the issue by giving Miradre a long-overdue topic ban covering the next three months[10]. Best wishes for a productive editing environment; keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Portal:Philosophy/All philosophy articles

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Portal:Philosophy/All philosophy articles solely on the basis that only articles can be deleted under the prod process. If you wish to pursue deletion, please go to Miscellany for deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Prods

As reviewing administrator, I am unwilling to remove by PROD "Power network", an article that has existed since 2005. From a search of gbooks and a preliminary search of g scholar, I share your doubts that the term is used significantly in English as a specific term. Perhaps it should be titled Power structure, at present a disam p. for two unsatisfactory articles--one overly general and diffuse, and one insufficiently developed. I think adequate refs could be found for the retitled article, and the wording of the article could be changed accordingly . I do not really have the time to do the work that would be necessary for a proper rewriting at present, but I will do at least a preliminary one, if you do not wish to do it. I'd like your opinion first.

I'm also not really all that happy with the prods on the redirects Sovereign use of force, and State force. I agree the redirect are not really useful or exact, but they could & should be turned into useful articles. Again, I could give it a start, but it is not my subject, and I think you could probably do it better.

I certainly agree with you that many of our articles in this general section need a very thorough cleanup. Some are uninformative, many are incomplete, and quite a few -- unsurprisingly--are one-sided. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just doing rabbit hole driven clean-up. Pick a topic, look for cruft, and try to clean it up. If you think any of my clean-up (or prods) are counter productive, by all means revert or decline. I'm currently going through American libertarians reviewing the list for unsourced categorizations, locating sources, cleaning up copy, or removing the cat. I assume I'll move along to some other related topic soon enough. aprock (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly what you were doing is not unproductive! It's highly useful to weed out bad articles, and we probably have a few hundred thousand. I'm not at all reluctant to delete hopeless articles--in doing speedy deletion, I've deleted 12,000 in my 4 years here, The main thing I think you could be doing which would make you more productive not deletion. So there's a better way to do what you're doing, which is not to call something ripe for deletion without first considering the alternatives to deletion. A convenient guide to them is at WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the essay pointer, I'll certainly take those principles and try to integrate them fully in my rabbit hole wanderings. Thanks, aprock (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Kiel birthdate

Could you please include a reliable source for the birthdate and birthplace of Richard Kiel if you would like to include the information in the article? There date has been changed multiple times, always unsourced, and has therefore been removed altogether per BLP policy until a reliable source can be found for verification. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a bazillion of sources on the web for this date. Here's one from the nytimes: [11]. aprock (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not the New York Times' own material - they're simply hosting the text from the All Movie Guide and do not claim any responsibility for the validity of the content. There are plenty of websites (wikipedia mirrors, "on this day in history" type pages, and such) but no one has yet provided one that meets BLP standards for verifying contentious info.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the All Movie Guide wasn't considered reliable enough to list birthdates. I suspect you should bring this up on the BLP noticeboard to get some more nuanced feedback. aprock (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just gained access to LexisNexis, I'll see if I can find something definitive within the pay-per-view articles that can be added. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument

Fllowing the recen [12] our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your request

Do you intend to have a discussion of the material that was removed from the article? Personally, I could not and perhaps can not discuss content with any concentration level right now. But soon....You know and I know that an awful lot of it was completely informational and not questionable in any form. Guess the gang got the better of me as I really had no idea that the content could be deleted in that manner on each editor's say so only. Well, I still have not idea but it was done, wasn't it? Rightly or wrongly. If you do not conciensiously want to work togerher to restore most of the content and/or balance it if needed, then let me know soon. I can't work much right now but I need to know what to do here. The article has now been deleted by 75% as was stated as an intent by one of the editors. I didn't think it could be done as I have never seen this before on Wiki. Please be honest with your reply. I have already trusted too much of rules, policies and the community fairness. The manner that everyone confronted me was confrontational and personal and I really don't understand what I have done to warrant it. Agadant (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible COI

Some interactions that you may have been involved in are being discussed at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Blackvisionit. Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Floppy article invitation

Hi, you're invited in taking active part in editing/patrolling/reviewing Floppy disk hardware emulator. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

talk vs. edit warring

You made a major edit, without prior discussion on the talk page, which deleted a great deal of referenced material. I suggest that you discuss any major revision of an article before you begin. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I did review your edits. They seemed to me PoV. But the most important point is that you gave no explanation for deleting referenced material. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be that some of your edits are ok, but some are clearly not, and you have made a very large number of edits in a very short time. Please note that I am not the only person who thinks so. Please discuss major edits first. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Ideology-trends.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Ideology-trends.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload your free images to Commons, please!

It is better if your free images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as opposed to Wikipedia. Freely licensed or public domain media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons. Thank you: Jay8g (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted your change to Intelligent design

I reverted your change to intelligent design, because the sources used for the statement you changed didn't support the fact in question. I'd be willing to remake the change if you can help me track down some good quality sources that I can reference. It would be particularly helpful if there were any reliable sources that state that ID is creationism without any sort of qualification to that statement. That actually seems to be fairly hard to do in my research into the subject. In general, the connections between ID and creationism are tenuous and genetive, rather than direct as many many authors note. Could you point me to the sources that lead you to think that Intelligent Design being creationism was an appropriate statement for the article? You said it was well sourced, and I have no reason to doubt you other than my own past experience looking into it. i kan reed (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the text to summarize the article content, obviating the need for inline citations in the lede. (I'll note parenthetically that if A is B, and B is C, then A is C. Unless you're going to claim that transitivity is OR.) aprock (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, transivity is OR. Real world concepts do not comply strictly with the laws of mathematics. There's a whole section of the or policy against this kind of "obvious conclusion" listed as WP:SYN. Heck, even within mathematics, there are fields of study where transivity doesn't apply. It's better to go with what the sources say. Moreover, the term neocreationism tells a lot more about ID than just creationism does. Its like the difference between how the Car article using "motor vehicle" in it's basic defintion instead of just "vehicle". I don't see how "creationism" is more accurate, descripive, or directly true according to the sources we have than "neocreationism". i kan reed (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're investing so much energy into a parenthetical that does not apply to the current form of the article. As noted above, I've addressed the sourcing issues you had. aprock (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying not to violate 1RR here...

Please revert your change on Intelligent design. Calling ID a scientific hypothesis is just a plain lie. This is a terrible change. Please revert it. i kan reed (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Diff please. aprock (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And please take this discussion to the article talk page. I will ignore further article issues brought up here. aprock (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your questions regarding TM research

Aprock, I appreciate your thoughtful concerns. This is an article focused on the subject of research on TM. It's title is "Transcendental Meditation Research." See it by clicking here. It has been in existence on Wikipedia for over a year. A lot of research has been compiled in the article. Therefore, I don’t think we can turn it into a general article on meditation and relaxation. This is a huge subject, and other Wiki articles cover it already. Your point about spiritual vs. non-spiritual meditation is quite valid, and is covered in other wiki articles on TM, especially the general Wiki article, titled, "Transcendental Meditation." The focus of this article is to assess the scientific research that has been done on TM, and there has been a lot of it. Some of the research—a few research reviews examining a small number of studies (about seven total)—has not found benefits for TM in certain specific areas. But many more research reviews (of excellent scientific quality, as defined in the Wiki guidelines on reporting health research), have found clinically significant health benefits for TM. These reviews have reported on studies that have compared this particular meditation to other relaxation techniques, such as progressive muscle relaxation, which is often prescribed by doctors. Many studies, dozens of them, have found that TM, a simple technique that does not require any spiritual belief, is measurably more effective in reducing hypertension, improving cholesterol, etc., than standard, prescribed relaxation techniques. Rest assured, the aim here is not to promote TM, but rather to briefly mention the other side of the story, WHICH IS ALREADY PRESENTED in this article. I want to add single sentence to the opening section, as described above, to give it some balance. As it is, the truth is being held hostage. No one reading the first paragraph of the article (which the Wiki guidelines say should summarize the main points of the article) would have any idea that TM has been shown to have any health benefits, when the article is full of scientific findings indicating the contrary. Thanks again for your interest. Early morning person (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"The focus of this article is to assess the scientific research that has been done on TM" This cannot be the focus of the article. That is original research and a violation of wikipedia policy. Please continue discussion about TM at the noticeboard or on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right! I have stated it badly. What I should have said is, "The focus of this article is to fairly present the scientific research, etc." There's a little more, and as you request, I have stated it on talk page. I have tried to distill down the above long explanation for you there. Best, Early morning person (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nature's services

Why did you prod Nature's services? You said "essentially an unsourced article about a non-notable book". It was clearly not about a book, and didn't even mention any books. Rampant deletionists like yourself are destroying Wikipedia and are the number one reason Wikipedia can no longer attract editors. —Pengo 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the uncited book that the unsourced article appears to be based upon [13]. The article Ecosystem services essentially duplicates the content, and is a more notable term. I've redirected, you're free to put any of the unsourced content from Nature's services into Ecosystem services provided you properly source it. aprock (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberal as a derogatory epithet

Well, I made a suggestion on the talk page for working on the section at my sandbox (User:John Shandy`/Sandbox), where I've copied the section for us to work on together if you're interested. I don't understand Rjensen's reaction, I can only speculate that he frets (in good faith) that you or I are wishing to dismantle the section altogether. I can certainly understand that, because a plethora of editors in the past have attempted to inject POV into Modern liberalism in the United States or whitewash certain sections of the article. At any rate, I think we can create a robust section that accurately characterizes the discourse on the rise and usage of "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. John Shandy` • talk 14:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, this may not be the best option - if Rjensen will not inhibit the effort, I agree with Rick Norwood that we should just do so in a section on the talk page. Keeping the edit histories consolidated makes good sense anyway. John Shandy` • talk 16:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Link Deletion

Dear User:Aprock, I have reverted several edits in which you unlinked the term militant atheism. The RfC has not closed yet and as such, I ask you to kindly not take any premature action. If the RfC closes as oppose for example, it would not be helpful to have gone through and removed all the links to the article. Please wait until the RfC closes. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reporting you for edit warring. aprock (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edit warred. You continue to make contentious edits despite the fact that the RfC has not closed yet. I left a message on your talk page to kindly inform you to wait until a final decision is made at the RfC before going through and deleting a link to a relevant term. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion and a gentle warning

Per this edit warring notice, while you may be ultimately not wrong in removing links to militant atheism in case the RfC so concludes, there is sense in not removing the cross links from various articles till the RfC is complete. This is a suggestion that I see the RfC going towards supporting the breaking up of the main page. Then why should you get blocked simply because you jumped the gun? Hold on till the RfC ends. In case you continue your removal of internal links of the article from other pages, you will be immediately blocked. Do kindly consider this a gentle and final warning before the block and please stop immediately. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 09:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the gentle warning. I will do my utmost to avoid further edit/revert kerfuffles in that, or any other, topic area. aprock (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations

Hi Aprock, Your link is much better! :-) Which page are you referring to exactly? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you search the document you'll find historic discussion of the Klan on page 34, and specific events on page 10 and 57. note: please open further discussion on article talk page, thank you. aprock (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD nomination of various academics

Could you please stop nominating en masse various academic's articles at WP:Articles for deletion? At least until you have familiarized yourself with WP:BEFORE and Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? This AfD proposal for Charles Kolstad is especially egregious, as he obviously passes criteria 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the notability guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC. Thanks, --LK (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The notability guidelines require reliable secondary sourcing, something which Charles Kolstad and the other articles lack. aprock (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You should please read those guidelines as you currently seem to misunderstand them. For example, WP:NRVE states, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Warden (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I am aware of this. I was not aware of the WP:PROF guidelines. I've withdrawn various of the AfDs. aprock (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in here as well. Would you consider withdrawing the nominations which clearly meet WP:N? There are currently a dozen or so nominations with nearly identical (inadequate) rationales for deletion and at least half of them have sources clearly available through a google search. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to withdraw any article which clearly meets WP:N. Please note which ones do, and I will do such. aprock (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to the various articles, and withdrawing the ones that appear to satisfy WP:PROF, thanks for the feedback. aprock (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the ones you nominated yesterday meet WP:PROF. That's not necessarily grounds to withdraw the AFDs by itself, as a person may meet PROF but still have no available sources (though the discussion will probably lean toward keep). The ones I'm concerned about are those which have plenty of sources available but dont have them in the article. Those do meet the GNG. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, I was wondering, have you been editing that article recently? Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You can find the article edit history here. aprock (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I posted a link to the history. I was asking/thinking where you stepped into the discussion and if you were editing as an IP and that would put a different slant on your 3rr warning to Bbb23?, have you been recently editing the article was the simple question? Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My complete edit history is documented here. If you have further questions or concerns about the issue, I suggest you take them to WP:SPI. aprock (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI is not for just simple yes no answers. Why did you not warn the Minneapolis IP, they are warring as much as Bb23? Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP was already warned. If you think another warning would be useful, by all means post one. If you would like to report the IP for edit warring, by all means do so. aprock (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see Bb23 gave him a warning. I am not looking to report anyone just checking to see the involvement in the issue thats all. That IP appears to be a legal address from Minneapolis and there could well be some COI - I noticed you edit Minneapolis articles. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

epilogue: [14], [15]

Edit warring

Aprock, I left you a note on the Edit warring noticeboard. Even if you don't have the time to read all of it, please note that I struck one of my comments. I hope this helps; drop me a line if not. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your note, and do not ascribe any bad faith intentions to you, or to Lhb1239. To the extent that there is a concern here, AussieLegend does a good job of illuminating it. Lhb1239 is a productive and valuable editor when he's editing on his terms. However, when faced with a dispute he quickly strays from basic policy. I am happy to see that he was not blocked, and will be happier when he puts aside edit warring. aprock (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tags

The tags you restored refer to live discussion on the talk page. Please point out where these discussions are. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at the article talk page. aprock (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. No worries then. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

AFD on Jensen article

Following your suggestion, I created the afd here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (2nd nomination). Let me know if I messed this up somehow. Anyway, I will reread the previous afd and see if I can address some of the concerns. It is certainly easy to add some more criticism of the article. Yfever (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing wikilinks

Why are you removing the wikilink to Race and intelligence from dozens of articles? Your edit summaries all just say "update wikilink" or "better article". But you should explain why you think the articles where you replaced the link relate more to the history of the debate than to the current debate. If you think the links should be replaced just because the history article is in better shape, I suggest you read this discussion. Another editor tried to make this change with this justification a year ago, and consensus strongly opposed him, so please do not attempt this again unless consensus changes. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm updating historic references to the controversy to link to the historical article. If you have a specific problem, by all means discuss it. aprock (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all the articles where you changed the link, but I think this was the wrong decision on the John C. Loehlin and Frank Miele articles. Both authors write about race and intelligence in the current debate. So these aren't just historic references. There also doesn't seem to be any reason to remove the link completely from the Michael Levin and Daniel Seligman articles. I do not understand why wanting historic references to become links to the history article would make you remove some links entirely like those two. If that is what you're trying to do, please be more careful. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted on the Miele article based on the books from the 2000s. If you're referring to Loehlin's contributions in the mid 1990's, those are nearly 20 years old. If you know of something notable from the last 10 years, by all means add it. aprock (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The most recent thing about R&I I know of by Loehlin is from 2007. [16] This paper is cited in the article about one of Richard Lynn's books. The Seligman article now mentions R&I, but does not link to either the main article or the history article because you removed the link and didn't replace it with anything. This was a problem on the Levin article also, but someone else already reverted you on that. When an article here discusses something that's the subject of another article, it's best to include a link to that article, that's what wikilinks are for. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

AFD - IQ and Scholastic Achievement (2nd nom)

Hi, To avoid cluttering Tommorris' talk page I'm commenting here. You wondered about the old AFD and if that had been looked at. Again I emphasize I'm taking a 2nd look, and didn't close it. perhaps this will help:

The starting point is that articles can change (we encourage that). A problem at one time can be fixed later. In this case the original article (userfied here) was described as a POV fork and an "article on an article". The starting point for AFD of a reboot is the condition of the new article. An old AFD can show issues that may or may not be fixed and consensus may or may not feel they are still issues, so previous AFDs can inform but don't decide. You need to look mainly at the article now and views now. Although it's never this clinical, a contentious AFD can be handled a bit like this:

1. Review the discussion carefully to get a sense how the policy based points were met, and where the "feel" of the discussion lies. Identify the main arguments and evidence, and their "fit" with policy. Policy points (and discussion of their evidence) are normally a high priority since AFD is not a vote.
2. The first question is whether policy/consensus concludes the topic is capable of an article within policy (ie, WP:NOT, WP:N, and sufficient sources). Do users at AFD show evidence or consensus on notability? If it just doesn't meet inclusion policy or the weight of evidence/opinion is it's not shown to be notable, it's dead. Rarely consensus might also say it should be deleted without prejudice due to awful writing if nothing's salvageable.
3. If the topic in principle is agreed capable of sustaining an article, then more subtle points come in, "should it have one". This can be down to policy, consensus, or both.
4. Where policy and evidence allow multiple treatments then consensus is usually king.
5. Previous AFDs and other pages can show useful evidence too. But only in their context - old AFD posts are comments on a version that may have changed, on a topic that might have changed or got other coverage in the real world, in a debate by readers who might have new perspectives. So at best it's informative. The presumption is that if a serious issue still exists, it'll get a mention and evidence in the current AFD, or participants will say where the evidence can be found (eg old AFD).

In this case the first question is whether anyone shows a policy issue or consensus it isn't capable of an article. Is the paper considered non-notable (WP:NOT/WP:N), or lacking reliable sources? Is there evidence we cannot if we tried write a neutral article or that the paper couldn't be considered notable? Does consensus say the evidence of notability is too thin? Nothing adverse there. Nobody has really made or gained consensus that it's non-notable, breaches WP:NOT, we couldn't write neutrally on it if we tried. Nobody's shown consensus it isn't highly referenced, didn't make much impact or is "just another paper". Its origins aren't a reason to object (WP:ATA), just its current condition. So it's certainly capable in principle of an article.

Given it could have an article, should it? The old AFD seemed to be decided on POV and POV fork issues. The flaws seem to be removed in this version leaving this article a simple factual stubbed summary of a notable paper. The reasonable policy-based options at this point would be keep or redirect/merge, and that decision's pretty much the closer's assessment of consensus since both are quite valid.

If it gets POV in future that can be fixed, it's not an AFD concern.

That's maybe a bit more detail on the old AFD and how it fits in. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The flaws seem to be removed in this version leaving this article a simple factual stubbed summary of a notable paper. Please review the discussion again, specifically: [17]. You'll note that the points I make cover your concern here. It is already NPOV, and the content is presented at the mentioned articles with more content and context. You're free to go ahead and implement the redirect yourself. aprock (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hamat Tiberias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menorah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the userfied page

Hello Aprock. I saw the comment in the deletion review you've prepared here and ask that you wait a bit before seeking the userfy deletion. I think we have more hanky-panky from another proxy editor, involving the use of this page, and preserving it for the time being will leave it easier view to help sort out what's going on. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll drop that for now. aprock (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: @Ynhockey

Hi Aprock,

Firstly, I did not assume that you were acting in bad faith at all, just stating a policy-based argument that says that you are obligated to try to improve the articles you take to AfD if there's any chance that they can be kept.

Secondly, I have made it clear to TheCuriousGnome that he shouldn't have told me about this, even though I assumed good faith and did not check whether he contacted other editors. If he contacted many editors about this, then this is a serious case of WP:CANVAS that should be dealt with (feel free to post a notice at WP:ANI or another relevant forum). If he contacted just me however, you should assume good faith that he did so because he believed that I had knowledge on the subjects of the articles—which he had good reason to believe since I contribute to all Israel-related articles and am the oldest and one of the most active members of WP:ISRAEL—and indeed I do have knowledge on some of these subjects. By the way, an editor being asked to look at an issue is under no obligation to recuse themselves even if they were canvassed, although I again agree that canvassing is a problem and has no place on Wikipedia.

Thirdly and finally, you should indeed re-examine your nominations in accordance with Wikipedia's best practices. One of these best practices is to contact one or more major editors in each article and ask them to fix the issues that you found, for example lack of sources. If you assume good faith and do this, I am sure that these editors will also assume good faith and at least attempt to fix any problems you outline.

I hope the information I provided will help you have a more pleasant editing experience on Wikipedia.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. When nominating articles for deletion, especially in large number, it is also a good idea to notify the relevant WikiProjects of this. TheCuriousGnome already did this, but please keep this in mind in the future. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

With respect to policy, I follow the guidelines at WP:AfD. If you think there is a specific policy that I've not considered fully, please highlight them. With respect to notifying projects and editors, most if not all of these pages are orphans with no project affiliation and very few active editors. In all cases, searches were done over the many google search engines and articles were PROD'd or AfD'd if all indications were that the topic was not notable. With respect to alternatives, I certainly do consider alternatives, and when reviewing articles I implement them. For example tagging[18], editing [19], and merging [20]. With respect to the specific articles that you commented on, I felt that policy guidelines indicated that those the topics those articles covered did not rise to the level of warranting an article. Others are free to agree or disagree at the AfD. I have no personal dog in this race, and will be happy with whatever community consensus is. aprock (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

DelRev

What gave you the right to put my comment & the response to it within a hat note? That you disagree with me? Is that a way of replying? Please remove that, or I shall--or I shall simply repeat my comment. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do take the time to comment specifically on the delrev. Give that you struck your own comments in that thread, it seems you agree that it was heading in an unproductive direction. If you feel that the thread should not be collapsed, you are free to open it back up. aprock (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall do just that, especially because mathsci now responded to my second response within the thread. It will be less confusing to uncollapse than restate. Reading my comment to you here just above, I apologize for the expressed annoyance. I could have said it much more gently. I hope it's not becoming typical of me. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. It's easy to get ahead of yourself in this topic area. Thanks for the feedback on the delrev, and sorry about collapsing your comments. aprock (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Social conflict theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brute force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hokuto "Hok" Konishi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to LMFAO

List of most-listened-to radio programs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to APM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Web Sheriff". Thank you. --VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(",)

For your contribution to Climate change denial, thank you. (",) Please see wp:Tea. 99.181.145.106 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles "Religious coercion" and "Religious coercion in Israel" have been renominated for deletion

Dear Aprock, I just wanted to let you know that an AfD, in which you participated in recently has been reopened. Please express your opinion again in the current AfD. Thank you. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Input request

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing mainstream ..... blah blah blah

Hello, welcome to a contentious article. You are making changes to an oft-battled lead section. Please, I beg thee, float your great suggestions at talk first. You will find that some of your ideas are not all new, and you will be pointed to the recent threads containing the background for the current consensus. Thanks, and even though I reverted some of your edits you do seem well-intended! That's much needed! Please join us on the talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So much for being bold.  :) aprock (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

R & I quagmire

I've just peeped into the background a bit and am now tiptoeing backwards out of there. Eew. I'll leave it to you and other braver souls. A fascinating area, though. Can you recommend a good overview book? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC

@Anthony, I only wish I were as wise as you. Luckily work is picking up. aprock (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just being parsimonious with my limited time and energy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus, I've ordered it from my local library. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Review

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:

1. Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
2. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
3. Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
4. Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
5. Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Input is needed at a law-related RfC. I selected you at random from the list of editors at the RfC Notification service. If you are too busy, or not interested, please disregard this notice. --Noleander (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

1RR caution, List of skeptics page

This is just a friendly caution that it's very easy to lose track of this rule, as things count as reverts that you might not think would be. I know, because it happened to me, and I got a short block out of it, along with lots of stress and aggravation.

Mind, I'm not saying you actually broke the rule (and sometimes it's not obvious) -- but you are ruffling some feathers over there.

It takes a thick skin to edit in the climate-change area.

Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Is the topic under 1RR? The notice at the top of the page leads here: [21], which doesn't indicate that it is. Searching WP:ARBCC for 1RR yields nothing. aprock (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no 1RR for the list article. Only a few of the climate change articles are under such, most notably the CRU debacle one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim -- I assumed it was, without looking... Aprock, sorry for the false alarm! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest tag

The latest tag that you had put on the article does not apply and relates to WP:FANCRUFT. Which may be considered uncivil if intended towards another editor's writing. Since I am the main editor, I could take it as such but I will assume WP:Good faith. I just assume you didn't read carefully enough. Agadant (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Why did you revert here? The RfC does not mean that the "Above proposed sentence is to replace an existing sentence shown in below." It does not mean that the proposed sentence should replace an existing one. It only concerns itself with adding the proposed sentence. If you still object, please comment here rather than edit warring. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the policy I linked to in the revert: WP:TPO. aprock (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of national IQ estimates from Lynn and Vanhanen (2002, 2006)

Hello Aprock. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of national IQ estimates from Lynn and Vanhanen (2002, 2006), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what substantially the same here means. I don't have the original article, but IIRC the current article is just the list from the original article with the text of IQ and the Wealth of Nations (from National IQ estimates onward) pasted into it. Does copy/pasting the contents of the parent article into it substantially alter it? aprock (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_IQ_estimates_from_Lynn_and_Vanhanen_(2002,_2006)#Reception_and_impact

aprock (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The additional text was the reason I didn't delete. I wasn't aware it had been copied and pasted from IQ and the Wealth of Nations. I'll delete the article now. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I myself did not think to check if the text was copy pasted till now. aprock (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Party and person‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I have added disputed templates to Wikipedia:Party and person. Please do not edit war by reverting and instead discuss on talk. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless work defending Wikipedia from those who would misuse it for dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional reasons. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2!

San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited!

The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all! EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC) · Unsubscribe

San Francisco Wiknic 2012

	San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. —Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

Speedy deletion nomination of Sophia Stewart

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sophia Stewart, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My RFA

I just responded to your comment on my RFA. I certainly respect your right to oppose but I wanted to clarify that yes I was mocking this block as one of the worst Assumptions of bad faith I have seen from an editor who should know better but has a history of abusive use of the tools, hounding, wikistalking and just generally being a pain in the [insert your favorite body part here]. As I mentioned in the RFA that is the exact sort of block you will never see me do if I get the tools. Kumioko (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I notice that you're engaged in a dispute about article tagging of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. In case you're not aware, please note that this article and all other articles related to climate change are under discretionary sanctions. Please engage constructively in any dispute. Don't stonewall. If you've given up arguing in favour of tagging, don't object to the removal of the tags. If you have arguments in favour of tagging that have a chance of gaining consensus, please state them in the appropriate place. --TS 19:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your moderation, and a question if you have the time

I'm new to posting and see that you have experience, so I was wondering how strict the OR policy was. In the fiscal conservatism article for instance, I made a comparison between Bush's total additional debt and all previous debt. The data is on the site I cited, but the math (simple addition and greater than less than comparison) was added by me. Is this considered OR? please erase if this is inappropriate of me to ask here.--Quertysum (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Usually simple math isn't a problem. Given the content you posted, probably the best source to find would be some sort of news article, possibly an opinion piece, which discussed Bush's fiscal policies in terms of "fiscal conservatism". This may be an easy thing to find, but there are some caveats about what sources may be used. Generally anything from the mainstream media (the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, ABC News, etc) is a good place to look for such sources. Also I would suggest reviewing WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. They will say roughly the same thing I said with a lot more words and more details. aprock (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Gates

Saying that we're going by Wikipedia's definitions is a violation of WP:OR as well as an ASR violation, since Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. If you look at all three of my edits (except the first one, all were made after your comment at my talk), I did my best to replace the current wording with a paraphrase of the policies that were explicitly mentioned beforehand. I've made an allusion to WP:COMMON for the current titles of the -gateless articles and a WP:RS allusion for the inclusion of articles here in the first place. Going by the wording to which I've now changed it, all scandals mentioned in the article either get -gate in "scholarly sources" or get other names in "scholarly sources": either way, they have to have scholarly sources, so they pass WP:N and would deserve to appear here even with the pre-Nyttend version of the intro. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the criteria. I think the one you've put up solves most of the problems well. Some may find it to be a bit limiting, but that may not be a bad thing for the project. aprock (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion concerning User: Agadant and the Web Sheriff article at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can join the discussion by clicking here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Article probation on You didn't build that

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, You didn't build that, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --v/r - TP 18:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that neutrality tag

I am wondering about the background on this tag and whether it is still needed. William Jockusch (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion on the talk page. The undue material needs to be resolved. aprock (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Input needed at RfC

Hi. Input is needed on a an RfC. You were randomly selected from the WP:FRS list of editors willing to help with RfCs. If you have a moment, your help would be appreciated at the RfC about the Nobel Prize. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to prohibit mention of well-established accusations

I have added a section to the talk page of Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority to discuss your reverts and wanted to let you know so that you may respond.

Also, while I appreciate you leaving a message on my talk page to let me know you had reverted my edit, I would have preferred if you had taken a less aggressive approach to doing so. The WP:Edit warring page specifically says, "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." I hope that in any future contact between us (and any other editors you interact with), while we may have a disagreement, we can disagree without being disagreeable. — Fishicus (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review your own behavior. Reverting again without taking the issue to the talk page, where there is already an extensive discussion of the issue, in the face of a direct request to take the issue to talk, is disruptive and non-constructive behavior. aprock (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read

WP:MEAT. Note how meat puppets are defined by policy. Sometimes I think no one ever reads it as I've seen so many people misinterpreting it. Just thought you might be interested. Oh, and the IP at talk:R&I? See User talk:BlackHades. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the above, the IP was blocked as a sock (yet another one involved in R&I) & posts redacted. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

IP range 101.0.71.0/24

This range, used by the IP hopper active on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel and arguing about meatpuppetry at WP:ANI,[22] was blocked two days ago by Future Perfect at Sunrise for three months.[23] Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

JJ

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a hostile editing environment. The thread is "User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment.". Thank you. --Elvey (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making

Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions

• Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
  • Nearest BART: 19th Street
  • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
  • Street parking abounds

EdwardsBot (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're invited...

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

• Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
• Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Race and genetics". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving comments on WP:DRN

Hi! Generally, dispute resolution volunteers are given a lot of leeway when it comes to things like moving the current discussion to the bottom, collapsing or even (in severe cases and after several warnings) deleting comments or asking someone to leave if they violate our guidelines. (The usual procedure involves getting at least two other volunteers to agree -- we don't want to give anyone undue power)

On the the hand, we try to discourage participants from doing that, because emotions are often running high and other participants can be quite touchy. There is no rule against it, and nobody will get into trouble over something like this, but things run a lot smoother if you drop me or another volunteer a line on our user page if anyone -- volunteer or participant -- moves something that you think should not be moved.

BTW, I really like the way you are approaching this. Sometimes it is a struggle to get participants to present calm, rational arguments, but everybody involved -- and you in particular -- are making some insightful arguments. Keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to move, delete or collapse any of my comments. When you do make changes to the comments of others, please consider making that he only change made in the edit, and include an appropriate edit summary. On a different note, I also added a template to the talk page of the article. I don't think I got the right one. If you have time, could you check it out to verify that I haven't made a mess of thing? Thank you. aprock (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

List criteria

Can you clarify what "list criteria" you are talking about in your edit summary? Victor Victoria (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the opening paragraph of the article. aprock (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the words "scholarly sources"? because that really needs to go, as the vast majority of references are news sources, which are not "scholarly". I think that the words "scholarly sources" can be dropped and not replaced with anything else, since the policies WP:V and WP:NOR apply. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, wikipedia is not a collection if indiscriminate data. Even without the scholarly sources, WP:UNDUE applies. Just because something has -gate in it, that is not enough to justify inclusion. You need a secondary source. The list criteria requires a scholarly source. aprock (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your argument vis a vis secondary sources. Of course you need secondary sources in order to establish notability. The shows that you removed from the list are notable and have their own Wikipedia articles. Therefore, if a notable show uses a "gate" suffix to label a scandal, then it's notable and should be included on the list. I don't think it should be necessary to have a secondary source to mention that they used this "gate" suffix. This additional requirement causes WP:Recentism as it's difficult to find on line references that would talk about shows from 20 to 30 years ago. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I never mentioned notability, I mentioned WP:UNDUE. Without any secondary source mention of their use of a "-gate" scandal, then there is nothing to establish the item as being worthy of inclusion. You don't need to find an online source. aprock (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If notability is not an issue, then you are really losing me, as you know secondary sources (such as TV Guide) would have talked about the show at the time it was broadcast, as it was a notable show. I just can't name the issue of TV Guide that would have discussed it. I also don't see how WP:UNDUE is relevant, since WP:UNDUE is about how much coverage to give to minor thing things. It does not say to completely ignore them. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:UNDUE is exactly about ignoring things that aren't encyclopedic: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. See also WP:TRIVIA. aprock (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the key is appropriate weight, not no weight. Just because we cannot find a review of a show that broadcast more than 20 years ago does not mean that it's not encyclopedic, as you agreed that notability is not an issue. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case no weight is the appropriate weight. Find some secondary source if you think someone besides yourself finds this fact interesting. aprock (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics

Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What is a government?

If a government is more of a system then an organization, how can a government default? Only natural and legal persons can do that; “systems” cannot. EIN (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'm fairly certain it belongs on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd rather do it there? I wouldn't mind, but it's preferable to have this discussion here if we are to comply to WP:NOTAFORUM.

A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.

A government is an organization exerting centralized control over a community (i.e., over a state).

Article development aside, the former definition is too ambiguous, and it's even cyclic (government→govern). The main merit of the latter definition—well yes, my definition—is that among the many definitions of government it makes the rare accomplishment of identifying the essence of the subject's definition: that the control exerted by the government is, indeed, centralized. Do you agree? EIN (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Find a source. aprock (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC POV tainting

Please do not try to taint RfC with POV wording. I don't know how you could think writing "clearly agrees with Lewontin" and cherry picking a line could possibly be considered neutral wording. What if I put into the RfC:

Dawkins clearly disagreed with Lewontin.

"In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."--Dawkins

Would you actually consider this neutral wording? Your efforts didn't seem to change anything either as everyone still supported B even after your edit. BlackHades (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackHades (talk • contribs)

From this 3RR complaint it looks like you are trying to repeatedly change the text of the RfC. It is expected that the wording of any RfC will have consensus. In extreme cases there has even been an RfC to agree on how to word the RfC. If you disagree with how the person who opened the RfC chose to word it, you should try to gain consensus on the article talk page to get it changed. There is a risk that an admin will choose to block you for edit warring if you don't respond in the AN3 report and agree to accept consensus. I see you've continued to revert to a wording that only you prefer on 24 June. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving my comments from one location not in the RfC, to another location not in the RfC is not a revert. Your comments about consensus are curious since the RfC was unilaterally written by a single editor, and he has made no changes related to the concerns voiced on the talk page. aprock (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment was sitting in the Discussion section as a user comment. Then you moved it up above as though it was a refinement of the RfC question. That doesn't seem proper, unless others agree. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs here. If moving things around requires others to agree, then there are a lot more edits that you should consider reviewing: [24], [25], [26], [27]. Most of these involve editing other people's comments. aprock (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, Aprock. Your name has come up in a discussion with Pluvia on my page, which I hardly suppose you watch. I'm sorry to see you haven't garnered any comments on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard so far; I've pointed Pluvia to it now. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

Arbitration enforcement

Notification of arbitration enforcement concerning you. BlackHades (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Race and genetics

Hi. Just a quick note to let you know that I closed the report on the 3RR noticeboard with no action taken. I did this because the edit warring seems to have stopped and you both seem to have made some effort to discuss. I hope you can reach agreement on consensus. But please don't start edit warring again, as it may result in a block (regardless of how few reverts actually take place). Thanks TigerShark (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on List of most-listened-to radio programs

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on List of most-listened-to radio programs.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on List of most-listened-to radio programs or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Holdek-5. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Please see WP:ANI#Review of block and admin authority. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at List of most-listened-to radio programs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

The blocking admin's reason for blocking is as follows: "continued addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material on List of most-listened-to radio programs". This was never done. The content restored is sourced in the section. The content was restore after bringing the issue to the talk page, where the blocking admin participated. aprock (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It was strongly suggested that you use <ref> tags for your sources; I did not see any here. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

I did not use <ref> tags, because they are already in the article. I can't add sources which are already there. aprock (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Identical to the previous reason. The content added was already sourced in the article, contrary to the blocking admin. From the comment the reviewing admin, it appears that the section content and the relevant source were not examined. aprock (talk) 2:48 am, Today (UTC+0)

Below, the blocking editor acknowledges that the content is supported by sources in the section. So this amounts to handing out a block because non-controversial content in a table didn't have a <ref> tag attached to it. This problem seems like a fairly trivial issue to resolve on the talk page. I'll note that I opened discussion regarding the content on the talk page, and this issue was never raised. I would be more than happy to work with any concerned editor to resolve this (or any other issue) on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As far as I can see; you've shown where the material is sourced from, and although it could be better referenced, restoring it in this case is not a blockable offence. Toddst1 should have worked to show you what he might consider better ways of referencing the list (although, to be honest, the current way is just as valid) rather than blocking you. Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about sourcing content. Just because a source is used to support a fact in one part of an article, doesn't mean it supports other facts in other parts of the article without additional notations. That's why you use <ref name=thisone> and <ref name=thisone/> tags. Additional facts need additional support. Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "other parts of the article" here. The source is in the main sentence of the section. Other supporting sentences are in the second sentence. The ref tags are all there. aprock (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Perhaps, but an admin is still not an authority who must be obeyed, and a reason from the WP:Blocking policy is needed to block anyone, and particularly when blocking a productive editor in good standing. The ANI discussion about the editor who was removing material from List of most-listened-to radio programs resulted in that editor being indeffed. The issue is of minuscule importance and concerns a handful of reverts (example). Aprock restored the removed material a total of three times (on Jan 9, Jan 10, and Feb 1). Toddst1 made a single comment on the article talk page (diff) saying "As the admin who stopped the edit war, I recommend you consider making the the source for the contended material more explicit using <ref> tags. I suspect that's why this whole edit war got started and I'd hate to see anybody get blocked here." It is not acceptable for such a comment to be regarded as "obey or I will block you"—that is not how Wikipedia operates. There is no emergency that requires Aprock to follow an instruction from Toddst1, and it is entirely unclear how the article could reasonably comply with Toddst1's instruction—the article talk page should be used to discuss that point, but a quick look suggests that all the refs are in the paragraph immediately before the table where most of the material was removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

adendum: [28], [29] epliogue: [30], [31]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LordFixit (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux categories

The subject of the RfC was about the lead, not the categories. Please revert, as even though it was not deemed correct for the lede, it is still a correct to say that his writing, speeches, and show are about philosophy. --Netoholic @ 05:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

An SPI you may be interested in

I reported DavidJac and our numerous IP friends here. Let us see what comes of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bitnami, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Misogyny Speech. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==

An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. prat (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon → See you there!

In the area? You're invited to    San Francisco Meetup # 22   Date: October 11, 2014   Time: 1-5 pm   Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105   prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Michelle Rhee shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Track listing

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Track listing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Aprock:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – ^Melody _Lavender 08:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

...and I wanted to tell you that we're talking about you on user talk:WeijiBaikeBianji, just so you know, and of course, you're invited to read it and join the discussion. It's about the Correlates of crime article. --^Melody _Lavender 08:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the puzzle and the note. aprock (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That was funny

I love a good map/reduce joke! Chillum 18:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, niche jokes are always fun when they hit the mark. :) aprock (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

One of my favorites. If you have not read all of those comics you should, you would appreciate the sense of humor. Chillum 18:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

SF edit-a-thons on March 7 and 8

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending! First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works! Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course! I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Comment request re 2015 in spaceflight

Please consider offering a comment on a discussion at Talk:2015_in_spaceflight#BRD_on_whether_satellite_orbital_explosions_are_notable.

Thank you very much. N2e (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Hello! I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Neil Tyson RfC

Regarding your closure of the Neil Tyson RfC [32], I request clarification by contacting you, as recommended in WP:CLOSING.

In your closing text, you say:

Closing this as do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, so without excellent sourcing - which establishes the weight of this incident in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career - the default of non-inclusion applies. aprock (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the BLP issue... it's a little unclear what the BLP issues were. Were you referring to low quality sources, or what? It is unclear. The WP:UNDUE, I understand that and you explained that; that is a weight issue. But what is the BLP issue you refer to?

Many thanks. Marteau (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series on May 25

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, May 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) | Subscribe/Unsubscribe to the SF Meetups notice.

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, June 29

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have:

• A brief report on Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Publice Library, coordinated by Merrilee:

  What topics might we cover in a follow up?

  Find out more about resources your public library provides to help with editing (hint, it's more than just books!)

  Special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)

• Join in on an in person Wikidojo!

  Are you curious how your peers approach writing a Wikipedia article? This exercise, pioneered by Wikipedians Nikola Kalchev and Vassia Atanassova in 2015 and conducted in many places around the world, will help us all - from first-time wiki users to veteran Wikipedians - share ideas, while building an article together. If you have ideas (relating to Bay Area history, ideally) about a new article we could build (stubs and short existing articles are fine), please submit them ahead of time to coordinator Pete Forsyth. (User talk page or email is fine.)

  Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

REMINDER/invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, June 29 at 6 p.m.

Please join us in downtown San Francisco tonight!

If you cannot join in person or want to view portions later:

• To join via Hangout on Air
• Via YouTube Stream

We will have:

• Light snacks, and time to mingle
• A brief report on the Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Public Library, that was coordinated by Wiki editor Merrilee
• A special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)
• Join in on a brief in person Wikidojo!
• Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please register at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cjLRrSTlEkGOPTQ-h6A0WvSFI4ZmIUl6jEHp_RYas-E/viewform and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016

---

See you tonight! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice)

Late breaking invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, July 27 (Wednesday) - change of venue - tonight

Please join us in the Mission at Noisebridge (one time change of venue)!

We hope you can join us today, Wednesday, from 6 p.m. on, at our July Bay Area WikiSalon. This month only, we are going to be at Noisebridge, a hackerspace/makerspace 1.5 blocks from the 16th & Mission BART station (see the link for directions). Some of us will be working on the Wikipedia article on basic income. All info here. Some good news - we do not have to be as strict about advance RSVP at Noisebridge, so bring spontaneous guests! (Registering ahead of time is still helpful, as always, as it will help us plan ahead.)

Come and hang out, have some light snacks. Wi-Fi is available, so please bring your editing device if you plan to edit.

Also, Pete just published a writeup of the Wikidojo exercise we did last month. Your comments welcome, if he missed anything! http://wikistrategies.net/ghost-town-royals-wikidojo

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. Mark you calendars now.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, Stephen and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)