|I am not an admin. Please do not ask me to delete, restore or protect pages as I cannot do so. This also means that if you are here because you think I deleted an article you created, you are mistaken--I just tagged it for deletion. Instead, check the deletion log to find out who the deleting admin was and contact them. You are free to ask me why I tagged it, though. On an unrelated note, if you want to put a template on this page, read WP:DTTR before doing so.|
International Public Conference on Vaccination listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect International Public Conference on Vaccination. Since you had some involvement with the International Public Conference on Vaccination redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Adopt a user
Hi I am looking to be adopted by a user. I've run into some trouble on AN/I where i made a bad judgement call in regards to COI advice I gave out. Maybe you can adopt me as a user out so that I don't repeat similar mistakes. Thank you. JC7V-constructive zone 08:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi thanks for adopting me. Just some specific questions:
- 1) If an IP has been blocked in the past month and they vandalize again for the first time after the block is up, do I give them a Level 1 or Level 2 warning???
- 2) If I see an account with a promotional username creating a draft about a company that matches their username (but have no non mainspace edits), do I leave a warning message?? or do I report them to UAA?? I've heard conflicting things about this. I even heard one admin tell a user to take it straight to COI. It seems to me that there is a very thin line between the 3 actions.
- 3) When is the most ideal time to give a user a welcome-vandal message??
- 4) What's the best way to decide between tagging an article as 'topic of article may not meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines' and PRODing it?? It seems to me that in some situations it's a thin line.
Your revert of my edit/reply
You're absolutely correct! There was no reason for me to. Thanks for the heads up. Stalking issue. Extremely sorry for inconvenience. Changing password (yet again!). AnonNep (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- To add some detail, I've posted at Helpdesk for more based on an ongoing offline situation . As I said in the Helpdesk post this removing posts/comments wholesale doesn't reflect my (years long) edit history. Again, very sorry. Passwords changed & pursuing the issue. AnonNep (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Steven Goddard for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Goddard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it would be undefined, because it would be a ratio of 0 divided by 0... (genetic variance=phenotypic variance=0) Of course you have to write what the source says :-) --Randykitty (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, the "two eyes" example is in a couple other sources besides the Maccoby article (e.g. The Gene Illusion by Jay Joseph). Honestly I was largely thinking the Maccoby paper was a good source for critical perspectives and wanted to work it in the article somehow. The source does in fact say "A human characteristic such as being born with two eyes is entirely genetic, yet its heritability would be computed as zero in a twin or adoption study since it is a characteristic that does not vary within the population studied". IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if I would want to be completely pedantic, I would point out that the heritability of having two eyes actually is 1, because there is variation (albeit very little, see Cyclopia) and it is purely genetic... ;-) The way heritability is calculated in twin studies, heritability would indeed come out as zero because both the MZ and the DZ correlations would be 1, so the difference is 0. (Assuming that cyclopa doesn't occur in twins or only so rarely that you never would have it in any ordinary sample). I should look up that Maccoby paper when I have a moment. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)