User talk:Runig

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

Welcome!

Hello, Runig, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Fluid and crystallized intelligence. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lova Falk talk 10:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid intelligence

"I cited 3 legit studies from respected journals": No you did not. You cited abstracts to articles. This is a scientific article and requires reading actual articles (not summaries) in order to maintain encylcopedic standards. If this were a fluff article about a Hollyword star, such citations might be acceptable, but not for an article based on the scientific method. Cresix (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and understand a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia: WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth." Click the link and read the entire policy. It doesn't matter how biased you think an article is. Until you can actually read the articles you don't need to report the results. I don't intend to argue further with you. If you wish to make an exception to policy, take it up on the article's talk page and wait for enough consensus to support your case. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click the links. They go to abstracts, not articles. If the link provides another link to purchase the article, you have not linked the article. But here is my final and most important point, and then I will no longer argue with you: YOU need to read the articles before reaching conclusions. I have read the articles, but it is clear that you haven't. Now please, if you have further concerns, take them to the article's talk page and wait for consensus rather than arguing with me. Cresix (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed the phrasing. Hope this make you happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.168.20.212 (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is wrong with me. You have not read the articles. That is obvious to someone who has read them. If you continue this nonsense you can be blocked from editing on two counts: adding information that is not verified by the sources cited, and abusively editing with multiple accounts/IPs. I don't intend to argue with you endlessly about this matter. You can either read the articles and edit accordingly, or get a block. And that's my final comment. Cresix (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]