Do you have access to the complete article showing "54% of Chinese men"? Are you speculating that the 77% is a typo? I find it hard to believe that there is no correction for such a controversial article!
How do you explain the other statistics showing 95% @ 66–88 and N chromosomes @ 55?
- @ Raquel Baranow
- I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and this is the first time I have received a Wikipedia threat! How exciting!
- I don't know how to send you an attachment through Wikipedia, and I am a little shocked that you would want to contradict me when you admit that you have not seen my source. You can receive the attachment, if you send me an email at email@example.com. The information you seek is on Table 1, page 891 of Lu et al. "Community control n=77 3R=42 (54.5%)" The faux confidence interval is not in Lu et al. Lea and Chambers must have calculated it based on their copy-and-paste error. I would speculate that the error received no correction due to incompetence and/or lack of competent peer review.
Please can you explain this edit where you change "five" to "fourteen" even though the source text says "five", and where you remove other sourced text. Have you got other sources for this. If not then I will revert your change back. Colin°Talk 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct that your source only says five, but it is only a commentary. I just posted the primary source reference, which lists 14 cases from the family history. Detailed research continued on 9 of the subjects, so there is no basis to claim that only 5 had it. 12 December 2012
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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.
Zad68 14:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please also take the time to read WP:ELNO, especially point 11. A blog is not usually considered a suitable external link on Wikipedia. In addition, as it appears to be your blog (and therefore my be considered to represent a conflict of interest or spamming) you should discuss the addition on the article talk page. Don't keep adding it back in as continually undoing other people's changes could get you blocked from editing. Thanks QuiteUnusual TalkQu 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly object to the deletion of an external link to an extended, completely relevant, all-inclusive, and purely factual bibliography on MAOA. I would not object, if any of these warring editors could provide a better bibliography. For years, Wikipedia’s entry on MAOA contained a number of complete falsehoods about MAOA from journals that I believe are not peer-reviewed. Eventually, a famous Harvard professor (Dr. Steven Pinker) repeated one such falsehood in a best-selling book. Even though I admire that writer, I felt compelled to write a critical essay. I believe the error was harmful to his career and reputation, and someone informed me that the error was removed from subsequent editions. As I began correcting the errors from the Wikipedia page, I had to endure multiple “edit wars” from poorly informed editors. As you can see from my talk page, one such individual demanded that I personally email a paper, using the edit war as a threat. In each case, I was correct, and my data prevailed. As a public service, I started a bibliography to help inform such people about this important area of research. The bibliography is too extended to be posted on Wikipedia, itself. (I should mention that Wikipedia is a punch line in my professional circle. Medical doctors rightly do not trust it and tend to rely on private research-review Web sites, like UpToDate.com.) It is true that Google Blogspot provides a free page, on which I have posted the bibliography, but I do not consider it to be a “blog.” You will not find daily ruminations about life or descriptions of breakfast on the site. Of course, I am the editor of the bibliography, although I shall include any and all relevant study and published commentary suggestions. The bibliography clearly does not fit a standard, common-sense definition of “conflict of interest” or Wikipedia’s own definition. The poorly informed editor who initially accused me of COI, (who is one of those spreading falsehoods and who engaged in a previous edit war with me, as shown on my talk page,) provided a link to Wikipedia’s definition, which says, “Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason…” My bibliography is not “self-serving” in any way. In fact, it is a major time sink, for which I have received nothing. My work is an attempt to save Wikipedia further embarrassment and prevent future edit wars with people unfamiliar with MAOA research. Indeed, the MAOA Wikipedia page contained so many errors prior to my editing that I became its primary editor. If there are falsehoods printed on the bibliography or its studies without my having noted them, then state what those falsehoods are. Believe me, you will not find the sort of egregious and offensive errors like the statement that 80% of Asians have the warrior gene, which was based on a copy-and-paste error that I had to correct from Wikipedia. Unsilencedscience 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you might not have seen the warning yet. Thus will unblock. If you return this ref without consensus will reblock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unsilencedscience, your approach to interacting with other editors on needs to change or you will be blocked. The other editors are working here in good faith. They read the sources and edit the articles. If the text doesn't correspond to the sources, they remove it or change it to fit with the sources. If you want the text to say something else, you need to provide better sources and cite them, and explain why on the talk page. It is completely inappropriate for you to revert other editors who have provided text that is correct according to the sources they used. Not everyone has great journal access and is doing the best they can. Please start to assume good faith when dealing with others and work with them rather than against them. If someone lacks access to a source, you can always quote a short relevant section on a talk page.
- There are lots of "useful" web resources we could link to but don't. WP has a high standard for external links. If you want to write original material and have Wikipedia use it or link to it, find a reputable publisher. Colin°Talk 10:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)