User talk:Zero g

Welcome!

Hello, Zero g, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ka1iban 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts vs. findings

Hey Zero_g, thanks for your help on the Race and Intelligence article. I'm still concerned that the study being presented is being misrepresented by not making clear that their conclusions are predictions, not incontrovertible fact. The way it stands before my edits, I think it is misleading to the readers - their statistical study represents a theoretical prediction predicated upon a simple model. It is not a fact that you would get an x% increase in poverty with a 3-point drop in IQ, it is a prediction. Don't you agree?

I know your concern is that it is being watered down, but shouldn't we try to use as neutral and as non-judgemental a tone when discussing the subject? --JereKrischel 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Galton

Thank you kindly. I actually took a look around for said ref, but did not see it.--Media anthro 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian genocide

Please provide for a 3rd party reading of the Dutch criminal law that says that people can be prosecuted for denying the Armenian genocide in the Netherlands. I doubt you can find one. Intangible 14:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shockley

Zero, I don't see a problem in your edits, but the correct thing to do is to discuss a change after it has been reverted. I'm willing to offer a third opinion to help you and Ramdrake. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R&I article

What do you think of Nick and Legalleft's ideas on the article. See towards the end of this section: [1] --Jagz (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Dysgenics

I have opened an RfC on the content dispute we're currently having, in the hopes that a wider input will help us determine whether the article in its current state gives undue weight to fringe science. I will abide by the RfC consensus, and I hope you will too.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on others

Accusing other editors as you did here of being "meatpuppets" and "obstructive" in an AfD is uncivil and may cross the line into personal attacks. Please refrain from commenting about the other contributors, and instead focus on the editorial content of the articles, and the merits of the discussions. If you believe there has been misbehavior by other editors, then please follow the dispute resolution process or report it to WP:ANI. Dreadstar † 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is an unwarranted personal attack and is disruptive. If you continue making such comments, you will be blocked. Dreadstar † 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are personally involved if you let personal attacks like this one slide by [2] without a warning, yet threaten me with a block when I simply speak my mind and ask an editor (for the third time) to stop repeating an incorrect statement without making a single personal attack. Maybe you should ask another admin to baby sit the discussion if you cannot involve yourself in an unbiased manner? --Zero g (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been responding to those comments that have been directly reported to me or that I have happened to come across. Please bring what you feel are problematic edits to my attention and I'll take appropriate action as I did here. Your comment is not just "simply" speaking your mind to ask an editor to stop repeating an incorrect statement, you are accusing other editors of vandalism and being liars. That's not only uncivil, it is a personal attack. If you continue making such accusations, you will be blocked. Dreadstar † 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, please put a leash on Ramdrake. He's getting away with too much. --Jagz (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenics

If you're still interested in a more complete article on Dysgenics, try Wikinfo. I think you'd be able to paste a version of the Wikipedia Dysgenics article there. --Jagz (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may want to try an article "Dysgenics (book)" in Wikipedia on Richard Lynn's book Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations although I want to avoid discussions of why. --Jagz (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi, when you get a chance, could you please create a userpage? It will give your voice more weight, as when someone posts as a "redlinked" name, it's often assumed that they are a SPA or otherwise new editor. Thanks, El on ka 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion: I appreciate your defense of Jagz at ANI, but if I can offer some advice about wiki-culture... Threads on ANI generally follow a pattern, in terms of size and age. Once they get over a certain size, there is often a perception by administrators that more is being made of an issue than is necessary, and that some of the participants just "won't let it drop". The same is thought about threads that go on for a long period of time. In these cases, other admins who weren't paying attention to the situation before, may start popping in, not because of the original issue that was being discussed, but because they want to know, "Who's keeping this thread open?"

Right now, the thread is effectively "done" as far as the admins are concerned, but the archive bot isn't removing it, because people keep posting extra comments. If the thread can "go quiet" for 24 hours though, then the bot will archive it, and the situation will be considered resolved.

In other words, if you want to help, my recommendation is to not post anything further in the thread for now, as all it's doing is keeping the thread active. Instead, if someone else wants to get the last word, let them, or if you really feel it needs a reply, take it to their talkpage. But please let the ANI thread die. :) Thanks, El on ka 16:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm quite naive, so your insightful suggestions are much appreciated. Remind me to never pursue a career in politics. ;) --Zero g (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good analogy. :) And don't worry, you're not expected to know this stuff right off the bat. There's a lot of "tribal knowledge" in Wiki-culture that is only learned via mentoring, or the School of Hard Knocks. In terms of ANI, I often view it as a slowly moving river, that's flowing straight up and off the page, towards archive. When a thread starts, it starts at the bottom in the table of contents, and then gradually grows as it rises to the top, so within a few hours it'll be the fifth thread from the bottom, then the next day it'll be in the middle of the TOC, then the next day it'll be 7th from the top, and so forth. Most threads are resolved before they get to the top, and disappear to archive. The ones that don't get archived, and therefore get to the top and "sit", have not yet been resolved despite days of discussion (usually bickering at that point). The Jagz thread had recently reached the top of ANI, next to a couple of other longrunning threads that have been sitting there for awhile, and some admins who might not have paid attention to the thread when it was at the bottom of ANI, might be more likely to look at it when it's at the top, to see "why the valve is stuck". Another thing that they'll do, is start checking the contribs of all involved. For example: Jagz (talk · contribs), Zero g (talk · contribs), Ramdrake (talk · contribs), Elonka (talk · contribs), Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), Mathsci (talk · contribs), etc. If an admin scans through someone's contribs, and sees that a (non-admin) editor is spending more time posting at ANI and everybody else's talkpages than actually working on articles, then that can be a problem, and the editor may be nudged to "get back to work". At that point we may offer a reminder that our mission here is (usually) to create an encyclopedia, not to spend weeks discussing whether or not someone spat on the sidewalk. ;) Anyway, hope that helps, and let me know if you have any other questions on the subtleties, --El on ka 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenics

I must say I'm actually starting to like the approach of describing the historical evolution of the concept in the article. It doesn't push a particular POV (that I feel) anymore, just explains how different researchers have seen dysgenic trends in humanity, without giving undue weight to a single researcher. I think that's a good thing, overall.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the article is lacking by not providing an overview of pioneer fund research. Hopefully the article can evolve to a degree that this information can be added without turning the article in a pov magnet that needs constant baby sitting. Needless to say that I'm more than ready to move on to a different article. --Zero g (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology Wiki

Psychology Wiki is part of Wikia and aims "to provide an up-to-date, authoritative statement of knowledge, theory, and practice in the whole field of psychology". --Jagz (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenesis

Creating this stub was a bit disruptive (see WP:POINT). Better would have been to discuss at Talk:Dysgenics first and see if there was consensus for such a split. For now, I have proposed a merge, and we'll see what the discussion turns out to be. However, please don't create any other forks on this topic, without discussing them first. Thanks, El on ka 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you made another stub, Fertility and intelligence, which has again caused disruption. You are also edit-warring at Talk:Dysgenics. Please slow down. If you continue with disruptive actions, you may have your account access blocked. If you want to make another closely-related stub, please suggest it, rather than just pushing ahead with it over objections. You may also wish to create stubs in your own userspace, where they can be fleshed out a bit before deciding where they would best fit in article-space. --El on ka 19:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not free to create new articles? Like the Mohammed cartoon controversy, I don't think the person causing the 'disruption' is automatically to blame. If you truly believe the article doesn't belong I encourage you to put it up for deletion. --Zero g (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia essay on scientific consensus

I found this essay: Wikipedia:Scientific consensus. Not sure if it is useful to you. --Jagz (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Wikipedia appears to be a democracy (read: dictatorship of the majority) I am not so sure it will be, especially if you consider that genotypic intelligence is declining and academic achievement appears to be negatively correlated with common sense, which is commonly known to be not so common. I think I might be ready for my break again, or maybe I'll hire a spin doctor. --Zero g (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fertility and intelligence

I think it's a great article. Perhaps we can get it to good article status after a while. There is a whole ocean of research that proves this phenemenon. EgraS (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see some enthusiasm, hopefully editing the article won't become a drag due to pov conflicts. --Zero g (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've reverted a change I made to the article where I corrected the misrepresentation of a number of studies. Please be aware that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not on truth. Editors should not draw their own conclusions about primary sources, or misrepresent said source, as you appear to have done. These sources clearly describe a negative corellation between intelligence and fecundity, but they do not report a "decline in intelligence" as you insist. Please familiarizes yourself with Wikipedia's editing policies. Jefffire (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. The studies showed a negative correlation between intelligence/IQ and fertility, next estimated the average decline of IQ this would cause, and labeled such a decline as dysgenic. Hence a dysgenic decline in intelligence, it's even in the titles of most of the studies. --Zero g (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, they estimate a decline. They do not report a decline. This is a subtle but highly important difference. Jefffire (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the article says, though I guess it depends on how you read it. If you can reword it in a better way to make this clearer I have no problem with that, but as it is you're disturbing a fragile consensus by making a massive change in terminology. --Zero g (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article says that they report a decline, which means that they directly measured it empirically. They did not do this, they estimated it from their empirical data on fecundity. Jefffire (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the text to use Vining's wording. Perhaps you could clarify the second part of the sentence about how exactly they estimate a decline in intelligence? From what I gathered they used an estimate of the heritability of intelligence of around 60% in some of the calculations. --Zero g (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dysgenics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. El on ka 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions have been mentioned at WP:ANI

As per this thread: [3], this is a courtesy notice that your actions are under discussion at ANI.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused why you don't simply file an AfD on the article? Do you need help filing one? See WP:AFD. Or, ask someone for assistance. --El on ka 16:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my strong recommendation to file an AfD, or request comment via some other means, not to simply keep on reverting. If you are not sure how to file an AfD, ask for help. --El on ka 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD would be preferable, but it wouldn't work well if Ramdrake keeps reverting. I'll try to make some time tomorrow and look into the AfD procedure if the conflict hasn't been resolved by then. --Zero g (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ramdrake would know better than to revert an AfD notice. If you'd like help filing one, just say the word. I have tools available which could let me post an AfD in seconds. If you'd rather file it yourself though (or find some other way of requesting comment) that's fine too. But please, stop with the reverting, as it is not an effective way of proceeding. Your best tactic right now is to get more editors commenting. This could be done either with an AfD, a RfC, or posting at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. My own recommendation is an AfD, as it keeps the article more visible so it's easier to comment. If you file it, you have the advantage of being able to post an opening paragraph at the top. However, someone else (such as Ramdrake or anyone, for that matter) may file the AfD first. Up to you though. --El on ka 02:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only a second's work for you please go ahead and file the AfD. :) --Zero g (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. --El on ka 05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you for adding a good photo to the Anders Breivik article, thus cutting through a lot of debate! PaulWicks (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript RegExp problem

I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § X in fiction VIII

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § X in fiction VIII on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]