Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 24 June 2013

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 30 sections are present.

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Re Thomas Mayer. It was a mistake anyone could make, but it does demonstrate that the list of patrolling tasks at WP:NPP is important ;)

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: , 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 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 /_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/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact

http://en.wikipedia.org/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 /_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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 . 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.

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?

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

Gates

Saying that we're going by Misplaced Pages's definitions is a violation of WP:OR as well as an ASR violation, since Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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, was blocked two days ago by Future Perfect at Sunrise for three months. 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 Misplaced Pages: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

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

Please comment on Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:17, 11 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)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Race and Genetics 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.
I'd recommend putting some effort into editing text toward the way you think it should be rather than entirely focused on removal of clearly relevant content. BlackHades (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 26 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 Misplaced Pages: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  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 Misplaced Pages). 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Editing restrictions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Editing restrictions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:16, 10 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 17 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

From this 3RR complain 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)