Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:35, 23 June 2013

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Seralini affair

I ask you politely to cease vandalising attempts to create balance on this page that are properly sourced. You claim there is no evidence that HCB and ANSES asked for long-term studies on GM foods based on the Seralini study, yet THIS REQUEST WAS MADE BY ANSES AND HCB IN THEIR DEDICATED ANALYSES OF THE STUDY. Do you understand? this is why I am reverting this edit.Dusha100 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to be familiar with wikipedia policies. Others have already tried to point these out to you. Instead of being hostile toward everyone trying to explain how to properly edit wikipedia, it would be in your best interest to listen to those that are trying to help you. No HCB and ANDES does not ask for long term studies based on Seralini. They ask for long term studies based on the lack of long term studies. What you did was WP:OR which is a violation of the policies set forth by wikipedia. If you believe it's not, you should be capable of quoting text directly from the source that accurately supports your statements. It is your WP:BURDEN to expressly demonstrate the text you're adding is supported by sources which you have failed to do. BlackHades (talk) 21:57, 26 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) 20:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation clutter

Hi! If you didn't notice, just to let you know that I re-grouped the citations on the GM controversies page yesterday. I was looking over the history today and I saw this edit which means that my edit was (unintentionally) a revert. Sorry for not opening a discussion. :-) As I mentioned in the edit summary, the rationale is WP:CITEKILL, especially the last section ("How to trim excessive citations"); also see Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations. I'm happy to talk further if you'd like - there are a couple of other places where this issue should be addressed but I'll wait for your response before proceeding. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I reverted earlier because there was no explanation for the grouping but if the explanation is WP:CITEKILL I'm perfectly okay with it. BlackHades (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:04, 2 June 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 other 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)

Could you do me a favor? I will have no problem if you decide not to. Originally, I wanted my "write up a paragraph saying 'here is what I think the best reasons...'" request to be at the bottom so as to maximize the responses I would get. Through some reverting, it ended up not at the bottom, and you ended up being the only one who responded. Rather than opening up a potential can of worms by moving something again, I decided to just ask again at the bottom. Would you be so kind as to answer again at the bottom? It can be mostly cutting and pasting. As I said, I am OK if you don't want to do this, but it would help.

Also, please note the wording of the question. I asked for an answer to the first question, a wait for the other fellow to answer, then an answer to the second question. I hope that this will encourage more back-and-forth dialog compared to answering both questions at once. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion of the experiment to help resolving the dispute. It was a good idea of yours and would have helped but it only works if everyone agrees to partake on it. Unfortunately no one else seems willing to. I do commend your patience with all of us through all this. :-P BlackHades (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your amazing responses on Talk:Race and genetics which really impressed me and made me appreciate you explaining that in such detail. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) BlackHades (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk: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.