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