User talk:Nectarflowed

John Tarleton (8 November 1811 – 25 September 1880) was a Royal Navy officer who went on to be Second Naval Lord. He was given command of the fifth-rate HMS Fox in 1852, of the frigate HMS Eurydice in 1855 and of the frigate HMS Euryalus in 1858: he led the latter ship as an element of the Channel Squadron and then of the Mediterranean Squadron. Tarleton served as Junior Naval Lord from 1871 and then as Second Naval Lord from 1872 to 1874. He was promoted to Vice Admiral in 1875 and retired in 1879. He is seen here in an 1860 photograph by John Jabez Edwin Mayall.Photograph credit: John Jabez Edwin Mayall; restored by User:Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

Model minority

I'd like to say good job for the changes you've made to this article. Your edits have greatly improved it. — J3ff 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness

Hi man. You put a nice study to the article. I was just wondering about 1. year, 2. researchers, 3. reference/link. Would be great if you could just add it. Ben (talk) 18:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ben. I've included the necessary references. Check out the newly-linked interview if you're interested in it. Tell me if there's anything else I can do.--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 09:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, very cool. I read the interview, it was interesting. I was hoping for a research paper, though. So, I was searching scholar.google and found e.g. this here and a (very) short review "Future change in sexual behavior?". Well, cheers, Ben (talk) 13:16, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ben, thanks for passing on the great articles. (Sorry it's really taken me a while to respond - I've been swamped lately). I really think it's a shame only a fraction of the population gets to be familar with these kinds of topics. I also have enjoyed studying (formally and informally) abroad.. in Sweden, Italy, and Thailand. Can I ask what you're doing in Fuchu? Are you making use of your education in strange subjects?

I thought the neural network page move discussion had good points, and I see it's gotten resolved quite well before I had the time to contribute. Congratulations on the biological neural network article. Like you, I think greater depth of coverage of neuroscience topics would be great for Wikipedia. --Brandon ^(talk) 09:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Brandon! Nice post. Sweden, Italy, and Thailand? Sounds like a interesting choice. What I am doing in Fuchu? I am asking myself that question, too, from time to time. Basically I enjoy life and sometimes I do some research at Chūō University. I am also writing on my thesis in cognitive science (are you?).

Do you have plans or ideas for more neuroscience/cognitive science in wikipedia? Ben talk contr 11:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, you probably noticed some communalities in our homepages. I copied the "count your edits" and the picture of the day, from your pages. Thanks Ben talk contr 09:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

page move of Neural network article

hey Nectarflowed! There is need for a cognitive science opinion at Talk:Neural_network. I guess some people there never heard there was something like neural networks in the human brain and they don't know about the related research. I could need some support. Ben (talk) 11:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cochran study

Could you inform me in which issue of J Biosoc Sci the Cochran/Ashkenazi IQ will be published? JFW | T@lk 10:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Cochran

You really really did quite an excellent contribution to the article under the Ashkenazi intelligence heading. See you later :) --ShaunMacPherson 29 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)

Thanks, Shaun :) And thanks for starting his article; he does interesting stuff. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 29 June 2005 22:56 (UTC)

Arbitration?

Hello Nectarflowed, I was under the impression we agreed to arbitration for resolution of the race and intelligence dispute (you suggested it on that article's talk page)? But in the RfA you seem to be primarily interested in getting me blocked for name calling? Certainly everything on the talk page is relevant (including obfuscation and language confusion repetition) but are you interested in working towards resolving the race and intelligence dispute via arbitration? You say in the RfA "Zen-master's argument isn't under question here", is that really true and can I disagree? Could you clear up this confusion on the RfA page? Also can you specifically note I was not banned for name calling on June 30, you say "subject of a policy enforcement ban" which could easily be misread. Also in the RfA, are the three items you listed under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" really that, seems like they just more evidence of name calling ignoring the root dispute over the article's content and are certainly not attempts at dispute resolution? Perhaps you should move that list of three to your statement section? just wondering, zen master T 3 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)

Hi Zen-master, thanks for staying friendly with me. This RfA is nothing personal; it's just that I and other users on the race and intelligence talk page feel what has happened there for the last 2 and 1/2 weeks has not been productive and shows no signs of becoming productive in the future.

The name calling is exemplary of what we feel has been a disruptive style of involvement.
We don't consider there to be a dispute with the article, because we feel we've addressed the points given in your argument. For example, Ryan and Kizzle on your talk page took up your cause, but appeared to be satisfied with my response, and went on to other points. Willmcw has agreed with you on your opposition to the article, but hasn't expressed agreement with the specific argument you've been promoting. My personal opinion is that most people will be satisfied by the summary of your argument and my response that I gave in my RfA statement, but for what ever reason, in the perspective you're operating with, my response doesn't address all the points brought up in your argument.
Policy enforcement bans can be any length of time, and are usually for short periods, rather than permanent, in case that's what you were referring to. Now that you point it out, I see that the policy enforcement log page actually says it was for "personal remarks," not for name-calling. I'll change that on the RfA page. Thanks for pointing that out.
The 3 items listed under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" are there to demonstrate that intervention was attempted but didn't resolve the concern.

Best, Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)

So was your offer of arbitration made in good faith then? Why would I agree to arbitration if working towards resolving the race and intelligence dispute is not on the table? Does your and others' behavior have any bearing on my alleged "personal remarks"? Might the fact that the existence of a legitimate neutrality dispute being potentially subverted pertinent? I will give you a few more hours to clarify the RfA before I fix it: 1) I was not banned on June 30th 2) the three items are not evidence of dispute resolution 3) We agreed to arbitration on the race and intelligence talk page. If you continue to be unresponsive and don't fix the inaccurate RfA presentation I will be forced to consider this discussion as evidence against you in the RfA (a pattern of, at best, disingenuous presentation [including your most recent RfA edit]). zen master T 3 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Maybe this arbitration will resolve the race and intelligence dispute.

The Policy enforcement log reads: "2 hour block each to Drummond (contribs) and Zen-master (contribs), for repeated personal remarks directed against each other at talk:race and intelligence which disrupt discussion of improvements to the article."[1] How is that not a policy enforcement ban?

My most recent edit corrected the reason for the ban, which was disruptive personal remarks, not name-calling, as I had mistakenly written earlier.--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

Note that is within the "proposed" section of the page, and was only a suggestion by Ed Poor, was never implemented. Can you please fix the RfA? zen master T 3 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Done. My apologies for the mistake. I was under the impression from Ed's talk page that the ban had been applied, although I see now that they were only talking about the talk page being protected. --Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Anti-racist mathematics

Please help @ Talk:Anti-racist mathematics. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

New Arbitration case

elements cross-posted

Heya,

I have now opened the requested Arbitration case in which you are involved, here; please add any evidence you think would be useful to us in coming to our judgement onto the evidence sub-page.

Thank you very much in advance for your efforts,

James F. (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee voted to accept the case, not to follow any particular course of action. The comments you gave in opening the RfAr was meant to be a guide to whether or not there was something to investigate, not evidence for final decisions. The evidence sub-page is for detailed evidence of specific breeches of policy, etc..

Sorry if the process confused you; it's a bit unclear to an outsider, I suppose.

James F. (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

defn of intelligence

I don't remember the citation, but Sternberg did some surveys of public opinion on the defn of intelligence. Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People's conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37-55. The IQ Controversy p.56 has expert descriptors of what is and is not an important element of intelligence, and p.59 has their opinions on whether IQ tests (don't) measure that element. --Rikurzhen 22:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about the Linda Gottfredson article. Though some appear to think it's not the case, I strive for balance and precision regardless of my personal beliefs. PS: I like the [flumina] nectaris ibant screen name-- read a lot Latin and Greek bucolic poetry back in the day. Maybe we should add more on Ovid's metallurgic conception of races... Jokestress 21:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

for your words in talk:anti-racist math back in february. You helped me understand the concept a little better, cuz it's kinda hard to tell by the article, what it is exactly. Kzzl 18:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for fixing my email address on my userpage and preventing the spam.--Nicholas 09:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote removal

You've removed the Sailer quote from Eugenics three times in a few hours, as well as doing a previous revert in another section. Please avoid doing so much reverting. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the 3 revert rule applies to a similar action repeated 3 times. Your 3 edits and my 3 edits were different proposals, and the process seemed productive to me. The last edit I made retains the thesis presented in Sailer's quote. Please let me know if there are any other concerns.Nectar ^T 03:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My overall concern is that the quote keeps getting reverted, without discussion. No, I don't think that you have captured the meaning or intent of the quotation, but thanks for trying. -Willmcw 04:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

My first revert stated that the quote wasn't appropriate to the section it was added to. It seemed like you acknowledged that, as you then moved the quote to a different section. My subsequent revert stated that it wasn't appropriate to that section either. It seemed like you acknowledged that, as you then changed the section title (to a better title).

What seems to be left out in the summary of the quote I included? The thesis of the quote appears to be: "libertarian eugenics fundamentally threatens institutionalized feminism." My summary was: "Steve Sailer predicts a reduction in prevalence of lesbianism will reduce the influence of feminism." This summary seems more in line with the point of the source paragraph and its preceding paragraph: some groups such as the disabled and homosexuals will have fewer members and consequent reduced political power. --Nectar ^T 05:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the Sailer quote again, I find it so nettlesomely unsupportable as to be distracting from the article. Wyss 13:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MTRAS

I have the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study age 17 papers in PDF and I can upload them to the wikigroup if you're interested. Or if you have access, you can get them thru ScienceDirect. --Rikurzhen 06:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master Arbitration case closed

The Zen-master Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master, which you commented on, has been closed, with the following remedies:

Zen-master is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case. Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that Zen-master be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive, they shall place a template {{Zen-master banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including Zen-master, at the end of the ban. If Zen-master edits an article they are banned from, they may be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, up to a week for repeat offenses.
Zen-master is banned for one week for making personal attacks.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name change still wanted?

Hey mate, long time no see. I just noticed this edit, in which your request for a name change is removed by an anon. If you still want that name change, I'd recommend relisting it (but notice that currently the username change function is disabled. Maybe talk to Secretlondon about it?). Just thought you might want to know. Take care, --Blackcap | talk 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blackcap. I removed the request when I realized the name in question was already registered.. I just hadn't noticed because the account had 0 edits. The browser I was on at the time must have logged me out without me noticing. Thanks for the tip about Secretlondon.. he does seem like he knows what's going on with the page. See you around, Nectar ^T 03:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

way to get recognized

Nectar, good job getting your WP contribution recognized in the New Yorker article. --Rikurzhen 01:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rikurzhen. It was nice to come across the reference. I think our corner of WP is steadily coming along.--Nectar ^T 04:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm around...

...but am leaving in five minutes to go to a search and rescue meeting. I'll check my e-mail—what's happening? (Note: an easy way to check whether a Wikipedian in on the Wiki is to look at their contribs: mine are here Special:Contributions/Blackcap). Take care, Blackcap | talk 02:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry, it'll have to be a few days (I've got to go for now). I've replied via e-mail more verbosely. Cheers, Blackcap | talk 02:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Wikipedia is a great project and I'm glad to contribute. Thanks for the appreciation. Thanks, too, for the particular care in placing it. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Magical" Seoul treatment cannot be found on PubMed----Follow up on Previous Debate

"Researchers in South Korea announced in November 2004 that they had successfully used multipotent cord blood (adult) stem cell treatments to enable a paralyzed woman to walk with the aid of a walker."

A thorough search of the medical literature both for general keywords (stem cells, therapy, spinal cord) and the authors' names gives no results. Check for yourself on PubMed.org. Since the treatment is from November 2004, it could be out by now. If it is so promising and novel, why is it not published officially?

It IS in PubMed: [2]-- --Keetoowah 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In short, the paragraph should be tagged with a warning, if no more reliable publication can be found by the end of 2005.

Wrong. This paragraph should not be tagged with a warning. I have added links to the articles that described the treatment. [3] [4] It was not a study anyway. It was a treatment for ONE woman. I have added a link to the Korea Times article that shows a picture of the woman. The link to the Korea Times article is on the Stem Cell page, but it was moved to the bottom in the reference section during an edit war. A truce has been called in that edit war and now maybe the link can be added back in the article without someone removing it. You have not signed your comments. But no warning is required.-----Keetoowah 12:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, I'm glad to see you providing a reference, but I think your threat of a warning for not signing his comment may be "biting the newcomers" (see Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers). And I agree: I don't know why someone would object to the Korea Times link being in the relevant section. --Nectarflowed 04:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nectarflowed: I don't know how you know that whoever comment anonymously is a newcomer. The comment does not indicate that it was written by a newcomer. How do you know it was written by a newcomer? However, be that as it may, all I stated was: "You have not signed your comments." I was not rude or offensive. Please explain in detail why what i stated is so horrible. I believe that you are way, way too sensitive or are just looking for a reason to critize me. Either way it was an unwarranted, unwelcome and unhelpful admonishment.-----Keetoowah 16:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although it's definatley a 'good news' stem cell story the fact that this treatment was not reported in a peer reviewed journal, or any scientific journal for that matter, leads me to believe that this section should bear some kind of unpublished research warning, or be deleted from the article entirely. If the publication that is promised emerges then its fine--nixie 05:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do we know that there just has not been time to get the research written up, submitted to a journal, and they are currently waiting for publication? Since the situation has been written about in the Korea Times, London Telegraph, Agency French Press, and United Press International, why not leave in the story and give the researchers more time to get the article out there. I think that we should err on the side of giving Wikipedia readers more information instead of less. Why is the only options: 1. research warning or 2. delete?? I would just like to understand why those are the only options. Leaving in the citation from four legitimate sources would seem to me to be the most prudent route.-----Keetoowah 16:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I talked to the two researchers involved in Korea and they indicated that they have submitted an article concerning the work to the journal: "Cell Therapy".-----Keetoowah 15:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reference: Kang KS, Kim SW, Oh YH, Yu JW, Kim KY, Park HK, Song CH, Han H. A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study. Cytotherapy 2005;7(4):368-73. --Herb West 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the citation, Herb West. Also, PubMed has the Cytotherapy article in its database. --- --Keetoowah 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On another follow up note, the women and the researchers are in the news again. Please see: 2nd Stem Cell Operation Planned for Patient Also, I noticed that whoever made the original critical comments about the Korean situation has removed their identification tags. I guess that the warning should be people jumping to conclusions--just because something cannot be found on PubMed. PubMed does not have every single article in the whole world, that was fallacious argument. Just another example of overzealous ESC supporter attempting minimize the benefits of ASC.-----Keetoowah 20:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further follow up, someone updated the article with research from California. In this research, it is clear that the therapy works in mice--Keetoowah 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC):[reply]

According to the October 7, 2005 issue of The Week, University of California researchers injected stem cells from aborted human fetuses into paralyzed mice, which resulted in the mice regaining the ability to move and walk four months later. The researchers discovered upon dissecting the mice that the stem cells regenerated not only the neurons, but also the cells of the myelin sheath, a layer of cells with which nerve fibers communicate with the brain (damage to which is often the cause of neurological injury in humans). [5]

r&i

something you may want to weigh in on

Has been marked as unverified. Just because a website is uncopyrighted does not mean a picture is. An Austrian military photo is not U.S. public domain. If correct copyright information is not added the photo will be deleted in 7 days.--71.28.246.3 07:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

negroid

Hey Rikurzhen, I thought you might be able to verify offhand some claims at negroid. It's been claimed there that "most of the modern middle east had indigenous negroid inhabitants." Do you know anything about this? Also, there's a claim that melanesians are classified as negroid. Do you know offhand, is this due to a more recent wave of migration out of Africa? And is it correct that Indians are, generally speaking, caucasoid, micronesians australoid, and polynesians mongoloid? (I assume negroid is generally a term for biogeographic ancestry, not physical resemblances.) Thanks, Nectar 01:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had to ask a friend, because I didn't know. Here's what he said:

'indigenous negroids' in the middle east, sub-saharan african ancestry is probably mostly recent: PMID 12629598
no, melanesians are not negroid, else they would be called negroid, not melanesians.
indians are mostly caucasoid, with a moderate australoid component which increases S-E and a minor mongoloid component which increases to the E.
polynesians are mostly mongoloid with a non-trivial melanesian admixture.
i think micronesians are mostly a polynesian and melanesian admixture, but not australoid.
no one uses these terms anymore. they really aren't of much utility (i.e., the '5 race model' or whatever) on anything but the most gross geographical scales. i.e., classifying indians as caucasoid-australoid admixes is fallacious because there were likely never ideal caucasoid and australoid types which interbred in south asia.

--Rikurzhen 01:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I wonder about #6, though.

"No one uses these terms anymore. they really aren't of much utility (i.e., the '5 race model' or whatever) on anything but the most gross geographical scales. i.e., classifying indians as caucasoid-australoid admixes is fallacious because there were likely never ideal caucasoid and australoid types which interbred in south asia."

A scholar.google search yields 2,300 hits for negroid, 3,400 for caucasoid, and 3,700 for mongoloid (and the terms do generally correspond with genetic cluster analysis). The weakness of classifying Indians as caucasoid-australoid kind of reminds me of Neil Ritsch's point that sex and age are also significantly problematic categories.[6] Anyway.. Nectar 08:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh, i think the point was that "no one uses these terms anymore" to solve novel problems -- they work when they work, but there's no guarantee that they work in all cases -- that molecular systematics (e.g. mtDNA lineages, haplotypes, etc.) is used instead whenever there's a novel problem, such as 1-5 --Rikurzhen 17:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

snyderman and rothman

i've been laid low by a nasty virus and won't be of much help. i checked the ISI citation index for synderman and rothman (1987) and found 71 papers that cite them. i didn't recongize any of the handful of critics who's names i know, but most of the name i did not know at all. i see someone found an interview in which sternberg reacts to the survey. I notice that Sternberg is quoted in two separate cases as saying "science isn't done by majority rule" by a Google search. --Rikurzhen 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Good, I left that up there so someone sees it. Copywrite stuff always confuses me so I'm hoping someone who knows more about it checks it out. And I hope you do. 199.197.130.1 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for adding the link to the images. I had to upload a couple images before I understood how to tag them well.--Nectar 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your listing at WP:AIAV

Hi Nectarflowed, I would like to remind you that only vandal's should be listed at AIAV. If you wish a page to be protected please request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks and happy editing. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Eysenck page

Thanks for your help on the Hans Eysenck page. I was puzzled by a reversion to an older edit and was trying to understand how it happened, when you stepped in and corrected it. Thanks. Friend of facts 20:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B/W caps

Jensen 1998 features an inconsistent mishmash of caps and no-caps. It seemed to me that we were featuring mostly the capped version in that article. My intention was only to make the article internally consistent. I suppose a universal standard would make things easier in the long run. Thanks for pointing out that pdf. --hitssquad 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the stem cell article

Hi Nectar, just wondering, what do you think about the recent changes to the stem cell article and the associated discussion on the talk page? --Nicholas 13:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I'm still not convinced by the split. But I've made a few changes to the Stem cell controversy, which you might like to take a look at :) --Nicholas 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese American category rename attempt

Someone is attempting to have the Category:Vietnamese Americans renamed to contain a hyphen. It is incorrect to have such a hyphen when describing Americans of Vietnamese descent. I would like your support in the discussion here. — J3ff 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rpm

i responded on my talk page --Rikurzhen 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Is_this_the_Way_to_Armadillo.jpg

Per the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works all creative works are automatically copyrighted. Unless the authors went out of their way to explicitly disclaim their exclusive rights to this work, they retain the copyright. --Gmaxwell 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ten genetic clusters in the global population

Any idea where the attribution of this to Cavalli-Sforza comes from? User:FrankWSweet disputed it, and in fact it does not seem to be in Cavalli-Sforza's book. --JWB 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mcph1

looking at the scatter plot, the correlation is mostly driven by the african / non-african difference. --Rikurzhen 04:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here are the numbers i used (didn't double check the iq numbers, and didn't bother to weight the allele freq. averages)

Group	Average of MCPH1	Average of IQ
Africa	0.229083333	70
Americas	0.968	85
E Asia	0.8338125	105
Europe	0.820555556	100
Nafrica_Wasia	0.682083333	85
Pacific	0.817	80
San	0.052	65
SEAsia	0.727	90

--04:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

ernst mayr on race

http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html useful source for quotations -- both on science and politics --Rikurzhen 06:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did i get this right?

Talk:Race_and_intelligence#11

Race and intelligence

I write to compliment you on your excisions and revisions; having first edited for clarity one contributions of User:Elliott Small, I thought later that all ought to be edited substantively as well, and I returned to the article to find you'd made, well, all of the edits I'd have made. Excellent job, IMHO... Joe 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Elliott reverted, terming his version the result of a collaboration between another editor and him; I think it'd be more accurate to say that Elliott appended text and User:Rikurzhen did a yeoman's job in rendering encyclopedic Elliott's additions. In any event, I'll not revert, but I think the talk page will bear out support for your reversion (notwithstanding your use of a contraction or two), if only because it makes, as you note, little sense for our averages section primarily to comprise information about outliers, especially where such information is otherwise adequately covered. Oh well... Joe 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Flyspaggame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Flyspaggame.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

I've replaced it with Image:Flyspaggame.png --elias.hc 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hirhome

You said "Gil-White's articles don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements..." Could you please provide the official Wikipedia style or format page where you got this idea? Thanks, User:Cmart1

I second this. You seem to have removed a link to HirHome in the Cyril Burt page, for example, claiming that "Gil-White is scientifically illiterate in this area". Considering that Gil-White taught two popular courses in the Psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania, and you are a graduate student in the field of Cognitive science, this seems...odd to say the least. Furthermore, the link was to a book that, in great detail, follows the history of IQ testing, and each claim along the way is supported by at least one piece of factual documentation. I cannot imagine that this fails to meet even the highest standards for even the most skeptical reader.128.91.206.87 16:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I've presented my argument in a discussion here. I'm not concerned about the links contributed to articles outside of intelligence research.--Nectar 13:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation

My apologies for having failed to get back to you sooner; I undertook a few small projects here that turned out to require more time than I'd thought. In any event, I found several promising passages, but none yielded a translation reasonably close to that about which you inquired; my Latin, though, isn't great, and certainly isn't what once it was. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be of more help, and I'm surprised that no complete English translation is available online. I'll search the text for a bit longer and drop you a note if I find anything relevant... :) Joe 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton, etc

Sorry Nectar, it's been getting out of hand with User:72.1.195.4, and I apologize. Please forgive my bold and emotional edits - I'll be trying to write more sympathetically. I guess if you had any advice on how to manage a sympathetic argument, while still making clear that certain arguments are extreme minority views (WP:NPOV#Undue weight), I would appreciate it. I have found it difficult to respond responsibly when people have tried to use Wikipedia as a way of validating tin-foil hat POVs, and appreciate any advice or help you could offer. --JereKrischel 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nectar, I did some edits on J. Philippe Rushton, to NPOV things out, but I'd like some suggestions on improving the organization of the article. I put some ideas on the Talk:J. Philippe Rushton page, and would appreciate any advice. Thanks again for your help, and the gentle criticism of my slip into POV pushing :). Having someone say it politely really helped me adjust my attitude! --JereKrischel 08:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nectar - Ultramarine put back my cite to the brain size thing again, and I think he's right - it should stay. The whole point about those two genes were that they could affect brain size, and brain size was correlated to intelligence, so the genes could possibly be related to intelligence. Having data that shows no functional affect on brain size seems to be very relevant. Maybe there should be some other form of disclaimer about any conclusions based on such a small sample? In any case, I hope you agree that it should stay. Thanks! --JereKrischel 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help on the edits, Nectar. I know that the topic gets emotional sometimes - thank you for not only keeping a cool head yourself, but inspiring me to do the same. Not to ascribe nefarious intentions to people, but sometimes it seems as if some of the Rushton/Jensen arguments are most powerful because they draw people out on an emotional level, rather than an intellectual one. There is obviously a lot of important science going on here, and we censor and ignore it at our peril. But I think that it's just as dangerous not to remain skeptical, and I greatly appreciate your help in connecting all the dots, even if we end up disagreeing on specific conclusions. Thanks again! --JereKrischel 07:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

step on your toes

sorry about that; probaly caused an edit conflict --Rikurzhen 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bw gap

i remember looking at that when RDI came out. this may be an example of the bw gap shrinking (i don't know if it's significant) as the later studies do seem to show a B average around 90 instead of 85, rather than a cultural difference. age of the subjects appears to be important for this question -- gap appears smaller at younger ages -- but i didn't note if there was an age effect here. --Rikurzhen 08:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i looked at the studies in RDI. the newer ones do average higher, but i'm not sure if there are enough data points for that to be significant --Rikurzhen 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here's the RDI data:

Table 4.5. IQs of Africans in Britain
     Age          N          Test              g       Reas     Verb     Vis      Reference
1    10           71         SB                88      88       -        -        Houghton, 1966
2    11           476        VR                82      82       -        -        ILEA, 1967
3    12–15        174        SPM/MH            88      88       82       -        Bhatnagar, 1970
4    5–15         61         WISC              89      -        92       88       McFie & Thompson, 1970
5    11           394        EPVT              86      -        86       -        Halsey, 1972
6    4–5          9          WPPSI             104     -        -        -        Tizard, 1972
7    5–10         548        EPVT              86      -        86       -        Payne, 1974
8    10           143        NV5               73      73       -        -        Yule et al., 1975
9    10           201        NV5               82      82       -        -        Yule et al., 1975
10   5–10         548        EPVT              86      -        86       -        Little, 1975
11   10           66         VR                85      85       -        -        Black Peoples, 1978
12   7            139        EPVT              78      -        78       -        Phillips, 1979
13   15           12,530     Reading           86      -        86       -        Mabey, 1981
14   12           149        Vocabulary        85      -        85       -        Pumfrey, 1983
15   8–12         205        NFER              87      87       -        -        Scarr et al., 1983
16   10           88         CEFT              90      -        -        90       Bagley et al., 1983
17   4            106        WPPSI             87      -        87       -        Blatchford et al., 1985
18   11           74         NFER              89      89       90       -        Mackintosh & Mascie-Taylor, 1985
19   10           125        NFER              94      94       92       -        Mackintosh & Mascie-Taylor, 1985
20   14           250        NFER              88      88       -        -        Maugham & Rutter, 1986
21   7–15         88         AH                92      92       94       -        West et al., 1992
22   65–75        248        MMSE              89      -        -        -        Stewart et al., 2002

excerpt from the text:

The results of the studies of the intelligence of Africans in Britain raise three points of interest. First, the median IQ of the studies is 86 and is almost exactly the same as the average of 85 of Africans in the United States. These figures are substantially higher than the median IQ of 67 of Africans in sub-Saharan Africa and of 71 in the Caribbean, from where most Africans in Britain have come in the post-World War II decades. Second, the higher IQ of Africans in Britain is attributable to the better environment. This effect is shown in the study by Yule, Berger, Rutter, and Yule (1975) given in rows 7 and 8 showing IQs of 73 for those born in the West Indies and 82 for those born in Britain, suggesting that residence in Britain raises the IQs of Caribbean children by around 9 IQ points. This result is confirmed by the Mackintosh and Mascie-Taylor (1985) study shown in row 18, where the West Indian children from the Caribbean who had been in Britain for more than 4 years had an IQ of 89, while the IQ of a further group of 39 who had been in Britain for fewer than 4 years obtained an IQ of 83, suggesting that residence in Britain raises the IQs of Caribbean children by around 6 IQ points. The two results are quite similar, suggesting that being raised in Britain increases the IQs of Africans by 7–8 IQ points. This increase is probably largely a result of better nutrition and health care and perhaps education, although there seems to be no evidence that education in the West Indies is poorer than in Britain and is sometimes asserted to be better. The effect of improved nutrition for West Indian immigrants was shown by the Yule et al. (1975) study that found that West Indian Africans born in Britain are taller than those born in the Caribbean who had come to Britain some time during childhood, a difference of 0.67d (standard deviation units). Third, the IQ of 87 for a sample of West Indian 4-yearolds given in row 17 is virtually exactly the same as that obtained by older West Indian children at school and shows that the low IQs of West Indian children cannot be blamed on schools, prejudice of teachers, difficulties understanding teachers’ spoken English, and so on. This result confirms those found in the United States, that the low IQ of Africans is present in pre-school children.

Re: My comment fragmenting your comment

Nah, go right ahead. It's alright. --Ramdrake 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gordon 1997

here's a figure which summarizes Gordon (1997)

do you think it could be explained in a short caption for the "Significance of group IQ differences" section? --Rikurzhen 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if the outcome differences were precisely the magnitude as the IQ differences, then they would fall on the line. many of the outcomes Gordon looks at fall very close to the line. i calculated the lines a priori using a formula like this:

\Phi (\Phi ^{-1}(x)-d)\,

where $\Phi$ is the cummulative normal distribution, $\Phi ^{-1}$ is the inverse of the cummulative normal distribution, x is the prob. value for the x-axis, and d is the mean IQ difference between the group and the total population in SD units. the only reason the graph is interesting to show is that the relationship is nonlinear. a 1 SD gap between B and W amounts to a gap of varying %s depending on where along the graph the threshold is set. but it really is hard to demonstrate or explain briefly. --Rikurzhen 09:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J._Philippe_Rushton

If you want to make a new RfPP request in 2 days or so, if its still protected then do so, but please do not run a request for 3+ days until it gets unprotected. Many pages have been protected for longer periods than that due to lack of agreement. Pages can be unprotected if some editors lose interest, but until you get me diffs that show them saying the have left, or enough time passes, it will remain protected. I'll keep an eye on the talk page activity level and uprotect if it seems the other editors have lost interest.Voice-of-All 09:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i'm too busy to help

my work is frantic right now. UL is wrong in his disparanging of the S&R work. they selected people who would have knowledge of intelligence, and offered as an option on each question the ability to say that they didn't know enough to answer that question (which of course quite a few people did for the cause of the BW gap question). AFAIK, the notion that the respondents would not be knowledgable is an OR fabrication on the part of UL. i suspect he is merely trying to avoid the topic of improving readability in the cultural explanations section. --Rikurzhen 00:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing... he's giving undue weight to the fryer and levitt paper. it's too new to have recieved serious review, but a cursory examination of their findings leads me to suspect that they simply have a racially biased "IQ" test. because people spend a tiny fraction of their lives as infants, the only reason for mentioning that particular finding is to bolster the environmentalist position. as we do not discuss particular findings in the lead section, it should be removed. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fryer and levitt have been publishing a series of papers looking at the bw gap in children at young ages. a paragraph describing their findings and any reaction to them could be suitable for the article, but material that hasn't made it into a review article (for example) is definitely inappropriate for the lead section. --Rikurzhen 09:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sailer

I took QUOTES from HIS articles, and posted them on his page. WHat on earth is your problem. I'm putting it back. You don't call HIS quotes cynisim and then remove them from his page. You got a problem with it, discuss it first. --68.60.55.162 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:W D Hamilton2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:W D Hamilton2.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence

Could you please outline your reasoning about Category:Intelligence and what the objectives are, as you see them? Thanks. Don't forget to include Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree and Categorisation_FAQ#Can_pages_be_in_more_than_one_category.3F in your explanation. I saw you participated in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Intelligence and I left a message on User Talk:Outriggr who is also editing. I hope we can reach a consensus on this.--Tstrobaugh 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your response on User Talk:Outriggr, but thanks for giving notice. I think after the CfD concludes we should get a survey of opinion on this issue at Talk:Psychometrics. Wikipedia:Categorization also states:

Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Oscar.

In my view, intelligence research is one (in effect) self-contained area of psychometrics akin to the bridges example and High IQ societies belongs under Giftedness which belongs in Intelligence only, but these matters can be discussed in the survey if there's no clear consensus.--Nectar 04:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree that it might be logical. But please understand the two guides I cited above Categorisation_FAQ#Can_pages_be_in_more_than_one_category.3F Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree even if it's logical categories do not form a tree and pages can be in more than one category, even if redundant. The point is to give readers more options for where they get their data. Thanks.--Tstrobaugh 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

testosterone

Actually, the only way testosterone was mentioned before my reorg was in a laundry list of items - there was no citation or discussion of it as I think you propose...instead of adding an external citation, can you quote Rushton directly? I've only gotten an abridged copy of his big work, and couldn't find anything in there...do you have a full copy of that, or a specfic cite from him? --JereKrischel 22:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gottfredson

I was going off the 1994 RS "Professors of Hate" piece. Should say "ex-wife"...

"Dr. Gordon said that in 1986 he and Linda Gottfredson, who is now his ex-wife, wanted to form a center at Hopkins for the study of intelligence in society. The proposal, he said, was turned down flat." [7] Jokestress 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note-- it was interesting to see all the connections between colleagues and mentors, etc. (as you would see with any specialized field like that). Jokestress 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hey Nectar, I think I've covered my points sufficiently in the comments, so I don't think I have anything further to add. I think in the end a outside observer may be helpful mostly to remind us to assume good faith - you obviously want to include your language because you feel it adds something important and relevant to the article, and I'm simply honestly concerned that the importance and relevance of that point may be misleading in its current condition. Hopefully someone will come along and suggest a compromise we haven't thought of yet, and the article will be improved for it. Thanks again for all your work on R&I! --JereKrischel 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nectar, I'm done too. Thanks for your patience!--Ramdrake 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering when you were planning to "officially" open the RfC?--Ramdrake 13:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nectar, I'll take a look, but cannot promise I'll be able to give it the brain sugar it deserves (I cannot give much of anything the brain sugar deserved duo to RL pressures) Cheers, Pete.Hurd 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call your attention to

To this chart which appears you are the unfortunate author of.[8] At that discussion page I have spelled out the problem. Terryeo 21:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reginald Wilson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reginald Wilson.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More replaceable fair use images

—Chowbok ☠ 17:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Severn Cullis-Suzuki - Amazon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Severn Cullis-Suzuki - Amazon.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Yul brynner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yul brynner.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 14:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Yul brynner suit.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Yul brynner suit.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. futurebird 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)- futurebird 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jensen demonstrators.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jensen demonstrators.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ultramarine 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history of science and scientific method

Hi Nectarflowed! You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science and especially this month's collaboration: history of scientific method. Cheers!--ragesoss 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Thomas Sowell - A Personal Odyssey.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thomas Sowell - A Personal Odyssey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gnan garra 13:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Gnan garra 13:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James Flynn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:James Flynn.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 16:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bruce Lahn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bruce Lahn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Matrixism: an Entheogenic Religion

There is an article on a entheogenic new religious movement called Matrixism being created at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. There are numerous sources for this article yet it has because contentious because it deals with the subject of entheogens. Thought you might like to look at it and perhaps contribute. 206.124.144.3 05:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arnold military.jpg

Hello, Nectarflowed. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Arnold military.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Nectarflowed. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Is this the Way to Armadillo.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Is this the Way to Armadillo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gottfredson.jpg

I have tagged Image:Gottfredson.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineered negligible senescence/alternate descriptions

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Engineered negligible senescence/alternate descriptions, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

This is apparently a subpage created as a result of a content fork or re-arrangement. If you would like it deleted quickly, place {{db-userreq}} at the top of the article & it will get done. DGG (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Arnold_military.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Arnold_military.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey_Smedley.jpg

I have tagged Image:Audrey_Smedley.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 06:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garrett_Hardin.jpg

I have tagged Image:Garrett_Hardin.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rushton.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rushton.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 21:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry_Mehler.jpg

I have tagged Image:Barry_Mehler.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 11:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory_Cochran.jpg

I have tagged Image:Gregory_Cochran.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rette tast 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory_Stock.gif

I have tagged Image:Gregory_Stock.gif as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rette tast 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hans_Eysenck.jpg

I have tagged Image:Hans_Eysenck.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 10:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Harry_Laughlin2.jpg

I have tagged Image:Harry_Laughlin2.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race

Hello! Since a merge from Race science to Scientific racism did not get consensus, and that this is a POV fork, I've submitted a second Afd request. I hope you can quickly check it out, cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry_Harpending.jpg

I have tagged Image:Henry_Harpending.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rette tast 07:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wickliffe_Draper.jpg

I have tagged Image:Wickliffe_Draper.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 18:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Charles Murray.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Charles Murray.gif. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 01:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Marek Kohn.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Marek Kohn.JPG. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 01:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:John Tooby.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:John Tooby.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 01:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Peter Brimelow.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Brimelow.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 07:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:John C Loehlin.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:John C Loehlin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Jensen2.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jensen2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Rosenberg

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Noah Rosenberg, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Peter Brimelow2.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Peter Brimelow2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. P4k (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC) --P4k (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leon_Kamin.jpg

I have tagged Image:Leon_Kamin.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Needs

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Needs, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Needs is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Needs, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glayde Whitney.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Glayde Whitney.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —PNG crusade bot ^(feedback) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Glayde Whitney.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Glayde Whitney.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah_Rosenberg.jpg

I have tagged Image:Noah_Rosenberg.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rettetast (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Discover Sept 1982.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Discover Sept 1982.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

Hello. If you have the time, I was wondering if you could help me as a non-biased third party in the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paris,_Texas#Racism_2

I've tried to discuss my point of view with the person reversing my edits, but it seems as though I've been brushed off every time and have not really had the chance to explain a rationale for potential edits. If you could help please let me know. 74.197.168.224 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Block article

Hello,

I noticed that you created the article on Jack Block. I studied with this man when I was a student at UC Berkeley. Marvelous man! I have his New York Times obituary (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/07block.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y), and am tempted to put the last two paragraphs into his WP article. How do you feel about that? -- Michael David (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Stem cell

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The artcile appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Dawkins with Kistler Prize.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dawkins with Kistler Prize.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]

LOL
Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Rejuvenation Research.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rejuvenation Research.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Francis Galton2.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Francis Galton2.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Nectarflowed}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Francis Galton2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Francis Galton2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying user about missing file description(s) (bot - disable)

File:Francis Galton2.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Francis Galton2.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Francis Galton2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Francis Galton2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2013 (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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of TfD

I am requesting the deletion of the {{RPA}} template. I fully understand the good faith creation, but I feel it is better that text be removed without adding a notice. See: here for the discussion. — Ched : ? 17:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:John Oldham Mcginnis.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:John Oldham Mcginnis.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Philippe Rushton (References) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J. Philippe Rushton (References). Since you had some involvement with the J. Philippe Rushton (References) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Race Differences in Intelligence (References) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Race Differences in Intelligence (References). Since you had some involvement with the Race Differences in Intelligence (References) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ethnic nepotism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethnic nepotism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic nepotism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Summary style section

Template:Summary style section has been nominated for merging with Template:Summarize section. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:International Society for the Study of Individual Differences

Hello, Nectarflowed. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]