NewRuins012
Welcome
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
December 2020
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Intelligence quotient. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The concerns you've raised in your edit summaries have been raised here before. Indeed, they've been subjected to intense scrutiny and debate for several years. Please familiarize yourself with the talk page discussion, including the archives for this article alone, instead of attempting to assert your view unilaterally. In particular, you should be aware that there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors which follows the scientific consensus that genetics do not explain group-level differences in IQ: [1]. It might also be helpful to familiarize yourself with the arguments and sources discussed at Heritability of IQ. Generalrelative (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no scientific consensus that genetics do not explain group-level differences in IQ. In fact, quite the opposite, as most scientists, biologists, and researchers agree that genetics are, to one extent or another, responsible for IQ difference between social demographics. Do they entirely land the focus on genetic factors? No, as that's stigmatised. Rather, they place blame on both environmental and biological factors, which they claim are the cause of racial disparities within this particular category. So, no, you're not following the general consensus. However, even if you were, you'd still be incorrect to leave up a portion of that Wikipedia article which states that race is a social construct. This is an opinion, not a fact, and is phrased intentionally to downplay racial realism. When hovering over the citation, it is stated that most anthropologists agree race doesn't exist (not stating which percentage, suspiciously), which isn't really evidence of anything. Even if all scientists agreed race wasn't real, it still wouldn't prove this. But, the beliefs of anthropologists, people who don't even study race, are irrelevant here.
There are individual examples where a certain degree of bias is acceptable, in order to maintain social harmony, and also pay respects to specific individuals. For instance, referring to trans people by their preferred pronouns is, through linguistic implications, pointing to their gender identification as valid, as a fact. This is an opinion. However, it makes sense, regardless, seeing that some pronouns have to be used, so it might as well be the correct ones.
Do not edit Wikipedia articles in a biased manner. I did not edit it to remark that race was real, or that the majority of anthropologists agreed with this sentiment. No, I removed an incorrect portion of the text. (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligence quotient; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, stop replacing sourced information with your unsourced claims. You need to present sources, you can't just say "no, I know what the scientists think" and not present proof. You have already been blocked from two articles for doing that, continuing that behavior in other topics is likely to get you blocked from the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not. I added no sources. Since this was external to the article itself, outside of it, I don't need to present proof. You can research it for yourself. Most scientists do believe this. Likewise, any source you've provided on that page, it can be countered by other sources which display a different story.
- Please learn what the "un-" prefix means. It means "not," and this is something that people learning English learn fairly quickly as it's a not uncommon part of tbe language. I said you "added no sources," when I said you replaced sourced info with unsourced claims. Your actions were not external to the article, and articles are dependent on external sources (not on you insisting you're right). If the sources you claim exist did exist, and they vastly outweighed the sources used in the article, then you should have brought them forth as you have been repeatedly instructed to do with other topics. Because you have utterly failed to comprehend that, and because your response looks like trolling in its inability to understand clear sentences, you are now blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Since you refuse to acknowledge WP:V in a variety of topics
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)- Yes, you do need to present proof. You have been told this repeatedly over a variety of topics . For you to fail to acknowledge that at this point means you either can't or won't understand the social contracts of this community. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)1