User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Question

Dear WeijiBAikeBianji,

Could you please tell me in some understandable why what exactly I am doing wrong? It seems to me that I am doing everything right and in the interest of Wikipedia. Yes, it is in my interest that people know about my work. But this should not be wrong per se.

What is it exactly that I did wrong? Only if I know this, I can maybe think how to fix it. So far, it has been very hard to me to understand your criticism. The information was too scarce, and it did not seem to match what you wrote and what I found under the mentioned links.

Please help me make things right. How do you propose that I make this link properly?

Thank you very much in advance.

With best regards,

Danko Nikolic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.6.109 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a heading to your new section on this talk page after SineBot added a signature to your question. Simply put, the behavioral guideline on conflict of interest says, "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." There are quite a few articles here on Wikipedia that I never edit, or have never created, simply because I have too close a relationship to the topic (the organization, the person, or whatever). You can do the same. There are 6,913,538 articles here on Wikipedia, and each of us is free to fix as many of those as we can, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in self-promotion. It's really that simple. If a primary research study you personally conducted gets noticed and written about in reliable secondary sources, it may eventually be mentioned in passing in a few relevant Wikipedia articles. But your job here is not to short-circuit that process by posting external links to websites about your own work in article space. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear WeijiBaikeBianji,

Can you please explain to me what I do wrong. I really do not see it. You said that the page was commercial, than that there is a conflict of interest and finally, that it is promotional.

I think I deserve a fair explanation. What is it really that bothers you about those links?

Or better question: How can I do it right? Or, what would be the right way of someone else doing it?

Under which circumstances would a link to scientific contents outside Wikipedia be allowed? There a plenty of links. So, where is the line drawn? Can you please explain it to me?

If you do not want to explain but just keep giving me every time another link without any consideration for my problem, I have no way of understanding it. How do you expect me to accept it without spending a little bit of time and thought in explaining it?

Thank you very much.

With best regards,

Danko Nikolic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankonikolic (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It would help communication here immensely if you would learn basic Wikipedia conventions of always signing your talk page posts with your username signature, and learning how to show indentation of replies. (Hint: do not put multiple space characters at the beginning of a line of text. That messes up formatting very badly.) You as an editor have an affirmative duty to provide a rationale for each of your edits, and you have shown anyone why the external link fits Wikipedia policies or guidelines. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IQ and Human Intelligence 2nd Ed Book Cover Image.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IQ and Human Intelligence 2nd Ed Book Cover Image.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Stefan2, I am writing the article in a user sandbox just now. I'm a first-timer in following the rule about that kind of image, so I appreciate the reminder. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-free images may not be used in user sandboxes. See WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I'm learning here. I appreciate you pointing to the specific, detailed rule. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Secondary vs Primary Sources

I have a question given your dismissal of what you consider to be "primary sources" vs "secondary sources." (Full disclosure: I reverted your edit in the Sex differences article). Is it your position that a science article in a peer-reviewed and mainstream journal is a "primary source" (and, thus, a poor citation), but once that same article is reported on by a third-party news source, the news source (being, presumably, "secondary") is now better? ... Even though the information, argument, or evidence therein has not changed, it is somehow "more reliable" if featured in a textbook or by a newspaper? -- Veggies (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You ask about an issue that I didn't understand when I first came to Wikipedia in 2010, and learned about from other, more experienced editors. And I know that Wikpedia's culture around this issue has changed over time, and many articles that were sourced up to Wikipedia's old guidelines are now in need of updates to meet today's guidelines. An scientist's report of that scientist's research findings is, in the usual case, a "primary source" for application of Wikipedia's content guidelines for editing articles. (I was more aware of the historical or journalistic use of the term "primary source" when I came here, and perhaps that is the background you bring to this issue too. You have done some good work on articles on historical topics, as I see from your user page, so it looks like you have that distinction well in mind.) In discussion with other editors on the article talk pages of very controversial articles, some of which are still under Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions since 2010, I learned that the Wikipedia content guideline on use of reliable sources works in a special way, bearing in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of abstracts of newly published research. If I am correct in looking at which edit you have linked to, the article "Predictors of Stress Fracture Susceptibility in Young Female Recruits" is indeed a primary source, as it describes itself as "Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Data collected included baseline performance on a timed run (a measure of aerobic fitness), anthropometric measurements, and a baseline questionnaire highlighting exercise and menstrual status among 2962 women undergoing basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, in 1995 and 1996." The Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources in medicine is very thoughtfully written, having been developed over several years by a group of scholarly Wikipedians. (I had no role in putting together that content guideline, but I mostly edit articles for which that content guideline fits well.) Feel free to review both on the Wikipedia content guidelines, the general guideline on reliable sources, and the specific guideline on sources for statements about medical issues, for more examples of primary sources and secondary sources, and feel free to ask me follow-up questions as needed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A question from MicroMacro

I have a feeling you don't like me.. Am I right?MicroMacroMania (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's never personal. (I've never met you, so how could I know whether or not I like you?) I am just really eager to make sure that edits to encyclopedia text on Wikipedia are based on reliable, secondary sources. I didn't make up that rule--it was here before I came here, and I try to honor best practice in encyclopedia editing. The "how I edit" link in my signature explains more background, and also mentions that I really have hope that everyone here, and I do mean everyone, will learn more about encyclopedia editing by following Wikipedia policies and guidelines while looking for reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How was I wrong in those edits? I added the found correlation with two different sources and how heritable brain size is also with source. Ohh well I reversed to pre my edits. Hope that is correct.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

How were you right with those edits? Do those edits reflect current, reliable, secondary sources on the article topic? Are the primary source findings you are relying on replicated and endorsed as related to the article topic by the primary source article authors themselves, and also other authors on the topic of the article. Remember, the article is subject to discretionary sanctions since an Arbitration Committee case in 2010, and it is especially important for your new insertions of content into that article to be sourced meticulously according to Wikipedia content guidelines. Anyway, this discussion should be occurring on the article talk page, where I invited the beginning of discussion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So I guess my part about Biogeographic variation in brain size in the article brain size includes primary sources and needs copyediting? If I understand applied standards correctly.MicroMacroMania (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What's up with this?

"If you are a religiously or politically motivated to push this or that issue, please refrain from talking on my page. I am not interested. Otherwise, feel free to talk about relevant edits here or science. --Deleet (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer if the following users never post here: Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw WeijiBaikeBianji"

This guy is a published psychology researcher right? Perhaps he doesn't know you have access to libraries and the best sources. You should point that out more often. It doesn't come across as mind-bendingly condescending. Also I suspect that editor is a racist. See you on the wiki. 121.134.219.36 (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: IQ and Human Intelligence (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:IQ and Human Intelligence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Rainbowdashydude2

Blocked as a sock but will be back again. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cavefish777. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

IQ and Global Inequality

You appear to be edit-warring on this article and further reverts may result in a block. TFD (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I see you are referring to the discussion you opened on the Edit Warring notice board, and that I am not identified as acting against consensus, but rather another editor is. I wish the admins all the best in figuring out what to do about this, and I'm happy to take a break from that page while the matter is resolved. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Energy psychology and possible Wikipedia bias

On October 3 you offered to be a contact person for the journalist who is doing a report on this issue. Could you please send me your email address so I may follow up with you on this? I am the doctor who wrote the original essay, and I am not Wikipedia-savvy enough to carry on the conversation in this Wiki format. I hope email will be suitable.

Thanks, Eric Leskowitz, MD rick.leskowitz@gmail.com

Updating Journal Article Citations.

Indeed, book editions are tricky. If you'd prefer, I can use the journal/publisher's website instead of the APA database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasongarrison (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

IQ classification

I noticed your revert of my last edit of this article. For your information the passage is not a direct quotation but a paraphrase, as you may see if you look at the book. "de-facto" is not used in the cited book but "de facto" is. I hope you may consider reverting your revert. Jodosma (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have the book at hand? I think I do. Some of the direct quotations were messed up previously by people running AWB on them. I will make sure that the quotation is verbatim. This seems to be an ongoing problem with "proof-reading"--editors on Wikipedia imposing their personal preferences on direct quotations from professionally edited books. Surely we can agree that a quotation from a book should have the same style as in the original, right? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jodosma, you are right. I will restore your edit immediately. I appreciate your attention to fine details and welcome you to scan articles that I expand (I hope to expand several more over the next year) any time. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been a good experience, it's very enjoyable to come to agreement so quickly, and thanks for restoring my edit. Jodosma (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

MAOA — guidance for edits?

Greetings, WeijiBaikeBianji, I had planned edits on the MAOA article using the sources collected here by an independent researcher and enthusiast. But I thought that it might be useful to ask whether the sources give an adequate coverage of the issue and I believe you can give some good advice since you have edited articles on genetics and intersection of genetics and politics. Thanks.74.14.74.73 (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The gene was a topic in the Coursera course on human behavior genetics (although I think those course materials are not currently available online since I took and completed the course). The basic problem with the blog source list that you kindly link is that it was compiled in disregard of the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medical articles, which would certainly be applicable to this topic. Google Scholar makes it easy--too easy, really--to look up primary research articles devoid of context, but still too difficult to look up reliable, secondary sources that dig into the primary research articles and examine their methods and their plausibility in relation to the overall theoretical findings of an ongoing field of research. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I see, in that case do you have any information on the current body of literature on this gene and it's connection with aggression? One book was Nicholas Wade's A Troublesome Inheritance which reported the gene as being overrepresented in blacks and cause for crime rates.74.14.74.73 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
• Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
• New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
• Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Citability of James Thompson on psychometrics articles?

Hello Weiji, quick question, is James Thompson's papers a good source for citation on psychometrics and IQ related articles? According to my understanding of wiki policy, they are, but wouldn't hurt to get second opinions.74.14.74.73 (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Blond Hair edits

It might be interest if we could find a picture of hmong blonde hair for the article. I havent for now found one with proper license.MicroMacroMania (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen many examples here. I live nearer to the Somali people than to most of the Hmong people in my area. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol... That seem to say something about where you live.. (which is?) But there is certainly some blond in the hmong people: https://www.google.dk/search?q=hmong+blonde&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=hCk2VLqGGMW7ygOQuoLICA&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement requested of disruptive behavior spanning multiple years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleet (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder of the ultimately amusing 2010 RFC/U, which included outside comments like "I think that 'Example 1' and 'Example 2' are pretty lame reasons to open an RfC/U", and of course resulted in no sanctions of any kind against me. I note for the record that several of the complainants there have since been banned or blocked as a result of their own misbehavior through the discretionary sanctions set up by the same ArbCom case you reference (and all without any comment from me, on the initiative of other Wikipedians).an example sanction The comments about my behavior back then also included "Nomming non-notable WP:CLUB spam for deletion is a sign of a good editor." Yes, the AfD results back up that statement. The RFC/U was well summarized by yet another editor's statement:

WeijiBaikeBianji has put a lot of effort into bringing these troublesome articles up to snuff, with encouragement to do so from one of the arbitrators near the close of the arbitration.link He's been forthright about the direction he thinks they should go: elevating the quality of the sources used, bringing the articles more into conformity with the way the subject is addressed in other encyclopedias and secondary sources, eliminating or appropriately balancing the fringy debris etc. He's been very collegial every step of the way while working to get up to speed on wikipedia's somewhat byzantine customs and folkways. He's simply been going WP:BOLD because (as we all know) there's a tendency to "process" endlessly trying to "collaborate" so things stagnate and very little ever gets done.

The result in the current case is much like the result in 2010. One statement about my edits was, "The edits appear to follow WP:BLP policy on inclusion of unsourced material and as such do not fall under the scope of either 3RR or even discretionary sanctions". The overseeing administrator wrote, "The question is whether WeijiBaikeBianji engaged in misconduct by repeatedly reverting to remove Charles Murray from a 'list of notable hereditarians'. I believe that they did not. The entry for Murray in that list was unsourced, and the article about Murray does not mention the word 'hereditarian', let alone a source for that association." Again, the result is no sanction against me. I have never been blocked, and I have never been topic-banned, even though by coincidence my best sources that I use to edit articles on Wikipedia mostly take me to articles that have been subject to discretionary sanctions since 2010. As that administrator wondered, I also wonder, why not look up a source first before editing an article with a statement about a living person, especially after your fellow Wikipedian has asked for a source with a link to WP:BLP in the article's edit history? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Minor issue for article on this topic"?

Hi, in this edit, you reverted my edit with the comment "Minor issue for article on this topic, and not likely a reliable source." What do you mean by "minor issue for article on this topic"?

As of the source, if you think that's unreliable, there are scientific reports that we can refer to instead, even though I think the article was fine since it is easier to read than what a report generally is and since it links to one of those scientific reports. If you don't find a source reliable, you can always use a {{fact}} tag to tag the sentence as in need of a citation to a reliable source. —Kri (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful question. The core idea in my editorial concern about that article is that it currently doesn't reflect the due weight of mainstream, professionally edited publications on the article's topic, IQ. People have been coming by that article for years mentioning issues that they have heard of in connection with IQ, without checking reference books (textbooks or practitioners' handbooks) or review articles (which are different from primary research articles) about the broad topic of the intelligence quotient concept and IQ testing. So really important issues related to that topic are hardly discussed in the article at all, while minor issues (many of them) have a lot of words devoted to them in that one article with a much broader topic. The way forward to fixing the article is to check the sources (already mentioned on the article talk page) about what subtopics are of most central interest when discussing IQ, and perhaps to update other articles on Wikipedia as appropriate reliable secondary sources are found for issues closely related to those other articles. For a source that has good information about both human intelligence and human sleep cycles, I strongly recommend the textbook Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) which is a book I learned about from a Wikipedian who is a professional genetics researcher. This book is very thoughtful and leads to lots of other good reading. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping my students work on the Cox article. Please don't hesitate to make suggestions! J.R. Council (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm delighted to see other people working on articles about psychology and psychologists. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello WeijiBaikeBianji:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – ^Melody _Lavender 08:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks for your invitation to contribute to the source list on race, biology, and genetics in your name space, but I don't want to edit race articles. Where I live we don't really believe that there is such a thing as more than one human race. In turn, I'd like to invite you to join us at WP:VA/E, the effort to refine the list of Wikipeida's top 10,000 articles. Even if you just drop by once a week and cast some votes, it'll help the project.

Concerning user:aprock's edit I think you are misinterpreting why he removed the see alsos. I think he was removing the link to Correlates of crime and weeded out some others in the process. Aprock has recently tried to clean up the Correlates of crime article by removing unsourced claims. The article is still a complete mess and should probably be deleted. I put the link back in because I'm not in favor of orphaning these problem-articles, which I believe aprock was trying to achieve. I think more editors should be attracted to improve the article or find enough support to delete it. Looking at the history, aprock has already tried to get it deleted, but it didn't work. Correlates of crime is a very bad article, on a doubious topic which wouldn't even be printed by the yellow press. It makes horrific claims each based on a single study (mostly by one author) on a topic where statistics might not be the most accurate or useful form of scientific research. If you'd want to get the article printed, you'd have to at least put it in conditional mood, which is of course not possible in an encyclopedia. So what should we do with this mess, tag it somehow, try to delete it again or merge it? Maybe we could move it to a topic that clearly states it's speculative research? Any help for this needy article is appreciated. --^Melody _Lavender 08:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick reply. I'll take a look at those issues in detail after I polish off a couple of non-wiki writing projects. Thanks for the holiday greetings. Have a happy Halloween. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit. Please Read. Thanks.

Writing "memory" and "perception" is redundant, as they both deal with mental constructs. Using "cognition" instead of gratuitous words when conveying mental facets is best. To make the lead more succinct, I decided to replace "memory" and "perception" with the word "cognition". I also added the word emotion to summarize the article's synopsis since evolutionary psychology also investigates emotional phenomena. If you disagree with this edit, please let me know why. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Nashhinton (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I scanned the article and now agree with the rationale you stated as you reverted my edit. Thanks for letting me know what you were looking at as you changed the article text, and welcome aboard. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Barbara Fredrickson

Hi. I noticed you put a COI tag on the Barbara Fredrickson page. Who do you think has a COI as editor? I couldn't spot it, but admittedly didn't sleuth through all the editors' backgrounds. I'm not doubting you, more curious than anything. Was just reading up on the whole case and it sparked my interest. Thanx! 95.92.40.90 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I spotted the edit that got your attention, just missed it the first time I guess. Hard to say the motive I guess, but yeah it's a single-topic editor and the edit in question was dodgy. Could be a helpful neighbor one supposes?  :) 95.92.40.90 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gah forgot to log in, this is me. Just didn't want to pretend anonymity. StoneProphet11 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for saying hello over here. I usually spot situations like that by noting the nature of the edit and looking at the editor's contribution history. Often graduate students or other persons near at hand have a lot of unbalanced incentives for sanitizing Wikipedia articles about academics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Question of reliable source

Hello. You reverted this edit, stating that the article in question is not a reliable secondary source. I did not say it was a reliable secondary source, I said it was a reliable source on Wikipedia because it was peer-reviewed by a scientific journal. WP:RS specifically identifies this case in the "Scholarship" paragraph in that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." To my knowledge the journal "Intelligence" falls into this category. Please identify what further caveat beyond this makes the article unreliable at Wikipedia. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The immediate context of your edit[1] was inserting a wikilink to WP:RS in article text in mainspace. (Did you look at how that edit looked in the article after you submitted it?) Your wikilink insertion was next to a maintenance tag that (properly) calls for more secondary sources in an article that has long relied too much on primary sources (as the two kinds of sources are distinguished by WP:RS). I actually learned about this distinction between primary sources and secondary sources for purposes of editing Wikipedia from other Wikipedians as I began editing here in 2010. It is a good distinction to keep in mind, a distinction not emphasized enough in the undergraduate education of most educated people in the United States. I am a subscriber to the journal Intelligence as a member of the society that publishes the journal, and I am well aware that the editors of that journal describe it as a journal of primary research studies, primarily. So your edit, while factually correct in saying that Intelligence is fairly mainstream and often cited by researchers on its topics, was not responsive to the Wikipedia editing concerns for that article, which should be sourced much more to practitioners' handbooks and mainstream textbooks such as those identified for all Wikipedians in the bibliography for Wikipedians on human intelligence and psychology maintained in my user space. Thanks for writing. It will be a long-term effort to improve the sourcing of Wikipedia articles so that more Wikipedia articles are sourced properly as an online encyclopedia should be sourced, by citing reliable secondary sources (for example, textbooks and reference books for professionals in the discipline). See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your response. I apologize as I did not look at how the reversion appeared in mainspace. And I agree that there is a difference between primary and secondary sources. Yet, the use of primary sources is allowed, although caution must certainly be used. Editors here simply must be careful to present the analysis in a straightforward manner without interpretation. This is different than disallowing the use of primary research papers. In any case, I am not that familiar with the article or the author, so I'll simply list it on the talk page and let other editors weigh in. Thanks again for your time. Best, Airborne84 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you help with a rollback and a dispute in the talk page

Hi, there were recent bold edits to the Eugenics article that have started a discussion in the talk page. The edits were multiple deletions, so reverting all of them is impossible. I suggest a rollback to before the controversial edits began on 15:34, 29 November 2014‎. Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback. Please give your opinion in the talk page. Thank you, Purpletangerine (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just been gathering sources about that article topic. Today, I don't feel competent to judge the recent round of edits (which I have seen on my watchlist). As I get up to speed by reading more of the sources, I'll drive to scan the article text for places to revise according to what the sources say. Thanks for the invitation to join the discussion. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits to Scientific racism

I wrote the explanation for my edits on the talk page of Scientific racism, and I did not revert.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Project Psychology

Thanks for mentioning this one in the message. I will certainly follow it - if I figure out how to do it :-) (talk)

Hogwash

If you insist on messing around with the English article until it looks like something found on one of those (self-claimed) "cleansed" websites, go ahead. I'm not going to argue and edit war with you just because the Featured article police have chosen to waltz on in and disrupt the article.

This is completely ridiculous and you know it. If you honestly think that just because a source uses one wording, that we can't use an equally appropriate different wording in our article on the subject, then you are clearly just grasping at straws.

I also suspect that many of the other editors that have been reverting your edits on the article will also get tired of arguing with you as well. I, for one, was open to compromise with you, but you seem so starkly against compromise that that is evidently not going to happen. And if you aren't willing to be reasonable with things, then I'm not going to deal with you because I have more pressing matters to deal with at the moment. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You should assume good faith, as that is one of the rules here. And while we are here discussing how to improve the article English language, do you have any suggestions for especially useful reliable sources for responding to the concerns of editors who have commented about the article in previous good article reviews and peer reviews? The most recent peer review was very thoughtful and thorough, matches well with recent comments in edit summaries and talk page comments about what the article is still missing after all these years, was performed by a person well trained in linguistics (a fine second-language writer of English), and was performed by a Wikipedian who has substantial experience in improving Wikipedia articles that have long needed improvement. (I think he has both good articles and featured articles to his credit, and I know from his work on subjects that we both watchlist that he is meticulous about using reliable sources.) It's a missed opportunity to improve the encyclopedia for readers to not take a close look at that peer review. (We should, of course, be taking care at all times while working on all articles to refer to the best reliable sources. That's not only a good idea, but also Wikipedia policy.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith. I always assume good faith until someone acts in a manner that clearly is in bad faith.

Furthermore, whilst I am certain that your edits were made in good faith, they seem to be quite forceful and stonewalling. Having an attitude like that of a stonewaller is not very productive on Wikipedia. One should be always open to compromise.

I have told you before that, aside from sources describing in great detail some particular dialects of English, and several of the sources already cited on the English page, I have no additional sources that I can present to you.

In addition, I believe that I have already said that I am always happy when the English page gets improved. However, changing "primary" (majority, first) to "majority native" is not improvement. As I have said three times now, "primary" comes off less biased than "majority native" does. Believe it or not, I actually don't have any particular problems with the wording "majority native". Nevertheless, it is not helpful to change a wording that doesn't really have any particular bias behind it to a wording that presents a potential of coming off biased. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

"dominant language of diplomacy during by the twentieth century"

(from English language#Significance) I'm not aware that "during by" can ever be correct English, hence my edit. Please explain. Enginear (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, someone else has now corrected it -- to by rather than during. There's an arguable case for that, so although I think during is a little better, I shan't revert it.

In support of during:

• British passports carried the "Her Majesty requests and requires..." paragraph, and the other fundamental information, in French as well as English up until well after English became an official language of the EEC when we joined it in 1973.
• One claim as to why the Anglicised spellings of [venez] m'aider, panne panne, sécurité, silence m'aider & silence fini were developed in 1923 onwards as aircraft, and later maritime, distress signals was that while English was to be the lingua franca of air traffic control, French was still the lingua franca of diplomacy, including international requests for emergency assistance (another claim is that mayday was coined at Croydon Airport, whence many flights were to France, but that doesn't explain the rapid international acceptance of that local usage)
• The original and only definitive language of the 1906 Hague Convention and the 1929 Geneva Convention was French see 1st para of proclamation by POTUS (but the 1949 Geneva Convention was originated in both French and English, with both to be deemed "equally authentic" see Article 54)
• Our own article List of lingua francas#French claims that English only superseded French for diplomacy in the "mid-20th century".

In support of by:

• The British Empire + the USA made up nearly half the world population by the beginning of the 20th century, and there must have come a tipping point where other countries realised that, whatever the "formal" lingua franca, it was in their interest for their diplomats to be able to speak the first language of the British and US embassies, even if the latter were still having to sign treaties written in French; so in that sense, English may well have been "dominant".

I shall be leaving this topic now, but if you think by is correct, you might like to adjust the Lingua franca article to match English language, unless you think that due to the different wording (the [lingua franca] language v dominant usage) they are both correct. Enginear (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed rationale. The evidence I would look to especially for a "dominant language of diplomacy" is what language was the working language of international conferences or international organizations. And I am still gathering sources on that issue. The earliest international conference I know of with English as the working language was the Berlin conference in which Bismarck agreed with other world leaders on spheres of influence in colonial possessions. Crystal's book English as a Global Language, which I have at hand, gathers a lot of the sources and evidence. I especially appreciate your suggestion to check another Wikipedia article to make sure that the articles are in agreement. I'll keep checking and rechecking, and it may be that that article section will be revised some as to article text--it will certainly be updated to cite more sources. Have a happy new year. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, 1885; I suspect Victoria was quietly pleased -- one can't marry one's children into a republic -- if they reject being an empire, one's own empire should rule the conferences! I agree, the language of the majority, or at least plurality, of large diplomatic conferences and international organisations vaguely in the diplomatic field, is the best evidence we're likely to get. I wondered for a moment whether that should read newly-founded organisations, and whether it mattered that, eg, Médecins Sans Frontières was so-named principally because its founding doctors were French, rather than due to any view on linguae francae, but I think the beauty of your words dominant language is that they imply a de facto test of the status quo, regardless of why the dominance has arisen or whether it only persists due to inertia. I've been intrigued by this issue since four years ago, when I discovered the claim about the reason for the Mayday kludge -- a French title fixed on the front of an English radio transmission, but I've never had (and still do not have) time to look into it properly, so I'll be interested to see how you leave the article when you've finished researching (for which, thanks in anticipation). Enginear (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion at the Wikipedia article Intelligence

Please leave an edit summary for a major change; removal of more than 8000 characters from Intelligence certainly is a major change. If you would like to collaborate in improving the article, let's discuss ways to do that. I did quickly skim the section in question; it did contain useful information, and the inline cites were of a form that Wikipedia accepts—but the reference section for those added cites was missing (and the added cites should have been in the same form as those previously used). — Neonorange (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Neonorange, going to the diff,[2] I think you have posted this to my talk page rather than to the talk page of the previous editor, who did the blanking of sourced content and inserted a personal remark that doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I was using Twinkle to rapidly revert that apparent vandalism (the previous edit looks like unconstructive editing to you, doesn't it?) and then posted to that editor's talk page a Twinkle warning. It's too bad Twinkle's default behavior in that case was not to show an edit summary. Thank you for checking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, WeijiBaikeBianji, for your gracious reply. I've tried to come up with an explanation of how I went wrong. The best I can come up with is, well, not even believable to me. I see the deleting editor has redeleted. So now I feel responsible for the task of rewriting the section to make the references conform to the format used in the first part of the article. What's odd is that the refs are familiar. I saw your language user boxes—I'm impressed. The only language (other than English) I've ever studied is Latin—good for Jesuits and computer programs, but not much help for languages East of the Urals. I seem to have no ear. My daughter, however, studied Chinese at Pitt and then in Bejing for a year and a half. We'd planed to take the train to Tibet, but stuff happens. — Neonorange (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing statement

Terrific statement; hope all is going well for you on Wikipedia. I tend to check and verify sources, too - especially to see if they are being used correctly. Parkwells (talk) 22:11, 22

Thanks for your kind words. I see you have been doing some good work here on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Shockley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[IEEE Medal of Honor|Maurice Liebman Memorial Prize]] from the [[Institute of Radio Engineers]] (now the [[Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]] (IEEE) in 1980.
• >{{Harvnb |Shurkin|2006|page=[http://books.google.com/books?id=cRb_qzEwWWAC&pg=PA13 13] (See also "[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/the-truth-about-the-termites

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pearson

I don't understand why you think this edit is okay. BLP policy says that when material appears to be a BLP violation, there must be a consensus to include it BEFORE it's added back. This is even more confusing because when you were reported at AE a few months ago, you made this argument yourself to justify your reverts on the Charles Murray article. I'm going to remove the disputed material again, and please get a consensus before you add it a third time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.127.48.63 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss on the article talk page then what you think would be good sources for the article at hand William Shockley and additionally over on the talk page of Roger Pearson feel free to discuss what are good sources about his life and activities. P.S. And don't forget to sign your posts on user talk pages. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

AE notice

I have reported you at AE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#John18778 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.127.48.28 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't blame you for thinking that the newly registered editor is a sock of me (however, he is not) and I thank you for properly notifying me about the enforcement request by your note to my user talk page. I can categorically deny without fear of contradiction that the editor User:John18778 is any kind of puppet of mine. Nor did I communicate with that editor in any manner before the user's account was created nor before the editor committed edits to the article William Shockley that we are both watching and editing. You will note that I have welcomed him, as I habitually welcome new editors, by creating a talk page for the editor and offering the usual Twinkle plate of cookies that I have offered to dozens of new editors in the last year. (I read in Wikimedia Foundation public statements that Wikipedia continues to have an editor retention problem, and I try routinely to welcome to Wikipedia new editors whose edits I encounter I pages I watchlist.) You will also note, in terms of my own activity as an editor using my own account, that I have essentially agreed with your critique of my edits yesterday insofar as I will first of all dig deeply into the sources, to make sure that further edits to article text in the William Shockley article have inline citations (at least paragraph by paragraph, and often sentence by sentence) as the article text is further revised. (First of all, I will be checking the remaining references already in the article, as I yesterday discovered that many of them are cited with incorrect page numbers. I have the sources at hand in my office as I type this, and I encourage you to read all the sources too, as they are quite interesting.) I especially appreciate your concern about statements about living persons, a crucial issue on Wikipedia after the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, and note that that is a two-way street, as fans of the dead Professor Shockley should not be allowed to calumniate his living critiques through insertion of unreliably sourced material into the article. Thanks for letting me know about this. P.S. Please don't forget to sign your posts to user talk pages. You may desire to register a Wikipedia account to simplify communication with other editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Race and intelligence

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from everything related to the issue of race and intelligence for three months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  13:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to the AE thread for more details. In particular, you must in the future not add unsourced derogatory comments about persons, particularly living persons, in Wikipedia's voice, and you must not disguise potentially controversial edits by marking them as "minor" and using misleading edit summaries.  Sandstein  13:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've struck part of the above because it has been pointed out to me that in the AE, your edits were conflated such that they gave the appearance of you misusing edit summaries when in fact you did not; sorry. The sanction is nonetheless maintained because of the other problems with your edits.  Sandstein  14:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. I see by visiting the enforcement request page that the sock was someone else's sock, and that does not surprise me at all. (I had been reverting vandalism by that sock on other articles, under other sock user names, as my edit history shows, and now a point of curiosity about the whole incident is what coordination that sock has off-wiki from the other I.P. editor and the other registered editor who commented on the enforcement request.) I suppose it will be worthwhile to read the checklist at the link you kindly shared about the appeal process (which I have just begun to do) but meanwhile I will absolutely respect the decision as made. I will note for the record that I think both the topic scope and the time duration of the topic ban are too broad for the good of the project of building an encyclopedia, so perhaps that is something for me to bring up in the appeal process. I respectfully suggest much more careful reading of edit histories on any future occasion when edit histories of a particular page are at issue, because you acknowledge here that you formed an impression of my behavior in part through a misreading of the article's edit history. (Checking the notice and this talk page history, it also appears you have a typo in your strike-out markup so that the text you meant to strike out still shows as part of the rationale for the sanction.) Thanks for the notice. Best wishes for much success and happiness in the new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Strikethrough markup fixed, thanks.  Sandstein  17:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• WeijiBaikeBianji, I haven't had interactions with you, but I have seen your name in intelligence related articles and you've come off as a reasonable person. However, in your problematic edit you had inserted parts which read "his poorly informed views severely damaged his reputation" without any attribution and "After receiving the Nobel Prize in 1956, his ego may have gotten the better of his genius, as evidenced in --" attributed broadly to a PBS program which seems inappropriate and such a source probably isn't a RS. I think you had a lapse in judgment adding rather biased wording. I also wonder why you recently seemed to personalize the subject of a BLP Roger Pearson on the talk page [3], writing "For years, this article has been kind to a fault to Pearson, who has never extended the same kindness to the many whole groups of scholars--". It doesn't seem like an argument worth making. Perhaps taking a little break from the topic area is in order, however I also agree with you that 3 months is quite a long time. --Pudeo' 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I would be especially interested to know what you think about the issue after reading through all the sources cited in that article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Essay about kindness

Hi, this is a suggested reading for you. I hope that you will take the advice and become in the future a more kind editor. Think about it: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/23/a-culture-of-kindness/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankonikolic (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The ideas mentioned in the essay are actually very good ideas. All the same, each editor's contribution history has to be responded to on its own terms, according to how well the edits fit the purposes of Wikipedia. My own contributions since 2010 have begun and continued with some inline sourced edits from reliable sources that nonetheless were reverted, so I haven't always encountered the kind of behavior here advocated in that essay. I have managed to bring the article IQ classification to good article status[4] under those conditions, so all's well that ends well, but I would agree with you that kindness from one editor to another is important, as well as each editor's commitment to be here to build an encyclopedia and to be aware of what Wikipedia is not. I'll look forward to checking the reliable secondary sources you refer to in future edits on Wikipedia. (P.S. Please remember to sign your posts on other user's talk pages.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Shockley

Hi WBB, I've been doing my best to undo the Sockpuppets deletions and restore your efforts, but I'm afraid that you understand the source style and format better than I do. Would you take a look please, it needs fixing (again). Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You can see why I keep off-wiki drafts of articles that have long been edit-warred. For your immediate question about source style and format, it doesn't matter a lot in the short term. Any suitable inline citation form will coexist with the fancy Harvnb citation form I learned from RexxS years ago. I have been gathering additional sources, to make sure the editorial work is done meticulously right. But I had best not commit any edits to that article while under the ban announced on this page. My first step in gathering sources is simply to type into Wikipedia citation template format (off-wiki, at first) the various quotations from various books that show what the external view of Shockley's later activities was and those that show the overall course of the writing career of Roger Pearson. The key sources have been cited in the article for a long time--all that is needed is for editors who care about the article being better to read them. Best wishes for much success in improving the encyclopedia. See you on the wiki somewhere less contentious, at least for now. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Contributions

Hey WBB!

Would you happen to have, or could you create a page listing your contributions (articles created/improved/dyk/ga/fa) as a WVS? Here's an example: User:Chris_troutman/Wikipedia_visiting_scholar. I hope you're doing great and appreciate your steady industriousness and precision, as usual :)

Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jake, as User:Staticshakedown kindly mentioned, the Rutgers GLAM Wikipedia Scholar in Residence project has a page set up called New Contributions, that lists all the pages we have created or significantly expanded as Visiting Scholars. Thanks for linking to the page describing Chris Troutman's interesting individual contributions. Staticshakedown has done some great article creation work; I'm more of a page-expander and page-improver, with the page IQ classification (improved to being categorized as a good article while I was on the Rutgers project) now enjoying a million page views per year. Thanks for checking; keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey WeijiBaikiBianji! Thanks for pointing to the page! Also would you be interested in writing something short (300-700 words) about your experience as a Visiting Scholar. Questions that might help prompt your writing: What have you learned in collaborating with a Library on Wikipedia work? How does the access the library provides you strengthen your ability to contribute to Wikipedia? What made your experience distinctive? What did you contribute to Wikipedia during that time?

We are trying to capture some reflections from each of the visiting scholars for both our communications of the positions and to create a short series of blog posts. Feel free to compose it on Wiki or Email it to me. I would like to have as many of you all in our pilot group represented as possible! Thanks much, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey WeijiBaikiBianji: I was just wondering if you saw this latest request for a quick reflection on your Visiting Scholar experience. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

• "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
• "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
• "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't wish to label your contribution as vandalism....

I don't wish to label your contribution as vandalism but you seem to have erased part of the summary of the book The Flight of Dragons to replace it with what appears to be your personal refutation of said book. To be clear, I'm not arguing against your claims, I am simply pointing out that they could be taken as personal, unsupported attacks on the author-particularly as you seem to have mislabeled your edits as minor grammatical corrections and removal of superfluous links (you did remove a link, one can argue whether or not it was needed). I wouldn't even bring this up on such a minor article, except that this seems to be a recurring problem for you. I'm sure that you wouldn't want to give anyone pause to question your impartiality or professionalism; indeed, I wholeheartedly concur that said article could benefit from a properly sourced section describing any noteworthy reaction to the book, particularly it's silly, fantastical argument. It sets a horrific precident to disguise refutation of the subject as review, however well intentioned, and it would be far to easy to misconstrue your substitution of such for preexisting descriptive text as unprofessional mischief-especially considering your mislabeling of your edits. To summarize:I'm not disagreeing with what you said, just pointing out that Wikipedia is not a platform for personal research and that articles should be unbiased in their descriptions.71.235.31.212 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I checked the article history. Do you have any sources to back up any of these claims? You seem to have mischaracterized the edit summary on the edit you are referring to (you didn't provide a diff, but I think I know which edit you are referring to). I suggest that you review the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources and especially the Wikipedia core policy on verifiability, especially the part about exceptional claims. By the way, what are some of your favorite books about science? What are some of your favorite books about history? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I am not being clear. My claim is that extraneous commentary has been added to the article, our policy on Exceptional Claims, et alis, would be relevant in discussing Dickinson's theory, but are grossly inappropriate in a summary of the CONTENT OF HIS BOOK. Likewise the book itself is the ONLY acceptable source for it's own content....any and all interpretation of the text requires, as per policy, sources.

No matter how many sources I cite claiming that the main character of Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is a out-of-work autoworker from Phoenix, Az. the only relevant source contradicts this.

I whole heartedly agree that the "fringe science" of Dickinson's claim is deserving of a critical review, perhaps even a well footnoted refutation-or failing that, a refutation labeled [citation needed]. I simply cringe at the notion of presenting that said refutation as being contained in the book itself. More importantly, it violates policy. Style guidelines would have us place this in a separate section, rather than appearing, however unintentioned, to make blatantly false claims to our readers (We can leave that to Dickinson).

Likewise, I do NOT need a source to claim that:

"Dickinson proposes that primitive man encountered living creatures that prompted
those myths, without explaining the large time gap between attested fossils
of dinosaurs (none of which have the features he imagined) and the origin of humans."

..is a completely different statement from:

"Dickinson proposes to approach the problem from an evolutionary standpoint. He does
not argue that everything legends tell us about dragons is true. Instead, he argues that
primitive man created those myths to explain more realistic features, which all evolved
around a single ability designed to help the dragon survive: flight."

The revision itself is the only meaningful source as to the existence of the revision.

The extraordinary nature of Dickison's claim doesn't require us to support it, we are only saying that he said it.

You don't need an external source for the sentence, "there is a sentence written here!"

The first quotation, sane and reasonable as it may be, still includes personal research, and is lacking an authoritative and verifiable source. I do NOT need a source to show that it is lacking a source. Nor do I foresee anyone claiming it is untrue, even if the sources for it are slow in coming.

The second quotation, from the earlier version of the article, is solely justified by being a flat statement of fact. It is doing exactly what it purports to do, namely stating Dickinson's proposal, hypothesis and methodology, regardless of their validity.

If a public figure were to release a press statement that they were Mixcoatl, Giver-of-Fire, the press release itself would be the source for the statement: "Doug Henning publicly claimed to have given fire to humanity." We wouldn't say "Doug Henning, in a fit of insanity, claimed to be the Mexica Prometheus," in a purported recitation of the contents of his press release. That would be mixing a summary of the press release, which could and should, cite the release itself as a source, with our personal opinion on it. No, we would say that commentary immediately afterwards, in a section that cites the various reputable sources who would surely chime in on the validity of his claim. Or we could skip the press release and only discus the reaction to it. If we feel compelled to cry "bullshit" on something, we must refer to statements by valid sources. We must not claim the subject refuted themselves.

A belief in our own relative sanity dosen't entitle us to commentate, nor relive us of the burden of scholarship.

We are NOT talking heads on an "news editorial."

I realize, that most surely see anything relating to this article to be of a trivial nature, however my point is not by any means minor:

We must be professional.

I'm not arguing with what is being said, merely with how...because if we open the door to edits of that nature, we have started down a slippery slope that will take us to a point where any editor can randomly insert their opinions into any article as objective facts inherent to the actual sources.

One paleontologist, far outside the accepted majority norms of the field, is of minor importance to Wikipedia; Wikipedia's policy is not-we can't afford to set precedent that "it dosen't matter." It's a line in the sand, perhapse arbitrary, but once drawn, necessarily inviolate if it is to have any meaning at all.

I thank-you, a valued contributor, for taking the time to adress an anonymous, minor editor's concerns, over an issue as meaningless TO MOST as the accidental use of the word "burro" when "burough" was obviously intended.71.235.31.212 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, do you have any sources at hand about the topic of the article? Any at all? Reviews of the book? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep trying to change the subject? Insistence that a previously unmentioned topic must take precedence, whenever a particular issue is broached is almost textbook poor form. I'm sure none of us what to accidentally do that! I'm not convinced the book warrants a more detailed article; I personaly lack the background and interest in cryptozoology to judge whether or not it is noteworthy enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia, let alone recomend expert sources, either supporting or tearing down it's hypothesis. My sole interest at this time, as I've made clear, is adherence to article standards--to wit, impartiality.

If you feel that the article's presence, without proper refutation of it's subject's premise, is unacceptable, then you should propose it's deletion. That is an entirely separate issue. Wikipedia is not a platform for it's editor's personal beliefs. I merely suggested that if your personal beliefs compel you express them in the article, you could do so in the proper format and opined that if you lacked the follow through to give those said beliefs the necisssary corroboration the atypical and radical nature of Dickinson's claim would likely protect your contributions from immediate erasure. Disguising your personal research as either self-evident fact or the opinion of an expect is not acceptable.

I know full well and sympathize with how difficult it is to find a specific refutation of a particular fringe theory, it is often too far outside the norm to be worth refuting, but attacking said theory in a biased and unprofessional manner is counterproductive.

To give you a neutral example: say that I found the article on Hamlet, Prince of Demark (play) too dry, I might be compelled to express it's poetic beauty in the article. If I were to add my opinion in the plot synopsis, it would quickly be removed as extraneous by some right thinking fellow editor; if I were to claim that my view was actually that of Alexander of Macedon, then said editor would surely demand a citation. If I expressed my view in a new section, it would likely sit there, however unsupported it might be, until someone provided verifiable, published, expert testimony as to the belief that the languge used in the play was pretty.

We might find Dicknson's hypothesis unscientific or fantasic; but that is no call to misrepresent it or to make false claims, that just makes us look like the unsound party. If you feel compelled to argue against Dickinson, don't erase the description of the book to give your personal thoughts on the matter.71.235.31.212 (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Anchor in English language

Hey, I'm a little puzzled why you restored the anchor in English language. Since the anchor has the exact same text as the section name, isn't it redundant? Do articles link to the section name with the anchor name inside of it, like English language#Geographical distribution{{anchor|Geographical distribution}}? — Eru·tuon 19:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooh! I finally see the little -al at the end! Sorry! — Eru·tuon 19:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that was the little detail I noticed. I have no idea how many inbound section links there are to that section from other articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm using AutoWikiBrowser to search through pages that link to English — which, as far as AutoWikiBrowser is concerned, is almost an infinite number, since I got a list of 25,000 pages. So far I've gotten down past 22,500 or so, and my replacement algorithm hasn't found a single link to #Geographic distribution. — Eru·tuon 23:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Made a replacement: page number 19,227 (yeah, seriously!). Maybe there are a few more pages. — Eru·tuon 00:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gotten to 15,997 without another replacement. It appears that there is about one link to the #Geographic distribution section in every 6,000 pages with links to English language, which suggests there would be a total of four links in the 25,000 pages on the list. Hence, I think it would be appropriate to remove the anchor: there are so few articles that link to the section that it does virtually no harm. But let me know what you think. — Eru·tuon 02:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't put the anchor there, so I have no idea why it is there, but why is leaving it there a problem? (I ask, because I have put a very useful anchor in another article, and I wonder why anyone would want to remove an anchor.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's just my desire for cleanliness and simplicity, and due to the fact that the {{anchor}} template shows in edit summaries. That could be solved, I suppose, by moving the anchor to the line below the section heading. Hmm, the other thing is that the anchor is so similar to the title, differing only in lacking -al. It would make more sense to me if the anchor were more different. — Eru·tuon 03:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reread the fine documentation overnight and figure out a general solution among those trade-offs. That's the section I intend to edit the most for content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Population update project

Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

— kwami (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

• Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
• WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)