User talk:Bpesta22

Hi, Bpesta22, and welcome to Wikipedia. As a new editor, you might find it helpful to review the following pages from time to time, as they cover a lot of useful material:

You can sign your comments on discussion pages by typing four tildes (~~~~), and it's a habit worth forming. If you have general questions about navigating or editing Wikipedia, feel free to post on my talk page. --Aryaman (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

relief

I am glad you took no offense, I was sure you knew none was intended. Not knowing your gender, I used the female as a default for the pronoun, but Technofaye was referring to a point I was making to her, about Wikipedia policy, and it had nothing to do with you personally.

I do appreciate your time when I know you write, in effect, for a living. I do think based on our exchange that your point about confounding factors is important and one area where you could perhaps say more about where in the outline the issue should be covered. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

editing points

Brain - a couple of aids in editing wikipedia talk pages:

placing a colon at the beginning of a line indents text. this helps keep responses and discussion threads clear. so if you see something like this:

A speaks.

B responds to A

C responds to B

D responds to A

what actually got typed was

A speaks.
:B responds to A
::C responds to B
:D responds to A

also, you can create bulleted or numbered lists by putting asterisks and pound signs at the beginnings of lines

bulleted point

numbered point
next numbered point
- bulleted subpoint
another numbered point

check out the cheatsheet for a quick intro into how wiki editing works. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for your initial comments on the latest version of Race and Intelligence. Once you have finished, I am sure that we will be able to incorporate much of the material into the article. David.Kane (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

section editing enabled?

Bryan (or is it Brian, or maybe Brayn?): do you have section editing enabled? it makes life much easier if you do. click the 'My Preferences' link at the top right of the page, choose the 'Editing' tab, and select 'Enable section editing via [edit] links'. you'll then get a little [edit] link at the right of every section header that will allow you to edit only that section. I don't remember if it's turned on by default, but if it isn't, you'll want to marry it. you might read m:Help:Preferences as well, to see all the options that are available.

also, as I think I mentioned before, you can indent your text using strings of colons at the beginning of the line. for instance, if you type:

::: intended three tabs
::::indented four tabs

it renders as:

intended three tabs

indented four tabs

this is very helpful for following the threads of discussions.

In general, it's better to use as little text as possible - for instance, where you suggested changes in the proposed introduction, I would probably not have copied the entire text, but rather said things like on the third line of the second paragraph, use this..." Wikipedia conversations suffer badly from excess verbiage (most people don't recognize that it's much easier to type something that to follow something someone else typed), so it's better (usually) to err on the side of pithy than on the side of verbose. not that I am all that successful at doing that myself, but this is one of those 'do as I say, not as I do' situations - lol. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Richard Nisbett

Please could you give a careful explanation why you have decided to dismiss Richard Nisbett's views on race and intelligence? At present, it just seems to be some kind of gut reaction. But, in accordance with the usual editing rules for editing wikipedia, were you relying on some secondary sourc that somehow found him at fault or academically negligent? Please could you give your full explanation on the talk page of the mediation for Race and intelligence? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work on Article

To the extent that you have the time ad energy to spend on this (and I hope you do!), your best bet is to start editing the article directly, writing in a neutral, review-article type fashion. Start with middle sections, like the one on g-loading. David.Kane (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just some editing points

You suggested on the mediation page that you weren't sure how to find recent edits. I don't think anyone responded to you and apologize if someone did - or if this is really obvious to you. But, at the top of any page is a "history" tab and if you press it, you will get a history of all edits anyone made to that page in chronological order. And on the top of any page is a set of links relating to you - if you click on "my contributions" you will get a list of all edits you made to any page in chronological order. I have found these two tabs invaluable in following discussions. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your disatisfaction

I left another wordy reply to you on the mediation talk page. I really hope it helps. The bottom line is: many people still think you have something important to contribute and we hope you will. The key thing is, at Wikipedia you have to comply with our core policies, in this case, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This requires a radically different wriing style from what you are used to. Instead of arguing for what you think (even if it is based on years of research), here it is a matter of including a dispassionate account of what others think, and presenting everything as a "view" (rather than as an argument) - and this goes for views you do not agree with. If you can handle that, you really can find ways to make sure that what is most important to you is in the article. Just be prepared: it WILL sit next to stuff you consider dead wrong, trivial, or silly. That's because we are a heterogeneous group of editors and this is the only practial way for us to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

You additions to the reaction time section are excellent. Of course, others will go in a change things, but this is the way that Wikipedia operates. Indeed, my main goal in editing the article was to provide a framework within which experts like yourself might profitably work. You can make each of those subsections much better than they currently are. Hope that you have the time and energy to do so. David.Kane (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lynn

Dr. Pesta, I generally agree with your comments about criticisms of Richard Lynn needing to be held to a high standard in order to justify inclusion. Wikipedia has a special set of guidelines about what types of things can and can't be said about living persons in articles here, which can be found at Wikipedia:BLP. You might want to read through these guidelines, in order to gain a better understanding of what sort of criticism of Lynn would and wouldn't be allowed here.

After you have, you might also want to take a look at the Richard Lynn article. My suspicion is that this article does not conform very well to Wikipedia’s “biography of living persons” guidelines. For example, one such guideline is that Wikipedia articles can only contain criticisms of a living person that have been published in reliable sources, while one of the article’s assertions about Lynn (that what he claims to be IQ data from Equatorial Guinea is actually from Spain) is cited to an unpublished doctoral thesis. I’ve generally been too busy with the main race and intelligence article to do anything about the Lynn article, but if you care about making sure none of the articles here contain unverifiable slander against Lynn, any improvements you can make to the article about him would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article on Jensen's 1969 monograph

In case you haven't noticed already, I thought you might want to know that we now have an article on Arthur Jensen's 1969 paper that started the modern debate over race and intelligence: How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? If you have any contributions to add to that article, I'm sure they would be appreciated.

The article is also being considered for deletion, since not everyone here is agreed that Jensen's paper is notable enough to deserve its own article here. If you have an opinion about that, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion also. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Case

Rvcx recently filed a request for arbitration on Race and intelligence and the related articles.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race_and_Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Captain Occam (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban proposal

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_to_topic_ban_Bpesta22_from_Race_and_Intelligence_topics. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to slrubenstein on the ArbCom page

It's really annoying and awkward, and I'm not sure why they decided to set it up that way, but the ArbCom pages are not designed for threaded discussions such as we have on every other talk page on Wikipedia -- everybody's supposed to keep their comments in their own section. Because of this, I've moved your response to slrubenstein to its own section "Statement by Bpesta22". I didn't do any other refactoring, but you should take a look at it just to be sure I didn't mess anythting up. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion is designed that way as a kind of firebreak, to keep the page readable and arguments from getting out of hand. When everyone writes in their own section, everyone tends to be calmer and more concise. it's a very good technique, actually; there's a couple of tweaks they could add if they wanted really on-topic discussions, but that would just be icing. --Ludwigs2 14:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still following the Wikipedia edits?

I see your talk page has been quiet since the ArbCom case opened. I wanted to say thanks for the link to the Flynn 2010 article from the Race and intelligence talk page. I enjoyed reading the article. I hope this post finds you enjoying some summer vacation before the start of another school year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
- Mathsci (by consent)
- David.Kane
- Captain Occam
- Mikemikev
Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[1] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Bpesta22. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael Woodley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Woodley 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/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination) 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) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]