User talk:Marty Martinson

April 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eyferth study. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That there are serious problems with the Eyferth Study is widely accepted, even by its most famous proponent James Flynn. Jensen was the most prominent intelligence researcher of the twentieth century so to omit his criticisms is wrong. Marty Martinson (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Are you aware that we had an RfC on this? See the consensus here. The matter has been settled for now. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 15:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]