User talk:Unfreeride
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Heterosis. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Natalie 15:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Mercury Poisoning
[edit]Hi there. I reverted your edit to the Mercury poisoning article, whereby you moved some section content to a separate template. Doing this makes it harder for people to edit the content and is unnecessary. Bobo12345 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added the template because wikipedia server is sometimes very slow, multiple pages with exact content. (but that does not mean that I will readd the template again!)Unfreeride 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Attack
[edit]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by Evb-wiki (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I created that page Stereotypes of yellows as a redirect to Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians, but I believe that I made a typo in the redirect page.
Unfreeride 01:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Please sign your comments
[edit]Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - Jeeny Talk 17:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
June 2007
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Computer Go, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Lradrama 19:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - this warning is relevant to only one of your edits to the article in question, one which displayed P.O.V
- I was just testing. I contributed a useful amount of information, others are tests.
Blocked
[edit]I have blocked you for 48 hours; the reason is given here. You need to calm down and, amongst other things, get off your soapbox. – Steel 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Test 12345, by Brandon Dilbeck (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Test 12345 is a test page.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Test 12345, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Template:Test 12345 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfreeride (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User 220.253.68.210, 124.168.39.104 and User:Gooogen are sockpuppets from the same person who pretend they are three different users at Talk:Human_height to promote the same exact opinion, and should be blocked.
Decline reason:
And that excuses your behaviour how? This looks like a solid block — Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unfreeride (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User 220.253.68.210, 124.168.39.104 and User:Gooogen are obviously sockpuppets from the same person who pretend they are three different users at Talk:Human_height to promote the same exact opinion, and should be blocked. I do not think that I act like a soapbox because I have the sources cited. He pretends that he is three other people and aggravates me by advocating the opinion that Asians are short. I did not intentionally promote propaganda. My edits on the article are reliable, but the sockpuppet continuously removes it. (I honestly believe that my edits were NPOV, but I do not want listen to sock puppets) He should be the one that is blocked due to his sockpuppeting.
Decline reason:
Hmm - you removed my previous unblock - no doubt in the hope that it would be overlooked when you made the next request. This is not good faith editing and you are teetering on the edge of an indefinite block if you carry on. I'm protecting your page to prevent further abuse of the unblock — Spartaz Humbug! 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I did not know that I am not allowed to remove unblocks...Unfreeride 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Re:False Positive
[edit]The article doesn't really need it, and it might be insulting for other users. -FlubecaTalk 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to remove insulting.
Blocked again
[edit]
-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfreeride (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sorry for adding the template twice for my last unblock because I want to edit my reason and I thought that I could add another template. I think this block is unjust: That article used to be a lot of original research in the past but the sources are cited. I am now adding a new "original research" in the article so someone can find a corresponding source in the future. I believe that adding "original research" in the article isn't serious since that article already has some uncited controversal original research. One reasons that the blocker blocked me is because I cited controversal books. There are other statements that cited IQ and Global Inequality and IQ and the Wealth of Nations. The Race and intelligence article and Race and intelligence (test data) article all cite these controversal sources. For instance, the section Model_minority#Genetic_differences and other sections contains original synthesis and cites the controversal books. These connect success and IQ without citing any source connecting IQ and success. (I didn't add it.) Because of this, I believe that created new synthesis to this article is normal because this article already has tons of synthesis. But this I cannot cite these, even this article already contains statements citing these books? There are equally offending statements in that article. My contribution is just one of them. There are equally offending statements that cited controversal race and intelligence books in that article. Note that wikipedia is not a place to remove material that are offensive. This article contains tons of original research added by others (but now the original research was sourced). That article already has a {{neutrality}} to warn others that some of the information is inaccurate. I was going to add a {{fact}} and {{cn}} template after my original research to warn others and so others can find a source to my original research. So why I am blocked but not others? First, I was reverted because I was accused of vandalism, when it is not really vandalism. It is original research. You did not add a "good" reason for the reversion so I reverted your revert. Second, one of your reasons for my unblock appears to be my block in the past. My block in the past no way a good reason for my current block. Third, you wasn't the one that suggested my block. Someone else suggested my block. But you supported it. It seems strange that you didn't block my immediately after my "vandalism", but after someone else suggested it. Fourth, once you reverted my "vandalism", I was inactive for about 12 hours. I was not adding other material. It seems that the reasons are just numerous "small" reasons. There is no one "good" reason for my block. One good reason is enough for my block. But you said many small reasons, which are not good for my block. I personally find my block very offensive and racist because I feel that I am blocked only because I am Asian. Wikipedia blocks are used to prevent further disruption, not to punish users. I didn't re-add my "vandalism" and was inactive for twelve hours. So why I am block for just adding a small statement? So I find my block as punishment. My block was originally requested for "vandalism", when it is actually not. However, someone else support my block because of my previous block. This is not a good reason.
Unfreeride 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Quite simply, you offer no sound reason why the block should be lifted other than "others should be blocked too". The fact is that you are adding original research to articles and you even go as far as recognizing this. Note that adding an unsourced statement followed by a {{fact}} tag is obviously not an option and {{neutrality}} is not used "to warn others that some of the information is inaccurate" thus giving you the right to add your own nonsense: it's there to invite editors to fix the problem by sourcing controversial statements, discuss the problems on the talk page and remove the OR. Your previous block is not unrelated to the present one as you have a long history of problematic POV pushing edits and I think 2 weeks, though perhaps a bit long, is not unreasonable. — Pascal.Tesson 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Living in the states must suck for you because your Asian super race POV It will never convince masses when you are living in a "white world". It appears any faults found in your contributions you attribute to racism against asian people and never to your own POV or nosense you dream up. I feel it's wrong of you to attribute your lack of stature, intelligence etc to a race of people while at the same time promoting the positive stereotype of intelligence and going to an incredible attempt to disprove negative stereotypes. I have read your drunk ramblings(you admitted) on spatial IQ and math ability in which you assumed ashkenazi jews were less mathematically inclined, which showed you have little to no knowledge on the topic of psychometrics or interest since your main interest was to weigh who is smarter and likewise in the height section which I contribute to. I assumed that if I went to IQ and race I would find your tag there with the same POV and in the stereotype of asians article and I did. Likewise it's it was easy to assume if you visit these pages one can press ctrl+f then type white supremacist you'll find it in capital letters and once again you do. I can't believe you want to attribute being blocked again as a racial attack, but I do find it a tad cute, cause your gonna be angry man for a long time unless you learn to accept what is, and by that I mean what can be proved and reproduced. i visited your talk after I noticed you accused me of being rOm's sockpuppet. Sydney is a big area and I'm not there. I'm in Taipei. Lesson in analysing, gather evidence, conclude then accuse once you know for sure. Gooogen
synthesis
[edit]The purpose of my edit is to only inform readers the average IQ of Vietnam. But I had put the information in the wrong section, which becomes controversal. If I instead put the IQ score of Vietnam (without mentioning the hypothesis) "genetic factors" section, it would not be controversal.
If people knew Vietnamese people have lower IQ than Chinese, then they would automatically use original synthesis while reading to conclude that it contradicts his hypothesis. But most readers do not know that Vietnamese people have lower IQ. I should have mentioned the Vietnamese IQ somewhere else in the article, such as the "genetic factors" section, not what I had done that got me blocked.
The information on the edit is neutral, but I placed and connected my arguments in the wrong place. I should have instead add that information in the "genetic factors" section. The Genetic Factors section contains an error: Not all East Asians have higher IQ than whites. Vietnamese people have lower IQ than whites. I should have added that information. I should list the IQs by country in the "genetic factors section." In that way, average readers with the analytic abilities will realize that Vietnam contradicts his hypothesis, without explicitly writing it (which is synthetic).
I put the information in a controversal way, not intending to prove inferiority.
Putting the IQ score of the nation Vietnam in the "genetic factors" section is uncontroversal and correct, but explicitly connecting it to his hypothesis is wrong. The level of "synthesis", in this case, only depends how you put the information in the article, not how controversal the sources are.
The average reader who knew that Vietnam has a lower IQ would automatically conclude (like I) that his hypothesis was incorrect (this synthesis is very trivial compared to other synthesis). Allowing average readers to synthesize conclusions themselves, but not the editor, is weird. But most readers will synthesize his or her conclusion without reading my pre-written synthesis. But it is a waste of time for the average reader to read my synthesis when the reader already synthesized the same conclusion by himself or herself.
Obviously it does not support his hypothesis since Vietnamese has lower IQ. But is it useful to put that statement in the article, even if it is extremely obvious? An average reader will realize that the lower IQ does not support it. That statement is borderline between a valid statement and synthesis. This is practically the least controversal statement that can be accepted by synthesis. It is not a serious propaganda. It is obvious if you understand it.
This is not POV pushing. An average reader with basic analytic ability will independently conclude a conclusion exactly like my synthesis by himself.
It is not an attempt to prove inferiority. Just to give the reader that Vietnamese has lower IQ.
Other stuff are considered more original research why are they unremoved? Is it that these stuff are so common that they are accepted? They are not accepted in this article because it connect them.
Obviously logic can deduce my synthesis if you also read the controversal book and this article. It is not a "crazy" synthesis. It is an obvious synthesis. 90% of the readers who knew Vietnamese have lower IQ than whites will conclude my equivalent conclusion that I got banned. Every article must have synthesis.
I got mad when someone blocked me. I have been mad for days and decided to quit Wikipedia forever. I do not want to visit Wikipedia anymore. I feel discriminated because I am Asian. Why did I got block because I added an obvious conclusion that the average reader will conclude? Is it a waste of time for the average reader to read my statement because he already made an identical conclusion? If so, that reason is a very small reason. Is reading a sentence a a big waste of time? Is banning this a good punishment for adding one sentence that is obvious for the average user that can infer?
"Supereasy" stuff are not removed since a common layman is obvious. However the "Supereasy stuff" may be synthesis but they are not because they can be paradoxical, and can technically accepted OR.
Many of the "Supereasy" synthesis appears correct to the common man but be paradoxical. I disproved many of the "Supereasy" stuff on Wikipedia considered paradoxical.
Does adding one sentence that much dangerous? I did not start an edit war. I accepted the revert.
Many other stuff in the article is considered more synthesis. Why are they not removed? Because of familiar that is mentioned in other articles? This article cannot mention that because it does not connect IQ and modelminority.
If it is not the person that suggested my block, I would not be blocked. It is probability. Some people are stricter and more sensitive about racism than others. If that person did not suggest my block, I would probably not be blocked.
You quit cause you got "owned" super easy. Your input was offensive, unscientific, incoherent and to top it off the english poor and vulgar. I doubt you have high school science behind you so don't consider yourself high tech and misundertood as opposed to unintelligent at both research and scientific aptitude since your sources were most likely googled and you showed no knowledge of being able to identify a relible source and had arguments made no sense. Once again I left this message you once again atrtibuted your criticism to you being asian. People shouldn't even know this. Try a new IP as you no doubt will and I guarantee things won't change, cause it is your POV that you are pushing and it isn't as offensive as it is sad.
Why should a person of a super race be so incredibly easy to shut down? Ru guo ni jue de bu dui de hua.
Wow, what gave the impression that the Vietnamese have a lower IQ than Whites? You do realize that the reason why "The Wealth of Nations" used an estimate of the average Vietnamese IQ as 98 is because they took the average of Thailand and China, which is entirely an arbritrary estimation method. Because there is so little IQ research on Vietnam back when he wrote the book, he felt obligated to include a number (even if it's arbritrary) because Vietnam's economy was booming back then and it would provide further support for his book.
HOWEVER, there has been more recent IQ studies using the stanford binet tests on the Vietnamese people that would provide for a better estimate that just average two neighboring countries and just assuming the numbers are correct. If you include the Rural and the Urban areas of Vietnam, Vietnam's IQ actually comes out to be about 100.8 WHICH is actually statistically better than the 98 cited. Of course this only ties American White people's average, but still, they should be seen as equals to us and not as inferior (though you say you are not implying it, you state it without evidence, hence makes me curios on why you are so adament in defending that assumption to begin with) And if you only take the Urban population (i'm assuming this is more representative of the average Vietnamese than say, the mountainous minorities, don't know any of them so can't name them) then it goes up to 106 for High School students.
http://dev-asia.intellasia.com/news/eng/article_12544.shtml The article sites research done on average High Schools in Hanoi such as Phan Dinh Phung high school which scored on average 106.67 on the stanford binet (I would probably assume that their more elite private schools would score even higher, but the point of the study is to measure the average public i assume, so i don't think you can find a study on elite schools). They also did a study on a rural mountainous people's high school which scored 87.07.
Also, Vietnamese students in San Diego, in a study conducted in 1997 in a random sample of students in the city, scored the highest GPAs in the city out of all ethnic groups. http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004046.html
Surely you can't believe that people with subpar IQs can have the highest average GPAs. That honor is usually held by the higher IQ groups such as the Jews and Chinese. I'm not sure if it is correct to say that the Vietnamese are as smart as the Jews, but in San Diego, they are at the very least as smart as the general American population.
Better do your research before you make faulty assumptions. Vietnam is growing fast because the people are smart enough to handle their economy, in general, the smarter the general population the more the economy speeds up. Of course, this is circular in many ways, because wealthy nations can feed their people, hence providing for nutrients that provide for effective development of a child's brain in early stages, which would produce higher IQs on average. This probably could account for the general trend in increasing Vietnamese IQs throughout the years. Maybe the 98 IQ figure was done long ago, but as of about ten years ago, it's a bit higher than that. So really, IQ and economic development is only correlation, there is no evidence on which variable is causing the other. So gotta be careful with it all.
I'm actually doing research on the economic development of East Asia. So if you have any qualms on what i just said, please reply and i will provide for you even more research (I've also done research on Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia and Thailand if you want me to tell you more about those countries as well)
Claude
Speedy deletion of Template:Effects of neurotoxins in skin whitening products
[edit]A tag has been placed on Template:Effects of neurotoxins in skin whitening products requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Pose_(computer_vision)#Pose_Estimation
[edit] An article that you have been involved in editing, Pose_(computer_vision)#Pose_Estimation, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Stephen LaPorte (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)