User talk:Wiki Crazyman

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Generalrelative (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior issues at Talk:Criminal stereotype of African Americans

In your latest comment, your wrote: Sure, I'm outnumbered, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. You are sealioning by continually raising new objections after I answer each previous objection to the material. The thing is, no one there agrees that you've answered any of our objections. And given that a notice of this discussion was posted at FTN, you can be sure that others would have stepped in if they wanted to take your side. What you are experiencing right now is what it feels like to be on the "losing" end of the consensus process. Every experienced editor has experienced that (myself included). What sets apart the editors who last from those who do not is how we handle loss.

I will admit that I originally thought you were a sockpuppet of a previously blocked editor. We do get a lot of disruption in this topic area, and without exception all of those who engage such as you are currently doing either get blocked or tire of losing battles. Some of those who are blocked wander back again and again, pretending to be "new accounts". Dealing with the disruption caused by these long-term abusers is one of the biggest headaches we face as a community.

Given your recent behavior, I'm no longer sure that that's you. Instead, I'm guessing that you are a rather young person who's simply fallen into a rabbit hole of disinformation. That's a normal thing these days. I see it in many of my students. The only reliable disinfectant is sunshine –– that is, being exposed to beliefs outside of your comfort zone. In this case that means the ideas of mainstream scientists for whom biology and genetics are complex phenomena, rather than crudely reductive.

Of course I don't imagine I will persuade you with this. But I am hoping that over time enough people will have reached out to you in this manner that you begin to reconsider the commitments that lead you to push so strenuously to add poorly supported content to this encyclopedia about the supposed genetic predispositions of Black people. Generalrelative (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user:Generalrelative, I have a question for you. You seem to have some very strong opinions when it comes to issues such as race, genetics, intelligence, and the predisposition of character traits. So my question to you is are you willing to accept that maybe you are wrong when it comes to topics like race and intelligence? Are you willing to keep an open mind and realize that maybe science doesn't necessarily agree with your views on the matter? Or that scientific views and consensus can change? Or that perhaps there are significant genetic group differences and that these groups can be loosely (or perhaps strictly) defined as races? Or do you believe that the matter is completely settled and there is no point in discussing it further. Just curious since you seem to take a very active approach in editing these topics. 2600:1012:B02C:5AE8:D116:B333:4E20:2486 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly mainstream views on the matter, which can best be summarized by this explainer by geneticists Ewan Birney, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford and Aylwyn Scally. If you have further questions for me, I suggest you raise them on my own talk page rather than Wiki Crazyman's. Generalrelative (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Race and intelligence. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was definitively not vandalism; I removed that section because the material is WP:UNDUE. A few, unimportant studies are given a huge section, while the meta-analysis of 6 million subjects above it is given only two brief sentences. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edit at Race and intelligence

At this point you should be fully aware that edits like this run counter to well established consensus and are therefore unambiguously disruptive. I ask you to please refrain from such tendentious editing in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my edit contradicted consensus. The statement Mainstream Science on Intelligence, which was signed by 52 academics and published in the Wall Street Journal, represents consensus, not some fringe politically-motivated radical theory. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting is the Snyderman and Rothman survey, in which the plurality of experts surveyed disagree with you. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming to be unfamiliar with the article's talk page, where each of your points has been roundly rejected by the community? If so, please consult this FAQ before editing in the topic area further. Or are you claiming that your opinion overrides a consensus like this? If it's that, you are essentially admitting to being not here to collaboratively build an encyclopdeia. Generalrelative (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative, are Wiki Crazyman's comments on this page the reason you've just added content [1] to the Mainstream Science on Intelligence article, to "debunk" this statement by 52 professionals, by citing sources that include a newspaper article and a VOX blog post? 24.246.138.48 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi IP, that's rather a leading question. Of course I was reminded of that article's existence by WC's comment and saw that it needed updating to accord with WP:FRINGE. You will find many other high quality references supporting my update at Race and intelligence. By all means, take your pick and add them yourself if you'd like.

Now it's my turn. I see that this is your 10th edit over the course of several months, and that your first three were to AE. Perhaps you can explain how that came to be? You wouldn't happen to be an SPA evading a block, or an account-holder who is editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, would you? Generalrelative (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've just been following all the discussions about your edits at Twitter (or X or whatever it's called now). Here's one of the newer discussions: [2] I'm not trying to revert you or modify your choice of sources, because the point made in those discussions is much stronger when edits like yours never get undone. 24.246.138.48 (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so you're not here to build an encyclopedia either? Generalrelative (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Correlates of crime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you.

This edit in particular was rather egregious: [3]. Neither of the sources cited in that paragraph mention the FOXP2 gene. Generalrelative (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add the source. It can be found here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.19.462578v1.full.pdf Wiki Crazyman (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so it's a different source entirely? I'll take your word for it that this was an honest mistake then. And this meta-analysis looks very good! Though what you linked appears to be a preprint (of this). I wouldn't stand in the way if you wanted to rewrite the section based on this source, but you'll need to be careful not to overstate its conclusions:

Our findings provide a starting point toward identifying critical biosocial risk mechanisms for the development of ASB.

Generalrelative (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]