User talk:Victor Chmara

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I read the Finalnd article discussion area and noticed that the user Turkuun has also caused some problems in Finland article with his radical edits. We have a similar situation with the Estonia article where he is trying to restructure and rewrite the existing and approved article chapters and headings. I was wondering if you could provide some help or advice in dealing with such contributor as Turkuun is? Karabinier 00:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources did you use to say he is most often referred to as "Aaro Pajari"? Most of the sources that I consulted used his full name. --Bejnar (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "not necessarily derogatory, sometimes used by e.g. newspapers as a purely descriptive term". I do not have good sources, so not redoing that edit, but I question using the word "as a purely descriptive term. It may be used as such by people not liking the subject, and also otherwise more or less accidentally. I do not see "somewhat charged" as a correct description.

Olisin iloinen, jos voisit hiukan selventää missä yhteyksissä sanaa käytetään neutraalisti. Avainsana tässä ehkä on "sometimes": joskus sana lipsahtaa toisissakin yhteyksissä. En koe sellaisen muuttavan sanaa neutraaliksi.

--LPfi (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it looks like you're involved in an edit war over a couple of articles. I found this dispute because User:ProjectZero posted Howard Gardner to WP:RPP, in what appears to be an attempt to block you (or anyone) from editing the article. Judging by the user's edit pattern, I would say that they might have a conflict of interest with the articles in question; I would suggest asking the user about it, and then taking it to WP:COI/N if it remains an issue. Also, the Howard Gardner article appears to be a textbook case of WP:COATRACK; IMO it should either be expanded to meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V, or AfD'd. In addition, see WP:SELFPUB #4; the article is in dire need of third party sources.

Just thought I'd let you know, since I don't feel like getting directly involved :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Victor,

I notice you’ve left a few comments on the talk page for this article, and you seem like a fairly reasonable person. (Your suggestions about my proposed addition to the article were helpful, for example.) Would you mind being a bit more involved there? Mathsci has been trying to make a lot of changes to this article very quickly, as well as to related articles such as History of the race and intelligence controversy, Mainstream Science on Intelligence, and Snyderman and Rothman (study). Because of the speed that he’s been making these changes, as well as the lack of many users involved in these articles at present, not many people have had the opportunity to comment on the changes he’s making. I think changes of this magnitude deserve more attention and scrutiny than they’ve been getting, so I would appreciate your participation as an additional editor to provide feedback about them, if that’s all right with you. Is this something you’d be willing to help out with? --Captain Occam (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you’ve recently gotten involved in a few of these articles to help make them more neutral. Thanks; I appreciate that. Lately I’ve been busy discussing Mathsci’s recent changes to the main Race and intelligence article, but please let me know if you feel like you need someone else to help you in the rest of these articles. I know from experience how taxing it can be to debate with Mathsci.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed, one other person who you can contact for help is user:David.Kane. He’s not as active here as I am, but he’s also helped make things less difficult for me when I’ve been in similar situations in the past. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Captain Occam (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your nearly immediate edit of my joining discussion of two papers by Bouchard et al. into one sentence. Yes, what you wrote actually makes more clear the point of what the difference is between heritability and mutability/malleability/controllability. It's good to have a sharp-eyed editor looking after the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor,

You gave me some useful advice about this section of the article while I was drafting it up, so I’d appreciate it if you could participate in the current discussion about it on the article talk page. Aprock has said that sometime in the next few days he’ll have some additional suggestions about how this section can be improved, which is fine with me, but I also think there’s no reason to not include it in the article until then, and edit it in the mainspace based on his suggestions whenever he provides them. I can’t tell whether Aprock agrees with that suggestion or not, since he hasn’t answered my question about it.

Do you have an opinion about this? If so, I’d appreciate you giving your perspective about this in the discussion there. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim Johannes Lundson Erkki Pystynen Herman H. Spitz Vieno Johannes Sukselainen R. Travis Osborne John E. Hunter Paavo Virkkunen Robert Plomin Lee A. Thompson Richard J. Haier David Wechsler Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth Cognitive test Lee Willerman Juho Sunila Nicholas Mackintosh Stephen J. Ceci Ahti Pekkala

Cleanup Three stratum theory Neanderthal IQ and the Wealth of Nations Merge Chaotic Trading Card Game Object relations theory Behavior based AI Add Sources Ceiling effect Individual differences psychology Oriental Shorthair Wikify Sex-related differences in spatial cognition Artificial psychology Alfred the Great Expand Outline of artificial intelligence Mary Margaret Graham John D. Marks

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor,

I and a few other people are working on trying to make the article about J. P. Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior more balanced. You've provided a lot of help with this on similar articles in the past, so I was wondering whether you'd be interested in helping out on this one also.

If you are, I and one other user have made some suggestions on the talk page here about ways this article can be improved. I'd appreciate any help you can offer with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Victor,

I made a quick comment on the talk page of "History of the race and intelligence controversy" while in the midst of complicated edits on other articles. I see discussion has ensued there. I should make clear, as perhaps was unclear from that post, that in general I am happy to see major articles that have mostly come from the keyboard of one editor get second and third looks from other editors who may have different perspectives to bring to the articles. That goes also for articles that I add the most content to at first. "Anyone can edit this page right now" is what I will assert about new contributions I post (you'll see a major rewrite of a long-unsourced article from my keyboard grow over the next few days), and I welcome your and anyone's willingness to refer to reliable sources to add V and NPOV and encyclopedic tone to articles.

I see Captain Occam has just asked your help for edits of the article on Philippe Rushton's book. Anyone might have a lot to contribute to a wide variety of articles, as long as the contributor refers to sources and ponders their place in the overall scholarly literature on the subject, in light of Wikipedia policy. It would be great to improve many articles on Wikipedia, the sooner the better, in a collaborative fashion.

I recall posting to the ArbCom case file on Race and intelligence a quotation from Arthur Jensen about James R. Flynn, followed up by a quotation by Flynn about Jensen. I consider those two scholars, who plainly disagree sharply about several factual issues, models of how to disagree without being disagreeable. Making the warranted assumption that I will not fully agree with any other editor on Wikipedia about all the issues involved in any particular article, I would like to invite you and other editors who edit the same articles to assume good faith and treat factual issues as issues to discuss calmly and rationally, and editorial issues as issues to be resolved according to what the sources say and what Wikipedia policies require. On that basis I'm willing to work with anyone here, and invite anyone to participate in editing any article.

Best wishes in checking the articles that interest you for accuracy and what seems to you to be balanced point of view. I have not taken the opportunity yet to do a line-by-line reading of any of the longer articles on Wikipedia more or less related to the topic of human intelligence (which is one of two main topics of my professional research, the other being primary mathematics pedagogy). I have been sufficiently appalled by the poor sourcing of most of the shorter articles that I have read line-by-line that I was motivated first of all to share an extensive citations list with all other Wikipedians, which I have still been expanding today and will continue to expand for quite a while. Just recently I have begun substantive edits of articles that appear to have been long neglected, not overly politically controversial, and logically related to important issues. It may be a while before I join you in editing any of the more contentious articles very much. I appreciated your fast improvement of my early edit in the lede of one of the contentious articles about Thomas Bouchard's 2009 paper. I considered that a friendly act and I hope that you and I can maintain a friendly tone of cooperation even if we don't always agree on all the issues we read about and discuss together. Now that I am personally acquainted with Bouchard, as I have been since not quite a year ago, I'll be writing to him and to many of his research colleagues to make sure I am up to date and reading the mainstream literature as I continue to ponder how to improve Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be edit warring on History of the race and intelligence controversy‎. You seem to be making many unsourced edits with the specific intention of establishing your own preferred point of view. I invite you to engage these issues on the talk page. aprock (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I have place a section in ANI regarding this issue [1] aprock (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor,

I thought you’d like to know that the changes you made in June to Snyderman and Rothman (study) are currently being challenged. I approve of the changes you made to that article, so I’m arguing in favor of them being kept, but I think discussion about these changes probably ought to also include the person who originally made them. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been following the recent developments over this article? I haven’t seen much of you lately. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment in my user talk:

If you’re intending to take another look at the Snyderman and Rothman article, you might want to do it sometime sooner than next week. There’s currently an AFD for it, so there’s a chance that by next week it won’t be there anymore. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you have the chance, it would also be useful if you could take another look at the changes that Ramdrake, Mathsci and WeijiBaikeBianji made to the article earlier this month. The changes that you made in May and June are still being repeatedly undone, but David.Kane and I probably won’t be allowed to participate in this article for long enough beyond this point to be able to do anything about it ourselves. You have as good an understanding of the relevant issues as anyone, though, so I hope you’ll continue to pay attention to things like this in our absence. (And that goes for goes for all of the articles we’re going to be topic banned from, not just the Snyderman and Rothman one.) --Captain Occam (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at this recent edit by Futurebird. [2] It looks a lot like original synthesis to me, but I don't think I should be reverting the article this soon after the arbitration case. Would you mind taking a look at it and seeing if it's a problem? Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with that so quickly!

If you don't mind, there are also some recent edits from Aprock that I'd appreciate having your opinion about, particularly these two: [3] and [4] Sorry to keep having to bother you about this, but I'm not sure what else to do. There aren't many people I can count on understanding wording issues like this, and I'm afraid to get involved myself at the moment for fear of being labeled a meatpuppet.

Even after the Arbcom case it looks like POV-pushing is still going on in these articles, even though they have discretionary sanctions for POV-pushing now. And the administrators don't seem to be paying attention to it either. I asked Georgewilliamherbert here how this should be brought up when it happens, but he hasn't responded. Do you have any suggestions about how to deal with this situation? It'd be nice to not have to be a messenger pigeon about these problematic edits, but I don't know what else to do. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thread concerning your involvement in the recent arbitration of the race and intelligence dispute has been started here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Captain_Occam. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry about this. I wouldn't have brought it up if I'd known it would be a problem like this and I didn't mean to cause you an inconvenience.

Every time I comment on anything related to these articles, I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. As I go along, I hope experienced editors can help me learn what the appropriate way is of handling situations like these. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor,

There's been a discussion going on in the Race (classification of humans) article for the past week or so about a new draft for the "in biomedicine" section. Maunus invited me to write a draft, which I did, and then he said that he'd like to wait for further comment by you, Weiji, Aprock, and Slrubenstein before making a decision. Muntunwandi has now offered a different draft version of the article and we're having a hard time reaching a consensus about how to proceed from here. You're the only one whose opinion Maunus wanted who hasn't yet commented in this discussion, so it would probably be helpful to offer your opinion. [5] Thanks! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, an arbitration enforcement request about an issue you've been involved in has recently been posted here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, would you be willing to have an e-mail discussion with me? I’d e-mail you directly, but you don’t have Wikipedia’s e-mail feature enabled. I have mine enabled, so you can just send me a message if the answer is yes.

The reason I’d like to talk to you via e-mail is not because I want to influence your editing on race and intelligence articles. From what I’m able to see, you’re doing excellent work on them as it is, probably better than I could do. But there’s something related to the arbitration ruling that I’d like to discuss, and that I think you’re more likely than anyone else to be aware of and have a helpful perspective about. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Occam, but I don't think that's a good idea. I think you should stay clear of these disputes for a while.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was recently a request for clarification about this case, and the view of the arbitrators there was that dispute resolution related to the arbitration ruling is acceptable for topic banned editors. But if you’d still prefer to err on the side of caution, I’ll respect that. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor. Did you read my post of sources on talk:Creativity? When we have the former head of the American Psychological Association (see Triarchic theory of intelligence) as well as many writers on creativity placing creativity within the intelligence debate, it seems quite apposite to include it within the overall topic. Articles can explain the disputes. Creativity as a research topic isn't treated as a bunch of artists lounging around daubing canvasses.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my own talkpage - I'd prefer if we kept it to one page.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was off sorting these out myself when you left the message. I've added another Baker. In my experience refs often tend to drift out of place over time on the wiki with so many editors making changes. This may help prevent confusion down the line. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be interested in taking a look at this article. It is a GA, but it is in need of some people who know about race.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it, but I am unfortunately not able to muster enough enthusiasm to edit an article on such a hoary subject...--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[6] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - regarding the Sigmund Freud article, could you please explain why you consider "Adolf Grünbaum argued that Popper was a slovenly reader of Freud and a poor logician" to be more neutral than "Adolf Grünbaum describes Popper as a slovenly reader of Freud and a poor logician"? I see no difference in neutrality between the two wordings. I do not want to edit war over the issue, but I do not see your changes as an improvement, and may remove them at some time in the future. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove them if you wish. I'm working through awards recipients, adding them to appropriate categories. Sometimes, the category does not (yet) exist but as the format is (more or less) standard, they accumulate and get picked up when the cat is created. This can create orphans when other alphabets are transliterated in differing ways, but, again, they do get resolved. If it irritates you, plz delete - no offence will be taken. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Might as well clean up our Talk pages then.)

Thedavid (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the list of hereditarian researchers in the lead section of the race and intelligence article ought to include more than just Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredson. But I think it would be helpful if you could explain why Charles Murray should be included in response to Ramdrake's reason for removing him. Although I support including Murray, I also wonder whether there are other hereditarians who aren't PF grantees who would be just as notable to mention there. For example, how about John Loehlin or Nevan Sesardic?Boothello (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a proposal here about a possible change to the lead of the race and intelligence article. Feedback about it would be appreciated.Boothello (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in writing a lead proposal for R&I as per the discussion on the talk page? You could try incorporating my attempt with Marek's suggestions and your own preferences. It may yet be possible to come up with something everyone's happy with.Boothello (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Finnish Jews has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Empty list

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Selket ^Talk 17:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fllowing the recen [7] our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated in the discussion here.Boothello (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, I just noticed your comment on the R&I talk page about Lewontin's Fallacy. After looking at this article, I noticed there is now a proposal to merge it into Race and genetics, even though the AFD for it was closed as "keep" less than a month ago. Most of the people advocating the merge are people who voted delete or merge in the AFD, and only one person who voted keep is participating. I'm not sure what appropriate protocol here is, but you've been around for a lot longer than me, so I was wondering if you have an idea about it. It seems wrong that right after an AFD is closed as keep, the people who voted delete can start a new discussion without the people who voted keep, and merge the article as a result of that one-sided discussion. My instinct would be to notify the rest of the people who voted in the AFD, including the keep voters, but I don’t want to get accused of canvassing. Do you know how something like this should be handled?Boothello (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as keep but a significant number of keep voters stated that they would prefer widening the scope of the article or merging it into another one. I have notified all editors who participated in the AfD of the ongoing discussion - both keep and delete !voters.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could offer some advice here. You've said before that Lynn and Vanhanen are considered pioneers in the field of international IQ comparisons, and I'm looking for sources that actually say that specifically. I have a source that's decent in this regard (Hunt) but I'd be grateful for additional recommendations.Boothello (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posted to you and Maunus)

this discussion needs some additional input from other people familiar with the R&I topic area. It's another dispute between myself and Volunteer Marek about whether when a researcher is a Pioneer Fund grantee, or is controversial for some other reason, it's NPOV to bring up the criticisms against them when introducing them in a single sentence. Both of you have commented on this issue before, and I quoted some of your earlier comments about it. We don't agree whether the current issue is the same as what was discussed previously, though. Even if it is, it'd be useful if we could resolve this issue permanently so it doesn't crop up again and again.Boothello (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reverted my removal of the table I now expect you to provide your arguments on the talkpage for why this page shouldn't follow the MOS guideline against large embedded lists that break the reading flow.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the talk page as a forum and do improve the article. Equating the atomic theory of matter with the race as a social construct is nothing less than a gross misrepresentation of the science and highly disruptive. aprock (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply answering to unsupported statements made on the talk page. Unless you can show that your view is "the mainstream" using reliable sources, stop making such claims. Why is it "disruptive" to ask editors to back their assertions with reliable sources?

"Race is a social construct" is a stupid, irrelevant phrase. All things in human culture are social constructs. Certainly all scientific entities are social constructs. Stating that does not get us anywhere.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Race is a social construct" is a stupid, irrelevant phrase. While your views may be personally edifying and satisfactory for you, they have no place in crafting articles. aprock (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, you don't get to decide who edits articles. I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims with reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited everyone to edit the article. If you're going to make blanket reverts, I suggest you bring your issues to the talk page. aprock (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert the article again to include misleading information, I will seek to have you banned from further editing in the topic area. Be more careful. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted material based on reliable sources, mendaciously claiming that they are not reliable. It is you who should be careful.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dispute, and I'm willing to have a dispute with you. It's where you undid this that you were clearly damaging the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Let's see what the report actually says:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

It says "no such support for a genetic interpretation", i.e. no direct empirical evidence. It does not say "no support". I will change the article accordingly.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove a direct quote to insert your personal opinion I will immediately seek to have you topic banned. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove a direct quote. I removed your misrepresentation of the report. Go ahead, try and get me banned. I'll enjoy it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You are making huge changes to the article, yet you refuse to discuss them on the talk page. Moreover, you are pushing a strong point of view, and misrepresenting sources (the APA report).--

I am discussing on the talk page. I am using quotes every time you revert something challenging it's accuracy. You have 3 reverts on the article. I have zero. This is a problem. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes that were based on mendacious reasons ("not reliable source"). Moreover, I have reverted your misrepresentations of the APA report. You are also pushing a very strong POV, e.g. Jensen and Rushton speak only for themselves, whereas Nisbett is "many scientists" (BTW, it's not clear that Flynn argues that the genetic contributions are nil). You cannot rewrite the article without discussing it first.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can, I have, and I will. I'm happy to discuss the changes at any point. I'd like to start on the talk page of the article. Please arrive there. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are now over 3rr. I have reported your violation of the bright line rule. If you were to self-revert your repeated specific attribution, you might avoid being blocked. Hipocrite (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have only corrected your persistent misrepresentations.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make the case that you are frequently reverting because you are right. I don't think that will work, however. Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Victor. You've been reported at WP:AN3#User:Victor Chmara reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, are you calling my edits vandalism? Hipocrite (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:NOTVAND. This is the only warning you will receive from me on this topic - calling good faith edits to the encyclopedia, including blatant PoV pushing (which I contend I was not doing, but that's not relevant) vandalism is a serious personal attack that must not reoccur. If you do so again, you may be blocked or banned from further editing to prevent additional personal attacks. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale deletions of sections from articles cannot be good faith edits. Also, you are clearly new to this topic. I suggest you read on it, and then come back. Start with, say, the section on race and intelligence in Hunt's "Human Intelligence".--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. If you call my edits vandalism again, I will certainly seek sanction against you. I will not accept reading assignments from you. Hipocrite (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you've got strong views on how Race and intelligence is edited. While the article is protected, I invite you to participate in the talk page discussion of how to address some of the issues with the article. aprock (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I might be facing a topic ban from R&I articles at AE because of the accusation of POV pushing. You and Maunus have always stood out as being the most knowledgeable and responsible editors in R&I. Maunus seems to be gone now, so if I receive a topic ban you might be the only person left who takes issue with stuff like the removal of sourced content without discussion. I get the sense that you care as much as I do that Wikipedia cover this topic in an encyclopedic manner, so I do hope you stick around. Good luck.Boothello (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uising that logic most of PW does need cites, the dispute is not that shes not running the sourcing needs to show WHY. ie- term limits or what haveyou, in other words what are the REASONS, and thats what needs a cite.

to qupote your passage: "While all material must be attributable, in practice" thats not a carte blanche to refuse cite requests.(Lihaas (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Well, now someone added a citation of the constitution, which is a bit silly, but let's leave it at that.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Finnish presidential election, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Left Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Eyferth study, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WISC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY BUDDY IT WAS A JOKE Lokitecho (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that again. See Wikipedia policy on vandalism.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a woman, not a man. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Despite the name, he was a man. See here[8].--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otto Manninen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matriculation examination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you wrote Wikipedia's article about The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (book), you might be interested to know I just created an article on another book by Arthur Jensen, Bias in Mental Testing. I think I made this article about as good as I can for now, but you're welcome to improve it further. Zeromus1 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor,

Please consider reverting your http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence&oldid=527029613

Nietzsche's quote relates directly to this topic. He calls "thinker" a person who engages in fluid intelligence and he claims that a strong aptitude for crystallized intelligence interferes with fluid intelligence, and thus prevents one from becoming a "thinker". While Nietzsche may not have held a scientifically proved view, the quote shows that people were writing and thinking about this distinction all the way back in 1878.

Do you prefer I add that explanation?

Please comment, Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Cascio (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, fluid and crystallized intelligence are psychometric constructs introduced by Raymond Cattell in the 1940s. Unless you have a reliable source that directly connects Nietzsche's ideas to Cattell's, you cannot add quotes from Nietzsche in the article (see WP:VERIFY). Moreover, at least judging by that quote, Nietzsche's idea is quite different from the distinction between fluid and crystallized intelligence. Cattell thought that fluid and crystallized intelligence are very much related, the latter being the result of the investment of the former in learning experiences. Indeed, empirically fluid and crystallized intelligence are highly correlated (r≈0.8). So I don't think Nietzsche has any relevance for the article about fluid and crystallized intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Victor Chmara. I left a message on the talk page of that article about your removal of the Psychology Today source and its associated content. Flyer22 (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you to self revert. The quote isn't even about genetics, it's about taxonomy. aprock (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Race is about taxonomy and taxonomy is about genetics and race is about genetics. Anyway, your POV-pushing pal already reverted it and deleted tons of other stuff, too.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

taxonomy is about genetics: On this, you are quite wrong. aprock (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What POV would I be pushing, exactly? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aprock, of course taxonomy is (also) about genetics. DNA analyses have led to many revisions in animal and plant taxonomy. Regarding Edwards's analysis of genetic variance within and between races, Dawkins wrote that "if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." (emphasis added) If you think that the Dawkins quote has been taken out of context, you should add information about that context to the article, not delete the quote.

ArtifexMayhem, you persistently try to delete large sections representing "hereditarian" viewpoints from articles related to race, based on the flimsiest of reasons. Your POV is glaringly obvious.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can use DNA analyses to develop a taxonomy. That's different from saying that "taxonomy is about genetics". Taxonomy is about classification for the purposes of naming things. I'm baffled that you don't understand this. aprock (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy is fundamentally about genetics. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Given that taxonomy was developed thousands of years before genetics was discovered, it must be the case that taxonomy doesn't make sense.</sarcasm> Really Victor, stop. aprock (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do, as is my tendency, to actually look at what the cited source says. Dawkins is clearly talking about genetics and makes numerous mentions of it with regards to racial classification. The exact quote provided does not make this clear, but other statements on that same page of the book and surrounding pages are plainly about genetics.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page. aprock (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I generally agree with our comments on the prod on Iran's intelligence quotient, but I don't believe it's appropriate to use Prod for such a complex issue. I think this is especially true since that article falls under Arbcom sanctions. Please renominate and take to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article creator (who was the one who initially defended the article on talk page) did not oppose the PROD even though I specifically notified him/her of it. But I guess I'll have to use AfD.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Victor,

I recall that years ago you made detailed suggestions for an article structure for Intelligence quotient on the talk page of that article. Off hand, I can't find your helpful suggestions from a Web search, but I thought I would invite you to revisit the talk page of that article to suggest your current view of what article structure would match the more reliable, mainstream secondary sources about the article topic and its related subtopics. I think you may have seen my June 2013 update to IQ classification. In general, I have just about all the sources cited there immediately at hand, and can dig into other sources as needed to start touching up Intelligence quotient. I'd be happy to have you look on and join in as I proceed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Victor,

Thanks very much for the recommendation of the Ian Deary article in Annual Reviews about intelligence research in the last decade. I had opportunity to give it a close read yesterday evening, and I see it will be useful for updating several of the Wikipedia articles on the topics Deary discusses. I appreciate you letting other Wikipedians know about that publication. See you on the wiki; have a great new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and a very good new year for you, too.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the entry about intelligence quotient saying that Galton believed in the importance of heredity. Of course he did. It just can't say "genes." (He didn't know about genes; Mendel's work was popularized much later.) As a result, I suggest that your reversion of my edit about "heredity" should also be clarified further: the word implies something different for us than it did for him. JTBurman (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to get bogged down with how the mechanisms of heredity were (mis)understood in the 19th century when the context is a brief historical account of the measurement of intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a history thing: using terms describing concepts that weren't understood at the time is anachronistic. It's fairly easy to avoid, though. And doing so actually reduces the burden on us as commentators: we don't have to worry that a gene-centric view of biology is now itself being updated with epigenetics and evo-devo. We can simply reflect what was understood at the time, as clearly as possible, and try to let the story tell itself. But I understand your point: there's no need to discuss misunderstandings in detail. JTBurman (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What source is this based on: "heredity (which, at the time, included environmental influences)"? It doesn't describe Galton's beliefs, and in any case it appears to be unsourced. As noted in the Galton article, he was an early proponent of "hard heredity", rejecting Lamarckism. He popularized the phrase "nature and nurture", and pioneered the use of twins and adoptees in behavioral science, so he cannot have conflated heredity and environment. In Hereditary Genius, he wrote:

I HAVE no patience with the hypothesis occasionally expressed, and often implied, especially in tales written to teach children to be good, that babies are born pretty much alike, and that the sole agencies in creating differences between boy and boy, and man and man, are steady application and moral effort. It is in the most unqualified manner that I object to pretensions of natural equality. The experiences of the nursery, the school, the University, and of professional careers, are a chain of proofs to the contrary.

--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is common knowledge in the history of biology: Mendel's works were rediscovered, and that rediscovery is what led to the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that gave genes the meaning that you ascribe to them. I cited the relevant section of the relevant Wiki page in my edit. But there are whole libraries devoted to the subject. JTBurman (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware of the history of genetics, but the fact that Galton's thinking was pre-Mendelian does not mean that it was not hereditarian in the modern sense. Galton knew that animal and plant breeders had been wildly successful without knowing anything about the specific mechanisms of heredity, and his plan was to apply the same principles to people. Galton was the original eugenicist, and his disciples like Pearson were strongly anti-Mendelian while at the same time being hard hereditarians. It was not until Fisher's work from 1918 on that the Galtonian/biometric concept of heredity was reconciled with the Mendelian concept of heredity. The modern synthesis was in many ways about combining the insights of Mendelism with those of Galton's school.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this. Your argument---that the modern synthesis provided an explicit reconciliation between Mendelism and Galtonian views of inheritance and intelligence---is interesting, but it is not consistent with the broad understanding in the history of genetics. If there's specific support from within that literature for the case you've made, then let's cite that. Otherwise, let's figure out some neutral language. JTBurman (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make it clearer, and have added some references from top journals that I know to cover the history of biology competently. How do you feel about it the way it is now? JTBurman (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that there's no need to explain Galton's pre-Mendelian hereditarianism in that context, but factually the passage is OK now, so let's leave it at that.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor, I have been working on the Race and Intelligence article trying to move the article away from a "he said-she said" style and reliance on primary sources towards a reliance on secondary and tertiary sources. I am trying to weight the article in accordance with Hunt 2010 and Mackintosh 2011 and Nisbett et al 2012. If you could read over my changes and let me know if you think some particulars could represent the status of the literature better, I would appreciate that. It is my ambition to have an article that is reasonably objective and neutral review of the field and which doesn't fall into detailed arguments or presentation of primary data without interpretation. Perhaps we might even become able to remove the POV tags one day, but I wouldnt want to do that untill someone who appreciates the hereditarian perspective a little better than I do have taken a look and considered it neutral. Hope you have time and interest in providing some comments or edits.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that's worth my time. In the past, it's always been like an endless mud-wrestling match.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true and I can't say I blame you. But this time it seems that noone else is currently around who is interested in improving the article and I have had pretty much free hands to make revisions. That has been good because I didnt have to argue with anyone about every phrase and piece of organization, but the risk is that I am blind to some viewpoints. If you would at least take the time to read my revisions and give a couple of brief comments on how you would change the article I will take that into account as I move forward and there will be no mudwrestling involved. If you have simply lost interest in the article I understand.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for that at the moment. I may take a look at it later, in the autumn.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Cheers until then, then.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Victor, you have identified several recurrent problems in the editing of the article SAT by the same editor (over and over), and I think your framework of asking him to back up his edits with reliable sources is a good path toward collaboratively improving the article. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might have moved those pages in error. Submarine pages follow that kind of wording Soviet submarine K-219 and German submarine U-215. Or is that just because the Germans and Soviets named their submarines with a short code? I reckon not. German battleship Bismarck is on that title, not "Bismarck (battleship). --Pudeo' 19:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the corresponding Wikiproject:Ships naming convention: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ships_from_navies_without_ship_prefixes. So it seems your way is inconsistent with that policy, unfortunately. --Pudeo' 19:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about that guideline. I'll see if I can get the name changes reverted.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your edit WRT to removal of the paragraph: "However, ... studies has been called into question". First, this is totally unsubstantiated claim, it is not supported by any cited sources. Second, for any research area/subject you will find studies that confirm particular findings as well as studies that dispute them. It is the reality of scientific research. Finally, using the argument of Hawthorne effect to dismiss study findings is nonsense: for controlled research studies the regulations require that all study participants sign documents that they are aware of the subject and nature of the study - this is true for both groups, so obviously control group could be under Hawthorne effect. Yet, it is true for any properly conducted research study in any field of research. Hope this helps,

Jeff' — Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shipstead et al. paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal and all the citation details needed to find the paper were given, so it makes no sense for you to complain about a dead link (here's a working link). It's an ideal source for a Wikipedia article: a review written by noted experts in the field. As they discuss on pp. 252-253, the Hawthorne effect and the use of no-contact control groups call research in this area into question. Your mistaken ideas about the Hawthorne effect are of no interest here, because reliable sources affirm its importance in cognitive training. I'll restore the passage, but change it so that it says that many studies use no-contact control groups (rather than the majority) because this seems to better reflect the position of Shipstead et al.

Other researchers may have differing views, but that's not a reason to not include the criticisms of Shipstead et al. Instead of deleting reliably sourced content, you should add to the article other, contrasting views from other reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed Shipstead's paper again and updated the article accordingly. I didn't include Hawthorne effect in the text as Shipstead et al. mention Hawthorne effect with regard to one study only. -Jeff

Hey, can you give your input here please? Thanks.74.14.22.153 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IQ tests need to be adjusted to account for the Flynn effect. Using an old test can lead to too high scores, preventing people with lower intellectual ability from being recognized as such and getting the accommodations they are entitled to.

Which is the material you I removed and you reinstated [9], does not have any cited sources as far as I can tell. The other citations refer to the Supreme Court rulings (which I left intact). As it reads now the sentence does not appear to conform to a neutral point of view and seems to constitute original research. You have the burden to verify what has been said. Regards, Crazynas ^t 23:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Intelligence and personality 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/Intelligence and personality until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Chris55 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi victor. Given your vigilance regarding the Heritability of IQ page, and the inclusion of inaccurate or inappropriate text (for example, my inclusion of inappropriate information on epigenetics), would you be able to monitor the page (if it's no trouble for you) since I'm having difficulty dealing with potential vandalism given the Three Edit restrictions. I ask you, since you have been recognised for your efforts on the article; as is obvious from your barnstar award ScholarBlue (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The page is on my watchlist, and I try to monitor it. Note that the three revert rule does not apply to obvious vandalism.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor, the illustration that was added to the IQ article was not meant as vandalism, the text is quite long and having more illustrations makes it more readable, IMHO. Cheers, Carol Fenijn (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A so-called certificate from some website proffering dubious tests is not in line with Wikipedia's policies. The article could use more pics, but they should be high quality and illustrate topics mentioned in the text.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victor, thanks for your reply. I'd think the illustration is on topic, but I guess you have good reason to say it is a dubious test. Cheers, Carol Fenijn (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard what happened to your fireworks last night.

I wish you better luck this New Year. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 15:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything better than a WP:BLOGSOURCE for Henry Harpending's death? Dismas|^(talk) 22:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's the blog that Harpending wrote together with Greg Cochran, it seems reliable enough. There will be published obituaries in time.--Victor Chmara (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Between-Group Differences in IQ. Since you had some involvement with the Between-Group Differences in IQ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you would be interested in contributing articles to Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic)? It needs contributors to increase diversity of content from different countries and bring about large scale improvements. The idea at some point will be to host a National Contest related to your country of interest. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=3dz0m2ubQw1KSnb_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_9MOqNPRXgA2CTs1&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've asked you this before, but would you be willing to enable your Wikipedia e-mail feature? Over the years I've corresponded via e-mail with a large portion of the people who edit articles related to human intelligence, and I've always thought that your contributions to these articles were particularly valuable, so I'd appreciate being able to do so in your case as well. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point I guess I can mention the thing that I wanted to tell you on-wiki, instead of using e-mail. The psychology wikiproject now has a psychometrics task force, and I thought you might want to participate there. I and the other participants would definitely appreciate your involvement, whenever you get back online. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Victor,

I recently noticed your substantial contributions to articles related to human intelligence but see you stopped posting approximately a year ago, presumably because of a clash with MjolnirPants [10]. This editor as of February 21, 2019 has been indefinitely blocked. As a result, I was curious if you had any intention of becoming active on these articles again. My sentiment is that these articles need someone reliable maintaining them, and thus my inquiry.

Thanks for your time, 2601:42:800:A9DB:CDF3:11C2:BADF:91B0 (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]