Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 26 February 2023

Hi AndewNguyen! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 21:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Important message

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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

—PaleoNeonate – 00:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Dikötter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PEN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Your recent editing history at Nations and intelligence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
If edit warring continues while logged out, your account will still be blocked. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Look at my recent edits, they were to university pages (updating rankings). I made 2 reverts to the national intelligence one (I assume that is why you are here), but those were over 10 days apart! AndewNguyen (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Misplaced Pages's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I checked and last time I forgot to log in and made an IP edit was months ago. AndewNguyen (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to the IP that has recently been editing the Nations and intelligence article, that IP is a different person. Could you please look at the IP login history of my own account? That IP isn't even located on the same continent as me. AndewNguyen (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norwegians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Just a heads up, but you pretty clearly look to be involved in a slow-motion edit war going back almost a month. You should be aware that WP:3RR is a bright line, it is not the definition of edit warring, and you are still liable to be blocked for it if you continue. GMG 20:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

R and I

I haven't disagreed with anything you've said so far. Seems like you're a credit to the wiki. But... I think good editors have some sort of user page (maybe just one that says "hi!").

You might consider making your user page link blue instead of red. Also, did you misspell Andrew? Glad your around. 10:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I made a brief page now. Hope that is OK. AndewNguyen (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we both feel like following where the research leads is the best! Thank you! Keep up the good work! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

You used the edit summary "get consensus before changes please, see talk page" at Race and intelligence. Since this article is not under a special "consensus required" restriction, editors are free to make edits, even major ones, without first seeking consensus. If you object to the substance of the changes, I would be happy to discuss on the talk page, but please do not revert simply because someone did not seek consensus before making a change. Please note that no reason other than "I don't like it" and "you didn't have prior consensus" has been given for the recent reversions, therefore they are not a valid part of the WP:BRD cycle. –dlthewave ☎ 23:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi dlthewave. You are aware that edits on this page are highly contested and edit warring is frequent. Any major edit will likely be contested by many other users. In this environment, it is best to post proposals on the talk page first, as others have been doing. Thus, I kindly ask you to self-revert back to normal version, and add your proposals on the talk page. Thanks in advance. AndewNguyen (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No legitimate objection to the edit has been brought forth, and the likelihood that an edit will be contested is not a valid reason to revert. I'm happy to discuss my edits but I will not be proposing all changes on the talk page and you have no grounds to ask this of me. –dlthewave ☎ 01:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi dlthewave. The WP:BRD policy works to get people to try implementing changes without fear. If there is disagreement, the edit will be reverted by someone. Then, the process going forward is supposed to involve discussion on the talk page to reach some kind of agreement (consensus preferably). However, your action was simply to delete a lot of well-sourced material (a bold edit, and not in line with other policy either), and then engage in edit warring by re-deleting the material when I politely told you to discuss such a major change at the talk page first. I don't understand the reason for this hostile behavior. I suggest you follow the policy as intended in the future so we can avoid conflict and have a good time. ^_^ --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

FYI I've mentioned you at ANI. Discussion can be found here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

SPA tag

It is not an attack. If it bothers you, remove it from your comment, but please don’t remove it from others’ comments. Levivich  22:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notifications

You should probably post some notifications of the arbcom request at relevant places (the R&I article talk page, Nightheron's talk page, etc) since specifically mentioned. — Insertcleverphrasehere _{(click me!)} 20:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

ARCA closed

Hi AndewNguyen, the arbitration amendment request you submitted has been formally closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 23:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Given that you've edited the page on collective intelligence, I'm reaching out to request that you provide feedback on the draft of a new page for "General Collective Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:General_Collective_Intelligence CognitiveMMA (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert

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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

— Newslinger talk 08:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you're due for another one of these

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 Misplaced Pages'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) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A request

I'd like to ask you to strike this remark at Talk:Intelligence quotient: this seems like an attempt to find a source that supports what you want the article to say (if "not supported by science" in fact means the same thing as "no evidence"), even though it is a source of only mediocre quality, when we should instead be basing the article on the views given in the highest quality sources. You're probably not going to get sanctioned for that level of aspersion, but it's nevertheless an impediment to collaborative consensus building. I will continue to extend to you the basic courtesy of not characterizing what I may imagine your motivations to be, and I ask the same of you. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that my statement is a personal attack. Searching for sources to support one's favored wording is a thing everyone does, there is no policy against it, and I probably have done it myself in other situations. However, it is still a subobtimal editing practice that should be avoided whenever possible. I'm asking you to please do better. --AndewNguyen (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Let's be pals!

Thespearthrower (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus and disruption

AndewNguyen, I feel that at this point I need to ask you directly to drop the stick regarding the consensus on race and intelligence. At a certain point, failure to accept consensus and move on can be considered disruptive. Please refer to our WP:CONSENSUS policy: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Your recent edits at Talk:Eyferth study, particularly this one, suggest that you may be running afoul of this policy. I know that you disagree strongly with the consensus, but so long as you have no new information to present, continued efforts to challenge it (and/or relitigate it on a peripheral talk page as you are currently doing) are unhelpful to our common goal of building an encyclopedia. The essay WP:RECENTCONSENSUS may also be useful to you in this regard. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)