This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ephery (talk | contribs) at 21:59, 4 November 2009 (→Major content removal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:59, 4 November 2009 by Ephery (talk | contribs) (→Major content removal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Race and intelligence
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your involvement in this article, as well as your participation on its discussion page. Several of the people working on the article just seem interested in pushing their own point of view about it, but thus far you’ve been a lot more reasonable, and having more people like you involved in it helps counteract this problem. I hope you’ll continue to contribute to the current discussions about how the article should be restructured. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history at Race and genetics 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
A proposal for the Race and intelligence article
I’m posting this comment on several users’ talk pages, because I’d like all of you to give me your input about a large change I’m considering making to the race and intelligence article. In my opinion, the article in its current state has a lot of issues. Fixing them has also proven to be next to impossible, partly because new changes have been made more quickly than it’s been possible to build consensus to undo changes that had been made previously.
I’m also of the opinion that the article as it existed in December of 2006 was considerably more informative, more balanced, and better-written than its current version. What I’m proposing is that rather than continuing to try and improve the article one part at a time, I would like to revert the article to the state that it had in 2006, while updating the things that need to be updated after three years.
The current discussion about this has been on my user talk page, towards the bottom of it. I would appreciate any of you reading the discussion about this idea, and letting me know there what you think of it. I’d like to be supported by the consensus of as many editors as possible before I attempt this. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Race and genetics at AN/I
Since you’ve been involved in this article recently, I thought you might be interested to participate in the current discussion about it at AN/I. The topic being discussed there is whether the user Muntuwandi has been violating the conditions under which he was unbanned from Misplaced Pages a few months ago. (1RR and no disruptive behavior.) Your input there would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Major content removal
You are making some major edits at the Race_and_genetics article, I would think that asking on the talk b4 major removal of conntent to check if there is consensus for your removal is a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but that is not much of a consensus for what is turning out the be a major rewrite with major removals, its just a suggestion to take it easy and to get feedback as you go along, the article is quite contensious. With quite a few involved editors. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. David.Kane (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)