Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ramos1990

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramos1990 (talk | contribs) at 16:42, 25 August 2011 (→Changes to the 'Religiosity and intelligence' and the 'Atheism' pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:42, 25 August 2011 by Ramos1990 (talk | contribs) (→Changes to the 'Religiosity and intelligence' and the 'Atheism' pages)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome

Hello, Ramos1990! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Thanks for your advice. I appreciate it really. However, I think that if you do read it you will notice that 17% IS out of the hate crimes in 2009 which are 7,775.

Here is what the website says: 7,775 offenses total for hate crimes in 2009.

The website says "Law enforcement agencies reported 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias."

1,376 / 7,775 = .1769 which is 17.7%.

I was not wrong on this.

Religiously biased crimes are not 17.7 out all Violent crimes in 2009 which are about 1.3 million.

What do you think?


Editing the article

Greetings. I wanted to know what was the main complaint on my edit. You claimed that I was making new research, when I have just regurgitated the sources themselves. The only plausible objection that I see is my assertion that most violence in America is indeed secular since the FBI tables show that very few people commit crimes based on religious beliefs. Template:Unsigned:Ramos1990

Please help me make my post better.

Hi, thank you for asking. You need to find a reliable source that says such. The FBI tables show that over 17% are religiously motivated. That's contrary to what you wrote. You can start working on some additions in your userspace, and I will see if I can help you - but you should read up on things like WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to see what things you cannot add to articles. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 00:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi, please remember to put your responses after mine, and I'll put mine after yours, etc. OK, here's the problem. Your original research/synthesis is in thinking that the hate crime numbers have anything to do with other crimes. There are many crimes that are not deemed (by the law) hate crimes that may be caused by similar reasons. So, the stats simply can't be cross-applied to come up with the original research you did. You'd have to know, of all crimes, what the stats were for religiously motivated ones - which I do not see. You cannot extrapolate. We can only allow an expert that we can cite do that. Best ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 01:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Ok I see your point. I will exclude this part.

How about the rest of the stuff I put in? These rest was sociological data on the religious beliefs of atheists from the first world wide study on atheists from all over the world.

Can I add this? Or do you see a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramos1990 (talk • contribs)


Hi, it's a pretty extensive section. Perhaps what you want to do is post a message on that article's talk page and ask everyone who works on that article for their opinions and suggestions. Also, that way you can join into the discussions on that page. Also, remember when you make a post on a talk page to sign your posts. You can do that really easily simply by putting ~~~~ at the end of your posts and it will automagically be turned into your signature. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ornithikos thanks sooo much for your suggestions!! I am very grateful for your recommendations! Thanks also to RoberMfromLi!! I will try to introduce the newest research on atheism in the "talk atheism" section you recommended! Both of you are very good at allowing people into wikipedia. I really am humbled by it. Ornithikos, yeah, it seems wikipedia is really about passions firing at each other constantly especially with matters of religion. The removals of valuable information here are worse than for peer reviewed scientific research.
I should know since I published a research paper in the "Journal of Chemical Physics" last year. Oh well... we'll see if wikipedia is a decent place to contribute data on.
Thank you both once more
Ramos1990 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


August 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Atheism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 23:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the editing at Atheism, and I'd like to suggest that you discuss your reasoning for your edits at Talk:Atheism. I realize that you are a new editor, and I want to make sure that you don't get into an edit war. Thanks, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take Tryptofish's advice to heart and come to the talk page to discuss. Trypto and I can be pretty patient... not everyone is for things like this. Your synthesis of the cites you use is in direct contradiction to what they actually say. That's not how we do things, as it introduces original research which is prohibited here. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 23:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Atheism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the 'Religiosity and intelligence' and the 'Atheism' pages

I thought I might be able to say something useful about why people reverted most of your changes to those pages, even though the changes contained reasonable information. One problem is that the pages, and all others in their general category, are elaborate compromises that arose from actual years of people arguing back and forth about every conceivable alternative, based on every conceivable perspective, working towards every conceivable goal. The current state is therefore such a precarious balance between multiple irreconcilable passions that almost any significant change will constitute a step backwards to one faction or another.

Consequently, any big change will probably either be reverted, or worse yet incite another conflagration, which probably has already happened anyway, possibly more than once. The best way to make significant changes at this point is to describe them first on the Discussion page, and conduct the probable firestorm there. If you can manage to get some kind of consensus, which is difficult but not impossible, you could then move the result to the main page, and probably make it stick given that it does indeed represent a consensus; not that "consensus" itself is well defined. Writing for Misplaced Pages is something like joining a herd of dragons.

Feeling myself underutilized, I wanted to see if I could do anything useful in Misplaced Pages, so I tried something that I recommend. I made a shortcut that selects a random article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Random) and put it in my browser's shortcut toolbar. Whenever I want to look something up in Misplaced Pages, or whenever the spirit moves me (which it often does) I click that shortcut, then see if the article that appears seems like it could use anything I might provide without causing undue commotion. I've not only learned of many things I didn't even know existed to be ignorant about, I've sometimes been able to make changes that lasted. Ornithikos (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ornithikos thanks sooo much for your suggestions!! I am very grateful for your recommendations! Thanks also to RoberMfromLi!! I will try to introduce the newest research on atheism in the "talk atheism" section you recommended! Both of you are very good at allowing people into wikipedia. I really am humbled by it. Ornithikos, yeah, it seems wikipedia is really about passions firing at each other constantly especially with matters of religion. The removals of valuable information here are worse than for peer reviewed scientific research.
I should know since I published a research paper in the "Journal of Chemical Physics" last year. Oh well... we'll see if wikipedia is a decent place to contribute data on.
Thank you both once more
Ramos1990 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Any time. Also, keep in mind, the stronger your references, and the closer you stay towards saying only what they said, the easier it is to get content into an article without going though a long battle. I'll join you on the article talk page and help out as I can. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 03:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate your support and agree with you completely on sticking literally close to the sources and what they say for acceptance. I submitted my suggestion on the talks atheism page you suggested. I guess now I wait. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! (and thank you). I regularly keep an eye on that page, so I'll chime in if it seems appropriate. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 05:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Marco

OOOOHHHHH YYYEEAAAAHHHH Brother! FFUUUAAAA!! Brother why don't you pick up your calls and answer your e-mails? Kester has been asking for you too! Hope you graduated from Chemical Engineering this last year. How was senior project with Dr. Li? Dr. Pang left when I graduated in 2010 and he was excellent for our chemical plant design - ethylene. Which one was yours?

Are you still in the Inland Empire? We gotta meet. Give me a call or shoot me an e-mail. I've been trying to contact you for the last few months.

I see you are a well established watchdog for wikipedia. Good for you brother.

Holler back when on my talk page and delete my Talk back on your talk page.

Ramos1990 (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)