User talk:Guillaume2303/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Edit summary

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Oo7565 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Schonemann

Up to 10/4/05 Schonemann has had a cumulative citation record of 1,161 citations in the Web of Science, with the bulk of them to two technical papers on Orthogonal Procrustes (299, his thesis topic) and Rigid Motion (176) respectively. Both papers are still cited regularly not just in psychology, but also in computer science, engineering, medicine etc.

--70.68.179.142 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous,

I think this info does not belong on my talk page, but on the talk page of the Schonemann article. I see that you made two edits, changing "my thesis subject" into "his thesis subject". Are you Schonemann? If so, you should not edit your own bio. I will not communicate with you again as long as you stay hidden behind an anonymous IP. Please refrain from putting more messages on my talk page.

--Guillaume2303 17:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not Peter Schonemann, and those were editing errors. I can not understand how people continue assume these things, so readily. I have had correspondence with Peter in the past; and I believe he is a great person. Still, he is well over the age of most Wikipedians and I am sure he would find the quality of the information on this website deplorable...

I believe your criticism in the Schonemann talk page is highly biased and misleading. I only wanted a direct response:

Up to 10/4/05 Schonemann has had a cumulative citation record of 1,161 citations in the Web of Science, with the bulk of them to two technical papers on Orthogonal Procrustes(1965) (Cited: 299, his thesis topic) and Rigid Motion (1970) (cited: 176), respectively. Both papers are still cited regularly not just in psychology, but also in computer science, engineering, medicine etc. Further, using Google Scholar Peter Schonemann receives 313 hits; although I note your criticism of Google Scholar, and agree --Charles669 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

H-Index on SCOPUS

The h-index on Scopus is calculated automatically, NOT manually [[1]]. --Leeearnest 13:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Cohen (economist)

New information making Lauren Cohen (economist) a notable athlete, I believe. Please reconsider.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting a page

I've redirected your page International behavioural and neural genetics society to International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society. To make a page point to an existing page covering the subject use the following syntax :-

#redirect [[Name of article you wish to point to here goes here]]

Happy editing! Exxolon 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

afc

If this Porthos (Star Trek) deserves an article ... I do think the 'bar' for notability is much higher in some areas (eg academia) than others, for reasons which I have not grasped. Given an academic in Who's Who + some independent info I'd probably support an article. -- roundhouse0 12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Porthos (Star Trek) IS being nominated for deletion.... And the fact that there are unnecessary articles does not justify in my eyes to add even more. And without false modesty, I guess actually more people would know Porthos than myself.... I am not saying that this animal is more important than I am (I certainly don't think so), but it is probably more notable... --Guillaume2303 12:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the deletion is part of a vendetta (see this). I'm sure you are much more notable than a fictional canine. Is Wikipedia short of room? I know for instance that if I spend some time writing an article on an obscure footballer (nowhere near Who's Who) that there is no chance of afd, but doing the same for an academic or business person in Who's Who might well be a waste of time (writing it and then defending it via endless talk pages, afds etc). Eg Fabian Delph, picked at random, is presumably safe, along with fictional canines and Big Brother contestants, per WP:this&that. -- roundhouse0 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I am much more important than a fictional canine, but unfortunately not more notable. That's the whole difference: Thousands of people know Porthos, a couple of dozen know me.... It's a fact of life that in our society fictional dogs and obscure sporters get much more attention than scientists. I don't like that and obviously you don't either, but there's not much we can do about that. WP:BIO requires that "the person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." So Who's Who is not an acceptable source, because whether self-nominated or not, all info in it is supplied by the subject, so it is not independent.... --Guillaume2303 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

70.68.179.142 & Charles669

I have an opinion about who their real identity is, but I don't want to officially state it. I have reported 70.68.179.142 for vandalism, but I don't see on the Talk page that it has been blocked. Ward3001 01:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan

Hi! Any explanation for your rv's? I discussed my edits at the talk page, so Id like to know whats the problem? Andranikpasha 16:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Id like to thank you for the reply and the constuctive discussions! All the best! Andranikpasha 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Paterson, bioethicist is rather more amusing than most AfDs I come across. Thanks for the support :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD, VfD and other cryptic machine-talk

Hallo Guillaume2303! Du hast mir auf meiner Diskussionsseite zwei unpersönliche Textbausteine als Hinweis auf die Löschung des Artikels List of speakers at Wizards of OS hinkopiert. Danke für den Hinweis, die Löschung ist in Ordnung, aber ein "I just wanted to inform you that the article List of speakers at Wizards of OS is discussed to be deleted" hätte es auch getan - aufgrund der Textbausteine, die sich niemand durchliest, hat man eher den Eindruck, Wikipedia wird von gehirnlosen Automaten verwaltet, auch wenn die Idention sicherlich nicht so ist. Ansonsten frohes Schaffen noch! -- Nichtich 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

Hey Guillaume2303, despite the name I actually have relatives in Bordeaux, as well as Montendre, Jonzac, St. Germain de Lusignan, etc.Ryoung122 19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


The Special Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
for your fine efforts in scrutinising debates relating to the Gerontology Research Group and its related people, and in particular for the research which led to this crucial edit. That was very impressive detective work — well done! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

journals

for the article on a journal, could you enter whatever , might shows importance, like where it is indexed. We've been experimenting listing the 2 or 3 most cited articles as well--it will help when the title is still new. And write out the name of the editor in chief and the institution and the impact factor in the text as well as the infobox, and link them. And you might as well say something about COI on the talk page. I will edit it after you, just to check and to show I've looked at it. DGG (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

High schools

There is no consensus on whether all high schools are intrinsically to be considered notable at WP, but certainly some people think so, and therefore all articles on secondary schools are always contested. There is thus no point in putting prod tags on them, for this is only for uncontroversial deletions. You need to go directly to AfD, where there will always be an argument. DGG (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Helion-Prime

Hello Guillaume2303. I made changes on our company article on wikipedia. And I think now article is OK. Could you kindly check it and let me know if I miss somthing. thank you. 194.158.198.156 —Preceding comment was added at 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Talk:Nicolas Gikkas

I think I can explain the bizarre expansion of the quotes. If you look in my comment, above yours, I wrote "the citations are a list of links, which is discouraged under WP:NOT." thinking this would encourage her to write commentary using those articles as support. Apparently she mis-interpreted it to mean expand the list. Since your the AfD nom, I'll leave it up to you to decide if I should fix my mistake or you should? I'll watch here Mbisanz (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is apparently a newbie, so we should try to be kind... Go ahead, your above comment sounds good to me. It's 1:30 am here so I am off to bed... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, I hope you approve. Mbisanz (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Allseas

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Allseas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Allseas. Kannie | talk 02:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Shahrur

Could you please explain why you tagged this article? The article uses Wikipedia format, quotes its sources, and I believe the sources make a case that the scholar in question is notable.--Mschiffler (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message acknowledging notability. I have now wikified the article's structure. Concerning the sources, please note that only one of them could be considered a blog-type of source, while the others (context magazine and the reader by Mehran Kamrava) are academic publications. I hope that the article will be further improved by adding more sources, just like any other article on Wikipedia. However, the tags give the impression that some statements are unsourced or that the sources are not trustworthy, which is not the case.--Mschiffler (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Evolutionary psychology

I responded to your comment. нмŵוτнτ 23:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Metasemiotics

I posted an entry to wikipedia on metasemiotics, which has been deleted as 'nonsense'.

The short article is based on published work in Theory and Psychology (2005), and the Journal of Knowledge Management (2006 and 2008 forthcoming). Perhaps you would like to let the editors of these rather prestigious journals know that the topic is has been deleted as 'nonsense' from Wikipedia. They would surely appreciate your opinion - not! --Dustcube (talk)

Re:M S Khan AfD

I did not remove Afd tag from M S Khan. User:Librarianpmolib did this([2], [3]). I assume he / she may not know policy, though he / she diligently contributed to this article. Please check properly before posting such type of message on user talk page. Thank you--NAHID 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Renaldo Lapuz

Discussion. Renaldo Lapuz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.32.226 (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


About Pirani Amina Begum article

About Pirani Amina Begum article deletion - According to a dictionary, "notable" can refer to one of two general concepts:

"Notable" can mean "worthy of note". A "note" is a written record, so notable means "worthy of written records".

"Notable can refer to the concept of being important, significant, famous, unique, etc.

Of these two definitions, only the first is in line with Wikipedia policy and practice.

[[4]]

Dear Guillaume2303,

thank you for your help and collaboration.

Regards, Sergey Moskalev (talk 07:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Royal Highness Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau

Dear Dr. Guillaume2303,

Sorry, but to my knowledge you are wrong with the suggestion that Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau has only the style "Her Highness". Albeit Prince Friso lost the royal title "Prince of the Netherlands" and his right of succession to the Dutch throne, he however kept the style "His Royal Highness". Therefore as custom, Princess Mabel also has the style Her Royal Highness. You can read it all in the official statement of the Dutch government: [5].

With regards, Demophon (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agnes Rapai

Dear Dr Guillaume2303,

thank you for your help, the useful remarks concerning the subject article. I try to correct all the mistakes.

Yours truly Ágnes Rapai--Agnes Rapai (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dominance relationship

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

The lead paragraph of the article Dominance relationship seems very unclear to me, but keep in mind that, although I have a scientific background, I'm not a genetecist. If you take a look at the German language version, they compare dominant with recessive, but it seems like something is missing. Any ideas on how to rewrite the English version lead paragraph to make it easier to understand? WriterHound (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

John S. Curtiss

Nice job discovering that Adams Prize for him in One Minute! So I award you a WP Barnstar for it:

The Working Man's Barnstar
This is awarded to you for your swift contribution to our knowledge of that notable historian. Ludvikus (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Baxter Adams Prize

Thanks to your efforts I discovered the following problem: Herbert Baxter Adams Prize: if you click on it you get a Math Prize rather than a History Prize. I think a/the History Prize article does not exist at WP. Can you start on on it? Ludvikus (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sloan Bella

[[[help me}}} Hi,

This is in response to you response. Since you seem to know what your doing can you articulate is one direct sentence exactly what I am to do to remove the {{COI}}. I need a clear and concise instruction as I have read the pages you said . Is there another agenda,? what is it, please concretely provide me with what exactly want me to do specifics... As I stated Several times, on line editors edited my page. This is not my editing, so your saying it is incorrect. As I said this person edited 04:07, 11 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Risker so why don't you take it up with them... What is your objective? what do you want me to do. Generalities don't help me and those pages don't explain one issue they refer to several. What is it...Jsst tell me how to conform so we can end this back and forth. What exactly do I have to do. Please and Thank you.

Sloan


Hi Again, Please understand that my management team and producers of my up comming TV show added this page. The information comes form several sources including my "PUBLIC" TV apperances. It appears that people who are in the publuic eye have pages . I have done 29 TV shows in my feild "Psychic Mediumship" and am someone who is NOTABLE in this profession, perhaps you personally are not familar with this type of work. The infomration is accurate and not biased, it is factual, I will again mention the fact that most recently I am listed as just that a Psychic Medium, on Americas Psychic Challenge. Can I ask why you have an issue with my page.? As for compairing, to other psychic mediums, I am not, The facts are I have done 29 TV shows actually more then some that are listed. So yes I have read the articles and other editors contributed to my article and re written it, so perhpas your issue is with them. So I do not understand what you are expressing. Furthermore, why not include my biography, I am a public celebrity psychic... Please again understand I did not write my page my management did. Who is suppose to write it? I am sure that the celebrity pages are in fact written by management. As for Americas psychic challenge, Bumin and Muarry productions wrote their own page about their own show of which I was on. So Please explain to me. I have answered factually period. And yes I believe I should be included. Thank you (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloanbella (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Iam not sure where I am suppose to reply, but other editors did work on my site and its relavent. Don't know what else you want me to say or do. (talk)


Mr. Guillaume2303, I believe my editing of sloan bella to be accurate and there is no need for you to exclude information. I would ask you to refer to James Van Praagh and Sylvia Browne both of whom started and listed the same NBC show "The Other Side". As for the referrance to Small Segmeants if your research through the NBC log library you will see Ms. Bella worked on Hour long episodes. Please respond. I am not sure where to put this info as I am new to Wikepedia thank you MW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret wendt (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Excuse me, the article, I restored is accurate, and apparently was re edited at the time by someone named Risker, that is the edit I restored. if you beleive it not be then prove it. If you feel a need to report it so be it.. But please keep your personal implications out of this conversation as this shows your predjustice and biased and perhaps editing wouldn't be a good thing for you to focus on, you have implied in accurate information based on what? Yes and Please send me the direct link to report too as well. Thank You MW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret wendt (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

I saw the justification you offered for a recent speedy deletion tag you applied: (the single reference given seems to be an internal journal for people serving at Guantanamo, hardly something establishing notability for this person.)

Could you please explain more fully the reasoning behind your concern?

I know many people interpret WP:BIO as if it requires media coverage. But, would you please look at the page's first paragraph?

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.

WP:BIO says nothing about requiring press coverage. Rather, by stating that being "famous", "popular", "notorious" is secondary, I believe it says the opposite, that non-mainstream media are perfectly acceptable, so long as they establish the subject is "worthy of notice".

Garber holds an important and controversial command. IMO, that is, in the words of WP:BIO, "worthy of notice".

I don't know how many articles you have requested to be deleted. If you haven't requested many you may not know that there is an alternative mechanism -- {{prod}}. If you are not familiar with it, you might consider reading about it, at WP:PROD.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre national de la recherche scientifique

I think you might be interested in this AfD... Nsk92 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello neighbor!

We both seem to be editing Sloan Bella. Can you get the videos on her webpage to come up? I can't get them to fully load, so I can't see what they contain. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, finally got it to load. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Eibl

Based partly on what the anon said, I think you figured it out better than I did, & I changed to delete. DGG (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Susan Bradley

Thank you for adding an h-index to the Kenneth Zucker article. Can you make the same calculation for his coauthor Susan Bradley? Jokestress (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet info

The information you requested on sockpuppets here can be found in WP:SOCK and can be reported in WP:SSP. Good luck! I don't envy you as you dive into the administrative side of things. :) Brilliant Pebble (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Julio M Fernandez

I just started an article about Julio M. Fernandez, which has been marked for speedy deletion. I'd highly appreciate your opinion about him being notable. Thanks. --Sisyphos happy man (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Wilson (theologian)

Guillaume2303, why are you modifying the article under deletion consideration if you've declared that you won't be posting to the AfD discussion any more? To this point, you've been consistent about commenting, without altering the article. Obviously, it's your right to do so and you don't owe me any explanation, but I'm not understanding why you chose this point to do so, and would appreciate any explanation you choose to make. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not simply revert an edit - please discuss them at the relevant talk page. Thank you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sloan Bella

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sloan Bella, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sloan Bella. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Brilliant Pebble (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision draft

I am trying to restart the process of revising WP:PROF (the discussion started in May but I was on a wikibreak in June). Since you are a regular participant in academic-related AfDs, I thought I'd drop you a note in case you are interested. There is a draft revision of WP:PROF that is sitting in my sandbox, User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. You are welcome to edit it. There is also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Please take a look and see if you have any comments. Thanks a lot, Nsk92 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

speedies

I really think the articles by User:Istaara would do better as prod or afd. It's stretching it to call them "nonsense" DGG (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

prodding=

Indonesian articles can be a silent issue - in some cases some indonesian speaking eds have insufficient english to either understand or respond to some issues - and as for notability - i could take a huge space up here about issues of WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V on the Indonesian project - I would recommend a lot of patience and some careful footwork to deal with the issue SatuSuro 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see which article you are referring to. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisella_anastasia SatuSuro 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fateh M. Malik

I believe I have rewritten this particular article at least sufficiently to stand. Check the newspaper article cited. The quotation about his importance does seem to be genuine. Needless to say, I removed the photo etc of the guy who had written a book about him. I left a notability tag, and removed the prod. I'd be happier if I could find actual librry citations of his other works, but this may be almost impossible to do outside of Pakistan. ) I think you & I had an edit conflict), DGG (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


article on Saldan

Hello Guillaume2303,

I've been following through with your suggestions, as well those suggestions made by others. Have made many revisions that were recommended by others, such as tone, and such.

That article has been drastically cut and reduced as per the point raised by you and Movingboxes, regarding article length.

Is there any possibility that you might have a quick minute to review that article? The new text that has been greatly reduced to key points. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Hoping that the newly revised article might be more suitable to Wiki guidlines, and that you might then possibly reconsider.

Please consider that this article is within the scope of “WikiProject Magic”, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia, and an online directory of noted magicians and their specialties. Would you agree to give the newly revised article your thumbs up based on this WikiProject objective?

Thank you,


Thanks again,

MotivationalMagic (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Regresssion to the mean and intelligence

I'm a little confused by your comment about regression toward the mean and intelligence. Of course, "dysgenics" applies to many things other than intelligence that have fairly clearly been shown to be deteriorating (haemophilia, anyone?), but this was about intelligence in particular. Are you saying that intelligence can't change genetically because of "regression toward the mean"? Wouldn't that kind of make it impossible for intelligence to evolve in the first place, similar to the blending inheritance problem? (I take it for granted that you believe we evolved from less intelligent ape ancestors (unlike some of our less intelligent conspecifics) and that intelligence was "selected for" because of its (inclusive) fitness advantage). Richard001 (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not saying that intelligence cannot change due to regression to the mean. I was referring to the argument that there is a trend towards lower IQ because persons in the lower ranges of the IQ scale tend to have higher reproductive rates than persons higher up the scale. At first sight, this would seem to mean that alleles conferring lower IQ would increase in frequency in the human population. However, "regression towards the mean" actually means that offsrping in the mean tend to resemble their parents. The crux here is on the words "in the mean": children will vary around their parents' mean. So some offspring will have somewhat higher IQ scores and some will have somewhat lower ones. At the low end of the scale, this means that a part of the offspring of low IQ parents will have even lower IQ, and at some point, this ofspring will become actually retarded and their reproductive rates will actually decline. Advocates of "the human race is degenerating" never fail to point to the lower reproductive rates at the high end of the IQ scale but always forget about what happens at the low end.
With regard to whether higher IQ has been selected for because of a fitness advantage, I am actually not really sure about that. Most human behavior genetic research points towards rather high heritability for IQ. However, population genetic theory ever since Fisher's fundamental theorem predicts that "fitness characters" under strong selection pressure will tend to have low levels of genetic variance and, hence, low heritabilities. The high heritability estimates obtained in most human research therefore seem to indicate that IQ has not been under directional selection, but either is not selected for much at all or is under some form of stabilizing selection. I kind of prefer the latter option. Of course, the logical possibility exist that the heritability estimates are wrong and that there is strong selection for intelligence. The corrolary of that would obviously be that there would not be much genetic variation present in the human population and that dysgenesis therefore cannot occur for intelligence. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing as Richard. Using Retherford and Sewell's data based on a sample group of about 9000 [6] the sample group with a below 81 IQ had more children on average than the 97 and higher IQ sample groups, with the 121+ IQ group having the lowest fertility of all. So the data shows there is not a significant drop in IQ for the retarded IQ group as you suggest - unless perhaps you look at the bottom 1% of IQs below 70, but that wouldn't be relevant.
Regardless of regression toward the mean (which I don't see the importance of in this discussion) and assuming a heritability of intelligence between 40 and 80% it would seem obvious to conclude that alleles that lower IQ are increasing, and/or alleles that raise IQ are decreasing.
That there are a multitude of variables that haven't been taken into account should go without saying, but that shouldn't be an excuse for not stating the obvious, or go as far as calling it debunked while in fact, it has never been debunked. --Scandum (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That is not what I said above. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's too simplistic to say something like "intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility", because, as you point out, people at the very low end seldom tend to have children. However, this seems only to imply that there is a limit to how low intelligence can slide. With the genetics of intelligence, it's very hard to say much with certainty because we don't seem to have found a single gene "for" intelligence. It's probably a highly polygenic trait and the genes themselves may each have one or more other effects as well. Richard001 (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

sourcing

It's better to use that citation than wikipedia. The rules about subscription sources get muddy from time to time, but they CAN be verified, so use that, use the real title, and cite it properly. Wikipedia:Citation templates is of great help in citing, simply copy n paste, then fill in the blanks. Hope that helps. ThuranX (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Saldan

Please take this article off of your watch list, as it is under WikiProject Magic and meets those guidelines of notability in the field of magic and is open for editing by magicians. The previous concern of neutral point of view was met, and the text rewritten in neutral point of view. MotivationalMagic (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have already read all of those before. As previously indicated, several times, the guidelines have been reviewed, and steps have been taken to remedy the text. The article has been drastically revised to comply with all guidelines. The article has been drastically cut down. The article has been completely rewritten in Neutral Point of View. Kindly review the guidelines for WikiProject Magic, as this article meets notability for magicians within the magic community. Since you are not a part of WikiProject Magic, I do not understand why you seem to continue going out of your way with continued harassment. I have been contributing articles and editing articles in several areas. Why are you singling me out for unwarranted attacks without providing specifics? Please stop the harassment. MotivationalMagic (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Guillaume2303, I do not see you on the list of editors for WikiProject Magic, nor on the list of administrators, nor on the list of Wiki Bureaucrats. You seem to be singling me out for harassment. Your additional tags added today come across as a bit vindictive. I have also reviewed your edits to other articles, and the comments you make to others. You appear to go out of your way to needlessly harass other contributors. I am puzzled. Can you kindly take a minute or two to shed some light on these things without biting my head off? Please give me some slack, as I'm new, and am learning the ropes. I am eager to contribute in my areas of specialties, but find your attacks to be groundless and a waste of energy. It might be helpful if you point to specifics, instead of waving the same flag that has already been previously addressed and remedied to the best of my knowledge. MotivationalMagic (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stunning young photographers

Or not stunning, or not old.

I like your style.

Since anyone with a brain can see through most of the fluff written about young (and old) photographers, whereas few editors have PhDs, I can hardly recommend that you spend more of your time on the former matter. Still, if you do take the former as light relief, I can recommend weekly examinations of this (note lack of subcategorization). NB some genuinely worthwhile articles do pop up there from time to time, so don't get carried away. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness!

Hi, Wim!

Thank you so much for your kindness in taking the time to write me and clear up several issues. I have read over the links you provided. Wim, please accept my sincerest apology for any negative feelings I have caused. As the AGF article states, it certainly seems the best policy to view others as people who have good intentions, irregardless of how they come across from time to time. After all, everyone here is a volunteer. Even if they may appear jaded from time to time, anyone who has invested time here has most often done so because they believe in the vision of Wikipedia and want to contribute to it.

The more I learn about Wikipedia, the more enthusiastic I become about it. Almost like it is a living, breathing entity that is growing and maturing over time. Tens of thousands of people, contributing their knowledge to its database. It very much reminds me of a few episodes of the older Star Trek series.

Thank you for your encouragement regarding my participation and contributions to the Project Magic section. I've been going through my mental rolodex, thinking of the great superstars that have served as pillars of the magic community, and then running Wiki searches to see if their names are already there. I've listed several really great articles that will be fine contributions. I have even added my first Magic article, a stub, then did not even get flagged. So, that surely is a sign of growth and very indicative of finally grasping the workings and the philosophies of the Wikipedia environment.

Well, I certainly made some heavy mistakes in my first week or two. Hopefully other editors will see that I am putting in effort to contribute, and I can eventually regain a good name around here as I continue to submit new articles that comply with all guidelines.

You really made my day in reaching out to me. Up to reading your message, my view of Wiki is that it was a pool infested with sharks that come after you at the smallest sign of blood.

Many thanks for your time and interest in helping a newby get planted on the right path.

Have a wonderful day!

MotivationalMagic (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision draft - move to proceed with the replacement

I would like to try to give another try and make a motion to proceed with the preplacement of the WP:PROF guideline by the revised version. I made a post to the talk page of WP:PROF to that effect and I'd appreciate if you comment there, one way or the other. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dominance (genetics)

If you have time, could you correct the lead instead of putting a disputed tag? Hartelijk bedankt! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD

perhaps you might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shomarka Keita in view of John Z's comments there. DGG (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Too late. Anyway, as the article was kept in the end, it didn't matter whether I would have changed my vote or not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum (2nd nomination)

I've responded to your comments on my talk page. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cruisio. Thank you for your efforts to made article more precise and eleborate. Please see some additional informaton on Pirani Ameena Begum article. Sergey Moskalev (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In continuation with this AfD. In Orthodox Church "Five Stages of a Sin or Obsession" are classified. And we see it web activity also.

Prompting - is when without his desire and against man's will, he has strong destructive ideas. In this stage the sin is easiest to overcome. (to remove article from watchlist) Joining - this is voluntary thinking about some idea. The person did not yet commit a sinful act, he only thinks about it. Embracing - this is a strong emotion and desire to do something distructive. Captivity - this is already committing a sin frequently, but the person still understands that it is a sin. Passion - is when the to be distructive becomes a habit, it is already a slavery to a sin. The sin is committed easily, the person does not feel that he sins and even can feel pride that he is doing it. In this stage it is the most difficult to overcome.

All people move from one stage to another... Sergey Moskalev (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

definition of "environment" in Environment and sexual orientation

Wondering if you'd care to weigh in here. Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

/Archive 1

I'm wondering if it might be ok if I add a {{NOINDEX}} tag to your archive so it is not picked up by search engines? (Responding to a request from the individual who tried to edit out a section yesterday...) –xeno (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't see any slander in the whole affair (the only one ranting was the subject herself - also using sock puppets), but anyway my archive really doesn't need to be indexed by Google, so if this makes her happy.... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks... Me neither, but I just don't think they wanted googles hits coming here... By the way you don't need to noindex your "main" talk page, if you don't want to... Doesn't really matter though, I suppose! Cheers, –xeno (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Up till today I didn't know about the NOINDEX tag and after putting it on my archive page, I decided to put it on my yserpage and main talk page, too. I don't really like it that my Wikipedia userpage comes up as first hit when one Googles "Guillaume2303"... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly your prerogative =) Thanks again for understanding. –xeno (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

David Kalb

You may want to have a look at this, since you mentioned that you would take it through AfD. I came to close the speedy and left a note on the talk page with my concerns, but I'd certainly agree with you that this individual is not notable and the article should be deleted -- I just don't know whether a note needs to be made about this in another article. Let me know if you have any questions or problems. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Papez Circuit

Hi; just in case you might not be watching it, let me direct your attention to talk:Papez circuit. Looie496 (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Warnning

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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)