Open main menu
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!


Review request ...Edit

Hello again! I was under the mistaken idea that ProveIt was an automated app, akin to a bot of sorts, that cleaned up articles. I see now that it is more of a tool used to review citations, which is very helpful. My apologies (but I learned about ProveIt, thank you!).Frannyshaw (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about sourcingEdit

Hi, I noticed one of your contributions to the Race and Intelligence article ( attributes the following quote: "Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap." to Essentials of Psychology: Concepts and Applications by Jeffrey Nevid. However, the text itself does not seem to say this. You can see for yourself: . Any idea as to how this happened? I am sure it was an oversight, but unfortunately as the article is protected, I cannot change it. Thanks for your attention to the matter.

Well if you look at page 271 it says "increasing evidence points to the importance of environmental factors in explaining racial differences in IQ". So it was not an oversight even if the exact text I added (which I did not claim was an exact quote) is not in the book. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand. As you may or may not be aware, this is an extremely contentious article, and it suffers from contributions that are taken out of context, misquoted or plain biased. As a result, it's important to be very careful when making changes to the article. The text does not say (paraphrasing) "growing evidence indicates environmental factors are more important than genetic factors in explaining the racial IQ gap". It says (again paraphrasing) "growing evidence indicates the importance of environmental factors in explaining the racial IQ gap ". There is a significant difference between the two quotes. As I mentioned, I am sure this misquoting was unintentional, but I did feel it should be brought to your attention.
From the context of the quote it seems clear to me that the meaning intended is that environmental factors are relatively more important than are genetic factors. The previous sentence on p. 271 was asking if the differences were genetic or environmental, and the paragraph after the quote starts "Another factor arguing against genetic explanations..." I am in fact aware that this is a controversial subject with an associated ArbCom case, and I see your point, but it seems that the source I cited does in fact aim to emphasize that environmental factors are more important than their genetic counterparts here. But if you want to remove the stuff about genetics in the quote in question in the article you can. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello IntoThinAir,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exploding the Gene Myth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Rowe (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) 14:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "IntoThinAir".