John Deranjo Smith

September 2015

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sex differences in intelligence, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You referred to "another study in Spain" but I see no further identification of it or reference to it. You also wrote "Therefore most IQ studies on sex differences tend to be representative of college students not overall population" without identifying a source for that. I think that unsourced edits to this article are likely challenged with regularity so it would be better to provide the references than get into a dispute about the contents (not with me, but with others who may take a greater interest). Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

See Help:Page history for information on the "View History" tab where you can see previous versions and edits. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually fixed the spain study. I will try to find a source for the college sample edit.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sex differences in intelligence. Your edits continue to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

• If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sex differences in intelligence was changed by John Deranjo Smith (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891995 on 2015-09-11T06:03:28+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked back to see your further reply and saw that ClueBot had reverted your later edits. I am no expert on ClueBot and how it evaluates edits, nor did I read the Cluebot home page recently, nor did I scrutinize your further edits, (I have a few times been quoted as endorsing edits under this type of circumstance so I want to be clear that I am merely accepting them as appearing to be good faith edits without substantively supporting them.) On a quick look, the edits did not seem to be vandalism and if they are controversial, at least they are supported by citations (but for the college student one, still, I think) and might be a valid alternative view if they do not support the existing context. Just an assumption but one which would lead a human recent changes reviewer or Cluebot not to challenge them as vandalism or obviously spurious in some way.

I think the bot does not get into finer distinctions concerning improper or disruptive or test editing very often but is usually reviewing the phrasing or wording, removal of content, formatting and general apparently significant errors. Perhaps this is one of those rare false positives mentioned in the bot message. It seems to me that the bot would have evaluated your last edit and based the action on that. When it determined to revert it, it would also revert all the other consecutive edits by you. The same thing happens if the reversion is by a human editor using the Huggle program rather than just looking at recent edits to articles one at a time. The thought behind the reversion of consecutive edits probably is that previous bad edits just were not recognized as such and the last one gave away the scheme of the whole string. From my experience, that is usually true but occasionally the last one only appeared to be bad or was bad only in form.

It may very well be that the bot did not like the tenor of your last edit with the words "stupid ones" in it. A human editor might see in context that this was a rephrasing of the prior point and was not meant pejoratively but the bot has probably encountered too many phrases like that which were vandalism that it is now reverting them all as vandalism. I write this simply because that is the way it looks to me, not because I am certain about it. If I am right, I thought it would be appropriate to let you know because you might want to challenge the whole reversion as a false positive or at least be aware of what you are dealing with. The bot reverted all of the consecutive edits, probably only because it detected a problem with that last, brief edit.

Also, as an alternative you might want to try again to add some or almost all of your edits without the likely trigger sentence or phrase, but not with any kind of undo or reversion that would bring back the last edit as well. I only suggest this because I do not see anything technically wrong with the earlier edits. If the new edit is not challenged, you will then see that it was that phrasing that was the problem (perhaps because of the topic in which it was placed as well; the bot sometimes appears to recognize the context). Again, I have not reviewed the substance or correctness of the material you are adding or the value or reliability of the citations or reading or interpreting any of the citations that are verifiable on line. Also, take my points as suggestions not instructions or in any way mandatory directions, especially in view of the fact that there are official pages you can consult. In addition to the Cluebot page, these include Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

There is an official page about Cluebot, User:ClueBot NG. I have not read it lately and it should be clearer and more detailed than what I have written. Perhaps my take on it may differ a little from the official version but I believe my thoughts are of some informational value. In any event, the section "Information About False Positives", about one-third of the way down the Cluebot page, is one that may be relevant to you. It also seems to be the last part of the page before it turns into some merriment at Cluebot's expense, which appears to have invited by the author of the page. All this is for whatever it is worth to you. Donner60 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is insane. All of my edits on that page was removed by the author as well as the cluebot. I am leaving this site, clearly all of the articles are strictly controlled by single individuals and any free edits is not even objectively looked at unless it meet's the author's agenda.

John Deranjo Smith, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi John Deranjo Smith! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)