User talk:Paul.rogers.1964

dawkins/ bell removal[edit]

Hi Paul happy to see someone taking an interest in improving this article. you have quoted me as arguing " for the deletion of the source since he couldn’t find it online and other people had similar difficulty. If something is not available on the Internet, that does not mean it doesn’t exist." You have misquoted me somewhat. Just to clarify: Most recently, I removed the quote in keeping with a comment by [User:Mdbrownmsw] at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religiosity_and_intelligence#pov, saying "If the Bell article was actually being used as a source, there should be a complete cite for it, instead of the brief one that copies the note from Dawkins character for character. I don't think the editor actual saw that article, but is quoting Dawkins' mention of it. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the editor was quoting someone else quoting Dawkins citing Bell. In any event, quoting one source's take on another source is not WP:RS. Quoting a source that you haven't seen is even worse." My previous removal was to merge it with the statement's most likely source, the Dawkins quote. Also, not being able to find it was not just about not being able to find it on the 'net, it was about not being able to get it through the mensa society, either. Thank you for finding it at the British library, though.WotherspoonSmith 11:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it again for the same reason that WotherspoonSmith did. If people on Richard Dawkins website forum cannot verify it then wikipedia shouldn't be repeating it. If it is verified it is fine there, but otherwise, citation by reference to a book is not enough. If it was a major study than a peer-reviewed source would reference it somewhere... If you could get a copy of the article it would be great though. Ansell 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have tracked down and ordered a copy of the original article. Thank you. I'm truly not trying to be difficult here, but if you could find something about the reliability of the source, that would help a lot, too. That is, is the Mensa magazine just a journal like my local car club puts together, or does it have some standards and review systems for what it accepts? It would help the article a lot to know this, and I predict (based on past comments) that this will come up as an issue. Personally, I'm curious about the contents of the article, having heard about it for so long. The similarities with the Beckwith meta-analysis (43 studies, since 1927, four not finding correlation) have me curious. WotherspoonSmith 09:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reversions are not acceptable[edit]

Please do not mass revert what were each individually justified edits. [1] It does not assume good faith in other editors. If you have thoughts about each individual edit please voice them on the talk page. Ansell 04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

scientists[edit]

Hi Paul, me again. Rather than have an edit war, I'd like to clarify: do you know of anyone, other than us and Barnum Beckwith, who has measured intelligence by looking at eminence amongst scientists? The line you have reverted just doesn't sound true to me. The authors of studies of religiosity amongst scientists have not, to my knowledge, inferred that the scientists are anything more than eminent scientists. They have not drawn the link with intelligence. To put it another way: if this was an article about race and intelligence, would you point to the disproportionate number of white/ Jewish/ black people, and say it is valuable data? If this was an article about gender and intelligence, would you look at the disproportionate number of women/ men, and say it was a measurement of their intelligence? I wouldn't. Some might, but I haven't seen them. I don't think we should.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a reply, I've reverted the edit again. Sorry if this was a bad time of year for you for me to expect a reply, but, as stated, I have yet to see the cited articles claiming that the eminence of the scientists was due to their intelligence. If they make this link somewhere, please let me know. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I marked the page[edit]

I think what you say is accurate and indeed religion and intelligence negate each other but I still think some of it should discuss the different beliefs and their relationship with intelligence. Case in point: people who believe in reincarnation tend to have weaker memories than the general public. Thanks for hearing me out. I will also remove the tag. I want to raise it's status. I also didn't really want to call it totally disputed put I couldn't find the worldview tag. YVNP 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion page, you mention that one editor has been removing large sections of relevant material which you believe should be there. I don't know if you are referring to myself, user:Ansell or user:Mdbrownmsw, all of whom have removed large sections. Either way- what sections do you believe should be there still- do any meet wikipedia's standards? user:70.248.146.109 raised similar concerns last October in the talk pages, but chose not to nominate any such sections.

If you feel the talk page is not conducive to a fair discussion on these points, you could always ask for a neutral third party to assist.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of non-ASCII characters[edit]

In this edit you replace various non-ASCII characters with ASCII approximations. I assume this is unintentional - some software component recklessly downsampling from Unicode without your consent. Please try to avoid that problem in future editing. Thanks. Ilkali (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali, thank you for your message. I was using a different browser at the time - links - and, unfortunately, it seems to have been this which caused the strange changes to the page. I have reverted to the old faithful, Firefox, for future editing :-) Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Paul.rogers.1964 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

85.25.151.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

This IP address is believed to host an active Tor "exit node" from which Wikimedia projects are accessible.

Due to the threat of abuse, as with other anonymizing proxy systems, Tor exit nodes may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. For more information, please see the WikiProject on open proxies.

[contribs • block log • block list] · [block • unblock]

Blocking administrator: Zzuuzz (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: I just responded to the email you sent to our unblock list; for security reasons, we do not normally allow editing from open proxies such as Tor. To keep discussion in one place, I'd invite you to continue the discussion on the mailing list. Thanks. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nyborg- controversial?[edit]

i notice you've added a 'citation needed' tag to the description of Helmuth Nyborg as 'controversial'. Do you really think this needs a citation? When I read the Helmuth Nyborg page I can't find much other than his controversial nature.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay. As I'm sure you've noticed, I'm only an occasional contributor. I added the citation-needed tag because the word controversial is obviously added to cast doubt on the conclusions of the couple of peer-reviewed articles published by the man on this subject.

I'm not absolutely familiar with the situation but I understand, from what I have read, that there was some controversy about results in a paper unrelated to this subject which caused some of the results in that paper to be restated. But the investigation did not, as I understand it, relate in any way to the papers cited in this article.

I am not a fan of ad hominem attacks such as these and I would be far happier if the article concentrated on relevant published information. Unless there is published evidence for us to doubt the results in the two Nyborg papers cited in the article which have, after all, been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, it is not within the scope of Wikipedia to cast doubt and aspersions on them. Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It's a bit of a dead issue anyway, since a third party has long since removed the word, but just for the record- I didn't see 'controversial' as an ad hominem attack- just a descriptor of most of his work. I did not see it as casting doubt on the conclusions. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion graph[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. I have updated the graph and it can now be found at Image:Bsa-religion-question.svg. Duncan Keith (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words[edit]

Thanks. I didn't mean the other editors feelings if I did on Talk:Christianty, and I know it was wrong. I'm not trying to use this as an excuse, but alot happened to me that month. I.E. suddenly becoming a 2-year old girls legal gaurdian at ten PM. Anyway, thanks!

Abce2 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yum[edit]

Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

nom nom nom. :)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg[edit]

File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]