User talk:Koozedine

Edit @ R&I

Apologies for undoing your delete, I've requested the passage be cited as originally tagged or other cited content substituted. Because it's a controversial topic we try to stay away from WP:BOLD edits, as welcome as they may be elsewhere. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if you could discuss edits of this nature on the talk page. As you've noticed, edits like this tend to get reverted, and this is likely to keep happening if you don't attempt to justify them to the other editors involved. In the long run it tends to be more productive to discuss your edits on the article talk page than to make changes without discussion. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions for sources on the subject of human intelligence?

Hi, Koozedine,

It looks like you are new to editing the article Race and intelligence and perhaps new to the professional literature on the subject as well. Or perhaps you are familiar with the literature. In any event, welcome to editing the article. Here's a friendly suggestion: take a look at the source list I keep in user space for all Wikipedians for checking facts in articles about human intelligence. There are many surprising findings from the professional literature, well known to psychologists (although not always as well known to them as the facts should be) that are little mentioned in the popular literature on the subject. If you have suggestions of other sources, many Wikipedians would appreciate those. The article is currently subject to active Arbitration Committee sanctions (as explained on the article talk page), so all of us editing the article like to discuss sources carefully and to make sure what the sources say. See you on the articles. -- 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ask again what (current, reliable, secondary) sources you recommend on the general subject of Race and intelligence. See you on the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

IQ and Global Inequality

I suggest you take your concerns to the article talk page, where you'll see a link to the RfC in question: Talk:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Request_for_comment. Alternatively, you may consider taking your concerns to an appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

IQ and Global Inequality

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. aprock (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)