Welcome!

Hello, Oort1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Harlan Crow, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your request for a third opinion for Talk:Crime in San Francisco#Per capita crime rates has been declined because the issue has not yet been adequately discussed on the article's talk page. I have pinged the other party in the discussion, so they will hopefully engage with the discussion there. If you are unable to come to an agreement after discussing, you can re-list the issue on the WP:3O page or use another dispute resolution method. — LauritzT (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oort1! With regard to this edit, please note that not being unavailable online is not a valid reason to reject a reliable source (as explained at WP:OFFLINE; the relevant policy is WP:SOURCEACCESS). It may also be useful to know that you can access this and many other sources through WP:LIBRARY. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given some of your recent edits you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The F.B.I. is examining numerous metal fragments found near the stage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., to determine whether an assassin’s bullet — or potential debris — grazed former President Donald J. Trump’s head, bloodying his ear, according to the F.B.I. and a federal law enforcement official. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/us/politics/fbi-bullet-trump-rally.html Polygnotus (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment asked people not to change the lead, which is the consensus version. Polygnotus (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the NYT investigation [1], that is what they did inhouse. The Secret Service is in a far better position to investigate these things. Polygnotus (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the article I was referring to. The NYT is a reliable source, and the secret service hasn't released anything to the contrary. I also don't think my edit was "significant"; also, that warning message was already there when someone else (a user topic banned from this page btw for "bludgeoning, NPOV, and disruptive editing" per admin decision) added it; and even if it was significant, I think it's clear that there's consensus on the talk page. Hi! (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the talkpage is to keep the current version until new details emerge in the future. NYT journalists do not have the same resources the FBI and Secret Service have so the NYT investigation is no reason to not follow the consensus. They FBI/USSS figure it out and then we can make a more definitive statement in the article sourced to their investigation report. Polygnotus (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to keep to the current version, then we should revert back to the version it was on at the time the warning message was added i.e. before the word "at" was added... Hi! (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes like me changing the order of 2 sentences and removing the word also [2] are not against the consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that change, I'm just asking for consistency. My change was also minor and keeping with consensus, including the RFC. Hi! (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a significant change, and against the consensus. A reliable source, the NYT published that the F.B.I. is investigating what exactly hit Trump (bullet or shrapnel or Vanilla Ice), and now you changed it to say he got shot, which is what we say when he got hit by a bullet and not by shrapnel based on Malachy Brownes investigation and your lack of understanding of the consensus. Oh well. Polygnotus (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not gonna editwar with you, someone else will, but it sucks that people don't respect the consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend. I just wanted to tell you not to bother trying to add the polygenic scores for IQ to the race an intelligence article, seriously. It is not about the reliability of the journals, and they know it. These polygenic scores are also discussed Bird (2021) in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, and in Nature, and Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and many more journals. You cannot add those to the article either. Look at the last time someone tried to add information on those polygenic scores here. [3] They’ll just gang up to lie, say it is synthesis and shut you down. And here is the official reason:

“it would need to be presented in much more detail than the OP has done in order to avoid facile misreading.”

In other words, those ignorant peasants who read the encyclopedia might interpret this data in a way we do not like, therefore they cannot be shown it. Intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

They will not listen to me because I am blocked, but if you could find an admin with some intellectual integrity that can block the ones who we can show intentionally lie about this, that would contribute a lot to bringing back Wikipedia. 186.168.87.152 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Hipal (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Generalrelative (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given your recent editing, it seems as though you may not yet be aware that there is a strong consensus on the fringe status of claims that there is a genetic basis for racial gaps in IQ test performance. See Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. Edits that go against this consensus will not be allowed to stand. I ask that you please familiarize yourself with this consensus before editing the topic further. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are consistent with that RFC. My vox quote was a verbatim quote from a source you added (the Vox article, incl. quote, is also consistent with the RFC) Hi! (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not, and I do not have time to engage with you further over the holiday. You will note, before I go, that your recent statement "You only added it a week ago" is false. That was December 15 *2023*, and the same statement has survived numerous challenges on similar articles. See e.g. Talk:The Bell Curve and its archives. In any case, I brought the matter to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, so hopefully some uninvolved editors can take a look. Despite our disagreement, I hope you have a happy holiday if you celebrate. Generalrelative (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake about the date. Thanks for correcting that. And likewise, happy holidays. Hi! (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]