User talk:WotherspoonSmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, WotherspoonSmith, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I can't believe no one has welcomed you yet. Thanks for all your work. Keep it up.

Again, welcome!  Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Old Toongabbie, New South Wales
Rogans Hill, New South Wales
Nungalinya College
Quantity surveyor
Wesleyan Methodist Church of Australia
Uniting Network
Adelaide College of Divinity
Eve Goldberg
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Northmead, New South Wales
Winston Hills, New South Wales
Luganville
Australian Inland Mission
South Granville, New South Wales
Hillside, New South Wales
Frédéric Fekkai
Easebourne
Basis of Union
Sandal (footwear)
Cleanup
Free Presbyterian Church
Coral Sea Islands
Global brain
Merge
Orthodox Church
Public morality
Rink hockey
Add Sources
Ben Folds
Attrition warfare
Australian cuisine
Wikify
Cortical homunculus
Flowers in the Attic
Sanctification
Expand
List of famous clocks
Simon Wells
Pazhuvil Church

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubbo

Thanks for your comments. Check the longer history of the Dubbo page.

The link has been there since December 2005. Earlier this year a discussion arose that was quite personal against me, the same person was removing the dubbo.org link, and as a result the dubbo page was semi protected with the link on, because of it. When the protection ended, the link was removed again.

Rather than keep adding the link again, I though it would be good to start form scratch and discuss it, the merits of the link itself without reference to me or anything personal.

I would encourage you to have a look at the dubbo.org link on it's own merits, and post your opinion as to if it should be included or not. Then a discussion can happen, and some consensus. I don't mind it you speak for or against it, but back up your reasons, based on the merits of the link itself.

Thanks!

Wayne

  • Thanks for your question regarding Dubbo on my talk-page. Please go ahead and put the Australian Aboriginal place names category back up as you feel it should be. My roll-back was a complete one against two anonymous editors who simply were nominating it seems almost every town in Australia as belonging in the category even when there was no evidence within the article of Aboriginal background to the name. My view is that if there is a referenced link to the town's name being of Aboriginal origin then the category can be verified and included. If not it should not be there. Trust this helps you to understand my actions?--VS talk 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

That bit with the citation needed was my mistake. I saw some and added that. I'll delete it. Sorry again.Cameron Nedland 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Burns (shipowner)

Actually I became less concerned as I worked my way through it, but it is better to quote sources, especially if they came through Percival Serle's DAB (which I overlooked checking). I will change the refs to reflect this.--Grahamec 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurisdiction

I certainly didn't think you were a jerk. Your main point - that the context in the article was in fact legal - was correct. I think that's a bit more important. And you did make me check a number of sources, which is good exercise. Plus I found that the primary (and apparently original) meaning was legal, which is not what I had assumed. So I got something out of it myself :-) -- SiobhanHansa 12:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since you asked

I guess it's in how you define "editing war". What I see here is someone who took a great deal of interest in an article, didn't appear to agree with the direction that others were taking it, and then stopped taking an interest in it and nominated it for deletion. Sometimes people nominate because they feel the topic is unworthy; sometimes it's for other reasons. Mandsford 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. AfD is a pretty stressful arena, and my comments sometimes run to unwarranted sarcasm. After I thought about the fact that you had contributed quite a bit to trying to improve the article, I realized that I was in the wrong. Mandsford 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IQ versus intelligence

I changed it because the present topic is presented currently as intelligence=IQ. I am absolutely fine with with changing it back, though I'd like to see the topic develop far beyond the recent popularization of the ideas before the change. If you have the time and energy to really develop the article properly, I support this! Kind regards, Fremte (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you.

Hi - if you go to the link in the above message it will help you to reset your preferences so that edits are not automatically tagged as "minor". Saw your additions to The Bulletin - not minor but very useful additions :-) Regards Matilda talk 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Research on the IQ-thingy

Hi,

No, I had no luck. Here is the e-mail from the university:

Kære Emil

Jeg har også forgæves ledt efter en kilde til omtalte rapport. Jeg ved ikke om der faktisk er tale om en regulær rapport om emnet, måske udspringer det blot af et interview med Nyborg i Jyllands-Posten d. 28.01.2007 (Er det dumt at tro på Gud?), hvor han omtaler ting han har fundet i sit statistiske projekt , der bygger på data fra undersøgelsen National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NSLY). Jeg kan desværre ikke hjælpe dig videre, enten kan du kontakte Helmuth Nyborg selv eller evt. forfatteren til JP artiklen Kim Hundevadt. Om de vil hjælpe dig ved jeg ikke.

-

Hej AU.

Jeg leder efter en internet kilde til Helmuth Nyborgs omdiskuterede rapport om IQ blandt ateister og teister. Det har ikke været muligt at finde rapporten på jeres side eller på nettet generelt. Jeg kan kun finde en masse /artikler /i aviser der skriver om det. Grunden til at det er nødvendigt, er at wikipedias artikel om IQ og religion mangler en direkte kilde. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence


If you cannot read Danish, let me know.--Deleet (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Here is my quick translation:

Dear Emil

I have fruitlessly been looking for a source to the much discussed study. I don't know if there is actually a regular study about the subject, perhaps the whole thing just came out of an interview In Jyllands-Posten (danish news paper) d. 28.01.2007 (Titled: Er det dumt at tro på Gud? (is it stupid to believe in god?)), where he speaks of things that he has found in his statistical project, which uses data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NSLY) study. I'm sorry to report that I cannot help you any further. You can try to contact Helmuth Nyborg himself or the author to the article Kim Hundevadt. I don't know if they want to help you.

-

Hello AU.

I am looking for an internet source to Helmuth Nyborg's controversial study concerning IQ among atheists and theists. It has not been possible for me to find the study on your homepage or on the internet. I can only find a lot of on-line news paper articles which covers it. The reason why I ask is that Wikipedia's article about IQ and religion is missing a direct source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

I also deleted my email and other personal information, which I was too lazy to remove the first time. It seems that either the reporter and or the NSLY study might have some answers. --Deleet (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is about argument from authorities. I believe his is correct, i.e. that (weak) atheists are generally a little bit smarter than religious people. He has also noted that men's IQ is a little bit higher than women's and wee see that women are more religious than men, about 19 per cent points in Denmark. This is probably controversial. --Deleet (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)