User talk:Tim bates - Knowledge (XXG)

589:

Influence scores that are now included in the Journal Citation Reports (the values are different, so I guess not). Being in the JCR improves the likelihood that these latter indexes will get better known (although I have doubts, given how entrenched the IF is). Should these rankings now also be included in journal articles? Second, however, by only presenting the SJR for the category in which the journal is ranked highest, the edit can be seen as promotional (in "Genetics", for example, BG ranks 84th). I routinely add rankings in different categories for the IF to journal articles, but up till now I have not done this for the SJR and for the moment I am not convinced that it is worth while (and think of all the updating that would need to be done each year...) Let me know what you think about this. --

1785:. It seems to me that the path coefficients are incorrect. They are equal to the ACE variance components when they should be equal to the square roots of the ACE variance components. For example, in the standardized graph, the model-predicted MZ twin correlation is 0.84*1*0.84+0.04*1*0.04=0.7072, when the actual MZ correlation in Silventoinen et al. is 0.89. Using the correct path coefficients, the model-predicted correlation is sqrt(0.84)*1*sqrt(0.84)+sqrt(0.04)*1*sqrt(0.04)=0.88. Do you agree, and if so, could you redo the models with the correct coefficients?-- 2990: 1639: 2429: 2896: 3145: 2624: 2373: 2321: 2269: 2126: 1554: 1436: 1336: 3059: 2804: 2680: 2506: 1826: 1185: 3393: 3197: 1680: 54:

designs) are only used in the subset of BG research dealing with humans. So you should edit the BG article in a little more general way :-) Also, you should mark edits only as "minor" if they are really minor. Adding a new section and adding one or two paragraphs as you did in the BG article does not really fall into that class. Just to avoid you getting problems with other Wikipedians!

1963: 296: 3162:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 2641:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 2390:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 2338:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 2286:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 2143:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 1649: 1573:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 479:

part because I am acquainted with (and, in one case, related to) researchers who work with the Minnesota Twin Study data sets. I meet some of those researchers in their weekly behaviorial genetics "journal club" during each North American school year. I appreciate you keeping an eye on the article and would welcome your comments and suggestions for the

1900: 1359: 1393: 1489: 2765:

Your edits made from mobile app seem to default to "minor edit" though not actually fitting that description as used in Knowledge (XXG). Sooner or later someone will revert an edit they don't like for not really being a minor edit and thus requiring an edit summary. Your app may be retaining this as

818:

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.

509:

Hi Tim, thanks for your good wishes, I started watching the re runs of the Onedin Line during a break in employment ('involuntary separation' i.e redundancy) and got hooked again. In trying to find out more about it I stumbled across the Knowledge (XXG) entry and as they say ' the rest is history'. I

483:

I keep in user space for all wikipedians to use. Feel free also to make suggestions to me as I edit articles on your watchlist. My acquaintance with the psychology literature is more from the IQ testing end (via the literature on gifted education) than from the behavior genetics end, but I like to

2104:

thanks: Should have added a COI warning to the edit at least, and I agree in general. Added here as the article uses a meta-analysis and quotes to make a point which is moderated somewhat by the followup paper. No financial, socik-pupet, or advocacy COI. Happy as usual to let the wisdom of other

1744:

in Knowledge (XXG) beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Knowledge (XXG) page, please fill out the

478:

article, which has been on my watchlist since soon after I began to edit Knowledge (XXG) actively in May 2010. It appears from your user page that you have a much deeper occupational acquaintance with the professional literature on the subject than I have. I am interested in twin studies in large

237:

which removed a citation of Diaz-Asper CM, Schretlen DJ, Pearlson GD on a study of the predictive power of IQ for job performance. However there was no text associated with the edit in the history. This means people have to guess why you removed the bit from the article and I for one have no idea

1045:

Hi G, "cognitive science" and "cognitive psychology" should overlap completely. However most CP journals use students as subjects (or neuropsych patients) and reaction time as a dependent variable. Most CS papers will involve brain scans, and similar measures. I'd not lose any sleep if the two

3360:

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please

588:

Hi Tim, I saw that you added SJR rankings to the BG article. I have some mixed feelings about that. First of all, the SJR is little known and I haven't yet seen it used by anybody else (except ScImago). I'm not sure whether the SJR is related (or even identical) to the Eigenfactor and Article

53:

Hi Tim, I see we have more in common than just BG (Blake's 7 :-). You're doing a great job on the Twin Studies and BG articles. For the latter, however, keep in mind that a large part of BG is, in fact, concerned with animal behavior, not exclusively human behavior. Many methods (such as twin

1610:

While Greece austerity is about government fiscal constraints the news is covering the banks shutting versus government defaults. The banks shutting is a second order effect of a recession and fear of potential government defaults on pensions, etc.Is that the best way to describe the

268:

Thanks, I've just moved to wikiEd myself using firefox and the summary box is moved over to the right and a bit scrunched up. I particularly like if you click on the delta symbol below a diff it does a better diff which is useful when people have been moving sections around rather than

3337: 1111:

Not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but basically, what I propose is to have all "generalist" journals directly in the top cat "psychology journals". All others go to appropriate subcats. Any minor "self-edited" journals should be proposed for deletion if they don't meet

1230: 1343: 1327: 1192: 1178: 1148: 1143: 1133: 1030:

Tim, I'm going through a bunch of psychology journal cats that you recently created. Can you tell me what the difference is between "cognitive science journals" and "cognitive psychology journals"? Shouldn't the latter just be part of the former? Thanks.

1010:

article have been quite good. I noticed though that you wrote: "Grit is argued to be trait to perseverance." I'm not really clear what is meant by "trait to" and wondered if you would reword it to make your meaning more explicit. Thanks for your input.

1092:

This is definately worth keeping unless you dump everything that is currently left at the top level into "miscellaneous" - which is basically where many of them belong: minor, often self-edited "journals". Plus some categories that need to be created.

1838:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

1462:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1362:

902:

Hi Talgalili, I concur. A lot of those pages had what ere essentially link adverts (not just Gwet), but several are fine. I think it's about right now. He seems to have so far only contributed links to his books and web site to date. Will make

3340: 2231:

Are you perhaps editing under time pressure? If you have a little extra time, you might consider using the "Show changes" function to let you check over your work before publishing an edit. This has saved me from publishing errors many times.

210:(If I were to be unnecessarily pedantic, I would say that grammatically there's no difference. However, for some reason "amongst" doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as "one of the" does; I guess I'm being somewhat inconsistent!! Cheers, 252:

Hi - I was experimenting with the new (too me) wikEd - the summary field did not show (Safari 4.01)... Rather than lose the edit, I submitted without a summary. I have documented the rationale now. Apologies for the carelessness on my part.

3258:

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

104:

to Knowledge (XXG) articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use

1151:, you should find that the article is exactly how you left it. The only change is that your edis will not appear in the edit history, since the page was moved. You may continue editing the page as usual. Questions? Leave a message on 1146:

but didn't notice that the name was a title of a book, which voids the reason for the move. So I attempted to move it back, but moved it to the wrong place again! I think I've cleared up the created redirects now, so if you go to

537: 1366:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

3104: 2849: 2723: 2549: 1866: 2188:. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Knowledge (XXG) must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — 1466:

1077:"Generalist psychology journals": I can't say I like the "generalist", but why not just keep these articles in the topcat "Psychology journals"? That's what we do with "generalist" biology journals and such... -- 1301:

Wikipedians are allergic to in-line external links. You have probably established the notability of the book but will you please push your external links to the end of the article using the <ref: -->

3088:. 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 2833:. 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 2707:. 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 2533:. 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 1850:. 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 1696:. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 1046:

categories were merged, but also see them as a helpful chunk of hierarchy. probably depends on how deep your folders are your hard drive: Go ahead and merge them: the fields should merge anyhow.

480: 310:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also 1524: 543:

Once the results are available, the convention of reliable sources is to sort the results in descending order by number of votes. Naturally, this cannot be done until the results are known.

3296:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is

3073: 2818: 2693: 2519: 2468: 1915: 1688: 551: 1459: 3008:. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them. 321:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

3354: 883:

I am writing to you since Gwet seems like a serious statistician doing great work. But I can't seem to be sure which of his edits are to keep and which are to remove (for example,

887:

looks fine to me). Maybe you could direct him to the proper wiki-rules on how to cite his work here? I suspect it would allow him to contribute a lot instead of spamming at times.

935:. Using the word to refer to anything else, including deliberate disregard of consensus, is an error, and usually ends up making it more difficult to resolve an issue. Regards, 2205:

I had a quick look: Not sure what the problem is: there's a paraphrase of the abstract, and a block quote, marked as such, which is well within fair use. Am I missing something?

1522:, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 2766:

a default setting from one long ago edit where you ticked the "minor" box deliberately. I don't remember how I arrived at your edit history but thought I should tell you.

3362: 322: 3213:. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. 1707:

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our

2181: 3225: 1061:

OK, I'll make a "soft redirect" from "cognitive psychology journals" to "cognitive science journals". A bot should then move the articles within a week or so. --

3286: 1697: 1448: 1348: 3353:

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the

2089:

and please abide by what it says there. The issues are difficult enough without adding this sort of complication (if it exists) to the problem. Thanks.

1700:

is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an

1701: 3305: 3174: 2959: 2653: 2402: 2350: 2298: 2155: 1708: 1585: 1251: 1096:

So I could file the top level under gender studies etc, then you we can let the big generalist generals float at the top? How does that sound?

3216:

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

2216:

Without diminishing your efforts in any way, it seems a significant proportion of your recent edits have introduced errors into articles (e.g.

674: 3313: 3005: 1712: 1529: 2477:. 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. 573: 1893: 3127: 2872: 2746: 2571: 1880: 699: 3415:, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the 3240:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 2228:). As you can surely appreciate, it takes other editors much longer to fix these than it would take to prevent them in the first place. 3416: 1692:. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Knowledge (XXG) may not meet the criteria required by 2767: 2590: 2135: 808: 538:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2#Articles_on_Prospective_Parliamentary_Candidates_for_Election_2010

2963: 1255: 285: 2447:). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose 2085:

to a contentious article. The middle author there is Timothy C. Bates. I don't know if that is you, but if so please be aware of

540:. The consensus there was to use alphabetical order by surname. This is of course how the candidates appear on the ballot paper. 2452: 2278: 2014: 510:

just hope I continue to have the time and enthusiasm to finish what has become something of a 'magnum opus'. All the best, Andrew.

449: 1360:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats)

3290: 3282: 3210: 2185: 2182:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235378030_An_Examination_of_Stereotype_Threat_Effects_on_Girls'_Mathematics_Performance

3123: 2868: 2742: 2567: 1876: 3097: 2842: 2716: 2542: 2026: 1982: 1859: 1313: 1273: 3158:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2951: 2907: 2885: 2637:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2448: 2386:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2334:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2282:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2139:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2030: 1569:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 1243: 1196: 1174: 1704:; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. 3205: 2382: 493: 3309: 3268: 3163: 3159: 2955: 2642: 2464: 2391: 2339: 2287: 2144: 1693: 1574: 1565: 1247: 558: 533: 303: 3410: 3384: 2249:

Thanks for the kind reminder Pmj! Spend a bunch of my time fixing the same, so it's an easy message to hear: cheers, t

2460: 2036: 1452: 1352: 3297: 3248: 3109: 2854: 2728: 2554: 1871: 2456: 3275: 790: 744: 489: 1140: 569: 2022: 1994: 1970: 1502: 1007: 842: 754: 3085: 2830: 2704: 2530: 1847: 1518: 2989: 1790: 1121: 1082: 1066: 1036: 992: 415: 134: 2474: 311: 3154: 2771: 749: 679: 634: 2967: 2018: 1986: 1978: 1498: 1259: 1113: 975:

Please note that Knowledge (XXG) article headings are not supposed to have so many capital letters as in

532:

The question of how to order election candidates before the results have been announced was discussed at

101: 3321: 2938: 2633: 2330: 1767: 1616: 1443: 1427: 1117: 1078: 1062: 1032: 772: 485: 390:

exists. The second and third forms above are acceptable, but what you wrote was the first. Note that:

234: 3221: 2086: 2071: 346:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- 3402: 1537: 1374: 917: 850: 827: 562: 515: 511: 351: 180: 3241: 3067: 2812: 2687: 2513: 1834: 1816: 1750: 387: 106: 3040: 3030: 3016: 1948: 1727: 1612: 1413: 1292: 1164: 1152: 892: 780: 709: 704: 689: 457: 434: 111: 3081: 2826: 2700: 2526: 1843: 3020: 3001: 1786: 1653: 1307: 1267: 1016: 988: 940: 731: 649: 411: 1989:

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

664: 1749:. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Knowledge (XXG) Collections please do so 452:

that you uploaded recently. It may be deleted if the "Purpose of use" is not filled in. Thanks

3423: 2934: 2609: 2487: 2233: 2196: 2174: 2079: 2045: 1593: 1226: 835: 736: 644: 3211:

https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/neuroscience/john-paul-scott/the-life-of-jp-scott.html

3093: 2838: 2712: 2538: 1855: 1205: 3374: 3317: 3116: 2975: 2903: 2889: 2861: 2735: 2561: 2434:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

2094: 1923: 1763: 1675:

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Journal of experimental social psychology cover.gif

1283:

Originally sent to me due to loss of attribution because of the page moves and deletions. —

654: 594: 332:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

215: 201: 161: 32: 3096:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3089: 3000:

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in

2921: 2841:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2834: 2715:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2708: 2541:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2534: 1858:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1851: 1638: 1213: 984: 343: 333: 326: 315: 3368:

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

3182: 2661: 2410: 2358: 2306: 2163: 1533: 1368: 1344: