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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

"other than it's use on the coat of arms, i can't recall seeing the star used on currency. have i missed something, or is this article a little innaccurate? WotherspoonSmith ( talk) 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)" reply

The coat of arms appears on currency (e.g. 50c), and hence so does the star. Pdfpdf ( talk) 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The James Ruse article had been attacked at various points thoughout the article so I undid these changes by reverting the article to the version before the attack. Changing "prefect" to "perfect" was part of the attack.--Incognoman (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)-- Incognoman ( talk) 09:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello hello

Just got your message...

Don't misread me : my "pique" was rather friendly (that's why i concluded it wth a little typed smiley...)

If, when saying "your recent comments", you are refering to my reply to "FOUNDING FATHERS", well... I must confess that his recurring diatribe about this article on "Relig. & Intell." being a vast conspiration mounted just in order to squash the "so fragile" feelings of religious people... "slightly" upset me !

(Then, now, fer somethin' complet'ly diff'rent : i'm waiting for your full developments...)

-- Mezzkal ( talk) 02:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

When you wrote : "I just hoped you realise that, regardless of your intent, smiley faces and strikethroughs aren't always making your comments "sound" (is that the word?) friendly or rational.", you got straight to the point... Actually, you're right ! I was not "friendly" at all with FI, and didn't intend to either (I hope you believe me when i say that i realise when i'm being "not-friendly" !) [Note : you also mentionned "smiley faces and strikethroughs"... eventhough they weren't in the reply to FI, but in the prvious post addressed to you, and were really meant to be understood as "tongue-in-the-cheek".... and friendly ! I'm sorry you took it badly...]

As for "rational", i don't think that.. appealing to consensual guidelines made for cool living-together would be irrational ? You almost reproached me to remind him "no personnal attacks", as he threw ...[ Wikipedia is ] not a place for you to try and promote prejudice against a group of people for their religious beliefs.

Isn't that what every polite wikipedian is doing all the time to vindicative contributors, in all kinda talk-pages, all over this site ?

I think that all the misunderstanding might --may be-- come from the fact that you think of FOUNDER'S as being a troll...

If it happens to be true, then i've certainly been misled, and of course, the common saying "don't feed the trolls" was to be applied here !

But how could we explain, then, that he's been a wikipedian for almost five years ( since november 2007), that he's got rollback and reviewer rights on en:WP, and --even more astonishing-- is an "Experienced Editor" and is entitled to display this Service Badge ??

BTW, that explains why i told him "It's a pity that I should have to remind you (!) of no less than six Wikipedia guidelines" (underlying : please... not you !)

Anyway... This seems to belong to the past already, and to be just a scratch on the leather. Let's all go on forwards to new constructive debates.

-- Mezzkal ( talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You have been awarded the seldom coveted THUMBS UP AWARD for cleaning up the mess that I left on the Male privilege talk page. When I discovered that section in the article it was clear to me that it could not remain. However since someone had gone through a lot of effort doing it, I thought to preserve it on the talk page. This is pretty much standard practice for me on what I consider to be good faith but misguided edits. So I just chopped it out without much thought to the formatting. Not a good thing to do. So thanks a lot for straightening it up. I almost got into a point-by-point rebuttal of it, but decided to wash the dishes instead. By the way, your user page is interesting in a very mysterious sort of way. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I saw your restoration of the Lyle Shelton article, and I note that you have made other ACL edits. It's pointless restoring an article without either addressing the issue that got it deleted or explaining to the deleting admin why you think the deletion was incorrect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

that's me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

He is probably notable enough for an article, assuming that the ACL is itself notable (I'm a Brit so I have no idea).

• had a high profile as a campaigner against the exploitation of women — I think the "high profile" is promotional and a matter of opinion, should go.
• He had an active role in the Recycled sewage-water-for-drinking referendum "No" campaign.[3] — fair enough
• The five direct quotes of his opinions are very spammy, and there is no balancing material. I've no doubt he said those things, but Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote his views (and I'd take the same line if he was a Muslim, Jew or atheist.)

If you recreate again, just stick to facts, not apparently controversial opinions. It's clear that the original editor has an agenda with regard to the ACL, and I've warned him about this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I think if you feel that you must mention his views it's better to do so indirectly rather than with direct quotes, since you can use the same refs. I'll post the deleted text here shortly. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Dunno, just seems less blatant to me. I made some minor edits. Move it to article space when you are ready Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

User:WotherspoonSmith Good work. Sam56mas ( talk) 15:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	good work Sam56mas ( talk) 15:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#advice please re Mandated reporter. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 21:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mandated reporter may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

//www.aifs.gov.au/cfca/pubs/factsheets/a142086/#a2 | title = Child abuse and neglect statistics }} </ref> are unsubstantiated and approximately 15% are substantiated.<ref name= "archive.acf.hhs.gov">{{cite web|url= http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf |title= National Child 442,005 substantiated and 25,156 indicated, affecting 702,000 of the 74.1 million US children")<ref name= "NCANDS 2009">{{cite web|url= http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf |title= National Child are removed from their parents to protect them from abuse or neglect.<ref name = "paul chill">{{cite web|url= [http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=uconn_wps|title=

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Mandatory reporting in the US., and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Mandated reporter. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 09:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mandatory reporting in the US., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exploitation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey WotherspoonSmith. You were a very constant editor on the Religiosity and intelligence page and did some great work in trying to balance that article out. Recently, there has been quite a bit of action by a supposedly new editor and wanted to see if you wanted give your input on some of the changes. Hope to see you there. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 04:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey WotherspoonSmith, sorry to hear about your situation. I hope you get better soon! You should be able to just edit the article page, if you feel you need to, since User:Petergstrom, who was causing much of the disturbance on that page, is being considered for being banned on the admin noticeborad. He finally seems to have calmed down.. I don't think you need to go through talk. Check out the page since I tried to add balance to the wording and also added a few sections to provide background on the controversial topic (which was needed for the readers about both intelligence and eligisoity). The lead was expanded too with pros ad cons for balance on the controversial issue. I think that it is more or less balanced and summarizes the article better than before. Sorry about my sig. I kept the 1990 for easy reference. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 16:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello WotherspoonSmith! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply