Hi Prmct!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!
Note that in addition to providing a bird's eye view of the subject, the outline is useful to keep track of changes to intelligence-related articles using the "Related changes" tool (in the tool menu in the sidebar menu). The Transhumanist15:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you made a lot of edits to the human intelligence template, and related articles. Thanks for your hard work, and sorry I wasn't online to comment on it. Is there any individual part of it you want my comment on, or for me to help to improve? --Prmct (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, there is a related article that needs some attention: the Outline of human intelligence. It is incomplete, as it is missing many subtopics. It needs someone to go around Wikipedia to gather topics about human intelligence, and add them to the outline. That would be a great help, and would allow everyone (us included) to see the big picture on intelligence. The outline is intended to provide a bird's eye view of the subject. But it's not there yet. ;) The Transhumanist13:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Experience
Your account was recently created, yet you are obviously an experienced WP editor.
In my understanding, disclosing a previous account I edited under only is needed if I want to be an admin. This has been discussed before, see here. Sorry, I also don't intend to say whether WavePart was me or not. If you won't accept that answer and don't want to collaborate with me anymore, that's unfortunate, but my privacy matters more. --Prmct (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be a productive editor in a highly controversial topic area, which has an extraordinary level of sock puppets, allow me to suggest that you email ArbCom with your previous account history, and make it clear on your user page that you've done so. Until you clear the air about which account you are socking for, you may not be taken very seriously on articles that are covered by ArbCom sanctions. aprock (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked your account. While in some circumstances it is acceptable to use alternate accounts, the fact that you are jumping into such a fraught area, causing disruption, and employing extensive legalese implies to me that it is more likely than not that the community is going to spend more time than it is worth dealing with you. You're welcome to switch back to your old account if you would like, and if for some privacy reasons you cannot use that account, you are welcome to contact the Arbitration Committee or the Functionaries to work things out with them. NW(Talk)19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not a block for disruptive sockpuppetry (and it doesn't seem to be), could you please wait for other admins to chime in in the AE thread before acting unilaterally? If the consensus of admins there is that I can't do what I'm doing, then I'll accept that outcome, but AE decisions to block someone indefinitely for general disruption usually are made by more than a single admin. I think that my edits to Nations and intelligence were well-sourced, and if I acted disruptively, it was out of frustration. --Prmct (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you refer to my "extensive legalese", are you referring to the discussion I linked to above? If so, did you notice that discussion occurred in 2010, and was it your intention to block me for something that happened four years ago? --Prmct (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly see no reason to spend even a couple more minutes on this unless a community member I actually take seriously wants to contest my action. {{Unblock}} exists, feel free to use it. NW(Talk)13:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
