User talk:ArtifexMayhem/Archive 2

Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics
Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Question
Why have you included a comment I made on the moderated discussion in your "evidence" at ArbCom? . My comment doesn't have anything to do with sourcing. Please remove my comment. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I included your !vote, "Oppose until the lede has been returned to the stable edit and consensus has been reached regarding the next issue to be taken up", because it doesn't have anything to do with the sourcing of the edit in question. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But your complaint is about editors opposing the source offered. My comment doesn't have anything to do with the source. And the ivote you mention isn't about the source, either. It's about the edit Ubikwit made. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, my "complaint" is about opposing sourced edits for reasons not aligned with or supported by the polices, guidelines, and ideals of this project. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you go back and read all the content in the threads from which you've selectively chosen your diffs. If you show the true context, a very different picture appears. You will see that Ubikwit's edit was made without consensus, which violated the moderated discussion rules. Silk Tork allowed Ubikwit to revert himself rather than blocking him for violating the rules. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I read all the threads and version histories in the process of preparing my evidence and all I see is editors obstructing a correctly sourced edit. High quality content backed by high quality sources is the whole point of this project. If you don't think the content is accurate then find a high quality source that supports your reasoning. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to LGBT parenting, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Go to talk page and read those policies you are citing. You seem to not understand them. Cavann (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Details on how your edit violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CHERRY can be found here. (There was also some WP:POV pushing but I left it out per WP:AGF). Enjoy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not really leaving it out since you mentioned it here. I should mention the same thing and WP:BATTLE, given your edit history. You also seem to have an history of blanking and removing content Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_politics/Evidence Cavann (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I absolutely have a history of removing content not aligned with the policies and goals this project (like the racist bullshit preferred by the banned user you cite above) . Guilty as charged. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics closed
The suspended arbitration case regarding Race and politics has now closed in accordance with the motion for suspension and closure. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Apostle12 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to "race and politics", broadly construed.
 * 2) Apostle12 is directed to inform the Arbitration Committee if he returns to editing the English Wikipedia using any account.
 * 3) Apostle12 (and all of his accounts, if he has created one or more others at that time) may be indefinitely blocked by any uninvolved administrator if he violates these prohibitions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Join the talk page, try to find a consensus. dont randomly revert an edit that already has one
Please dont start this edit war stuff. Clearly your not in the talk section on the page. IF you going to do a revert, come and explain it. The Tumbleman (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Claiming consensus based on a ~72hr old thread that's buried in a huge talk page on a contentious topic is not a good plan. The revert is aligned with WP:BRD. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Started discussion
At talk:Human genetic variation. Alatari (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've responded there. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Enumerated Powers Not Referenced
Your revert is vandalism. Discuss your changes on the talk pages, least we think you a shill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Necessary_and_Proper_Clause#Misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.117.86 (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent revert
What do you mean by your recent revert here to "see the talk page"? The changes aren't discussed in the talk page, the current discussion is about a different matter altogether, so what is your objection for the revert? As I see it, you reverted for no valid reason at all, except for the sake of stonewalling.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit reintroduced text that you've been trying to edit-war into the article for more than a month . It was not simply "Some corrections in the "Content" sub-section and the Infobox". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? The current version already states that: "Stormfront is notable for the white supremacist views of its members,[3] a characterization that is contested by Don Black as an inaccurate description" My edit basically imposes nothing new, and the talk is about including (a version of) that into the lead, that is in dispute, not the edit I just made. Next time try comprehending what the edits are about, instead of reversing something on impulse for no valid reason at all. Take this as a friendly advice, because the next time I will report such behaviour. Now, revert your wrongly made revert, or I will. And stop stalking my edits.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to bring your concerns to the article's talk page. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fst Criticism
Could you please explain how discussions involving race, genetics, Fst all together is not germane to the article? BlackHades (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who said that? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You did when you reverted my edit. BlackHades (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. What I said was, "upon review; little of this is germane to the section topic and some of it misrepresents the sources". Big difference. Huge. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay but the sources do specifically discuss race, genetics, Fst all together. Wouldn't you consider that relevant? I more than welcome changes in the text if you feel it can be more accurately represented to the sources. BlackHades (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Gun control
Hi. I'm off to bed. If you're going to do some more editing to that Gun Control article I'd really recommend going through those Small Arms Survey publications. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably only work on citations tonight but will defiantly read those publications. Thanks for the links. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Black's
Are you the guy who pointed out that I had used an old outdated version of Black's Law Dictionary a long time ago? I think it was at the abortion article. Your username looks familiar in that regard (I see comments above about that article). Anyway, I hope you're well, and enjoying the holidays. I look forward to working with you at the gun control article, but please be more specific about errors you think I've made. It makes response easier. Maybe you could use bold to highlight parts of the stuff I wrote, just as you used bold in the pieces of the sources that you quoted. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for the excerpt from Carter. Much appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anytime. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, hello.


 * Hi (sorry for the delay). Here's my free, and possibly worthless, advice: With nod towards WP:AVOIDYOU, you might consider depersonalizing this post. For example, something like,


 * When things get tense most people will react defensively to any statements they perceive as accusatory. Once this happens they will most likely discount, or completely ignore, the substance of your argument (i.e., communication breakdown). Avoiding the use of 'you' greatly reduces the odds that a statement will be perceived as accusatory, and increases the odds that effective communication will take place. At least that's my take on it. Enjoy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good advice. Although the trips to AN/I have at least served to publicise the problems with that article. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True, the AN/I discussion is what got my attention. Bit of a double edged sword that one. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC source analysis
Very nice. I didn't realise Bryant was actually qualified to talk about the subject. It's a very good argument for foregrounding Bryant ahead of any other authority on any section of any article where Halbrook's thesis is discussed. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . It is becoming more, and more apparent to me that most of the the references in that section are just red herrings, and are only included to obfuscate the fringe nature of Polsby, Kates, and Halbrook's argument. I agree with your suggestion on the use of Bryant. Maybe after the arbitration case that will become possible. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Ps. I changed your original link to a permalink (I will probably be moving/editing that page).
 * Further to your point about law reviews, it seems that as a group they are of dubious scholarly value and probably should not be assigned much weight in our coverage. I'm not a lawyer, so the low regard in which law reviews are held was surprising to me. In contrast to the medical and scientific literature, which is the primary means of communication among experts in those fields, it seems that "scholarly" legal writing is generally ignored, if not outright ridiculed and despised, by the relevant expert community . The New York Times wrote:
 * So if legal experts and the legal community attaches little or no value to these sources, why should we bother with them? MastCell Talk 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of them are pretty useless for our purposes. However, some that are highly cited, written by notable legal scholars (on topics the scholar is notable for), or those of historic significance can be useful on legal and related topics. made a comment concerning a specific article that I think is generally applicable: "The article is a reliable source for the proposition that at least one scholar has made the arguments contained in it&mdash;although if he's the only scholar to do so, spending much time on it might be undue weight."
 * See also:
 * Some examples of note:
 * And one of my personal favorites,
 * Some examples of note:
 * And one of my personal favorites,
 * And one of my personal favorites,
 * And one of my personal favorites,
 * And one of my personal favorites,
 * And one of my personal favorites,

 Still, the protection of society must come mainly through a recognition of the rights of the individual. Each man is responsible for his own acts and omissions only. If he condones what he reprobates, with a weapon at hand equal to his defence, he is responsible for the results. If he resists, public opinion will rally to his support. Has he then such a weapon? It is believed that the common law provides him with one, forged in the slow fire of the centuries, and to-day fitly tempered to his hand. —
 * Words of wisdom, Lloyd my man. Words of wisdom.(s) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Essentially, peer review occurs after publication rather than before, for most law review articles. The number of times that an article is cited by other law review articles is a fair indicator of its reliability, though some articles are about such narrow topics that even an excellent article is seldom cited. But if you go to Google Scolar, and look up a law review article there, you will probably see within the search result Google's count of citations to that article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But peer review that occurs after publication isn't actually peer review, in any currently accepted sense of the word. There have been some pilot experiments in this direction&mdash;most prominently PubMed Commons&mdash;but there remain a number of kinks to be worked out, and it's not clear how or whether the process will work in the long run. Regarding citations as a metric: if law reviews are generally accorded little or no weight within the expert legal community, then the number of times a review article is cited by other review articles within this generally ignored literature seems meaningless. It's like multiplying zeros. MastCell Talk 22:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you assume that recognition by student editors is the same as recognition by actual peers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, obviousness is a property of things obvious
Moved to this subsection by me. Subsection title by me. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC) A historian is a person who studies and writes about the past and is regarded as an authority on it. Reputable historians follow established historical methodologies. Like Herodotus, many reputable historians do not have a PhD in history, or may have a PhD. in a specific area of history and not another in which they later become expert. There have been great physicists without PhD's (Freeman Dyson springs to mind). I believe (but have not yet confirmed) that the following eminent historians do not have history degrees: Maybe time for a new wiki-category. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Robert Caro
 * Ron Chernow
 * William Durant
 * Shelby Foote
 * William Manchester
 * David McCullough
 * William Shirer
 * Barbara Tuchman
 * The need for this cat also seemed obvious: Category:Modern historians without non-honorary doctorates in history.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, one can tell immediately by the tortured, incomprehensible syntax that this category is a legitimate navigation aid and not a fundamentally silly effort to prove a point. MastCell Talk 04:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I never expect an assumption of good faith from you MastCell, and you never, ever fail to disappoint. I suppose this editor is also being disruptive to prove a point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. This editor didn't really care if you created the category or not.FiachraByrne (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's an interesting category. I invite anyone who disagrees to bring it to categories for deletion, and it can be discussed there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Outside the context of our interactions, the category stands and you could probably recruit quite a few journalists writing on aspects of modern history, people writing popular history, genealogist historians, a variety of local historians, historians of specific disciplines (medicine, etc), and, more occasionally, some very brilliant and original contributors. From within the context of our interactions, it appears to be a category created purely to advance a poorly reasoned point that doesn't actually address our concerns (or at least, my concerns) that a specific historical thesis should be regarded as fringe and treated accordingly on Wikipedia. However, this is probably not the appropriate site for such a discussion. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If that had been my intent, I would not have consulted with you beforehand. It was not my intent.  As you say, outside the context of our interactions, the category stands.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of which, a change to Category:Non-academic historians might be an improvement? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started a thread at BLPN, and you're invited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . I'm not sure if that forum is the most appropriate to discuss the merits of this novel and certainly unpointed category. I think it should be renamed to something a little less unwieldy and a little more readable. I think I'll send it to WP:CFD when I get the chance and suggest a change to Category:Untrained historians or Category:Non-academic historians. Anyway, I'm banning myself from Artifex's talk page for the next month or so after my abuse of their hospitality. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the light of past experiences,, it should be obvious as to why I share 's take on the obviousness of the matter. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I assume you have many such acorns squirreled away for the long winters here? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't squirrel away acorns like that. Maybe I need to get with the program before team-squirrel conquers the earth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really squirreled away; more like rooted out. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Artifex, years ago at the Abortion article, I quoted correctly the 1990 1979 edition of Black's Law Dictionary that was given to me as a gift. You then correctly pointed out the unusual fact that the definition had been substantially revised in a later edition.  That was fine for you to do, that's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.  I immediately looked up the new definition that you quoted, and then pointed out that you obviously misquoted the new entry in Black's, and you thanked me for the correction.  So far so good, we are human and make mistakes; that's what I did anyway.  And then... I get topic-banned for it, even though I repeatedly and vainly objected that the accuser was exceeding evidence limits (which I had already reached), and denied the accusation as nonsense, as it was (there was another accusation to which you have not referred and which I will not address here).
 * If you ask me, the whole episode was typical of how the hierarchy here discriminates against users who support content that they don't like. And now I see from your comment above that you were and are perfectly happy with it.  Thanks for clarifying.  You can go ahead and delete this comment now, or keep it, as you wish.  I will never be apologizing for an innocent mistake and the subsequent travesty at ArbCom.  If you're lucky, Arbcom will deem the present comment sufficiently disrespectful and unrepentant to ban me some more.  Good luck with that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your version of events is bullshit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all in the edit histories for anyone who wants to look.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did look back, and got as far as trying to verify your first assertion. You in fact cited the 1979 edition of Black's, not the 1990 edition. MastCell Talk 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That could well be. It's been years since the ArbCom case.  I received the dictionary as a going-away gift in 1990.  So I am glad to confess to that trivial error here at this talk page, and have crossed out the error above.  I'm not sure when the definition in Black's changed, but it seems to have still been valid in 2000.  I'm glad that the "1990" date was the only flaw identified in my version of events provided above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The 1990 date is not the only flaw in your version of events. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am torn between inviting you to elaborate, and saying "bullshit".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll elaborate tomorrow — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 12. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow came and went a long time ago Artifex. I know that I behaved entirely in good faith, and am very tired of waiting for you to explain why you insist otherwise.  I am removing this page from my watchlist, and you can always ping me if you want. Character assassination is not a very nice thing, and I urge you to take greater care to avoid even that appearance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my life got in the way. I'll try not to let it happen again. Have real fine day. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You made about ninety-five edits during that time, but whatever. You can just ping me if and when you get around to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control evidence
Please be aware of the following: Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, AM, can you please either move this sub-page to become a subpage of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence or cut and paste it into the section for your evidence on /Evidence page (and then collapse it) to comply with current procedure. Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 13:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do so shortly. Would you prefer a sub-page or collapsed? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is for collapsed. The subpage can then be deleted (which I can do once the content's moved).  Roger Davies  talk 14:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you want any of the subpages of that subpage moved? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, but if you've finshed with them, they can be deleted.  Roger Davies  talk 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am done with them. But, am I right in assuming that the entire sub-tree will be deleted when you delete the top most page? And that you and the rest of the committee will still be able to view them should you need to? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry for the pinging, but I figured your watchlist might be a bit on the large side.
 * Pinging is good. Yes, they can be viewed later if necessary,  Roger Davies  talk 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Before somebody thinks I'm keeping evidential sub-pages in violation of policy, I wanted to let you know about the existence of this and this. They exist because the source review evidence I presented is based on work from those pages—work that I started December 19th and finished December 30th (after running it past another editor, it was decided that I should hold off on posting it to the talk page). Please advise if any action needs to taken. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll vape those too. Let me know when you're done.   Roger Davies  talk 06:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cleared them both. Vape at will.
 * Regarding a comment you made earlier; Given the fact that the article as not changed in any appreciable way since the edit Gaijin42 made approximately five minutes before he filed the request for arbitration—Should I post a review of the current sources? (same basic format i.e., information only, no commentary) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't advise you on what evidence to post but at this stage it might not be necessary and filing at this point might try people's patience. Reviews sometimes take place at the /Workshop.  Roger Davies  talk 10:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done the main ones. For further housekeeping of the sub-sub-stuff, you can just tag them with the deletion template and an admin will be along to clean up in due course,  Roger Davies  talk 10:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur on the patience thing, Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
Artifexmayhem -- you have my sincerest apologies with respect to the attribution of a statement to you which you very obviously did not make. It was not you who made that statement -- it was Fiachabyrne -- I added the link to my evidence page. I was working fast and from memory to try to get content in there before the deadline but in fairness to you I went and double checked and discovered that my memory is not unflawed. These kinds of mistakes are common when subjected to very tight timelines but taking time to double check is important. I made the correction before I read your post. So, again you have my apologies -- I fixed the record and I apologize. These kinds of misunderstandings sometimes happen but I will work to minimize them -Justanonymous (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies from me as well, I was not meaning to imply nefarious purposes, but just to call out that the text was not in the version on the evidence page. However, I do see how it can easily be read in that way, so I apologize for the implication. Although I disagree with you on several (many?) points throughout the discussions we have had, I do respect your work as an editor, and particularly the quality of research and coherence of your arguments. (the complaint about late evidence notwithstanding). Your arguments are the epitome of WP:CIVIL and if more editors (perhaps including myself) followed that pattern working on these controversial topics would be much better. If you would like, I would be happy to strike or delete the offending comment (but will not do so preemptively as it would make your reply seem odd) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Accepted. I will strike my last sentence. However, I suggest you reevaluate the other content in the collapsed section of your post and modify anything that could lead to similar misunderstandings (you'll probably want to do so before I get around to posting my evaluation of said content). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have just gotten home and have to take cared my baby for a few hours. could you give me some delay before replying? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. No rush. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks. I have struck the offending comment from my comment, as well as adding a clarifying statement saying that I was not intending to use the opposers comments as proxy !votes, but merely to show that the arguments between the GC article and GPitUS articles may not be the same. Obviously we do not agree on many issues, but I appreciate the courtesy of the delay and opportunity to respond, and also your collegial attitude to the dispute. As an aside, did you see my comment on Drmies page replying to your quotes?Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And apologies from me as well, for not being all that smart. I just read your contribution to the Evidence page and am very impressed by the analysis, and I learned something about law journals. I'm still trying to figure out if I fully understand the point you were making on my talk page--good thing I'm in English, where we can play fast and loose and no one dies. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it Judicial Supremacy or wife beating you're stuck on? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

AE
FYI, I am reporting you at AE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmct (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also reporting you to arbitration for your wholesale removal of carefully cited text on the Dr. Amen page
Here: #Request for arbitration re inappropriate editing of leads on Daniel Amen article

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead I am starting with mediation, I have named you as a party in this case. Here is the link to the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Daniel_Amen You might al;so want to check your Wikipedia related email.


 * Thanks,


 * Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If the subject is not a neurologist, and he is not, then the removal of "a neurologist" from the article is best done wholesale (if not violently). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision
Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

Arbitration clarification request(Gun control :Gaijin42)
An arbitration amendment request(Gun control :Gaijin42), which either involved you, or in which you commented, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

White privilege
I see you edited the note in the lead of White privilege. There's currently a discussion about the wording of the lead on the talk page that I thought you might be interested in joining. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I see the sock drawer is becoming a bit threadbare recently.
It is risible to describe people like you and like me as "anti-white," but that's the kind of reality-distortion field that seems to surround the sock drawer. Keep up the good work. I'm enjoying reading deeply in many of the better sources about the topics of articles that are in common between your watchlist and mine. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

rebuking
Hey, so I thought that was a good point you made on the Sept 11 talk page about "rebuking". Maybe "dedicated to disproving..." would work better? To me, debunking brings to mind the whole 'truther/debunker' dichotomy and because of that I don't think it sounds very encyclopedic. Also, did you get a chance pre-RfC to see what I suggested about the "prevailing theory" line? The conversation got closed real fast, so not sure if you did. Anyways, I thought that labeling it as (and providing a wikilink to) scientific theory would clarify for readers that 'theory' is being used in a different context than conspiracy. Thoughts? Smitty121981 (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing two or three words will not bring the proposed text in line with our guidelines on fringe theories, or our policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. The reasons for this should be made clear by my comments on the article talk page. However, if you would like a more detailed explanation please feel free to ask. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I understand. I am still in the process of gathering more sources in response to comments like yours. If this can be done, hopefully we can fine-tune the language to peoples' liking? Have you seen the new C-SPAN clip? I think it directly addresses your comment about the coverage. Smitty121981 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

inviting editors for comment?
Hey ArtifexMayhem, I saw your comment on the talk page. Am I out of line inviting editors? I've invited many editors to the RfC (as I thought I was supposed to do according to the RfC page) because I was looking for constructive feedback. For example, this editor is certainly no fan of mine but I invited them anyways. Also, I picked half a dozen editors randomly from the Feedback Request Service, but none of them have replied yet as far as I know. Is there something inappropriate about inviting editors to the RfC, or something inappropriate about the way I did it? I seriously tried really hard to make the request neutral. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Inviting known pov pushers will always be seen as questionable. "Inviting" was redundant. Your behavior is looking more and more like a perfect example of civil POV pushing. Be advised, our social policies are not a suicide pact. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I did not understand that the editor was a "known pov pusher", I would not have invited them had I known that. My other "redundant" request was made honestly, and was actually the second time I have asked that editor for comment, because I value their advice. Just like yourself! I asked your opinion above, because you give good thoughtful comments (like what you just now posted about the word 'theory'). I'm really sorry that some editors think my politeness is insincere - I am just trying to be respectful of the fact that I know everyone cares a lot about the article and I am taking a very unpopular position by challenging consensus. Also, I guess I'm dumb but I don't understand that suicide pact page? Smitty121981 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please ignore Artifex's accusations, he and his compatriots like to throw out phrases like "known pov pusher" because it is a whole lot easier than defending their own POV-pushing.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

a new edit
hey ArtifexMayhem, just wanted to let you know that I totally rewrote the second sentence in the proposed text at the RfC. No more mention of "professionals", no more "scientific theory", no more JEM papers... I did also add a bit about the fact that they contradict the existing investigations. In my opinion this revision, along with the Falk book and 9/11 Encyclopedia, covers most of your concerns. If you don't mind, could you swing by there and see what you think? Thanks Smitty121981 (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey again, not trying to bother you, but I saw you stopped by the RfC... did you have any thoughts on the new wording and sourcing? It still may not be good enough for you, but it's at least an improvement, right? I certainly took your criticisms seriously, it would be nice to see what you think now. Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Apology on ABC?
FYI, I've apologized to Mastcell. I've reviewed the ABC talk pages, while I believe we have been good with each other... as another long time contributor to the article if you feel I should do the same I'm willing. Regards, RoyBoy 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King v. Burwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic. 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) 09:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got it all wrong
A baby seal walks into a bar, the bartender says "What'll you have?" The baby seal says "Anything but a Canadian Club on the rocks." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL. Damn you. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We live to serve. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun legislation in Germany
Just a quick clarification, were you referring to the re-addition of the subsection, the world, or both, in your reversion? I was just restoring what was there previously so a discussion could take place. Part of it already has a discussion. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just the subsection. I have not looked into the other claim. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I restored "the world" part of the edit. There used to be three subsections, I was simply restoring that too. I've had another look at it, and expressed that I am not proceeding with restoring the third section at this time. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

GM food RfC
Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss
Talk:Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy Could you explain why you re-inserted demonstrably false material? Reverts must be supported with reasoning. Zhang500 (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The burden is really on you, Zhang500, to explain why you think the reliably sourced material you are deleting from the stable version of the article is "demonstrably false". In other words, I think the edit by ArtifexMayhem reflects the best current, published, reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What, exactly, is demonstrably false in said material? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Discussion should be on article talk page. This section copied and continued. Zhang500 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI
As I head into retirement, thought I'd pass along what I was working on when I pulled the plug. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You will be sorely missed - especially on the CC articles. I hope your retirement proves to be temporary and brief. Good luck with the home repairs (had to replace all the sewage lines under my house a few years ago...not fun). All the best. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement request
ArtifexMayhem, I've filed a request for enforcement of discretionary sanctions at AE involving the dispute at Race and Genetics that involved you. Wajajad (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DS at GMO articles
Just so you're aware. Be especially mindful of edit warring sanctions such as 1RR now that you're aware. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I was actually considering placing the Ds alert here myself. You've me the trouble of finding the template :) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll also point out that I'm usually pretty across the board on posting edit warring notices for all involved unless certain editors are the main issue. In this case though, the others are edit warring in content that already didn't have consensus on the talk page. So close after the close of the case, I don't imagine people at WP:AE will have much patience for anyone involved if it goes there, so still best to be really wary about any edit at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and FYI as I mentioned your edit (a bit off topic given the section title), but the source is actually a secondary sources since it's a review article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. I should be able to respond there shortly. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Paper Abortion
Hey, are you going to chip in? Articles_for_deletion/Paper_Abortion

Triacylglyceride (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)