This is an archive of past discussions with User:ArtifexMayhem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It was quite a surprise to see you ride in on your beautiful white horse Tonto. Our new Wikipedia member doesn't give a rats ass about improving the Wikipedia chemicals section. He is here for one reason only and that is to erase any mention of this incident. That Wikipedia should allow the EPA to set up an account wherein the EPA can recruit established members to carry out the edits they suggest since it may be seen as COI on their part, what the hell? If the EPA is going to stoop to that tactic, what's to stop them from suggesting to employees to join up as well, read their to-do list, and edit away... Sucks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the apple :) Hehe. They will back off when they figure out what Wikipedia is about and how it works (for better or worse). Are you familiar with the hows and whys of the EPA and/or how civilian agencies generally function in the US? If not let me know and I'll try, briefly, explaining the beast. You might find these EPA policy guidlines worth a once over Guidance:Representing EPA Online Using Social Media. Tasty apple :) -- ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; it is interesting and informative. I'm not sure what you mean when you ask if I'm familiar with the hows and whys of the EPA and/or how civilian agencies generally function in the US. I'd like to hear your viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A carrot for Tonto and a nice shot of whiskey for you. You saved the day. I was furious! I was typing away at a long rant and then as I went to post I saw your note. That will do just fine. BTW, my horse's name is Trigger and I'm beginning to think that James is a horse's ass. :) Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you saw my post first. I could hear the steam whistling out of your ears.
He has now used his one free clue. We'll see if he gets it. Rats. While I was typing Tonto drank my whiskey. Guess I'll breakout the Tequila. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Tonto drank your whiskey because you ate his apple. Anyway, someone split two sections of an article I watch ( High-fructose corn syrup ) to their own articles with the reason that the article was getting too long. It was not long at all and I believe that he just wanted to hide the parts he didn't like. Do you know how one counts the length and what is considered too long? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I added a little to my Granite article that you may enjoy about the Granite cemetery. I also mentioned the three wilderness areas that surround Granite. Did you do your hiking in the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness? If you did, and you read on that page about the cabins on Pine Creek? I lived in one of those cabins. That article also mentions a horse corral - that is where Dave Jardine lived (now buried in the Granite Cemetery) and he really was eaten by his dogs - he kept his dogs in that corral. Anyway, do you have any photos from your hiking trips? I have photos of historical Granite and some old ones of my own; I have tried for hours on end to enter them at the Commons but have not been able to figure out how to do it. Also, have you looked at "Colorado Guy"s photos that I have linked to at my article? They are good! At first he agreed to let me use them and then later, without saying why, changed his mind. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, ArtifexMayhem. You have new messages at Mann jess's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Article you requested from NW is available free online
Hello ArtifexMayhem. You asked NuclearWarfare about getting PMID8712194, Daling et al. 1996. It says at the bottom of the Pubmed abstract that full text is free online. I can send it to you if you can't access it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by February 7, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Hehe. I'm currently doing a solo drive from Las Vegas to Dallas and for some reason boots came to mind. Odd. Reminds me...Would you mind having a look at the last few edits on Hugo Black and let me know if I'm out of bounds?Night cap? No thank you. I don't wear them. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course, definitions can change, consensus can change, et cetera, but this quote from Roe v. Wade seems pertinent:
If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother....For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
No problem. I just thought you'd be interested in the quote. My understanding is that the top two obstetrics textbooks are (1) Textbook of Obstetrics by Dutta, and (2) Holland and Brews' Manual of Obstetrics. Neither has been mentioned in the huge discussion about the first sentence, so I'll try to get a look at them soon. Anyway, cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I do enjoy reading the Roe opinion (unrelated but a good read is US v. New York Times). I'll see if I have the other texts. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose the question of which obstetrics textbooks are "leading" is inherently subjective. Personally, I would favor Normal and Problem Pregnancies, which (as the New England Journal of Medicine observed) "became the bible of obstetrics almost overnight" after its introduction. That textbook contains a lengthy section on abortion, although it's framed almost entirely in terms of the U.S. legal and political system (for example, it deals extensively with the politics of "partial-birth abortion"). MastCellTalk17:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There goes another $135 (suppose I should grab a used one). I hope Jimbo doesn't mind I've spent my WikiMedia donation on research mats:) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Legal and medical jargon aside, general dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary seem authoritative for a general-purpose encyclopedia for lay people (which is what Wikipedia purports to be).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. We should incorporate both generalized and then specialized, instead of just specialized. But if you believe that specialized should be prioritized over general, I disagree with that. And if the specialized stuff is not uniform between specialties, or even within specialties, then it cannot hurt for Wikipedia to very briefly say so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you also agree that WP:NOT says titles should reflect common usage? What kind of ass-backwards article starts with a common-usage title, and then in its first sentence begins with a narrower technical definition that contradicts the common usage of the title? Tell me that, please, Mr. Warfare.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[1]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, on that same u.s. constitution page, the headers are all now pretty short. Is is possible to force the auto Table of Contents into two equal columns, so it is safe to uncover the next level without breaking the article with a 1-2 screen blank gap? If not, somewhere in my wiki surfing, I saw a %TOC% coding, but no elaboration as to the possibility of breaking it into columns, so I skipped on, and now, I can't re-find it either in my files or retracing my searches. thanks for any help. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
edit References to Pseudoscience Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes
Query to the Scientific Community:
To the Directors of Physics Departments,
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"
1) Is this science or pathological science?
2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.
3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?
4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?
ArtifexMayhem,
P>S>
1) Any suggestions before I move forward with this?
2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?
Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, StevenZhangJoin the DR army!04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You commented on United States v. Wong Kim Ark a few weeks ago, and I wanted to be sure you were aware that this article is still being considered for possible Featured Article promotion (see here for the FAC page). The article has also undergone a lot of new work (in response to comments at the FAC) since you commented on it in mid-December. A few people have participated in the FAC process so far, but more would be helpful. If you have the time and interest, perhaps you could take another good look at the article now, and then comment on (and possibly support or oppose) its FA candidacy. Thanks. — Richwales03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi ArtifexMayhem - please re-read my post carefully and put your prejudice aside. I am philosophically literate and a practicing scientist. I have no problem with the statement that evolution explains factual causal relations in nature or that ‘descent with modification’ has withstood repeated attempts of refutation by way of testing. However, it is incorrect to state that evolution is a singular fact and it does a disservice to call it as such. There is the historical narrative of evolution, which is one of the five theories that are contained in Darwin's Origin, which could be called a fact and is what Gould referred too. However, there are the four nomological-deductive theories that are not facts. As Gould states, facts and theories are different things. You will note that I am using recent literature on this topic and if you read through the work by Kirk Fithugh[2] who is a curator at the Museum of Natural History in LA and has written more extensively on the philosophy of evolution than anyone I know - he has made a stunning revelation on the abductive nature of evolutionary theory. I am asking that you take a second look at what I wrote and not to discount what I am saying in that page. As Milkunderwood (above) will attest "I see you've been doing a lot of excellent work on this article." I've been a serious contributor to the main evolution article for a number of years and wrote the ecology page from top to bottom. Hence, I am a serious scientific contributor and I am a serious scientist in real life as I run a genetics facility at the University of Northern British Columbia where I work with other professors on these very topics and teach courses on evolutionary phylogenetics.Thompsma (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Howdy. I've been a little disgruntled of late and you may be too...or maybe not. The situation surrounding the Gunfight at O.K. Corral [4] has been a little intense of late. It seems that James has picked up another disgruntled Wikipedian in the form of an anon (nutcase and now banned) stalker. My good name, and yours too, have been grouped as part of a "small band", apparently including the stalker, of editors that use 'talk page rather extensively as a platform for their personal views on the subject [and] They also make what I interpret as digs about my employment instead of focusing on building consensus to improve the article with reliable, secondary sources".
So of course James is disgruntled too, saying that you made an "inferred" threat to him as well:
...I was disturbed by this comment from 8 February 2012 because it infers a threat against my employment status if I continue to edit the clothianidin page. A similar inferred threat was made on the talk page of a clothianidin editor on 29 June 2011. But do not threaten people is one of several behaviors that are considered unacceptable, and I believe inferred threats are as disruptive to Wikipedia as direct ones.[5].
You may be happy to just let sleeping dogs lie, but you may have some interest... Hope that all is well and that all of your trails have been happy ones! (How was your Dallas trip?) Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please respond to questions made to you on the gold standard article and please do so clearly. I am interested in knowing what this "whole thing" that I supposedly synthesized is.71.174.135.204 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
To sum up your position on the gold standard, votes taken to strip the power to print paper money from the Federal Government and affirmed by the US Supreme Court for almost 100 years, until Grant packed that court with paper money supporters has absolutely nothing to do with why the US was on a gold and silver standard until that packed court reversed almost 100 years of prior rulings. Is this a good summary of your position?71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Your comment amounted to a charge of SYNTH for material already appearing in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases Why is it SYNTH, OR, a bad source, fringe or whatever your next objection will be, when it is ALREADY on a wiki article?
Let me put it you is simple words, What exactly is your problem with a historical document, hosted by Yale Law School, written by James Madison (later President James Madison)while acting as the official recorder of the Constitutional Convention and which document has been cited by the US Supreme Court as the official record of that Convention? and further used as a reference in another wiki article on a similar topic?71.174.135.204 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
In other words you have no ready answer as to why historical documents, copies of which are located at Yale Law School, written by James Madison, later President James Madison, and considered by EVERYONE, including the US Supreme Court, to be the official record of the US Constitutional Convention, can't be used on the gold standard article. Why am I not surprised!71.174.135.204 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I have a ready answer for all of your bullshit. However, my refutations of the afore mentioned bullshit require, like everything else Wikipedia, proper sources. Unfortunately, for you, I simply have not had the time to type things out. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
So now historical documents, copies of which are located at Yale Law School, written by James Madison, later President James Madison, and considered by EVERYONE, including the US Supreme Court, to be the official record of the US Constitutional Convention, are bullshit. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Your response is sadly lacking, the core issue BEING wiki policy on the use of primary sources and this core issue has not been addressed. I believe the reason is that you have no response and are avoiding the issue. The issue being can or cannot a lay person without special knowledge, confirm that the material added is backed by the cites. You specifically and on numerous occasion objection to the material on the ground that the cites were primary documents. Try to address this core concern. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gold_standard#primary_sources71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Grant and Legal Tender Cases
I noticed that you did not delete the reference to Grant nominating two pro-paper money justices who later voted in favor of a legal tender greenback. Seems that you can't ignore SOME historical facts.
I have responded to the two issues you state "cannot be confirmed by a lay person" namely the authorship of Federalist 44, and the purpose of the vote recorded by Madison which stripped/removed/deleted language allowing the Federal Government to print "bills of credit". Not sure what your issue is with the second since you have previously admitted that what was called issuing bills of credit back then is called printing paper money today. Please respond. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
With you pointing out the opinion of Justice Bradley on the gold standards page, I noticed that both Strong and Bradley were the two justices added by Grant after the Supreme Court declared the greenback unconstitutional. In street talk I can only say "The fix is in". Most of the senior judges upheld the ideals of the Constitutional Convention and wrote "individual" dissents stating so.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Wait... do you mean to suggest that a change in the Supreme Court's composition led to a change in its interpretation of the Constitution?!?! Or that a President appointed Justices who shared his outlook on constitutional law? Stop the presses! MastCellTalk18:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"Grant packed the Court! Only gold is money!" This ad brought to you by Gold Bugs, Inc. Creators of rallying cries since 1870 (see the last quote block under item five here). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well BOTH! Didn't the same happen in Roe versus Wade where the composition change over the years led to a reinterpretation of abortion and woman's rights? Weren't those judges who ruled on Roe v Wade "nominated" by the President. The president "nominates" the Congress "confirms". I run across any number of articles pointing out that the composition of the court in many cases determines the outcome. I've also run across any number of articles where liberals and conservatives both want a new justice for their side in order to legalize some previously never used power. To put it simply "different people have different opinions" and that holds true even for Supreme Court justices.
Mastcell - you should read up on the legal principle of original intent. The early Supreme Court justices were all for it, while modern judges tend to follow Bork who famously (or infamously) stated that ""this Nation has grown up in ways that do not comport with the intentions of the people who wrote the Constitution -- the commerce clause is one example -- and it is simply too late to go back and tear that up. I cite to you the legal tender cases. These are extreme examples admittedly. Scholarship suggests that the Framers intended to prohibit paper money. Any judge who thought today he would go back to the original intent really ought to be accompanied by a guardian rather than be sitting on a bench."71.174.135.204 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and institutions... but I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regime of their barbarous ancestors.
So if you believe in "original intent", then you need to recognize that the original intent of the Founders was for Constitutional interpretation to change and evolve with the times. MastCellTalk20:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Please respond to question on gold page
Did or did not Madison from the content of his notes understand that the vote passed 9-2, was to cut off any pretext for a paper currency and making the same a tender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your tireless work defending Wikipedia from those who would misuse it for dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional reasons. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and for bonus points, the parent article neuro-linguistic programming contains at least one immediately obvious blatant copyright violation (removed here), which has apparently stood in the article for quite some time. One can only imagine what a deeper review would reveal. MastCellTalk18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The two POV forks should probably have been swept up in this mass AfD, which I notice actually cleared out quite a bit of the walled garden. For now I think a redirect is fine in lieu of deletion; if there is in fact anything remotely salvageable in the POV forks, it can be retrieved since the article histories will still exist.
No disrespect meant. I was looking at WP:RfC. I was drawn here by the prior edits, and I left the rather new editor involved in those some suggestions to maybe make his edits more acceptable. Happy editing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'd like to draw your attention to the last paragraph of my latest response. Also, I'm not sure whether RfC or DRN would be more appropriate (I've never actually escalated before). Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I could also do without the WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude in that topic space. Not fun. If some reasonable discussion is not forthcoming I'll file a case at WP:DRN. Hopefully it won't come to that, but we shall see. Regardless, thanks for your calm responses and well reasoned input. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Artifex: This is a content dispute; DRN is really only good for behavioral disputes. The Banner: I suggest that if you cease calling everyone else POV and their suggestions "unhelpful" and stop blind reverting every single attempted phrasing, we might actually be able to improve the article. It is a pity you act like you OWN the darn thing. I suspect you could make some real improvements if you weren't so hidebound about having it exactly your way. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?22:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Editing Scientific Racism
Editing Scientific Racism
It seems deletion was your preference as opposed to marking citation needed. I've reedited and provided a citation discussing Gould's accusation of Samuel Morton as having manipulated data according to his racist bias (consciously or subconsciously).
If you feel you need to edit my addition further and don't provide a legitimate reason as to why, I will have to report you for a violation of the rules regarding the editing of articles.
There are no positions advocated in my edit. There is simply a balance of the opposing sides, both well sourced. I will continue to edit this article in other places in the future as well as I see it as a strongly bias article on a subject that is nowhere near resolved scientifically.
In the meantime, I think I will tag the questionable objectivity of this article.
I noticed that you reverted my edit to this entry. My understanding, and please feel free to correct me if I am misinformed, is that a citation is placed directly at the end of a sentence in which a disputed contention is made. Are the citations in this case placed at the end of the paragraph due to the fact that multiple claims are being sourced at once? Thank you (67.234.149.217 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC))
Typically citations are placed at the end of the sentence or paragraph that they support. However they are not preferred in the article lead section (see WP:LEAD). Regardless, the text in question is well supported by several sources given in the last paragraph of the lead. (As I have not edited the Tony Robbins entry, I'm assuming your question concerns this edit to the NLP entry.) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
LGBT Parenting
The two people that commented on the Marks article (near the bottom) on the talk page were agreeable to put it in. Please justify how you feel on there if you want it not included. 128.187.97.18 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I would ask that you avoid making these kindsof comments about the recently-deceased. There is absolutely no reason to speak so ill of the dead and essentially spit on their graves so soon after they have passed. You may disagree with the views they held, but making such comments is pointless and not conducive to maintaining a collaborative environment in our efforts to build an encyclopedia.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Well they are both currently dead and were both scientific racists and psuedoscientists so you'll pardon me if I'm not terribly concerned. Say hi to Occam for me. Have a real fine day. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
111.161.30.218
The edits of this open proxy using UK English seem to be far more typical of the trolling style of Echigo mole. I have reported the IP at WikiProject Open Proxies. The trolling edit should probably be removed from User talk:BlackHades: once removed it cannot be restored because of the arbcom motion about banned users. (Echigo mole seems to have deliberately confused Guettarda and Dougweller.) Mathsci (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the very helpful comments on the Race and genetics talk page.
Hi, ArtifexMayhem,
I have been rather quiescent in editing for a while, mainly just wiki-gnoming articles I happen to look up for my own personal research, but I see you have been making good contributions to some of the more controversial articles here. I invite you to look at User:WeijiBaikeBianji/AnthropologyHumanBiologyRaceCitations for references to reliable sources for updating articles on topics related to the article where I saw your helpful talk page comments. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In 2008 Arata's cold fusion contraption was peer reviewed and replicated. We have no reliable sources that question these results. If you want to reduce this to something hypothetical you need to provide sources for that theory as well. If you can provide a citation that considers Arata's contraption hypothetical that would have to be attributed to the source as well.
It seems nobody has notified you of the discretionary sanctions in the race and intelligence topic yet, so I'm notifying you of them now. If you continue blanking every section that you think has a problem and making no effort to improve any of them, you probably will be reported at AE eventually. Akuri (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you even bother reading talk or looking through any of the sources I listed? Please explain how it is WP:OR as the chart is directly from the source itself. Similar charts and similar data exists in countless other secondary sources as I've clearly shown. Please stop your edit warring to remove chart which is supported by WP:reliable sources. BlackHades (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
There are other reliable sources that specifically refer to these exact same population groups as "races". Would you then have no objection if I simply replaced this chart with a nearly identical chart from another reliable source that calls these population groups "races"? How about if we replaced the chart with one of the other related charts in the other sources I listed? I'd argue removing relevant content on the flimsiest of reasons in pursuit of a specific POV would not be in the best interests of this project. BlackHades (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Content not supported by sources is never relevant to this project. I'll respond to article questions on the article talk page. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You aren't listed as a party in the race and politics case, so the drafting arbitrator (AGK) said I should let you know I intend to present evidence about you there. The discussion is here. [11]Akuri (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Akuri has now been indefinitely blocked by NuclearWarfare. I have requested that his evidence be removed and that your name be removed as a party. Mathsci (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
How do we avoid this in the future?
So things seem to be wrapping up with arbcom. I wanted to solicit your opinion on how I could have handled this differently, and on what additional mechanisms might have made this easier for the community to deal with? I feel like I had to really expend a lot more effort than I should have just to get folks to review the edit history. I also feel like there might be alternative mechanisms that can be called in when a content dispute becomes more obviously about behavior. I don't know that there is an easy separation between the two, much of the time. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _17:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any easy way to stay out of trouble when some people come to the project with agendas other than building a well sourced encyclopedia. All you can do about that is do your own edits as well as possible, sticking to the reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It also appears that I was reading the majority reference wrong, and the decision is still in question. apologies for jumping the gun. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _21:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
For me checking sources is key. POV pushers will always manipulate sources to support their pov (e.g., my evidence). Obviously finding and challenging those manipulations is a lot of work, but I don't know what else could be done. Unfortunately WeijiBaikeBianji is right – there is no "easy" way to deal with disruptive editors. We muddle through. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This will be my last submission. I have decided to place a "Retired" notice on my user page and scramble my password, thus tendering my resignation
Apostle12's conduct was a substantial part of the present arbitration case (Race and politics) and hearing this case in Apostle12's absence would serve no purpose. The committee therefore resolves that:
The present arbitration case is suspended for two months (from the date this motion passes).
If Apostle12 returns while this case is suspended, arbitration proceedings will resume.
If Apostle12 does not return to editing before two months have elapsed: he will be indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to "race and politics", broadly construed; and this case will be un-suspended and closed.
Apostle12 is directed to inform the Arbitration Committee if he returns to editing the English Wikipedia using any account.
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 the prohibitions in points 3 or 4 of this motion.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Race and genetics".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk20:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to encourage you to joining the conversation at WP:DRN. I don't want some voices to end up dominating the discussion or for anyone to feel that their input is not valued. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
