User talk:ArtifexMayhem

Welcome!

Hello, ArtifexMayhem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Links and stuff

• AbortIpLog
• Sources

Abortion

Aristotle? Well, that's got to be the least controversial edit ever done to the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I figured I should put something down before I ripped out that unsourced, factually wrong, Hippocratic Oath bit of fucking insane propaganda and replaced it with reality. That will be more interesting :) Nice Marlin karma btw. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just coming here to thank you for catching that one.

Meanwhile, there's a bit of Leviticus or Deuteronomy that says, roughly, that if you beat a woman to death, you shall be put to death. (That happens a lot in those books.) However, if you beat her just enough that she has a miscarriage, you just have to give her husband some money. So much for the value of fetuses. I'll try to find some non-OR way to work it in after the forthcoming Hippocrates brouhaha. PhGustaf (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I also like this bit...."In the 20th century the Soviet Union (1919), Iceland (1935) and Sweden (1938)....legalize certain or all forms of abortion. In 1935 Nazi Germany..."

Can you find the two red herrings? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Poking around, I see that Judaism and abortion already quotes Exodus 21:22-23. Not sure whether that would fit in the top article, but I'll think about it. PhGustaf (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard : Abortion lead sentence - straw poll consensus

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - RoyBoy 22:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A shiney red apple for your gallant white steed

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)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there ArtifexMayhem, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:ArtifexMayhem. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

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.

  — Jess· Δ♥ 21:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Article you requested from NW is available free online

Hello ArtifexMayhem. You asked NuclearWarfare about getting PMID 8712194, 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)

Hi EdJohnston. I found them. Thank you for noticing my request and making such a friendly offer. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Quiltedart (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello wife. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hola. Quiltedart (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

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 November 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.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Smarty boots?

I don't wear boots. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to a currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Roe quote

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.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I get your point. What are you proposing? Sorry for the delay...insanity rules on my end. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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"). MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 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)

In some circumstances. However, "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", and is "many encyclopedias to many people, and that is one of its greatest strengths: it is a general encyclopedia, but it is also many specialist encyclopedias. Any conflicts arising through Wikipedia's multi-faceted nature should be resolved in such a way that Wikipedia remains a useful resource for all the different segments of its readership" (an excellent essay on an entirely different topic). NW (Talk) 20:02, 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)

Agreed.

Isn't it so easy to agree on the principles but to disagree so much on the specifics? NW (Talk) 01:18, 21 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)

Could you give me a little time to complete my edits!DMSBel (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

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)

FYI

Zenkai now @ ANI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks and --

Thanks for the cherry pie, my absolute favorite.

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)

Building 7 article

I would like to have your input in talk page sections here and here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

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:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• 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.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Followup requested.

Hi ArtifexMayhem, thank you for your input at Talk:Atheism#A_little_clarity - when you have time could you please give me your thoughts on my response? TIA! un☯mi 08:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, got side-tracked. Sure. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments as well as offered an edit which, to me, makes steps in the right direction. un☯mi 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Atheism". Thank you. --un☯mi 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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?

Thank you for your time,

Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

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, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token ee40abf1f475388fd9960e7457dd8b61

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

January 2012

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Oxford English Dictionary definition". Thank you. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: In case you need a little inspiration.

Brilliant choice of quotes, and much appreciated :) Wishing you a super week. --— Pretzels ^Hii! 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark FAC

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. — Richwales 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, will do. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution as fact and theory

Hi-- I've added a few comments to the talkpage for this article, and invite you to take a look. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:30, 8 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)

Edit-warring report on NYyankies51

As one of the editors involved, you may want to comment: [[3]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey ArtifexMayhem. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there cowboy...

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)

Oh my. I'd purged my watchlist of those articles for some reason.....Thanks for the poke:) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Gold standard

Please respond on the Gold Standard page. Your misunderstanding of wiki policy is causing problems there.71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 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)

Still waiting for you to tell me what I "synthesized"!71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:01, 8 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)

In a nutshell; No. I'll expand on this at the article talk page. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:38, 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)

Sorry. I've been a bit busy but will give a complete reply in the next day or so. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:53, 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)

Still waiting for your response!71.174.135.204 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss this? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:04, 15 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_sources 71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)