User talk:Michael C Price

Welcome!

Hello, Michael C Price, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

You did very nice edits on Many-worlds interpretation! Welcome to wikipedia! --DenisDiderot 10:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DD -- glad you liked it. Thanks for the links. I'll probably confine myself straightforward textural edits for the near future whilst I get the hang of the metatools.--Michael C Price 12:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ebionites mediation

The Ebionites mediation has begun. Please make your opening statement at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is going on in mediation? For over 10 months now, this dispute has been about WP:RS, and WP:V, and WP:FR, about Eisenman and Tabor as sources, and about content that just has to be removed from the article. Now it seems, there is a dispute about how many groups of Ebionites there really were and their WP:NAMEs. Am I dreaming? A dispute implies two or more parties that disagree about something. If no one can converge on what they disagree on, what is the point of the dispute? Was all of this just an excuse to be contentious for its own sake and provide John Carter with 10 months of entertainment? Ovadyah (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, what a joke. The whole name and number of groups is a non-issue for me. Most religious movements end up schisming. They were one, many and then none. Big deal. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean we have consensus? Is the dispute resolved? . . . or am I missing something? Confused - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the dispute is not resolved in the least. Please refer to the "twaddle" and "waffle" techniques you described on your talk page. This is what Wiki-lawyers do when they are playing a weak hand - delay and obfuscate. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My experience is no matter how often and thoroughly John Carter's point are rebutted, he just comes back and repeats the same points later. And he accuses us of WP:IDHT. So this issue - whatever it is - is not resolved or over by a long way. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, what do you make of this diff left on Jayjg's talk page? Ovadyah (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The more I read The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010 the more I am convinced that you guys are right. Nor can this work be classified as 'pulp". Thanks for leading me in this direction. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof, your fulsome praise for the book has caused me to order a copy - I had been deterred by G Washington on the cover, but if you like it..... -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Jesus and George Washington both on the cover? When I see Cathars, Templars, and Masons connected to "secret legacy," alarm bells go off in my mind! But don't be put off; this book is a well-written ... " - Keith Akers - (Goodreads) Google Link I have now learned you can't judge a book by its cover. What looked like pulp has prompted me to do more research, and I am now firmly in your camp. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pierre-Antoine Bernheim, James, Brother of Jesus, ISBN 978-0-334026-95-2 - I think we need to find someone with a competent reading knowledge of French (not me) to take a look at this. Ovadyah (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Won't be me, though. Knowledge of French = zero. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about asking In ictu oculi to take a look? I believe he has a reading knowledge of French (as well as Greek and Latin). Ovadyah (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I found out that the book was subsequently translated into English, and I am trying to locate a copy. Meanwhile, check out this review. The book apparently caused quite a stir in France. It fits in quite nicely with the other contrarian hypotheses advocated by Eisenman, Painter, and Tabor. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I ordered a copy of the book. However, I don't know if it will arrive soon enough to matter for purposes of this mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please sign your new posts on the mediation page. It's beginning to get confusing (for some) to determine who said what. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, it occurs to me that what we see being played out on the religious articles and talk pages of Wikipedia is a mainstreaming of the Third Quest. Not just on the Ebionites article, but in studies on the Original Matthew, the Jewish Christian Gospels and many other places. Secular scholars were at the leading edge of this transition, and at the trailing edge are theologians who could care less about scholarship. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Which suggests, perhaps a way to organise the article? (Bit busy for the next two weeks, and am still reading Butz- he mentions the third way also.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to any suggestions to reorganize the article that don't involve blanking properly sourced article content. Ovadyah (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might like to have the link to Robert M. Price's book review of The New Testament Code here. I have excerpted several quotes from Price's review on the mediation page. Ovadyah (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I read it yesterday when it was posted to the mediation page. It caused me to looh up the Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, which makes interesting reading. Eisenman's claims are starting to look more credible (I had assumed that the radiocarbon dates where a killer for his ideas, but now I'm not so sure). Interesting that Paul is not directly named in the Ascents of Paul, just as he is not in the DSS. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The cumulative evidence puts to rest forever, in my mind at least, the idea that the C¹⁴ dating is some kind of gold standard, and therefore, Eisenman is a "fringe" scholar. If anything, he is leading a wave of advancement in this field of study. Ovadyah (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of Material

As you can see, I have been running into a bit of trouble. Could you kindly refer me to those policy sections that have to do with duplication of material. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC) PS Thanks for the help!

I think it is here: wp:content fork. But it is mostly common sense. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

NB Same POV content duplicated again at Nazarene (sect), and at redirect into article at Canonical Gospels.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2005, the Nazarene (sect) was a very contentious article and the Ebionites article was a quiet backwater. Ahh, those were the days! Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on "blend" being a dangerous word on Talk:Hebrew Gospel. Regarding duplication of materials, Authentic Gospel of Matthew was merged into Hebrew Gospel, then yesterday Authentic Gospel of Matthew restored and Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis twice unilaterally deleted. This just multiplies the POV material on this subject. e.g. There must be getting on for 80 identical primary source quotes of Jerome on the Nazarene Gospel spread across a dozen articles. It wouldn't matter so much if mainstream scholarly/critical sources were simultaneously being blocked/deleted.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually that is not true. I have read WP Policy on duplication and I am now on solid ground. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC) - PS - Please see "False accusations" and "Waffle" at Reflections of an Old Geezer at User talk:Ret.Prof.

External link question on Ebionites

I put the question to ELN. This should be pretty easy to resolve. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ebionite Jewish Community

The above named page is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to offer comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination). John Carter (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote to Delete. I'm ready to put an end to this crap. Ovadyah (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case save a copy of the article! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am now convinced that merging is the worst possible option. There is no reason to keep a copy. Ovadyah (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish people could understand that deletion never solves anything. Also, Ovadyah, I think you've allowed the AfD to get under your skin. Remember it is only cool minds that will prevail in this affair. Don't allow yourself to be provoked. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects can be undone (I don't believe that the merge target is binding from an AfD) but deletions are hard to undo (they are rather more binding...). Thus any merge / redirect recommendation is rather irrelevant, but a deletion result is not. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I have changed my recommendation to No Action pending the outcome of arbitration. User misconduct is the real issue here. Until that is fixed, merging will just migrate a never-ending dispute to a new article. Ovadyah (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a larger issue here that can probably not be fixed by arbitration. It is endemic to the encyclopedia. Even if John Carter has editing restrictions placed on him, another religious "enthusiast" will just come along and delete the article because they hate the content. Or someone else will come along and merge it into a Christian "All Other" bucket where they can transform hard facts into apologetic that is comforting to Christian eyes. I'm going to see this arbitration through and then I am done with this encyclopedia. By postponing the issue until matters are resolved in arbitration, you can take it up again after I am gone. Ovadyah (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think John Carter is a one-off. No normal individual could make the same flawed argument 20 times, without alteration, and then wonder why no one responds any more. (Unfortunately being a blockhead is not a sanctionable offence...)

You have my sympathies with wiki-fatigue; it strikes most editors after a while. Some do leave for good, more's the pity. I hope you don't - perhaps you can take a mini-wiki break instead and come back re-energised?

Incidently it occurs to me that the 1st year's worth of the EJC newsletter Our Liberation is on-line and therefore would count as a reliable source for documenting the EJC. Something to consider one day, perhaps?

Keep well, -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, if you want any of the links on my user page, please copy them in the next few days. The page is going away by the end of the week. Ovadyah (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ovadyah. BTW have you read Butz's The Secret Legacy of Jesus? It's very good and will be an invaluable source for grounding the article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't read Butz. I'm moving on from the whole topic. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Didache

Michael, I don't want to edit-war over the deletions, but I believe they were justified. Huge slabs of the article are completely unsourced, and this is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Other parts are based on sources up to a century old, and therefore not reliable. There are many books available on this subject, which is quite a fascinating one. Since you seem to have an interest in it, would you like to make a thorough revision and turn it into something good? PiCo (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The bit I restored was sourced, and didn't seem incomprehensible. As for 100-year old sources, well that is the nature of rather arcane religious tracts which few scholars work on. If there are more modern sources then let's use them, but that is no reason for deleting material just because a source is old. It just means we should look harder for new sources - leaving the text in place while we work. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few modern studies of the Didache - I'll see about adding some to the bottom of the artilce. But I don't want to devote yet more time to Wikipedia - I already waste too much time here. I do have confidence in your abilities as an editor, so please let me urge you again to take this page in hand. PiCo (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You must be the only one with any confidence! Thanks. I'm a bit busy, but if you add the sources to the article I'll try and look at it eventually. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Michael C Price. You have new messages at Fences and windows's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP Physics in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How does a unitary time development operator imply detailed balance?

Please consider contributing to the discussion that I started here. Thanks —Quantling (talk | contribs) 12:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Durant

Can you come up with any quotations from the Durant article that bring out a relevant point which is not already covered by the reliable secondary sources in the article? That would seem to be the best reason to retain Durant. Ovadyah (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any more relevant quotes from Durant.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Durant's conclusion about the first century Nazarenes being the same as the Ebionites is a precursor to the linkage made by Eisenman and Butz. That's not the same as the other sources cited, which claim that the beliefs and practices of the Jerusalem Church were preserved by the later Ebionites, or even more generally, that a linkage between the Jerusalem Church and the later Ebionites is probable. Durant is saying that the Nazarenes are the Ebionites, if I am reading him properly. Ovadyah (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I reread Durant and I take back what I said above. Durant does not explicitly say that the Nazarenes are the Ebionites. His views are more similar to John Painter than Eisenman (2006) and Butz. Ovadyah (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm going to have to get Eisenman (2006). What I like about Butz's book is that he makes explicit what is implied by other authors or pretty obvious. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about Durant has been closed in mediation and will presumably soon be archived. How do you want to handle his removal as a source in the article? Ovadyah (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion about Durant has been archived in mediation and you removed Durant as a source from the Ebionites article. Thanks for taking care of it. You might want to leave a note on Jayjg's talk page just to let him know. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin C megadosage and Vitamin C and the common cold

Hi Michael, here's something you may wish to comment on: [1]Vitaminman (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD

You BOLDly added, its been REVERTED (twice), you now need to DISCUSS and wait until there is a consensus on the talk page to return. Please revert yourself. Active Banana (^bananaphone 06:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And you need to discuss, and stop declaring WP:DEADHORSE instead. Your stated reversion reason was explicitly rebutted. (And I was not BOLD, I asked at the talk page, recieved no opposition for over a week and then added.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning

You need to read WP:CANVASS in light of your posting on meta regarding your AfD proposal. The fact of your canvassing proves my initial misgivings about your proposal--it's an attempt to short-circuit the AfD process and keep as much stuff as possible in the project. → ROUX ₪ 22:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be a bit stronger than Roux: do something like that again, and your account will be indefinitely blocked. That's as blatant of a violation of WP:CANVASS as I have ever witnessed.22:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, Kww, - especially if you are going to start threatening and bullying users with indef blocking. Having just checked WP:CANVASS I fail to see what the problem is. My notice was a neutrally worded FYI and posted at the inclusionist forum because I thought they might be interested in the proposal - for obvious reasons. How is that interpreted as short-circuiting the AfD process is beyond me. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Because, as has already been pointed out to you, this proposal is very clearly a way for inclusionists to fight tooth and nail using yet another bit of bureaucracy to prevent deleting articles. Furthermore, a neutrally-worded statement is not enough--you only asked inclusionists to join in, which makes it pretty clear what the point of the proposal is. Had you also asked deletionists, you wouldn't be getting this warning. or to put it another way: don't be disingenuous. You know exactly what you were doing, and exactly why you only asked inclusionists to come take part in the discussion. Were this actually neutral, you would have invited others. → ROUX ₪ 06:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that the proposal is not about stopping the deletion of articles, but about stopping time-wasting AfDs that will fail anyway. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh huh. And yet you only asked for inclusionist support. Actions > words. → ROUX ₪ 09:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Roux, I'm taking you at your word (something you seem unwilling to grant to others) and have restored the FYI and copied it to the exclusionist forum. Should keep you happy.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am quite happy to take someone at their word. That is, when their actions don't belie that word. Your dishonesty in stating that you were threatened with a block 'for placing a neutral FYI' makes it even more clear exactly what the point of your proposal was, and how much your word can be trusted. → ROUX ₪ 19:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Now who's being disingenuous? You said the only problem was that I didn't post to both groups; now you are claiming that it wasn't a neutral FYI as well? As usual those that moralise the most are the most blind to their own shortcomings. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No. You were dishonest about why you were warned. You were not warned for placing a neutral FYI, you were warned for blatant canvassing in an attempt to influence a discussion here. The placement of the statement on only one page inherently makes it non-neutral, but that's neither here nor there. → ROUX ₪ 21:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. I was warned for placing a neutral FYI, when I should have placed two. As indeed you told me. One of the reasons why I reposted it twice was to see if you would live up to your words and accept this with good grace (or silence). You failed. Clearly you have an agenda. I wonder what that is, eh? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My agenda is as it always has been: cutting through the bullshit. I'd be happy to congratulate you on doing what you should have done in the first place, if there were any indication from you of 'okay, oops, you got me.' There is no way that your carefully-targeted notice was placed where it was (and not where it wasn't) without a specific reason. Only one of those reasons makes any sense. Cop to it, and you'll find I'm much less unlikely to give you the benefit of the doubt. → ROUX ₪ 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Silence would be more convincing. Instead we have a WP:DEADHORSE. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you have missed the point; the concept of owning up to your... error is apparently unknown to you. Ah well, that hardly makes you uncommon on Wikipedia. Predictably, you're going to say I've missed your point; I haven't of course. Very clever trick trying to imply I'm beating a dead horse here, though. The thing is, you did something you knew was wrong, you knew exactly why you did it, and you're refusing to admit it. That's a problem, and the general pattern of dishonesty and disingenuousness is deeply problematic and concerning. → ROUX ₪ 23:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reread my response of 21:31, 6 June 2011 and apologise then, if you really take your own medicine. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no indication that you have owned up to your purposeful placement of the notice on only one, very specific, page. I also have nothing to apologise for. I am not alone in my opinion of your behaviour; I fail to see why you won't admit to it. Face the music, you'll find people are more likely to pay attention to what you have to say. → ROUX ₪ 06:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Get over yourself. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally used the wrong number of tildes there, so it expanded to the date only. As Roux pointed out, your choice of audience made your intention to rally support quite clear. I wasn't bullying, by the way, merely making clear what the consequences of your behaviour would be.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are not mutually exclusive. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

My left nutsack knows more than you. Jesus fucking Christ, I have never attacked you personally, but have, in fact, ignored you commentary. But your personal attacks are childish, immature, and, prove to me, you lack anything but personal attacks as a skill set. Consider this a warning for your childish personal attacks. Your best choice....do something else in life that befits your level of knowledge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Grow up and stop acting like a foul mouthed adolescent. Your contribution at Talk:Abortion was unscientific and typically stupid. That some lone incompetent twat followed your lead is unfortunate (and hilarious). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Reply for you at my talk page.

It's unlikely to matter, but feel free to quote if anyone asks or wants to note my view. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting Orangemarlin banned

Obviously, someone who uses a disagreement with a MEDRS as an excuse to make comments like "maybe Cochrane has its head up its ass"[2] isn't going to be brought under control without the use of administrative force. Arbcom isn't an ideal resolution, given the fiasco caused by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, and the committee's possible unwillingness to take further action against this user. However, since AN/I didn't work, the only remaining option is to open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Orangemarlin, then bring an arbitration case. I'm certainly willing to sign an RFC. Chester Markel (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, me too. OM seems to have ditched his mentor, so perhaps Arbcom might be suitable (they view incivility in a dimmer light than mere admins, it would seem). But either way, an RfC might be the way to go first. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It did not take an Abrcom hearing to get me topic banned indefinetly, broadly interpreted, and even then some folks wanted it to be a site-ban! I still think the editor who instigated (not enacted) that ban over-dramatised the whole matter. But I won't get into that. In any event I don't see that an RFC on an editor would do any harm. DMSBel (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What ever happened to the RfCU? – Lionel ^(talk) 09:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If their is indication of backing, I would give substantive input. Who's going to kick it off? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ankheg

Hello,

I noticed that you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons). I'd like to let you know that Ankheg is also up for deletion. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As well as Medusa. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing vs. agreeing

Hi, just to explain one thing (as an aside):

• Ed, So I can understand why a euphemism would be preferable. Nope, don't see it [3]

I should have said that I can understand why they might prefer it; I on the other hand would much rather spell it out. I'm all about clarity. (With that, I'll return to talk:Abortion.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this comment. I agree with the need for clarity. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cryogenian

This is a good faith discussion outside of our various not so good faith battles. This edit creates a self-link from Marinoan back to Cryogenian. I don't think that's accurate because the Marinoan is an epoch (and I'm not even sure of that) within the Cryogenian. That's why I eliminated in the first place. Unless you disagree, I think I'm going to kill the redirect from Marinoan to Cryogenian, and maybe stub out an article on Marinoan. What do you think? There appears to be only around 10 references to Marinoan on Wikipedia, so that is concerning that it's not a typical designation for the epoch. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The pronoun "it" is not very informative and contradicts the diagram and lead, where Marinoan is distinguished from Sturtian. New articles are always a good idea. Well, usually! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to go with Marinoan glaciation. Help out on it, if you desire. Please. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Amelia Dyer

> "Actually anything above 1 victim is speculation, since she was only convicted of one murder. However that number is clearly ridiculous, since she had been bumping them off at the rate of perhaps 3 or 4 a week for 3 or 4 decades"

Agreed. The police identified the other bodies by Dyer's "calling card", the tape used to strangle them left tight around their necks.

I am perfectly willing to concede the total of Dyer's victims exceeded 4, I simply wanted to point out that the very precise figure of "274" is not based on any verifiable source. Given the mechanics involved in baby farming – advertising, receiving replies, visiting the parents, arranging to take the child – I find it hard to believe that the total was as high as 3 or 4 a week, either, though it plainly could easily have been substantial. Dyer's biographers refrain from making a serious estimate and while that's frustrating it's probably wise.

Anyway, I leave it to you to decide what to do about Dyer's place on the list. Mikedash (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve

Do you mind telling me what does Atheism have to do with this article? http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/2.long — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAndrian (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

it's a quote! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from where? That still doesn't explain what does it have to do with the linked article — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAndrian (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, from where? From the reference, of course! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the reference? At least make a search for inconvenient and/or atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAndrian (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mitochondrial Eve. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Donald Albury 21:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You've had enough of your time wasted

I'll wait for someone to AN/I it. Be a laugh if OM does it himself. [[4]] Hope I have not been too heavy handed, but I'll just ask for a topic ban once it goes to AN/I.

Lol, I'll maybe end up going down too, but it might make others sit up and take notice. :-)DMSBel (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I doubt anyone would notice. OM's behaviour has been like this for years and arbcom/ANI pretty much lets him get away with it. Watching the mob hysteria of his crowd makes you realise how thin the veneer of rationality is. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll wait and see what the outcome is. He knows there are limits. Thanks for your contributions and sane comments in the discussion. DMSBel (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Some of your edits are being discussed at WP:ANI#OrangeMarlin burnout / talk page personal attacks. Fram (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal and extended dfns.

Michael thanks for continuing to drop in on the discussion from time to time. It's important to have a few editors who have been involved from at least the beginning of this round. By the way, I am somewhat responsible albeit indirectly for the debacle, I placed a POV banner on the lede. Honestly I wondered if someone would not subvert it from what it was in regard to, to something else. Lesson learnt. I'll use inline tags from now on, except for rare occasions. If you have time would you take a look at the following, it might even be of help to you in your own editing.[[5]]. Going by this I cannot see how the lede definition could be incorrect, as far as the first sentence goes. It seems to follow conventions laid out in this guide for definition writing. I have more of an issue with the use of "termination of a pregnancy" as synonymous with abortion in general speech and writing. Things are too heated to make much changes to the article, except to revert to consensus. Maybe when some of the related disputes are settled there will be a few new genuinely neutral editors and a few less disruptive ones. Any thoughts?DMSBel (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not?

Why not "demise"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Because is a euphemism, or less common. Like "passed away", "with Jesus". Isn't "death" clearer? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a euphemism, but it is a commonly-used one, and it might buy us some article stability. But I have much respect for anyone familiar with the names Louis de Broglie and David Bohm.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It also lacks clarity because "fetal demise" is a term of art that applies exclusively to spontaneous abortion. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clear English, and it's also clear medical jargon.[6]Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clear in some ways, but "fetal demise" is spontaneous abortion, and "induced fetal demise" only covers abortions wherein the the doctor performs a feticide in utero via lethal injection prior to extracting the dead fetus. Most abortions are NOT "induced fetal demise". That's why I think it's confusing (because terms of art that use the word "fetal demise" are among the rarest types of abortions). 74.5.176.81 (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)