User talk:Michael C Price/Archive 7

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)

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)

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)

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)

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"[1] 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)

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 [2]

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)

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. [[3]] 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.[[4]]. Going by this I cannot see how the lede definition was incorrect in its earlier version, 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.[5]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)

It's like a vet calling the death of your pet "putting to sleep". Well intentioned, but not necessary at Wikipedia. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with IP 74.. I had thought it might be better to use "demise" than leaving leaving death out altogether, but I had some reservations. The term is more often used with reference to spontaneous in the literature that I have come across. Could we stop refering to "terms of the art", I think it is better to talk of "medical terminology"DMSBel (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Medical Dictionary and Definitions in general (Do the proposed lead definitions follow these guidelines?)

(I hope someone will post this on the talk:abortion page.)

As we consider the definition contained in the lead, we should consider what wikpipedia suggests should be true about medical dictionary definitions:

In medical dictionaries, definitions should to the greatest extent possible be:

• Simple and easy to understand, preferably even by the general public
• Useful clinically or in related areas where the definition will be used.

• Specific, that is, by reading the definition only, it should ideally not be possible to refer to any other entity than the definiendum.
• Measurable

• Reflecting current scientific knowledge

As we consider the definition contained in the lead, we should consider what wikpipedia suggests should be true about definitions:

• 1.A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.
• 2.Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as 'a member of the species equus' would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locking[specify] adds that a definition of a term must not comprise of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define 'antecedent' without using the term 'consequent', nor conversely.

• 3.The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).
• 4.The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity. (See the definition of Free will in Wikipedia, for instance).
• 5.A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define 'wisdom' as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. We cannot define a point except as 'something with no parts', nor blindness except as 'the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted'.

We should also consider what wikipedia says about definitions at the beginning of wikipedia articles:

Good definitions

Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions:

First, those who collaborate on this opus must oblige themselves to define everything, without exception

— Diderot

Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.

A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term.

— Definition

A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. See also Fallacies of definition.

71.3.232.238 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "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 18, 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. 19:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning 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 [•] 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Addition of the Term Destruction in the Lead of Abortion Article

Dear Michael, I have made a new section at the abortion talk page asking that the lead of the abortion article states: "Abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo as well as its destruction." I invite you to weigh in. Israell (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Get some people to weigh in

Feel free to invite any friend you have to vote for addition of the term "death" or "destruction" in the Wikipedia article on abortion. If we outnumber them, we'll get our way. Israell (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Shahriar Afshar article

Dear Mike, could you check the talk page of Shahriar Afshar. I proposed removal of un-encyclopedic text and myself removed incorrent statement that Afhsar's alma mater is Harvard university. Please check and if you like you can revisit the text. Danko Georgiev (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Be careful about labelling something un-encyclopedic - a practice which is officially frowned upon, althogh common (alas). Be specific about removal reasons. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

TurtleMelody

He's doing a lot of good cleanup work... as a matter of fact I almost gave him a random barnstar the other day. Please look over the edits you are undoing... you are mostly adding a bunch of unneeded trivia back into the articles. This isn't helping the pages any. ThemFromSpace 19:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The usual inclusionist - deletionist divide. I did look at the edits before I reverted them.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And how do you think material such as [6] helps our articles? This is low-quality, off-topic, trivial, and unencyclopedic. Cleanup efforts such as this should be encouraged, not reverted. ThemFromSpace 21:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. As I said, the usual inclusionist - deletionist divide. Do you understand that people can have different opinions about this? That some find the content informative and interesting? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What is interesting isn't necessarily encyclopedic. A lot of informative and interesting material isn't proper in an encyclopedia article, and a lot of tedious and boring material is. We're here to create a legitimate encyclopedia, not a device for entertainment. ThemFromSpace 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, we have different ideas of what is encyclopedic.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion Motion

I made a motion here. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pimlico mystery

I removed the assertion about George Dyson not just because it was unreferenced, but, as I made clear in my edit summary, because I also thought it was too indirect to be worth including. Your edit summary "tag don't delete" suggests that (1) I was wrong, which we can discuss on the article talk page, and (2) that you are in a position to issue instructions via the medium of an edit summary, which is not up for discussion. Please use edit summaries to explain why you are making your edits (as suggested at Help:Edit summary) rather than to issue orders. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary "tag don't delete" is perfectly clear. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that your edit summary was unclear. I said that it did not explain why you thought the sentence worthy of inclusion. Personally I find that explaining to people why the encyclopedia would be improved by their acting in a certain way works better than curtly trying to give them orders, but it's your choice I suppose. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not orders, just opinions, as is everything. Don't see that it is necessary to explain why adding sources requires talk page explanation. BTW I find it amusing that you transcribed much of the information from the link I provided into the article, before deleting the link as "not reliable"! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This last reply seems to misinterpret what I wrote so completely as to make it clear that you have no real intention of engaging with the points I made. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother replying further; my position is quite clear. As I said I Don't see that it is necessary to explain why adding sources requires talk page explanation. which tells you why I did not explain why [I] thought the sentence worthy of inclusion. since it was referenced - and interesting as I have explained elsewhere. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment "Your evasive answer about the correctness of the links's contents is noted" seems to be a contravention of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please Comment on content, not on the contributor. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Blade Runner

Yes, it may be more convenient, but there is nothing in WP:BTW that suggests that for a run-of-the-mill case like this there should be an exception. If this is an exception, then everything is an exception to the rule. And no, there is no "deprecation" for "See also" sections; see WP:ALSO, which only suggests that they are not necessary. But in this case, WP:BTW suggests that that's what you do. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent post on Talk:Abortion

I have read and re-read this edit, and cannot find any useful interpretation of that edit. Please remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. I suggest you revert that edit, as it cannot help anyone to better edit the abortion article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

KC, I suggest you set a salutary example for Mr. Price, and revert your own recent edits at the article talk page asserting that I have engaged in sarcasm, hostility, and personal animosity.[7] Just a friendly suggestion. Please remember to comment on the content, not the contributor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ATYW: I trust my judgment, not yours, on what is and is not appropriate. If I warn people to remain civil on a talk page, it is not remotely the same as an editor making a personal comment to/about another editor. I see you are now progressing to snarky minor harassment (and possible stalking) of me on other people's talk pages. I strongly advise you to cease this combative behavior, Anythingyouwant. Your comment is not germane to Michael's post, which is the subject at hand. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this last comment of yours is better than making these false accusations at the article talk pages, KC. Believe me, I have not the slightest interest in following you anywhere. I already had Price's talk page watchlisted. Have a nice day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

KC, it shouldn't be beyond your wit to see the point of my comment on the article talk page. Do I have to spell it out in great detail when the pot's calling the kettle's black? Mastcell = pot, Mr IP = kettle. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Check this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.160 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edited lede of Martingale (probability theory)

I've edited the lede of martingale (probability theory) to try to mitigate some of the ambiguity about observations, realizations, and random variables that you mentioned on the talk page. All references to "observation" have been replaced with "observed value", and some links to realization (probability) have been added. Moreover, when discussing expected value, "observation" has been replaced with "random variable" (which hopefully is sufficient given that "stochastic process" is already defined as a sequence of random variables within the lead). I've given more comments in detail on the article's talk page. Hopefully that helps. —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

geology

Hi there. Are you a geologist? Gandydancer (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know where I got that idea. I needed some advice. Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably from OrangeMarlin - he thinks I am, for some reason. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:01, 22 August 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)

Zanclean flood

Could you explain why it is necessary to link "km" in that article? I could understand adding {{convert}} (which has its own precision problems here), but not the link. Doesn't WP:MOSLINK#Units that aren't obscure apply? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely km is obscure to many readers? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Michael C Price. You have new messages at Talk:Octonion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Review contribution from a new user?

MCP, would you mind reviewing this recent edit of Wave function by new user User talk:Nvallejo with the summary (Clarification of abstract and real qualities of wave functions). It's rather extensive and I'm not sure it is accomplishing that. Many thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I reverted it, which will probably upset them.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Condescending verbiage and complete nonsense

So what, exactly, might someone reasonably mistake that to mean? The frustratingly unnecessary verbiage is a problem. Fix it, don't just revert. And regarding the "flipside of quantum suicide", please say something meaningful or revert the flippant reference.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't regard the explanation (the latter in which the other worlds are "not real"), as either "Condescending verbiage" or "complete nonsense". -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you had been condescending or nonsensical, but if regarded in context, perhaps you'll see my problem, (and, of course, the meaningless nonsense was the "flipside of quantum suicide" below). But first things first, your ed sum said (Yeah, *you* may get that, but what about the poor suckers that don't?) so I assumed you kinda understood I meant the original seemed condescending and wordy. I see you're not a mind reader, my apologies. I should have explained why I think so.

There's no danger that readers would assume scientists think this world is "not real", as opposed to all those crazy-invisible "other" worlds: the careful explanation that (given parenthetically, for those who couldn't follow along… perhaps being unfamiliar with reality… or unaccustomed to making a connection between reality and the world…) scientists meant the latter, i.e., the "other" worlds, the crazy-invisible ones, those are "not real"; as opposed to having meant the former, ("this" world, the one non-scientists live in [and in which scientists also make their domicile]) when the now fragmented sentence suggested that a scientist says scientists see the whole crazy-many-worlds-thing in one of two different ways (as opposed to one of two identical ways or neither of two ways, which may or may not differ, [depending on whether they really are identical {or not really different}]).

I'll grant that some might assume our world has the unique distinction of being "not real", despite an infinite number of real (crazy-invisible) worlds, if you'll forgive the hyperbole, I hope :) It occurred to me that adding "other worlds" to the first part would fix the ambiguity and then we'd both be happy without the parenthetical.

On the flipside, I assume you weren't aware all three links went to the same page. Here's what I found awhile back: from a comment by Tegmark, quantum immortality just referred to the thrill one might get from defying death, against the odds. There was other junk in the article, like the supposed buff from killing off doppelgängers, (just an import from The Highlander, "there can be only one"). I also couldn't source the thing about nobody ever experiencing death, regardless of committing QS… It seems to have been a case of mistaking Many-Worlds/Universal-Ψ for the possible worlds of modal realism. Tegmark explained to QI fans on his mailing list that their inevitable demise will not hinge at every turn upon elaborately isolated quantum events. So, it's not the opposite of QS… what's to be said for spending eternity infallibly killing oneself from moment to moment? If that's not nonsense, how so?

There was an earlier version of QS: that a quantum doomsday device must fail, but everyone would just think it was a dud (supposedly, some kind of glitch would seem to stop it every time).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there's the Everett quote… meh, immortalized in a manner of speaking. Who can say?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Machine Elf, thanks for all your good work, and sorry about not responding more and earlier. I'll look in more detail at your comments above and try to address them at the article later, but I'll just comment in passing on one point, where you say:

There's no danger that readers would assume scientists think this world is "not real", as opposed to all those crazy-invisible "other" worlds"

Hah! Anything that can be misinterpreted about many worlds will be misunderstood by some readers (I've seen this many times), so we have to be careful about making assumptions like this. A statement may look condescending and over-explained (if I may use the phrase) but without it you can be sure that confusion will follow. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

De revolutionibus orbium coelestium

Hi Michael, I noticed you removed my edit because removed context. I defer to your judgment. My concern with the passage is that I'm unclear what it means.

A German TV documentary on "The seven greatest lies in history"[20] states that medieval scholars knew full well that the Earth was a sphere. Copernicus is blamed for having omitted to say that Lactantius had been the exception rather than the rule, and thus for having contributed to the flat-Earth myth.

The reference is dead, so it doesn't help. I've never heard of Copernicus having perpetuated the myth of the flat earth. it appears to me that somebody watched a documentary ABOUT the flat earth myth and it mentions how 15th century debate got conflated with a debate over a flat earth.

In De revolutionibus passage quoted, Galileo talks about one specific oddball in antiquity who refused to believe in a spherical earth centuries after everyone knew about the sphericity of the earth.

So, that's why I made my edit. I'll leave the actual article to you but just wanted to touch base and explain what my rationale was. I just wanted to let you know readers will be confused by that passage by itself-- galileo singled one person out for weird beliefs, that's why he mentions Lactantius. So I don't know what the current text means "Copernicus is blamed for having omitted to say that Lactantius had been the exception rather than the rule"-- from the context it seems clear to me that Lactantius is being brought up expressly because he's seen as an ancient 'kook' & flat-earther. --ProfessorBaylock (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback about Lactantius and Galileo; it looks like I've missed something - I'll respond further at the article and its talk page. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain your confusion

You just deleted an entire section at Planck's law on the ground that its first sentence confused you. What confused you about it, and why is that grounds for deleting an entire section? Are you claiming that because you can't understand that sentence, no one can understand anything in the whole section? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The section does not help readers understand BB radiation, nor is it adequately sourced. Looks like original research. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Quadroon

Michael Price, I don't know where you are coming from, but please read my comments on the talk page before you revert my changes to Quadroon.

The inappropriate change that I reverted was to the tense of the verb and the ommission of the word historically. The change was made a year ago, without any discussion, and was a serious matter that needs to be discussed on the talk page. The fact that half-a dozen editors tweaked the inappropriate sentences without fixing them is their problem, not mine. The watches of that page need to think.

Your edits have now put the usage of these racist terms all back into the 21st century. Is that correct? does that reflect the state of modern America?

My gut feeling is that even in the US polite 21st century people consider those terms discriminatory, and that no-one chooses to be called by them. Perhaps in the Law of the US it is different!! If so, discuss it on the talk page.

I can assure you that the terms "quadroon" etc have not been used in Australia (as is stated in the article) for forty or fifty years, except within the context of literature describing and criticising discriminating government policies.

The present state of the article indicates a very high level of discrimination. Is this your real intention, or have you simply observed that material has been deleted and not thought through the ramifications?

Amandajm (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course the terms are racist (by definition). So what? They exist. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• You don't seem to get the point.

The article stated, clearly, that the terms were used historically. The article now states that the terms are used.

The fact that very precise degrees of discrimination were historically in place is a far more telling fact than the precise difference difference between a "quadroon" and an "octaroon".

• The precise difference between a quadroon and an octaroon will be put back because that's the easy part. Thinking about how the intro should be stated is the challenge.

The editors need to be made aware of of how they express such matters and not put them in the present tense, when they belong in the past.

Amandajm (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't why you're banging on about this; I've already said, on the article talk page, that no one would object to the tenses being changed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrino FTL anomaly

My idea was to keep the arxiv paper reference and the discover magazine reference, since those two are solid. I think you saw the intermediate-versions of my edits. Pls wait till I am done before rolling back stuff. Ajoykt (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am done. Kept the arxiv reference (primary source) and one news-letter source (Discover, since it seemed the most credible). More newsletter sources just make the article harder to read. Also, some minor edit in the section. Ajoykt (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Asylum

I assume, given the timing, that this comment was in response to this one...? If not, well, see the second link. E-mail me if you're interested in participating in the "preliminaries" off-wiki. Trust me, you won't miss anything if you just wait to see my proposal at Wikipedia talk:MOSLINK. I just wanted to talk to someone about it before I introduce the idea on-wiki, and N-HH seemed to be a good choice for that someone. - dcljr (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So this is Wikipedia?

Dear Sir,

Are you an apparent authority that has some kind of absolute control over what is and what is not allowable on this site? A monitor perhaps? Or maybe someone else has personal interests and has directed you? In the case this site is supposed to be concerned with scientific fact, not hearsay and biased opinion, what gives you the right to doctor a referenced addition that will aid the formal qualification of a scientific area of study formally agreed upon by those high mentioned references? Are you in any way able to provide me (and therefore other people) with scientific evidence that wave functions are at all measurable and real? Without too much contemplation, I guarantee not. Nobel prizes have been awarded to people here for their work in showing exactly what is being displayed in the mathematics and science of the situation at hand i.e. unreal mathematics and properties. Do you possess a Nobel Prize for showing that wave functions are real because Max Born was awarded one for showing precisely the opposite. Interpretations come after the science. The science says that wave functions are entirely abstract, must be represented by complex mathematics and have never been measured. To say they are real lay in the realm of conjecture, interpretation and theoretical physics so please do not insult my intelligence by trying to insinuate that wave functions are real and my immaculate science is an 'interpretation'.

Without consultation with myself or direct reference to that which can formally refute those claims that I made in that addition, I contend that what you have done is to have blatantly contorted the view of those persons newly interested in the topic of study.

Yes I am upset at your apparent “convenient reversal” given unsuspecting person’s investigating this area of study are subject to your interpretations, not mine or the Nobel laureates of the past.

For the sake of the truth and purity of knowledge unmolested by bias and personal interest, I demand you reply.

(This isn’t going away) Nvallejo (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my edit commentary, the section is not appropriate here; BTW you are presenting just one side of the issue - two interpretations at least (Bohm, Everett) regard the wave function as a real, measurable entity. This is an interpretative issue and should be, and is, addressed at interpretation of quantum mechanics. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have just given a formal admission that those two peoples refereed to have only ever offered 'interpretations'. There has never been any science by either party that has led to formal verification of exactly what they are talking about. They remain theoretical not experimentally verifiable and there is no reference in any of their works to any possible experiment or result that disproves Born's postulate or shows a real wave function applicable to the laboratory today (Schrodinger's wave function is complex). That is why their 'interpretations' are never used. You are still attempting to treat the science here as an interpretation, and it is not, that is what I am objecting to. So on the contrary, my commentary (although perhaps not formatted correctly) is entirely appropriate here.

Nvallejo (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well Mike, I was going to ask you for some help, but it seems you have your hands full. Get back to you later. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Can you provide a review article that states otherwise from "there is little evidence for effects other than improving bone health" per discussion here [8]? All the sources I have see say evidence is poor for supplementation other than for bone health. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please reply

Message for you at Talk:Many-worlds interpretation#MWI *is* a mainstream interpretation. FiveColourMap (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Review articles

Policy is very clear that review articles are preferred as per here WP:MEDRS. There is support on the talk page for my replacement of primary research by review articles. Thus please allow this article to be improved. If you find other review article you think should be added feel free but continually returning primary research is disruptive. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate

There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. As you took part in previous related discussions on this matter, I am informing you of the current discussion. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OPERA neutrino anomaly

User:Strebe keeps reasserting that causality is part of SR and claims that "special relativity has no provision for non-real mass" while seemingly ignoring your statement that dismissing tachyons as SF is silly. I think that it should be noted that detection of FTL particles means violation of SR or violation of causality, but this user keeps reverting my efforts to do so.

I've reverted the most recent revert of this user, but I don't think that this is good course of action and it will probably be reverted again. What to do? --93.139.188.52 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Timing of Out-of-Africa migration relative to Y-chromosome Adam

Thank you for taking an interest in my edit of the page on Y-chromosomal Adam, in which I removed the words "and possibly after" from the assertion that the date of 59,000 years ago for Y-chromosome Adam, proposed by initial studies such as Thomson et al. 2000, "meant that Y-chromosome Adam lived at a time very close to, and possibly after, the out of Africa migration".

You reverted my edit in good faith. But I am not sure that I understand your point, and so I have queried it on the talk page.

Thanks again. Prim Ethics (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Blinkx

You reverted my revision on the Blinkx article. I had changed the links to proper references and removed red links to non-existent articles.Please see Wikipedia:External links.Vrenator ^talk 09:39, 26 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!} 12:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Michael C Price: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 December 2011/String theory.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, bobrayner, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:43, 17 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!} 04:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Mitochondrial Eve shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. and there does not appear to be any consensus for the addition of your material? Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dirac equation...

When you can, please see here and respond either there or on my talk page. Thanks - I would definitely appreciate your feedback on my editing making it a CRAP ARTICLE. Only random users raising random minor issues can give a toss to write on that talk page. -- F = q(E + v × B) 22:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The article used to be clear that the Dirac equation was motivated to solve the Klein-Gordon equation, and that every solution to DE was a solution to the KG, but not vice versa. This was further illustrated by showing the KG and DE in Feynman slash notation along side each other. These statements no longer appear, and the associated Feynman slash equations have been deleted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry... but by all means if there is something I have done wrong then please tell me. Apologies for getting frustrated but I honestly thought the article was becoming clearer in introducing the mathematical form of it. Then, in the edit history I read the comment. You are free to remove any and all of my comments. -- F = q(E + v × B) 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a few sources which say what you mention (to some extent qualitativley and lightly mathematically, not completley rote on the Feynman slash equations and suchlike) - two books already used in the article:

• Particle Physics (3rd Edition), B. R. Martin, G.Shaw, Manchester Physics Series, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-470-03294-7
• Quantum Field Theory, D. McMahon, Mc Graw Hill (USA), 2008, ISBN 978-0-07-154382-8

and (only slightly)

• Physics of Atoms and Molecules, B.H. Bransden, C.J.Joachain, Longman, 1983, ISBN 0-582-44401-2

In time, we can restore your suggestion, I'll do what I can to help you =) , but right now I'm very busy.-- F = q(E + v × B) 20:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it took such a long time. I added a reference to the section you added (it became labelled "unsourced"). I have no objections to the slash notation, but for consistency with the rest of the lead of article could it be converted into SI, leaving nat units for the detailed discussion later? I can convert the equation from nat to SI btw - just want to ask and not mess up your contribution. Thanks for the highly efficient summary! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 10:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the reference. Not sure how you would convert from nat to SI (perhaps by replacing "m" by "mc/h"?); and if you could, wouldn't that destroy the elegance of it? I suspect most sources express it in natural units. I've added a link to natural units, if that's any help. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're pretty familiar with how to do this, but anyway the equation in SI units would be:

$(i\hbar \gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }+mc)\psi =0$

by considering the dimensions to be momentum:

${\begin{aligned}i\hbar \partial \!\!\!/=i\hbar \gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }&=i\hbar \left(\gamma ^{1}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x^{1}}}+\gamma ^{2}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x^{2}}}+\gamma ^{3}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x^{3}}}+\gamma ^{0}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x^{0}}}\right)\\&=i\hbar \left(\gamma ^{1}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}+\gamma ^{2}{\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}+\gamma ^{3}{\frac {\partial }{\partial z}}+\gamma ^{0}{\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\right)\\&=i\hbar \left({\boldsymbol {\gamma }}\cdot \nabla +\gamma ^{0}{\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\right)\\\end{aligned}}$

then multiplying through by c gives dimensions of energy. Linking solves the problem. Of course its all much nicer in natural units, but the suggestion was for consistency. Sources use SI units usually in introductions then natural units after. Thanks again =) - please forget my insane and inconsiderate rudness above... =( -- F = q(E + v × B) 18:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The factor of c in the first line is redundant since it is already in the x_0 coordinate. I guess there's no harm in adding the constants, but, since the link to the slash notation is given, is there any need to expand the matrices any further here? (And don't worry about the rudeness, I deserved it.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so (about the rudeness).

Anyway there is no need to fully expand, I just showed it here for clarity (its in the article later down anyway). Indeed x₀ = ct does mean the 1/c should not be there - a typo now corrected. -- F = q(E + v × B) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Section deleted...

Irritating after all that has been done for it. =( Just thought I'd let you know - it happened in this edit [9].-- F = q(E + v × B) 12:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is why I am now semiretired. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Greetings. You may want to nip this in the bud. Ignocrates (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes entertaining reading :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So does seeing you comment at User:Jayjg without any prompting from Iggy on December 31, 2001. As it strikes me as extremely unlikely that you have that page watched, it seems to me likely that you only responded on the basis of an email from Iggy. While that is certainly not unusual, and definitely in keeping with his own history in this regard, it might be preferable if such communications were to take place on-wiki, as there does not seem to be any particular reason for them to necessarily require e-mail. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you! :0D Ignocrates (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"December 31, 2001."? Thanks, John, and glad to see you are still as clueless as ever about people. I needed a good laugh before going out this evening. (BTW you are projecting, since it is you who conspires via email to hound people off Wikipedia.)-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, those communiations were started by Ovadyah, your now friend. Please get your facts straight. And the only thing I have really been "hounding" is that the two of you, at some point, meet basic policy requirements for content? After so many years, it is really I think rather laughable that you still have failed to do so. Kung, a theologian, by the way, is probably not a reliable source for archaeological opinions. Have you yet found any better substantiation, I wonder? John Carter (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing anything that actually addresses what I wrote. No surprises there. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm almost positive I didn't initiate any email exchanges with John Carter. This must be another mistake. Ignocrates (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have kept them all, and they can verify. Out of curiosity, Iggy, do your own completely laughable accusations of my being a scokpuppet of John qualify as a "mistake" on your part? John Carter (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

More FYI

New "old tricks" and diff,diff, diff. Ignocrates (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing that just trying to get a copy of something I worked so hard at, that both of you all but completely ignored, by the way, is now called an "old trick"/ Or is the almost paranoic stalking and constant allegations of misconduct by the above editor itself the more accurate version of the "old tricks." And didn't you once have an Ebionites page yourself, Michael? Does that page qualify as an "old trick" as well? John Carter (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See canvassing here and here. Ignocrates (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Ignocrates actually understood some of the policies and guidelines he says others violate. He himself misphrased at least 3 in his own comments regarding the EJC deletion. Maybe he might consider fighting ignorance begins at home. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article on Slavonic Josephus has been obliterated and the primary editor of Josephus on Jesus has been driven from Wikipedia. Too bad. Ignocrates (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as per its history here, the Slavonic Josephus page never was an article, just a double redirect. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And what business is it of yours, or are you just trolling for trouble? Ignocrates (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC JC maintains that Slavonic Josephus is a not a "real" document and is unworthy of scholarly analysis. :-) Redirected it to Josephus on Jesus. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So, in other words, the SJ doesn't pass muster with the dogma police. Ignocrates (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Axctually, if either of you bothered to look, you would see that I had nothing to do with it. And, honestly, if you bothered to look, I was trying to work with the editor on that article. I even sent him an e-mail asking him to return. Whether the Slavonic Josephus meets notability, which I presume was what Iggy meant in his vague comment above, I don't doubt that it does. But the article in question didn't have that title, and actually SJ is probably a better title as per WP:NAME than the current one. Regarding Michael's memory, or lack of same, that false memory seems just as accurate as his repeated unfounded claims that I sought to remove a WP:SPS source "just because I didn't like it." Wouldn't it actually be more constructuve of both of you to try to find some sources to back up your claims? Certain sources have been checked out unfortunately recently, and are no longer included directly in JSTOR, but I should have them by early next week to provide a bit more objective view of the RS status, or lack of same, of Eisenman and Tabor. Just letting you both know. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that one more review will change anyone's mind at this point. I'm taking the consensus reached in mediation - that the works of both Eisenman and Tabor are RS - to be determinative. You appear to be desperate to overthrow that consensus at any cost. Continuing to have RfC's year after year until you finally get what you want is WP:TE. Ignocrates (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And so it continues here with the garrulous one begging the C/N to urgently take up the matter. Ignocrates (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And so forth here. The desperation is palpable. Ignocrates (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is, isn't it? :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You probably already know this, but James Tabor is now an editor on Wikipedia, and he has been harassed almost immediately. Ignocrates (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have requested an administrative review of John Carter's fitness as a administrator. Ignocrates (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever witnessed an act of self-immolation like that before on Wikipedia. All around the mulberry bush... Ignocrates (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that L.s. has been indeffed. Certain editors are experts at isolate/intimidate/eliminate. It's quite educational watching them work. Ignocrates (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Afshar experiment and Feynman sum-over-histories

Dear Mike, please check my post at Talk:Afshar_experiment#Classical_optics_vs._Quantum_optics. I know that you are passionate believer in MWI of QM, and my work should be of interest for you. I should say that I do not believe in MWI, but this does not affect my rationality in any way, and prevent me from seeing that Feynman sum-over-histories describes nicely what the quantum world is. Anyway, I propose to collaborate with you constructively on those areas where our interests intersect. By the way, in my post I have explained why Feynman disliked Bohr, and I cited a verifiable source for the Bohr-Feynman confrontation. Interestingly for you, Bohr's ridicule and rude behavior was devastating for Hugh Everett III, "the father of MWI" as can be seen in the documentary NOVA: Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives produced by Everett's son. Fortunately for Feynman, he was able to win a Nobel prize and fight back Bohr's rudeness, whereas unfortunately for Hugh Everett III he was unable to fight back, got depression and at the end died by a heart attack. Danko Georgiev (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Danko. It's amusing that Bohr said Feynman couldn't understand even basic QM - that's exactly what Everett was told when he visited Copenhagen to visit Bohr! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mike, please check the text proposed for inclusion in the main article of Afshar experiment. The proposed text is here. Linas said that inclusion of 2 sentence summary is ok. I wrote 3 sentences, and propose the inclusion of the image of photon probability distribution at different planes in the coherent Afshar setup. This image is created by me using Wolfram's Mathematica for solving the Fresnel diffraction integrals. It was published in math physics journal, so this is not a fake drawing, if you need a proof, I can send you the Mathematica notebooks, etc. Danko Georgiev (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Kitty Genovese

It is ok if you are not sure what "however" means; there was no need, however, to revert my whole copyedit and restore overlinking, unreferenced material and two outright grammar errors. Please take a little more time and care and never hesitate to ask if you are not sure what someone else is doing. It's good manners and it's also how we learn. --John (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not revert your entire edit. And I do understand what "however" means.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tachyon and Feinberg reinterpretation principle

Michael, wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Please find some for your "Feinberg reinterpretation principle" section. They should be modern (last 15 years or so) and they need to establish notability and due weight. I've done quite a bit of work and spend quite a bit of time finding sources, and none of them support your take on this. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be within the last 15 years. As TR has said, there is sufficient mention in the literature to establish notability. And my "take" is sourced directly from Feinberg's defining article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael, the review that TR found is the one I added to the article as a reference, the one that you stated does not refer to Feinberg's principle. And indeed, it references five or six papers when it (briefly) reviews the history of the reinterpretation principle - not including Feinberg's.

You cannot have it both ways - either there are two different tachyon "reinterpretation principles", in which case notability for Feinberg's has zero support, or there is only one, in which case it shouldn't be called the "Feinberg reinterpretation principle" and the section needs to be re-written. Which is it? Waleswatcher (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your own link quoted from Feinberg so it clearly doesn't have zero notability.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what? What link? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See your talk post of 20:30, 27 February 2012 -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That source supports what I am saying. It refers to the principle as the "reinterpretation principle", not the "Feinberg reinterpretation principle". It discusses the proponents and originators of the principle, and gives sources for it prior to Feinberg's paper - so obviously the principle did not originate with Feinberg. Moreover, contrary to your earlier assertion on the talk page, that source's demolishment of the principle obviously applies to Feinberg's version, since they quote him at length. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions (which is all they are until you address the technical issues I've raised) don't affect the notability issue. So you can quit with your claim that Feinberg reinterpretation has zero notability.

And you can quit posting here. Take it to the article talk page. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

About nobel laureates.

I saw your edit at Weinberg's page. And thought you might be knowledgable. You might be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Physics Almost all nobel laureates are being claimed very religious and in this specific case jewish when most like weinberg are atheists- there are no citations either. I have corrected a few including weinberg. Need help from you. HasperHunter (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack at User talk:Jdtabor

I'm sure you know that this is unacceptable. Please don't do it again. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Doug, I don't know, and deny, that it is unacceptable.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael, I have had enough of this too. You don't seem to be prepared to listen which will force people to escalate. That's not in anyone's interests. --BozMo talk 06:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I do listen, but I don't always accept what people say, as I'm sure is the case with everybody. And I don't appreciate people telling me that they know I find my behaviour unacceptable - which assumes bad faith, BTW. John Carter has a long history of posting wall-of-texts ramblings, which are unreadable. I reminded him of this, using his own terminology, and suddenly I'm warned by two admin heavy-weights to lay off? Please. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Michael C Price. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Michael C Price. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Aboleth

Hello,

Since you participated in the deletion discussion for Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons), Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), or Ankheg in 2011, I wanted to alert you that Aboleth is now up for AFD. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankheg

Hello,

Because you participated in the previous AFD for Ankheg, I am notifying you that it has been nominated for AFD again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lamia (D&D)

Hello, as you took part in the 1st AFD for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bargmann-Wigner equations?

Hello, long time no see.

There is no article on the Bargmann-Wigner equations for particles of any spin. I asked the wikiproject physics group some time ago about this but there was no response (admittedly my post was fairly hyperactive and rude, but I've calmed down now).

I plan to cobble together in User:Maschen/Bargmann-Wigner equations a few papers [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and at least generate some start to the article. However I don't know eneogh QFT, nor have/can find any sources of my own which cite these equations (most books I source on WP are from the uni library).

Your expertise in QFT would be really valuable here. I notice you had some editing clashes in the Dirac equation article with other editors, so this is one opportunity to go nuts and use all the hardcore QFT maths and notation you like! Thanks in advance for any/all help! I'd really appreciate it. Maschen (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Vis viva

Your text in Vis viva includes a double use of conservation of momentum. I suspect that the first mention is a simple typo: "The principle, it is now realised, represents an accurate statement of the conservation of kinetic energy in elastic collisions, and is a consequence of the conservation of momentum." I could try to fix it, but you know better what you meant to say here. --Amble (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2012 (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.

over/underlinking

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_--_can_we_bring_this_to_closure.3F

The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. You've opined in the past, and I wonder if you could chime in once more. If the proposed langauge is something you'd support, I'd appreciate that too. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hello Michael,

Regarding your revert of me "underlinking" Neithhotep. I was trying to make the article reflect this MoS guideline: WP:REPEATLINK. Is that particular guideline point not valid anymore or can we just pay no attention to it? --WANAX (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Since you are remaining silent, I'm beginning to think that WP:REPEATLINK guideline is not an optional one. My conclusion is that you are either not aware of that guideline or that you are ignoring it just because you disagree with it. In either case - unless you give a good reason why not to do it - I'm going to revert your edit and continue to remove overlinking (as it is defined in MoS) when I encounter it. --WANAX (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question. Do you think removing the links makes Wikipedia better or worse? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To WANAX: Obviously we should follow MOS, but there are also pointless and tiresome conventions concerning formatting. "Over-wiki-linking" is one of them (others include bold/italic text, using the exact spacing and dashes; all letter for letter, word for word, line by line...). Over-linking it doesn't harm the article at all, it just makes it easier for the reader to click to an article. I do it sometimes. Ever seen Ignore all rules? Maschen (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that too many links are distracting and make the article harder to read. So yes, removing excessive linkage makes Wikipedia better. See Benerib as an example. Isn't linking Hor-Aha each and every time it occurs excessive in your opinion? Maschen: I don't agree at all that those conventions are pointless. :) I think consistency is very important and personal preference is not good enough reason to ignore MoS. However I don't think it's worth the effort to argue about this issue so I'm going to refrain from removing the links (for now).--WANAX (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Out of curiosity, has John Carter also been harassing you? If so, that makes four the number of editors John has been harassing. Pass a Method talk 11:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not recently, since I've been semi-retired! IMO JC is a mostly civil POV pusher, which is the most insidous sort, of course, since it damages article quality in ways hard to repair. He did try to form a tag team, once, to get me permabanned, but it failed when the covert nature of it was blown. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What type of POV does JC have? Pass a Method talk 13:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Pass a Method talk 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method was blocked (for the 3rd time) for edit warring recently by another Admin (John Carter wasn't involved in the article). And isn't just John Carter who has disagreed with him recently. Several editors have reverted him at various articles and I warned him for a misleading edit summary and reverted some of his edits related to Raelianism. This is relevant also. Don't get me wrong, John's not perfect, but as almost always, context is key. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael, you failed to mention in your groosly inaccurate, and frankly grossly dishonest, statements above your own history of outright POV pushing regarding your beloved Robert Eisenmanand his widely rejected opinions regarding the Ebionites. That is, basically, the only subject regarding which I have had previous dealing with you, and, frankly, as can be seen from the Arbitration records, the only person who has been sanctioned regarding that matter to date is you yourself.

The best person to contact regarding this matter is actually neither Ignocrates/Ovadyah, but User:Jayjg. He tried to mediate the discussion involving both of those editors, which proved impossible given the POV pushing of both of them. He is also something that I believe neither of those two parties is, which is someone who has the trust and respect of the wikipedia community regarding matters of policy and guidelines. He is also familiar with the conduct of both of those editors and myself regarding this subject. And, as Pass a Method knows, I think most people would agree, in general, my POV is toward that of the best independent reliable sources. Sadly, neither Michael not Ignocrates can really say the same thing. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate, as ever; same old John, eh? Yawn. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of frankly grossly dishonest, two attempts were made at mediation with Jayjg serving as the mediator. Both attempts ended, unsuccessfully, when John Carter unilaterally withdrew from the mediation process. Ignocrates (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this may be yet another attempt by John Carter to revive a dead dispute. Let's put an end to this nonsense and move on. Ignocrates (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael, a review of your talk page will clearly show that you were subject to sanctions. And I find it laughable that Ignocrates, who so far as I can tell has done little if anything other than try to start and continue disputes, tries to criticize someone else for doing what seems to currently be his sole purpose. Pass a Method can certainly check the ArbCom records for the Ebionites case, and as I said before I think Jayjg has much reasonable comments than either of the above. And the attempts at mediation failed, honestly, because of the tag-teaming and I thought, and still think, pathological devotion to fringe theories of 2 of the 3 parties involved constituted stonewalling. I have never changed my opinion regarding that, and I think Jayjg might even agree.

In any event, to Pass a Method, I think thae Jayjg will also be able to indicate that I had serious questions regarding Ignocrates's objectivity, but even after what I thought and still think was willful harassment on his part, chose not to pursue them on the noticeboards because of his, to my eyes, impaired judgment. I say this as an indicator that neither I, nor anyone else, will actively seek action against someone provided their problems do not become too problematic to others. I once again suggest that you seek assistance with your own problems. I think Adjwilley might well be the best person for this task, given that your relationship with him is probably your closest, and least problematic on, here. John Carter (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

John, you need to seek asisstence with your patronizing tone. Pass a Method talk 10:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoyle's fallacy move request

Hello, I would like to notify of the discussion at Talk:Hoyle's fallacy#Requested move, in which I object to a comment you once made on the Hoyle's fallacy talk page. Thank you. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

FA review?

Hello,

I noticed that you are involved with the physics articles on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could help me out. Right now, I'm working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status. So far, people have had many good suggestions and many positive things to say about the article, but I'm having trouble getting people to support or oppose the nomination.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at it and tell us your thoughts at this page. Please note that you do not have to be an expert on the subject. The article has already been checked quite carefully by other reviewers, and at this point, I'm just looking for people who can check that it meets the FA criteria.

Please let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)