User talk:Michael C Price/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Penrose interpretation

I wander, what's your view on the gravity-induced decoherence/Penrose interpretation/objective collapse? Do you think it could fit the MWI picture nicely and determine "when the splitting happens"? --Dc987 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think
Planck mass
, yet much lighter objects such as single electrons and photons appear to collapse. Which is another way of saying that it is hard to see how a weak force like gravity could induce an electron to collapse. The same problem would exist using gravity to induce decoherence; gravity just seems to weak to do this either.
If the graviton is found to behave as other quantum partickes or forces then I guess (?) that these ideas would have to be shelved. --
Michael C. Price talk
00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions of Truth

Did you look at my post at the talk page before removing the tag? The negative reviews were only added recently, and who knows how many more are floating around; the article is currently unbalanced since the majority of its content was cherry-picked by Nicholas Beale. I was hoping that the article could be subjected to a full review by an uninvolved editor, rather than just a glance to see if there are one or two negative reviews. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Full of assumptions, aren't you? I did not just "galance" at the article. --
Michael C. Price talk
07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to comment at the talk page? That might help hammer out a consensus. (nvm, looks like you did as I was writing this)
(Also, by the way, you might also be interested in commenting at the talkpage section about the book's genre.)
Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote is certainly not the reviewers' words; for your convenience, I'll reproduce the whole paragraph here.

Internationally known as both a physicist and a theologian, John Polkinghorne here collaborates with Nicholas Beale to present Questions of Truth (Westminster John Knox, $16.95). They offer 51 leading questions and answers on such subjects as: the concept and existence of God, the universe, evolution, evil, human being, religion and some interesting conclusions, including this one: "...the whole of the universe is teeming with matter and energy—dark and otherwise—and is amazingly finely tuned to carry within it the potential for intelligent life. Behind this, some see nothing; others discern the mind, and the love of God." [1]

See the quotation marks? The reviewer is quoting from QoT; he's not saying his own stuff about QoT with that quote. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So? The reviewer included the quote in his review. --
Michael C. Price talk
07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
But how does the inclusion of that quote improve the article? If you really must have it, here is a compromise (although I think even this is meeting you more than halfway): something along the lines of "Episcopal Life said the book offers some interesting conclusions, particularly its thesis that the abundance of energy in the universe can be seen as evidence of God" or something like that. That way at least you can avoid the direct, overlong quote. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
A line or two is hardly "overlong". Just what is your problem here?--
Michael C. Price talk
08:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That it contributes nothing to the article. The review section is for demonstrating the opinions of reviewers, not for repeating what the book said. I offered a compromise, which is more than you have been willing to do. When this discussion started I was prepared to treat you as a peer, but the longer it goes on the more it just seems you're being stubborn or intentionally dense. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be convenient for you, wouldn't it? --
Michael C. Price talk
08:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you beginning to see what I mean? Should someone remind this user of less than 18 months policies like

WP:AGF?NBeale (talk
) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Quite demented POV pushers. --
Michael C. Price talk
17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
NBeale spends so much time crying foul over nonexistent personal attacks, and yet he doesn't have a problem with people calling fellow editors "demented"? Selective attention and hypocrisy must be nice. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Rjanag, look up
Michael C. Price talk
19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Just time to squeeze in a comment between my 2nd and 3rd meeting today with world-famous FRS scientists, which have sadly prevented me from constant monitoring of everyone's talk page on my watchlist (Rjanag: sorry but you really did ask for this, Michael & others, apols for the pomposity :-)). In deference to Rjanag's delicate feelings you might want to amend demented to determined. There has already been one RfC about Rjanag's behaviour and he was warned but seems not to have learned much. I wonder if another is needed? NBeale (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the RFC pointer. Hilarious post, BTW. --
Michael C. Price talk
19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Theatre of Blood

Hey. Nice to meet a fellow Theatre of Blood aficionado. I appreciate your recent corrections, but if you can remember the movie, wasn't it the police that received a box containing the heart? Or was it Devlin who received the package? [email protected] (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one of my favourite films - I'm very pleased to see it finally become a cult classic.
The package was for Devlin, not the police. Although it was the police that snatched it off Devlin and actually opened it, realising its gory contents from Lionheart's message. (Interpreting "Shylock" as the police/Devlin was a bit of a stretch, IMO.) --
Michael C. Price talk
08:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the only reason I removed "British" from "distinguished actors" is that Coral Browne was Australian and Milo O'Shea is Irish. [email protected] (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good point. --
Michael C. Price talk
08:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Please stop adding unsourced material about

fact}} tag. In all cases you have either removed the citation request or added the unsourced material back in. This is not the first time you have done this, and there is still unsourced original research in another part of the article from a previous edit you made. There appears to be a pattern here, of willfully ignoring source requests and adding material off the top of your head rather than from reliable sources. I'm afraid that you are going to have to stop doing this and start using sources for all your edits in the future. We've discussed this several times now, so please consider this a formal warning. Viriditas (talk
) 14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You've already said that RH considers himself a futurist. --
Michael C. Price talk
15:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I never said any such thing. I said that in a video interview, he discussed the practice of economists as futurists. That was solely my interpretation of his comments as he never said he considered himself a futurist and he never used the words I said he did. He used the term "long-term forecasters" or something similar. I said he considered himself a social scientist and I provided a reference, after which you removed it from the article. Do you understand the difference between an interpretation and a citation that directly supports a Wikipedia article? I ask, because in various discussions, you have given me the impression that you don't recognize a distinction, and that you are solely focused on exploiting what you consider a loophole in the OR policy so that you can add unsourced interpretations, observations, and so-called "explanations". I'm sorry, but that isn't how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That so-called OR loophole is there for a reason, namely to improve wikepedia. --
Michael C. Price talk
07:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no such loophole. There is an explicit proscription from making interpretations and explanations from primary sources that deviate from the secondary sources. What part of this don't you understand? Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, re the "formal warning" crap, you are one editting against the consensus here, not me. And as you should be aware content disputes are decided by consensus. Try taking this further if you don't believe me.--
Michael C. Price talk
15:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you don't understand what "consensus" is. There is no consensus to add unsourced material to any Wikipedia article. All our articles require references supporting the material. If this still isn't making sense, please contact an administrator for guidance, or I will be happy to contact one for you. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Take it further then, and we'll see. --
Michael C. Price talk
07:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Take what further? The only kind of consensus that overrides core policy is consensus on the policy pages. You can't ignore
WP:V based on a talk page consensus. Is this making sense yet? Viriditas (talk
) 09:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

External links.

Sites which misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material are not valid external links. An external link you recently inserted (multiple times) has been demonstrated to include factually inaccurate material - specifically, it states that "Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles." This is not true, in that it includes talk pages and the like, and also includes edits as trivial as replacing punctuation as "created or rewrote." It additionally states that "When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand," this again, is not accurate, as it includes every single one of WMC's page deletions, including

User:William M. Connolley/Whinging, and Chris heath child
, among scads of others. I doubt one would argue these were deletions due to his dislike of the subject. Further, it states "when he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions." This is not accurate, as the vast majority of WMC's blocks were due to his patrolling the 3rr board.

Please do not insert this external link again. Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--
Michael C. Price talk
00:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Connolley

Just to mention that the page about him counts as a Climate Change article and these article are all under special measures against edit warring. FWIW I think blogs are not allowed on BLPs and I take them out everywhere [2] [3] [4] etc, --BozMo talk 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Living persons issues in Great Filter
/1/

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Great Filter. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Viriditas (talk
) 00:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Great Filter. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Great Filter. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Message removal

Hi Michael, is there some reason you removed my two messages here? Crum375 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stupidity, my apologies. --
Michael C. Price talk
01:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I re-inserted them. Crum375 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions to 3RR

Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

See

Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions_to_3RR. Viriditas (talk
) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not biased nor libelous, not factually contested, so there is no BLP issue. Only you claim it is poorly sourced. --
Michael C. Price talk
13:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What good, reliable sources are you using to support it? Find one out of the 242 listed on Hanson's website and I'll allow it in the article. Just one. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Mike

Brews was not evasive on the kilometer question you asked him, he just couldn't answer because of political issues. Please read the recent threads I opened on speed of light. They explain Brews' position, and it is not illogical. It just doesn't assume relativity is a-priori true. That's not crazy, and many lay-people have this position by default. Brews is not ignorant of relativity, he just wishes to make clear that we are now taking relativity to be true in our standards definition, and maybe we shouldn't do that.

Just by bringing up the subject, even without supporting it, I was subjected to harassment, and premature archiving of the material. Brews is right on this issue--- this type of harassment based on talk-page discussions could end free speech on Wikipedia. It's that serious.

Regarding the speed of light page itself, I think that Brews' material was not very good. I would have opposed it then. But despite the fact that I disagree with his material, I disagree even more with the idea that people can be silenced in large part for their unconventional opinions.

I will ask that Brews be unblocked. I know that you are a reasonable person, and are capable of changing your mind. I hope you will not oppose this request. Perhaps you might be willing to support it, on free-speech grounds.Likebox (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike--- I don't know whether Brews was evasive regarding the kilometer question during the hearings, but it is important to understand that the hearings were not talking about science. To put him on the spot by asking a scientific question during the ArbCom hearings would be like asking OJ Simpson his opinion about the role of DNA in the cell. It would be a distraction.
I do not agree that Brews changed his mind substantively, but maybe he did. What difference does it make? We are not here to get Brews to bow down and say he's sorry, or even to try to change his behavior. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Brews does not need to show deference to anyone to get this project to succeed, nor does he have to admit he did anything wrong. He just has to move on from the dispute and be a productive editor, and he is doing this. The chance of a similar dispute flaring up again is zero.
Personally, I don't think David Tombe was technically wrong either. What they were saying on “speed of light" is that if the speed of light suddenly halved tomorrow, leaving everything else the same, we would, following SI units, end up saying "hey, all atoms doubled in size! Our meter is half as long as it used to be". This might not be intuitive for most people, although it is intuitive to those for whom relativity is second nature. They were trying to get the page to say this, but if this is not possible per consensus, who cares really? Is the speed of light going to halve anytime soon?
These types of disputes are really pointless, since they are not as substantive as they appear. Because the differences are philosophical, it is very difficult to use words like "right" and "wrong" objectively. Maybe the moon doesn't exist when nobody is looking, and maybe an empty universe would have no centrifugal force. Maybe the speed of light can change, maybe not. Everyone agrees it doesn't. To try to get everyone's philosophy to match is neither possible nor desirable, and to try to get those with a minority philosophy to apologise for it is counterproductive. No apology is necessary.Likebox (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) I agree with you in a lot of things, and I generally think that this point has been a major waste of time. But I am deathly afraid of this precedent. The ban on Brews has led people to label as "disruptive" arguments for positions that are unpopular, and then to get people to shut up, lest they be the next Brews ohare. I don't agree with their edits on SoL, and I tend to agree with your single-minded focus on the science, but I am focused on the politics right now, because without a good political system, the debates will shut down and the science will suffer.

In order to have a cleaner talk page (I don't want it to bias the ArbCom case--- they can always read your debate with Tombe of course, but I don't want it to be so prominent), I might remove all the comments from my talk page, including yours. I hope you don't take it the wrong way--- it's always good to hear your voice.Likebox (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Blank away, no problem! I'll respond here in future. Yes, I note that you are/have been being unfairly compared with Brews/Tombe. Unfortunately this seems to be human nature. I think people were so exhausted by the Brews/Tombe affair that they are not inclined to reopen these debates again, or read in depth what is going on -- unfair but understandable. --
Michael C. Price talk
07:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I blanked in preparation for the motion. I have a question: who is usually notified in ArbCom cases? Is it only involved parties, or is it everyone who ever commented on the case and its previous amendments?
I have a second completely unrelated question. I think over half of the male population of the U.S knows what this hand game is all about. But I think it lacks any source. I was shocked to even find the YouTube video, but I think that's it for sources. I brought this up at a local Wikipedia meet-up as an example of a universally known thing which cannot be sourced. Do you know what this is? Did you encounter this?Likebox (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that blanking it is wise, or productive. It looks like a cover-up. Your draft of the motion is widely known, and is readily available in the edit history.
I don't know what is going on with you recently, or if you are being compared with Brews or Tombe. If I recall correctly, your problem was trying to push an unsourced proof that you said was equivalent to existing proofs. As a practical matter, if a proof isn't challenged, it doesn't matter that it is unsourced; there are a lot of unsourced math proofs on Wikipedia. Once a proof (or anything else) is challenged, however, you need a source or out it goes. And, in fact, a lot of Wikipedia articles have correct, unsourced, unchallenged information, especially in math, computer technology, and some sciences (and probably many other fields that I don't pay much attention to). I hang at least my share of {{Citation needed}} tags, but I generally do it only if I think a statement is wrong, dubious, or controversial (I also hang {{Citation needed}} tags on unsourced direct quotations and attributions, because of policy and because they aren't worth much to others without a full citation).
That is what was wrong in the failed proposal—that was Iblis, you, and Brews, as I recall—to create a new exception to
OR. You really don't need the exception if something isn't controversial, if something is controversial it should be sourced, and if an unsourced true statement is challenged it should be easy to add a source (and improve the article in the process). The proposal was a non-starter, as I said at the time.—Finell
08:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It sounds so logical, doesn't it? Who would require sources for non-controversial facts? Well quite a few editors, unfortunately, as I have found out many times.--
Michael C. Price talk
08:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To Finell: It's not a cover up (or else it's a very bad one!), I just don't want to give the impression that I agree with all the comments posted by all the people there. People tend to judge others by who they associate with, fairly or not. I wanted to say "I am doing this alone, and only my comments are mine". Of course the material is still available in the history for review, but I don't think people will care enough to do that.
About the Godel proof--- you are right, and I have accepted that. I agree about the challenged material bit. The equivalence to existing proofs was brought up by my principal opponents. I agree with them. But the challenge is really coming from two people, who will one day retire. Nearly everyone can see the equivalence to ordinary proofs with a bit of reflection. So I'll wait until they leave, or until this becomes mainstream enough so that everyone knows about it, one of which should happen sometime in the next 30 years.Likebox (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what was wrong in the failed proposal—that was Iblis, you, and Brews, as I recall—to create a new exception to

OR. You really don't need the exception if something isn't controversial, if something is controversial it should be sourced, and if an unsourced true statement is challenged it should be easy to add a source (and improve the article in the process). The proposal was a non-starter, as I said at the time.—Finell
08:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ESCA
does not imply any exception to the OR policy, unless you read the OR policy in its most narrow of interpretations. But that's something for the regulars at the OR page to figure out (that page has been left deliberately vague, presumably a way for the regulars there to agree to disagree).

Although every proposal has to take into account the possiblilty of conflicts between editors and how to deal with such cases, may main motivation of writing the essay was to deal with the vast majority of cases where there are no editing disputes. Things can go badly wrong without editors having any disagreement whatsoever, this is something that eluded most of the critics. I directly pointed that out to Jayjg more than once (he was edit warring over the essay and then abused Likebox's probation to get him banned), but he still did not get it. To understand what the essay really is about, consider that Likebox's proof would not be controversial. But without close scruteny, some errors could slip in the Wikipedia article. To prevent that, the math editors should act in a professional way, just like they do when they work on the real life math projects. An editor who writes a scientific article here on Wikipedia should use the same standards as when he writes a scientific article for a peer reviewed journal or writes lecture notes. Count Iblis (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hand Vagina"

I think you'll get a kick out of this discussion. Poland and Australia! Who would have thunk it. And it's all over the U.S. too.

I thought this up as an example of a universally known thing that cannot appear on WP because it does not have a source.Likebox (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the vid yesterday. News to me. Didn't mix with the right kids, I guess. BTW have you seen the The gunfighter's dilemma? --
Michael C. Price talk
07:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That's fascinating. I always thought Bohr is kind-of underappreciated nowadays.Likebox (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I wrote up a User:Likebox/DraftMotion if you are interested about the Brews thing. I don't know if it's any good.Likebox (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Henry Hudson's date of birth

As far as a know there is no primary source providing Henry Hudson's date of birth. All the dates given for his date of birth (some strangely precise) are from secondary sources, and they all appear to be educated guesses. Until a primary source (not a book, encyclopedia article, etc.) is provided the section giving his date of birth and birthplace should remain empty. Jonas Poole (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I thought secondary sources were preferable to primary sources. I think you must have misread
Michael C. Price talk
17:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, just double checked: it is. --
Michael C. Price talk
17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't misread anything. Every secondary source blindly states that Hudson was born on Sep. 12 1565/75. I wasn't referring to original research!! Could you please at least provide a reliable secondary source (not some webpage, random book, encycpedia article, etc.) that definitely states that Hudson was born on such-and-such date. Until then, I will once again be reverting your edits. Jonas Poole (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
What you're saying makes no sense; I've told you that 2ndary sources are preferable, you admit they support a birth date, yet you want to remove the data. Eh??? BTW encyclopedia articles are OK as well. Note that there is no requirement for 100% certainty in the data, and this was reported in the article, so that is not a problem.
I'm not making any sense? You're the one who refuses to even come close to providing any evidence that Hudson was born on the date you have given. I didn't say they supported any such thing! They BLINDLY claim, without giving ANY SOURCE, that Hudson was born on whatever date they IGNORANTLY CLAIM. Secondary sources are not "preferable" when they all say the same damn thing without providing a shred of evidence. I don't care what some dumb Wikipedia code of conduct says. My standards are much higher than theirs. I can't believe I've had to go through this. I don't make any sense? Are you fucking kidding me? Jonas Poole (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your well-reasoned, calm and rational analysis. I suggest you read
Michael C. Price talk
02:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please take your concerns to HH talk page. I'm not responding here any more.--
Michael C. Price talk
09:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

MWI/Rekcana

1/29/10----reply to Price from his post to user name rekcana-----------

1. My friend, a silly threat is a promise of pressure which is either insufficiently motivated, or cannot be applied, or both.You have proven the appropriateness of my bringing up dispute resolution in light of repetitive "shoot first and talk later" booting of my external link [5] ,e.g.,I just reinserted it yesterday and you bumped it without first engaging in a dialog.If you think that you are exhibiting a familiarity with dispute resolution it seems you are the one who is being silly.And if you did indeed mean to imply that the next stage of dispute resolution was some kind of pipe dream on my part, perhaps you are not that aware of Wikipwdia formalities yourself. I actually would be justified in an eye for eye deletion of your part of the MWI, but I'm going to be better than you for now - - for now at least I'll continue to check Wiki and replace what you have censored.

2.No my external link does't come to AAAA point - - that's because some authors are not one trick ponies and can write commentaries with a PLENITUDE of points.(But we both know that your complaint #2 is just a classic and empty debator's ploy, anyway, which only the unwary would try to refute.)

3. I'm not surprised that a number of people would like to hide my stuff under a barrel. It's pretty clear that a lot of authors have a lot to be modest about.Nobody, however has communicated anything but vague reasons akin to your #2 or similar spurious ad hominem type rationales.

4. What are you smoking ???? Look at the bibliography of my weblink again - - does it not cite Vaidman, Bennet, and even the Wiki MWIarticle itself. Rekcana (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)rekcana (David Anacker)

Okay, so I was wrong about 4, but correct about 2. Still not an appropriate link for an article. Also in violaton of
Michael C. Price talk
06:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Mike, you continue to actually skirt the specific questions I ask. Consequently, I don't think it's unreasonable that I'm anticipating having to bring this matter to some higher level of administration. On my talk page I asked for comment on the conflict of interest question of someone (you) with an external link continually deleting someone else's external link to the same article.Secondly I asked how one determines the specific things a robotic editor is keying on so that some accommodation can be made either by myself or the programmer of the robot.

Again, since you are the only one who has bothered to complain about my ext link lately, you have an obvious conflict of interest, you don't answer questions posed to you, you're making a big deal about filtering external links that're gratis, i.e., you're looking a gift horse in the mouth, and I'm unclear whether you have any special administrative authority at Wikipedia - - one can justifiably question the point of answering your latest critiques of my external link.

Having said that, the following response can be made to your complaint that (1) my ext link doesn't clearly announce it's agenda and (2) my link seems to be about calculating the wavefcn rather than demonstrating the reality of it; I bring your attention to a verbatim copy of the FOURTH line in my external link:

Abstract: We study analog computation of the wave vector for arbitrary Hamiltonian matrix. Emphasis is placed on implications regarding the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I'll make you a deal. Before getting back to you I'll read your external link and I think you need to also read mine. I suggest that someone answer the two questions I actually posed on my talk page, additionally.Rekcana (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I read your abstract. The point of your link remains unclear. What is its relevance!!!! I've asked this before and no doubt will ask this again.
Please note that your link has been reverted by a bot and 2 or 3 other humans; it is not a case of me having a go at you, it is your link's contents that are the issue. --
Michael C. Price talk
09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Neill N (cc Michael C. Price) re latest notice of "dropping the hammer"

Greetings Neil and Michael, or should I say Seig Heil!

I see that rather than answering my query concerning specific elements that one of Wiki's robotic editors has been programmed to use in deciding to delete my external link to Wikipedia's Many Worlds Interpretation article,e.g.,identifying for me specific problems such as specific words or phrases, or the presence of an advertisement flyer inserted at the start by my internet host, or a problem with my external link's internet host Bravehost.com - - no, once again Mr. Michael C. Price and a new voice saying the same things only more imperiously belonging to one Neil N merely declaim Price's mantra once again. To wit: the robot rejects spam/self promotion, Anacker's link is stylistically very subpar and resistive of any effort to determine its point whatsoever... yup, honest injun, Anacker's point cannot be deciphered! And....even if his offerings could be deciphered - - well then they are....innappropriate!(Price thus merely retools the classic comically fallacious review objection in physics: "Dr.____'s analysis is wrong, and even if it is right it is obvious!")

As God is my witness, I have tried many times over 15 days to reason with Price and company:

  • Initially I requested a detailed actionable explanation for the ejection of my link and Mr. Price responded with nothing but vague, obfuscating,just essentially intellectually barren pronouncements such as just recounted, indicating either he is an honest reviewer but sorrowfully imcompetent to follow relatively simple physics in my link or else a dishonest reviewer acting upon some private agenda.(I'm sorry, Mike, but it doesn't take rocket science to perceive this dichotomy.)
  • I next invoked an eye for eye behavioral modification strategy, reinserting my external link and editing out Mr. Price's external link to the same article.
  • But Price evidently doesn't believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander and a mexican standoff ensued. To break this impasse I have since tried a gentler tact by merely reinserting my external link whenever Mr. Price has deleted it.
  • Faced with continuing deletions of my link by Price and the robot I continued undoing these deletions but now began leaving comment in the edit explanation box noting Price's OBVIOUS conflict of interest in deleting mine but maintaining his own external link to the same Wikipedia article.
  • Both on my talk page and his I asked Price to explain himself on the above cited point of conflict of interest and renewed my attempt to elicit specific information about how I could accommodate the robotic editor's quidelines. I asked him to identify some weakness in the logical development of math and physics within my link or some failure to provide due credit. I mentioned that since nothing but vague unactionable characterizations of my link had been forthcoming, and nobody else but Price and a mindless robot had been registering any similar pressure since I'd begun monitoring in late Jan. 2010, I anticipated having to bring the matter to some higher administrative level.
  • In this context finally a new voice, Neil N, (owner of talk pages on which this summary of events was deposited and copied) has just weighed in next with overwraught cease and desist ultimatums instead of Price finally starting to do the right thing.

Modification of Brews' sanctions

Hi Michael: Thanks for your positive support during the action on ameliorating my sanctions. Unfortunately, no actual assessment has been made of your comments (or those of others), but just an unreflective, knee-jerk support for the status quo. Brews ohare (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also for your final comment suggesting discussion on my own Talk page could draw in only those who elected to do so. That is true also on article Talk pages, where editors are free to ignore threads they don't want to discuss, an option made more obvious if my proposed guidelines were considered. Brews ohare (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't buy the line that article talk page activity can't be disruptive. --
Michael C. Price talk
23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael: That is not "the line". If you read the essay, it is an attempt to organize discussion on an article Talk page of a facet interesting to only a few editors so that the majority of uninterested editors will not be bothered unless they decide that they are interested after all. Should the minority arrive at the point where they wish to invade the main article space, a protocol is suggested that will avoid creation of armed camps and degeneration into a Jerry Springer Show look-alike. Brews ohare (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, common sense would suggest that the majority leave threads alone that don't concern them, anyway. But maybe something more formal is helpful? Brews ohare (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I desist! --
Michael C. Price talk
00:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael

I am bummed out by certain recent events. First, there's the Brews thing, which you saw firshand. Now there is this: infraparticle was decimated! It was stubbified, all the mathematical content deleted, everything! The editors that did this could not understand the page, and they decided to kill everything on it.

The contribution was made by User:Phys and from the pattern of edits, this user (now defunct) is a top-notch physicist. The edits were class A, best in the encyclopedia, and inspired me to edit here in the first place. Now the same crowd of people that run to ArbCom instead of learning science are deleting this user's contributions (which were unmatched anywhere). It is important that this not be tolerated.Likebox (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See my comments on the article talk page. --
Michael C. Price talk
08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Michael--- I understand that the ideas are new--- but read the references, and learn the stuff. It is intolerable that this article was deleted based on administrative action. There is nothing in there that is even close to OR.Likebox (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I agree with you that it is hard to understand, but that is only because Phys writes at such a high level. It can be expanded with clarifications with your help, then it should be comprehensible enough that people can see what can be sourced to what. Nearly all of it parallels Buchholz 1986 paper.Likebox (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your sig

Hi, I noticed your sig links to a redirect userpage (without the spaces). It makes popups unable to load your user information. Not a big deal but I figured I'd let you know in case you wanted to change it. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Better? --Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural units and Schrodinger equation

Care to drop by

WP Physics
} 05:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Tannhauser Gate. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. magnius (talk
) 16:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. magnius (talk
) 01:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate, you will be blocked from editing. magnius (talk
) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The'FortyFive'
02:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. magnius (talk
) 10:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've

books
} 16:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with
WP:BULLY for me. --Dc987 (talk
) 07:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Dc987 and Headbomb. Perhaps next time we'll report them straight to AN/I. --Michael C. Price talk 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just looked at the history of the Tannhauser Gate page and I'd be reporting MAGNIUS and REPUBLICANJACOBITE as the vandals there. 211.26.193.92 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank. You seems like a sensible guy; I suggest you create a login account - officialdom here tends to ignore IP accounts. --Michael C. Price talk 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A Many-Worlds Interpretation of a simplified Afshar-type experiment

Hi Michael,

I wonder what you think of the following experiment: 

        S
       \                 \
--------\-----------------\ M1
        |\                |\
        |                 |
        |                 |
        |                 | 
        |                 |
       \|                 |
     M2 \-----------------X-------2
         \                |
                          |
                          |
                          1

Imagine a photon that is split by the half-silvered mirror S into two coherent beams which are then bounced off mirrors M1 and M2 so that they cross at point X. Let us assume that there are photon detectors at positions 1 and 2.

Now imagine that the path lengths of the beams are adjusted so that they destructively interfere at point X.

Let us assume that there is a detector at point X which is smaller than the wavelength of light.

Now if the light paths interfere destructively at X then the detector will not fire and so a photon will be detected at either detector 1 or detector 2.

Let us assume that a photon is detected at position 1. In order to get to detector 1 it must have definitely bounced off mirror M1 and taken the vertical path down to detector 1.

But how did it get past detector X?

According to the many-worlds interpretation another photon must have gone horizontally across detector X at the same time but with an opposite phase so that detector X did not fire. That photon must have been detected by detector 2 in a different world.

Would this experiment "prove" the existence of Many Worlds?

PS I'm sorry to repeat myself - I've just discovered that I had a conversation with you about this subject 4 years ago! Maybe if I feel that I've got something new to say about the subject then I should publish properly somewhere.

--John Eastmond (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I'd forgotten also. Could give the link? I'm a bit busy right now but will get back to you eventually....
Our previous discussion is at the bottom of link. I think my many-worlds interpretation of Afshar's experiment is made more clearly using the simplified setup described above rather than with Afshar's original one (as I did in my previous 2006 post). John Eastmond (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I always like getting new perspectives in these experiments. My immediate reaction, in agreement with other mainstream physicists, is that no experiment can decide between interpretations. You can arrange for destructive interference at the "point" of in the intersection of the beams - but the intersection can't be localised to less than a wavelength (with the placement of extra screens around X for instance). Such extra screens would create interference themselves and destroy the tidy observations of photons at either 1 or 2. A photon at detector 1 could have bounced of M1 or bounced off M2 and then been diffracted by the screens around X and make a right-angle turn. So I don't think the experiment proves anything except how interesting and weird QM is. Without the screens then we can say the photon travelled around X.--Michael C. Price talk 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

Instead of two narrow beams one could arrange for two wide coherent beams to intersect at a right-angle as in the diagram below.



One would get a diagonal pattern of stable interference lines a wavelength apart. Imagine that the relative phase of the beams have been adjusted so that destructive interference occurs along the diagonal lines shown above.

Now let us assume that a narrow opaque absorber of only a few atoms in width is placed along the middle diagonal of the intersection region.

I maintain that no absorption will occur at the absorber and that each photon will go on to be detected at either position 1 or position 2.

This experimental setup answers your two objections:

  1. The beam widths are always much wider than a wavelength therefore one can be sure that no appreciable diffraction occurs. Thus a photon detected at detector 1 must have had a vertical momentum and therefore must have bounced off mirror M1 rather than M2.
  2. The cross-section of the absorber can be made much larger than the beam cross-sections therefore one can engineer a situation in which there is no possibility that photons can go around the absorber.

John Eastmond (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting twist on Afshar. Now the photons have to pass through a dead zone, which seems counter-intuitive. I'm puzzled and I'll see if I can get a third opinion. --Michael C. Price talk 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Continued edit warring on

Denisova hominin against clear consensus will result in you being sanctioned. Abductive (reasoning
) 22:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Two editors don't make a consensus, especially when they repeatedly misunderstand policy. See the talk page. BTW I am quite happy for you to take
this further if this is what it takes for someone you'll listen to to explain policy to you. --Michael C. Price talk
06:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Likewise, one editor doesn't make consensus either Michael. You are edit warring, and you broke 3RR. Consider yourself lucky that you got a warning rather than a 24 hour block. If you need a third opinion, just head over
books
} 06:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not break 3RR. Thanks for the
WP:3O tip,. although (alas) it says it is not appropiate if more than two editors are involved. --Michael C. Price talk
06:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I see one addition and 5 reverts, 3RR it is. Anyway, if
books
} 07:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
That's still not 3RR, which prohibits 4RR within 24 hours. I'll have a look at
WikiProject Anthropology. --Michael C. Price talk
07:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
See
books
} 07:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
And you should know better than to falsely accuse someone of violating 3RR - especially when the others involved are not talking and misunderstanding policy. If you have an opionion about my edits then take it to the article's talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 08:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Abductive (reasoning
) 18:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

To assuage any concerns people might have about WP:Canvassing, you should also ask people who notvoted to delete in the Tannhauser Gate AfD to comment in the RfC. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When it was relisted, (almost) everyone voted to keep. --Michael C. Price talk 22:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Addendum: Everyone since the relisting has been informed. --Michael C. Price talk 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you please remove your comment at
WT:FILM? Viriditas posted a neutral notification of the discussion. Let other editors find their way to that discussion and review it without being preempted by any commentary. Erik (talk
) 22:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I will not remove it. BTW there was no link to the AfD; now there is. --Michael C. Price talk 22:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough; I will ask editors to ignore your pointed comment about the RfC. Erik (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Michael C. Price talk 22:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tannhauser Gate

Thanks for the heads up! ---

The'FortyFive'
00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lesbians

If you'd like to propose that we start adding

Kitty Genovese to be the only person sitting directly in Category:Lesbians, when the category isn't currently used that way for anybody else. Bearcat (talk
) 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are these categories the exception to accepted usage? --Michael C. Price talk 05:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
How is that any sort of exception to "accepted usage"? They're container categories that were originally meant to contain "lesbian" and "gay male" specific subcategories such as "gay writers". If you'd like to propose that we start applying them directly to individuals, that would be a perfectly reasonable discussion to have (and in fact I'd probably support the proposal), but there's no "accepted usage" to which their current format is any form of "exception". Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not following; "lesbians" is a container for "lesbian"?--Michael C. Price talk 08:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a container for Category:Lesbian writers, Category:Lesbian politicians and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So where would an unclassified lesbian fit? --Michael C. Price talk 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to see if a consensus can be established around which way the project actually wants to use the categories. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Good move. --Michael C. Price talk 08:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of muslimheritage.com material

I see you've reverted the change I made to the speed of light article. The claim made on that page, like many sourced from muslimheritage.com (currently appearing as a source on 50+ pages), is extraordinary and based on unreliable sources, and as such I believe my removal of it was justified. Since you are actively participating in this science article, you may be interested in the discussion from which my edit arose, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85, where a large number of edits in history of science and science articles have been based on the misinterpretation of sources and the use of poor quality sources. Dialectric (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On Afshar Biography

Hi, Michael! I was gone from the debates for a long time, but these days I have updated my

talk
) 06:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know Afshar is not banned, although
WP:COI would limit his ability to update some articles. Where his BS degree is from I don't know, since he has never responded to CV requests (we don't even know his DOB) - I suspect it's not from Harvard (where he was for only a few months), more likely somehere in Iran. --Michael C. Price talk
09:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer. The other thing that is disturbing is the claim that Afshar has been offended for his religion and origin. I have found complaint about this in New Scientist, but it does not mention names. How Chown can say such thing as I have never seen even a single attack against Afshar's religion or origin? Is there actually any post in internet, or this is Afshar's propaganda in New Scientist. I believe there is no such online offense whatsoever, so I would request your assistance to change the main article. Actually ALL critiques that I have found in the web are that Afshar makes severe error, and even his posts were called pseudo-science. Nevertheless the issue with his religion has never been brought up, and I believe it is a lie. Would you support my deletion of such text, and saying that Marcus Chown wrote article without actually giving any example of such attack. And how could Chown know about such attacks at first place. Best is if Afshar gives us the evidence. I would be glad to hear your opinion on that. Regards, Danko Georgiev (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Definitely no to removal of New Scientist statement. We just report what the media (e.g. New Scientist) says, without judging the veracity of such claims. This is core WP policy (and I agree with it). That said, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report - but it's irrelevant anyway.
BTW be careful about flinging accusations of "lying" around - such claims will weigh very heavily against you should someone complain. Someone can be mistaken or wrong, but that is very different from lying, which implies malice. --Michael C. Price talk 18:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I will not touch this text. English is not my native language, so I cannot catch subtle differences and nuance of words. Regards, Danko Georgiev (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Your comment "ridiculous gibberish" at

talk
) 07:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. --Michael C. Price talk 07:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

Some questions regarding the degree of reliability of certain sources relevant to the Ebionites have been made on that articles talk page. You have had some previous interest in the article, and I believe you may have input which might be useful. Please feel free to review the material and make any statements you wish regarding whether the sourced material does or does not qualify as "fringe" or not. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be very useful if, in the future, you directly responded to the requests for substantiation sought, rather than try to berate sources. I have cited three reviews of Tabor's book which, I believe, clearly indicate that it probably fails to conform to the academic mainstream. If you can produce sources which indicate the acceptance of those theories, please do so. However, comments such as your last do nothing to help address the serious questions raised whether the sources meet
WP:FRINGE or not. Considering such challenges have been raised, I would think that actually addressing them would be the most important priority. John Carter (talk
) 18:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Inflation (cosmology)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You have reverted the same material twice in 24 hours on this article.[6][7] By itself this wouldn't be particularly problematic. But as your reverts have taken place in connection with the reverts of an anonymous editor who has reverted the same material 4 times in 24 four hours,[8][9][10][11] it gives your actions the appearence of edit warring. Stop. The material you are attempting to delete has been on the page for months and has been reinserted into the article by 4 different editors in the last 24 hours.[12][13][14][15] Clearly, the suppression of the material in question does not have consensus and in such situations the status quo prevails. Eugene (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are wasting your time threatening me; I'm well aware of the rules. I also seem to know more about inflation; enough to see the idiocy of the material you keep trying to insert. (I mean no criticism your abilities here - inflation is bizarre to the non-specialist and material from a philosophy journal here is simply not appropriate when it is full of technical errors.)--Michael C. Price talk 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

You seem to once again be engaging in the type of edit warring which had led you to be banned from the content earlier. Please be advised that this is your last warning regarding such behavior from me. Please cease such reinsertion of information without establishing that it falls within the mainstream of opinion first. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum suicide and immortality

Hi, if you have some time and interest, please take a look at: Talk:Quantum suicide and immortality#Encyclopedic_relevance_and_other_issues to discuss some issues to improve that page. Thanks.Bode One (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Michael C Price. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding reviews for Bibliography sections

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your recent addition of a review for the John Painter book, "Just James", which is cited as a source in the

James the Just
article. Actually, I'm not familiar at all with using reviews for books cited in the bibliography, it had never occured to me. I was wondering if you might be aware of any WIkipedia guidance on using reviews I could learn from, in case I wanted to include one? Thanks!

-- Joren (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joren, no I don't know of any guidance, but it just seemed like common sense to add an on-line review to an off-line book. Glad you liked it!--Michael C. Price talk 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Need some help - unreferenced/unclear section Arrow_of_time#The_quantum_arrow_of_time

Hi Michael, if you have some time please take a look at:

--Dc987 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Ebionites

I will repeat to you the same offer I made repeatedly to Ovadyah. First, to make it clear, I have no particular objection per se to any content regarding either the Eisenman or Tabor books. In fact, I think you might remember that I was one of the parties involved in the creation of the article on Eisenman's book; dab did most of the writing, but I nominated it for DYK and wrote the hook used. The question is how much space this theory should receive in the main article. Based on what I have seen, and what you can see from the sources at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, the theory seems to run fairly directly contrary to the more or less consensus opinion of today, and, according to the reviews anyway. Also, it seems clear that the Tabor book in particular may not really be "academic theory," but rather "more or less factually unfounded speculation of an academic on a subject in his field." The proximity of release to the DaVinci Code is more than a little suspicious as well.

Anyway, I noted in your comments on the arbitration page that you think a section on "religious interpretations" (I think that was the phrase you used) would be reasonable. I wholeheartedly agree. Religious views of a religious matter, however fringey, are more relevant to a religion article than academic views are, at least in my opinion. You might see in the Christianity WikiProject Bulletins that were released for a while that I even gave out awards for creation of articles on denominations which didn't yet have articles, Church of Daniel's Band, a small group which interested me personally only because of the oddity of the name, among them. Unfortunately, even if the beliefs in these books are more or less standard for "neo-Ebionites" or whatever, I haven't seen any independent reliable sources for such groups. If you have even only a single source which has a substantial amount of information in it, that would be enough, in my eyes, for a separate section in the Ebionites article, more or less repeating the content of the source. If you had two, that would clearly be enough for a separate article, which could even include non-independent sources. In that case, a section with a "see-also" hatnote with a link to the main article would be reasonable.

However, unfortunately, if I can be honest, all I can remember ever seeing is discussion of Eisenman/Tabor to the seeming exclusion of anything else, including the other, more notable and I think more seriously received, theories regarding the Nazoreans, the Essenes (even now), the Symmachians, and other groups. If you yourself have personal "Ebionite" inclinations, I think it would have made it easier for all involved if you had indicated as much early on. We, or at least I, tend to receive requests for content related to active groups better than I do more or less fringey claims to poorly-regarded academic sources. Unfortunately, all I can remember is you talking about the Eisenman and Tabor sources which seem to postulate a direct relationship of the Jewish-Christian Ebionites to James. Such speculation runs kind of contrary to what seems to be the basic academic assumption/opinion that the Ebionites can't be traced to much before Irenaeus. Anyway, if you have any independent reliable sources about "neo-Ebionites" or whatever they might be called, by all means at least post a link to it in the relevant section of the Talk:Ebionites page. I am in the very early stages of trying to create what seems to me to be a neutral, unbiased version of the article in userspace, and would welcome any input about neo-Ebionites so that I could know how to structure such a section or sections of the draft article. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Levegh in 1952

Hey there. For reasons explained on the article's talk page (go take a read), that claim about the reason Levegh was leading at Le Mans in 1952 is exceedingly dubious. If you want to reinclude it then properly cite it, don't be lazy and just revert. Pyrope 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose it ever occured to you that perhaps the less lazy option for you is to tag the statement, before removal? No, of course not. --Michael C. Price talk 22:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, I raised the issue on the article talk page. I looked for a source and I couldn't find one, so I couldn't add one myself. I then actually went to the trouble of providing a detailed, discursive reasoning behind my query of its veracity. A number of people (not you...) contributed, and one person even proffered an alternative tale, although he too did not provide a reference. I gave that statement's sourcing plenty of time to be addressed but it wasn't. Pyrope 22:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
So the answer was, no, it didn't occur to you. --Michael C. Price talk 05:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You make me smile. You couldn't be bothered to check the talk page and see whether the issue had been raised, and in fact you couldn't be bothered even when I gave you a direct link to go and take a look. Yet this is somehow my failing? Hmm... Also, and I can't believe that I'm saying this to someone who apparently has been editing since 2006, but go read
WP:V. Actually, just in case you can't be bothered here's a pertinent quote: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Also "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". Sound familiar? If not then go read before getting on your high horse. As for the speed with which I made the deletion, I gave that statement over two weeks grace and the discussion was joined by at least two people who were very familiar with the subject matter but who also found the statement dubious. The claim in your edit summary that it appeared in the BBC documentary was directly contradicted by one of those contributors. Simply wafting through Wikipedia slapping unexplained tags on oddball statements isn't terribly helpful, actually trying to get to the truth of a statement and inviting discussion is. Raising an issue on a talk page is just as good as tagging and doesn't disrupt the text's readability. If you are an editor who watches a page you will be notified of a talk page comment just as well as someone putting a tag in the text; if you don't watch the page then both are ineffective. Pyrope
13:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI I did read the talk page before I commented. I also direct your attention to WP:V about tagging. --Michael C. Price talk 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You mean the section that includes the statement "alternatively, leave a note on the talk page requesting a source"? That section? If you read the talk page why did you ignore the comments therein? Pyrope 20:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Henry Hudson's date of birth

How about you not fucking do that. Thank you. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No.

Ian Chadwick is far from a reliable source. He blindly copies others. I don't think the man has ever had an original thought in that tiny head of his! Next time find a RELIABLE primary source that states his EXACT date of birth. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I've opened a mediation page here. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think history is about to be rewritten on the mediation page. You might want to weigh in with an opinion. Your call.

talk
) 16:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation seems to be at an end, after nearly a month of wasted effort. How do you want to proceed? I'm considering filing a user conduct RfC, but it requires two editors to do this. Let me know.

talk
) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a wasted effort if it shows JC's inability to work productively with others - or to provide any sources that support his POV. I'd be happy to help file an RfC, but let's exhaust mediation first? --Michael C. Price talk 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. At the very least we need to hear from Jayjg, and I wouldn't proceed with an RfC until the mediation effort is closed.
talk
) 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, again.

I don't care what Wikipedia's guidelines are. You can't MAKE UP A DATE FOR SOMEONE'S BIRTH! You keep reverting and I'll keep reverting it back. Whatever happened to proving something? Is that not possible anymore? Pure speculation is WORTHLESS. Jonas Poole (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please see my comments at User talk:Jonas Poole. PYRRHON  talk   17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to question about quantum mechanics diagram.

Hi, you put this question on my talk page in April: "Could you add some more explanation to the above diagram? What is UC? An anti-up quark? An up quark makes more sense.... doesn't it?"

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the physics illustrated in the diagram. I made it as a vector conversion from a raster version that somebody else uploaded. If you think it's wrong, please go ahead and correct it, but you might want to check with the original uploader of the raster version. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proton_decay4.png. The figure was uploaded by User:JohnMedia, who attributed the work to User:Phys.) GreenRoot (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did check the original diagram and concluded that a mistake was made in the copying process.[16] Unfortunately I do not have the editing ability to correct the newer diagram. The correction required is either to change Uc to just U, or reverse the direction of the U arrows ( as in the original diagram). --Michael C. Price talk 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, I got the direction of four of the arrows wrong. Sorry about that. You can edit diagram using Inkskape, the free program I used to make it. I've changed computers since I did the diagram, and I'm afraid I don't have enough time to get the program set up for just this one change. If you can't edit the figure either, you could replace it with the original .png version instead. GreenRoot (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposals at Henry Hudson

Hi, this is Qwyrxian, one of the "uninvolved" editors at Henry Hudson. I saw that you just reverted Jonas Poole's edits (and have done so many times before). I wonder if it might be possible for you to comment on one or both of our proposals rather than just reverting? I declined to revert his most recent removal of EB, as it seemed like we had finally begun to have a conversation on the talk page. My feeling is that if we have a clear consensus we could establish the best way to present the information. I've offered what I believe to be a compromise between his position and yours, although I don't know if either of you will see it that way. Establishing consensus on the Talk Page, even if the consensus is of a small number of editors, will (hopefully) ultimately do more good than just reverting each other until someone gets bored (not to mention, that would be edit warring). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made four contributions to the talk page on this subject, to no avail. Good luck trying to educate Jonas, but his talk page indicates a long history of stubborn incivility and an inability to learn. BTW I disagree that Chadwick is an unreliable source, but that is a minor matter. --Michael C. Price talk 04:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I just want to be clear: are you explicitly stating that now that now that an outside editor has come, after an RfC was filed, and now that several proposals have been made, you are now determined to do nothing other than revert to the version that you at least partly prefer? Again, you know that I agree that EB is a reliable source and that if I had to choose between the two edit war versions, then I'd pick the one with EB. But isn't the whole point of bringing in outside editors to actually try to seek consensus? I can completely see how frustrating Jonas' editing style is, and you can see I had to stop myself just before 3RR'ing him myself. But we can't make any progress in this debate unless people are willing to try to talk it out. If the eventual result is that Jonas refuses to ever engage on the issue of EB being a reliable source, well, then we have a different problem to deal with. But dispute resolution seems to require that everyone at least try to achieve consensus. All I'm asking for here is if you would accept the compromise I proposed, and, if not, how you would modify that compromise. If you don't want to get drawn back into a debate, I totally understand. However, I do consider it a problem for you to simply state that you will no longer join the discussion but will continue to make reverts.
Also, you say that Chadwick is a reliable source. When I looked at the linked webpage, there was nothing on it that tells me that it is reliable. It appeared to fall 100% under
WP:SPS
.
My reverts were/are not intended to be consensus blocking. Note that I reverted back to someone else's version, not my own preference. But I am mostly done with talking to Jonas, as I previously indicated; I don't see that he's taken anything on board yet, and I get tired of repeating policy quite quite quickly.
As for Chadwick, perhaps we can comprise with leaving him in the external links section? His site is informative, even if it is self-published. --Michael C. Price talk 07:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to leave a message on Jonas's talk page and appeal for him to also engage on the article's talk page, and let him know I've asked you to rejoin as well. Don't worry about the current state of the article; it's okay if it's on the "wrong version" for a little while until we achieve consensus (or prove that's impossible, in which case will move up to the next step in dispute resolution). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the talk page. As I'll mention over there, you raise a good point about ways SPS can be used, although it seems like the hurdle is high. I think the first step is to get consensus on the overall issue of how to handle the birth date, then consider that source (so that we don't end up arguing about 2 things at the same time). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Deal with the issues one at a time. --Michael C. Price talk 13:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. How's life? 95.149.78.153 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin and deep shit

I don't understand your "deep shit" comment. Could you explain, with an eye towards constructive criticism. I of course want to improve my editing. If it helps I'll explain my comment. Uninvolved users in good faith disputed whether or not the comments were actionable. To disregard those good faith editors and call their discussion uncivil in the close summary is not appropriate, so I felt a balancing comment was justified. I did not undo the close and agreed that the matter was stuck. Just saying it was stuck would have been enough of a summary. If the editor wanted to give their opinion they should have joined the discussion, and that would have been fine. I hope I'm not annoying you by posting this here, it is my intention to learn and help you understand my reasoning. Verbal chat 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My comment was intended as a wake up call, regarding your inflexible attitude w.r.t. to an indefinite ban over what is, at the very least, a debatable interpretation of someone's behaviour. It's not an open and shut case as your repeated "zero tolerance" pronoucements claim. I found your conduct very scary. If your attitude was widespread then I would not edit here; that's what I meant. --Michael C. Price talk 22:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, we do have a zero tolerance policy. I don't intend to be scary, and his editing was problematic. If we didn't have a zero tolerance policy (which has nothing to do with me, but has been applied several times recently) then I wouldn't have called for an indef block. I thought the edits were a problem, hence the policy calls for an indef block. I feel the same way about legal threats and the chilling effect they have. This is part of the problem with a zero tolerance policy, and in real life I strongly oppose such measures. As to accusations of pedophilia, and comments about being obsessed with the same, I ask how I would feel in that case, especially if my real name was attached to my account, and I think although zero tolerance may be too strict, we should not have a high tolerance for such behaviour which could have real life implications - and I don't think previous jokes excuse it, unless the comment is attached in space and time to that joke context (ie, the same thread). What shocked me in that thread was that I was giving my opinion as a genuinely uninvolved editor who had no prior interaction with those involved, yet was attacked as though I had a bias and hated the problem editor. The complete dismissal of my concerns caused me to repeat them trying to explain why I thought it was problem. Sorry if I offended you. Verbal chat 06:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That reasoning means that every infringement gets an indefinite ban, which is nonsensical. And the "infringement" here was debatable, as I previously said. --Michael C. Price talk 07:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
An indef ban may last only a minute, and it is what the policy calls for. Whether there was an infringement or not is open to debate, and I have no problem with debating that and I'm not looking to force my interpretation on any one. What the problem was in that debate was some people taking a polar position and refusing to debate, and assuming bad faith of those that disagreed. The close seemed an example of that, which didn't acknowledge that there was or even could be debate - which is why I opposed the wording of the close. I agree it is now too late for any action and the "debate", such as it was, is stuck. But I agree with your position, that it was debatable, and my position was it was an infraction. I hope you don't think I'm moving the argument to your talk page or trying to hound you with my comments here - my aim was to understand your criticism of me and try to explain my reasoning. I think we broadly agree that there was something to debate, though we make take different views on whether it deserved action, and I think (sorry if I'm wrong) that you disagree with the zero tolerance policy - I'm not 100% convinced of its utility either, and it doesn't seem to work n practice. Anyway, all the best and I hope you don't think I'm a bad thing for wikipedia. Verbal chat
Actually I don't think there is anything to debate. I originally said, it was debatable "at the very least", which is a polite way of saying it isn't. No one was called a paedophile, end of story, debate closed. --Michael C. Price talk 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese

First off, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to discuss this with you, but I thought I'd try. I noticed you continually revise the Kitty Genovese article to include the attacker's race. I keep taking it out. I am curious why you keep adding it in? Why is it relevant? I see on the talk page someone mentioned that her ethnicity is mentioned, but the article is about her, so it makes sense that it'd have autobiographical information about her. But the only physical description offered for the attacker is his race, which is troublesome. He could be identified by a myriad of other characteristics, almost all of which would be more relevant to the case and to the murder. But since there is no evidence of either his or the victim's race playing into the motivation, it seems wrong to include it. Maybe you have good reason for doing so and, if that's the case, I'm all ears. But otherwise, if you are simply going to insist on putting it in, I'm going to have to insist on taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.214.248 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Kitty's race is mentioned, so why not her attacker's? Just go with the sources. --Michael C. Price talk 06:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagged since 2008 - two years isnt enough time to find sources?

Re: [[17] Active Banana (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As is the case all over Wikipedia, statements exist that need sourcing, not deletion. Live with it. Be constructive, not destructive.
PS I don't see any specific statements that are fact-tagged in the article.--Michael C. Price talk 16:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration

Hello, Michael Price. This is to inform you that there is a

request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on. I didn't think the committee would look kindly to me posting your comment for you, so I left in on User:Likebox/DraftMotion. If you wish, please copy it to the official request.Likebox (talk
) 05:03, 8

Likebox's case --Michael C. Price talk 20:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Neanderthal behavior