User talk:Michael C Price/Archive 6

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Big Bang. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Jess_talk|_edits 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW there is a list of what is considered a PA Which do you consider I have violated? --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top and bottom of that section it's made very clear that it lists only select examples of extreme cases. In fact, the bottom states:

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.

This, this and this are not acceptable behavior, and do not serve to improve the article in any way. Each is clearly opposed to the overarching intent of WP:PA, which is stated at the beginning. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This is repeated again in the section on "Avoiding Personal Attacks". WP:CIVIL is a related policy you might consider reading through. Frankly, I don't see any ambiguity in either policy, and it seems to me you're letting frustration over a prolonged discussion get the better of you. If so, that's a shame, because your contributions while working constructively are appreciated, and I'd hate to see you get in trouble for something as minor as defining "rapid".

In any case, there's really no more I can say on this issue, particularly considering the policy pages are right there for you to investigate. If you have legitimate concerns about their applicability in this case, I'd very much suggest directing your questions to another uninvolved editor or an admin. Please do not simply ignore my warnings and continue those sort of comments, as 3 warnings will be seen as plenty, and will likely result in a report being filed. Again, that would be a shame. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your warnings, I just don't agree with your interpretation of policy. You say "Frankly, I don't see any ambiguity in either policy", but the policy also states:

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion,

before listing the things that are never allowed - none of which I trangressed, BTW, with SA. The list presumably terminates because the other items would be ill-defined and ambiguous.

Having said that there is some merit to your first example, and your 3rd is correct (although it wasn't aimed at SA), but your 2nd is way off-target. Telling someone that they really don't know how to write science articles might be the only way of communicating the point to them - and SA has not complained of any PAs from me, so why are you so intent on making a cause celebre out of it?. Sometimes people have to be told some unpleasent truths to reform their editting practices, and sometimes the only way of getting that across is to make a direct comment. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of ignoring, but advising you that if you disagree with me, you should seek advice from an uninvolved editor or admin whose opinion you can trust. The fact is that 3 editors, myself, TimothyRias and ScienceApologist, have all pointed out incivility on the Big Bang talk page. It's unfortunate that I can't get across to you why it's seen that way, but it should be clear that other people do. The intention of WP:PA is in line with the intention of WP:CIVIL; We're here to collaborate on an encyclopedia, and hostility of any kind discourages collaboration.

Further, both PA and the discussion page guidelines specify that article talk pages should be used to discuss content, not contributers. If you have a problem with the way an editor is contributing, the appropriate venue is their talk page in the form of constructive criticism or WP:ANI. Discussion of an editor in any context is not appropriate elsewhere, and certainly not if its intended solely to disparage. Again, I really don't want a report filed... but with the discussion at the level it was, it would have been inevitable. I'd really like to not go back down that road. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 09:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Actually you did accuse me of ignoring your points. Which, by the standards you espouse, could be interpreted as a PA - which is ridiculous of course.
2. No, SA has not accused me of "inciviilty on the Big Bang talk page" - indeed it would be hypocritical of him to do so, given his very long history of incivility and baiting.
3. Please don't repeat your accusation that I "intended solely to disparage" - I have already explained why this is not true, and it is also to assume bad faith, which is prohibited.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving for a flight, so this has to be quick.

1. I didn't accuse you of anything. I said "Please don't ignore my warnings... because it will result in a report being filed." Clearly I asked you not to. No accusation. Feel free to reread my response.
2. He quick clearly pointed to the 3rd diff I supplied (which is the only reason I have it), calling it "Evidence", in response to our discussion about WP:PA. Take that as you will, I guess. It's pretty clear to me.
3. Again, I didn't accuse you of "intending solely to disparage". I said you should not make comments which themselves are intended solely to disparage. What good does calling someone a moron do for the encyclopedia? How about saying another editor doesn't have a clue? How about calling into question their ability to write? Or think? I've seen all these repeatedly on the BB talk page. Those comments serve no purpose but to disparage. It discourages editors from contributing and is against policy. Please just don't do it... and if you still really disagree with me, please ask another party, such as an admin, for advice. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 16:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. So you treat implications as explicit [2] or non-existent [1] as it suits you. Sorry, no dice. As for [3], "I said you should not make comments which themselves are intended solely to disparage." that is still an assumption of bad faith, something no doubt you will be unable to see. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* I really tried... but apparently you're only interested in arguing with me about this. So, let me make myself abundantly clear. Whether or not you think you violated policy is irrelevant. If you call another user a moron on a talk page, I'll report it. Please just contribute constructively and we won't have a problem. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 09:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again you show your complete inability to admit any wrongdoing, by deflecting attention to the one incident where I've admitted culpability. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages

Hello. You are invited to take part in the discussion on Science in the Middle Ages. The question is should we keep or remove the section on the Islamic world. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites RfC

FYI. John Carter has initiated an RfC of the Ebionites article and is back to his old tricks of deleting sources. Ovadyah (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is based on having found a source subsequent to Eisenman's 1997 book which explicitly states that his theories have been rejected by the academic community. If you wish to dispute that, I believe you would best find sources which indicate that the community, as a community, has not rejected them. Also, I believe by simple logic, any other material cited from that book which is only relevant based on the acceptance of Eisenman's basic theory linking James to the Ebionites would also qualify as having been rejected. So, if there is any material which you believes qualifies on that basis, I believe there would be no objections to adding it provided the same linkages and statements were made by other academics, and those statements of those academics can be apparently taken as having not been rejected. So, basically, if the material is based to some degree on Eisenman's rejected theory, it also will be rejected, unless an independent source making the same linkage which has received a better academic reception can be found. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I: False accusations of vandalism

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. Ovadyah (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI on false statement

You should be aware that John Carter is making false statements about you to other admins. diff Your call of course, but you might want to say something to correct the record. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see how the statement that you have been banned from an article is misleading, considering you have been. The majority of the other information is, basically, about Ovadyah. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh no. Michael had a general editing restriction as to how many reverts he could make in a week for one year. He was never topic-banned from anything. Stop lying to other admins. Ovadyah (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are right, it was just a restriction. I will correct it accordingly. And, obviously, considering that you have recently faced a comment on the article talk page which by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you would have to respond to, and you don't want to do that, you are continuing your habit of trying to create troubles because dealing with the current problem would either involve violating conduct guidelines or having to face the reality that the article distorts the academic view,, right? I will correct the mistake, however, and thank you for catching it. Sorry for pinning you in the corner about how the article needs to be restructured, because I know you will resist it as much as possible, and, obviously, in any way possible, but, well, we do all have to face reality sometime, even if you hate the idea. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Michael can take care of himself, but you have already made this statement previously to other admins, and Michael has already corrected the record and informed you that you were mistaken. I can only assume, therefore, that this recent "misstatement" on your part was a knowingly false attempt at defamation. Sorry, it won't work. There are too many eyes on this article. Ovadyah (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure he provided any evidence, and, if he did, I overlooked it. Good luck on continuing to make these comments elsewhere rather than dealing with actually getting the article to conform to guidelines. But then, you will do anything to avoid making the article conform to guidelines that don't serve your purposes, won't you? John Carter (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should I provide evidence to correct your faulty memory? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. However, the evidence can easily be pulled together as diffs if it comes to that. Ovadyah (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation request

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebiontes and indicate your willingness or unwillingness to take part in the formal mediation process. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User conduct RfC

I left a message on John Carter's talk page asking him to edit consensually, assume good faith, and refrain from personal attacks, threats, accusations of bias etc. diff I have collected diffs of his inappropriate behavior as it relates to me personally from the Ebionites article talk page, my user talk page, the mediation page, and the talk pages of admins Jayjg and SlimVirgin. Should you decide to participate in a user conduct RfC, you will need to add a similar message to John Carter's talk page, or you can feel free to add your comments to mine. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

John Carter blanked my friendly reminder to edit consensually and assume good faith. Therefore, you will have to leave your own message as you see fit. John Carter also posted some rather unflattering commentary about you on Jayjg's talk page (to say the least). You might want to check it out. Ovadyah (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas, for the next few days I will not have the time to respond to John Carter's latest wall-of-texts. He has shown himself totally incapable of evaluating sources and reviews, and I don't think that is ever going to change -- engaging with him seems pointless except via mediation. Since there is only one of him and two of us, I don't think he can do too much damage at the moment (he has not reverted your restoration of some of the lost material), so I'm not going to lose much sleep over the matter. However, in the long term a user-RfC is probably the appropriate solution.

I was amused to see his latest rantings starting to descend into paranoid accusations of secret collusion by his "enemies". Hopefully a sign that a complete mental breakdown is on its way, which would be a positive development for Wikipedia.

On a completely trivia point, my copy of The Jesus Dynasty is hardcover, but a UK edition, and I'm quite happy to go with the pages numbers of your edition, especially if those are the numbers that google books gives. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing up why there are different versions. I will mention it to Jayjg just to correct the record. I am super-busy myself this week with project deadlines, so no rush on the article. I won't respond to your observation for now other than to say I have been in more heated edit-wars, but this one is getting creepy. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect to your observation, you might want to check out this diff. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the current circumstances, how do you want to proceed? Ovadyah (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I have grave reservations as to the point of opening a new mediation, I will enter if you also wish to participate. Perhaps the old mediation can be resumed with just a new mediator? That at least would mean we don't waste the progress that was made. I think N was being pessimistic - with or without mediation the article can (and was/is) be(ing) progressed.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is seldom a downside to mediation, other than it being a waste of everyone's time. In this case, I'm more concerned than usual about the mediator being played as a pawn, given the endless grandstanding we already suffered through in the informal mediation. It needs to be stipulated from the outset to the mediator that we are moving forward from where we left off rather than starting over. If all the parties can't agree to that, we are through with a new round of mediation before it starts. Ovadyah (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking how you want to proceed regarding a user conduct RfC. Yes, no, or maybe so? Ovadyah (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC) On second thought, let's not discuss it to avoid the inevitable accusations of collusion later. If I see a warning on JC's talk page, I will know all I need to know. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

See my response on the mediation page. Let JC blow himself out or blow himself up. Just stay cool - he's good at keeping calm and baiting others, don't fall for it. Give him enough rope and he'll hang himself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Thanks for the advice. I'm going to formal mediation. It's a step that should be taken, even though a successful outcome is improbable. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus Dynasty

Michael, please do not remove templates placed on articles based on discussion at noticeboards simply on your own unfounded assertion that the sources are reliable. It is painfully obvious that you didn't even bother to look at the talk page, which indicated that the Compassionate Spirit website has been found unreliable at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In all honesty, this sort of seemingly arrogant disregard for basic rational behavior is far from appealing. Also, I notice that you are now attending to that article after you have been asked to substantiate your own so-far unfounded allegations regarding previous consensus at Talk:Ebionites. Please actually address the questions raised, and produce the evidence to support your own as of yet unfounded claim. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I had looked at the talk page, so please respond there, not here. The same logic that exclude the pro review excludes the con. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please fill in the summary field

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Dave3457 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a habit I find hard to maintain. I always prefer to let the edits speak for themselves. Sorry! Will try, though. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, its just that if there is a edit summary one often doesn't have to take the time to look at the actual edit. One can also get sense of what has been happening with a page just by looking at its edit history page. Myself, I give more detailed edit summaries than most. Dave3457 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

Moved to [1] for more feedback. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

H J

If you're interested in working on the Historical Jesus and related articles, you might also be interested in a source mentioned recently here. I think there is also more than a little evidence to suggest that Jesus' family name was Bar Tsabba' as I discussed here, which can be taken to mean son of a holy warrior or zealot. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always assumed that the HJ article would never stablise or retain objective content. Perhaps I misjudged it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi, are you aware of WP's strict policies on canvassing? Tony (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My Sandbox, my rules. But there is no intention to subvert consensus, since this will move to the MOS talk page eventually if it floats. In the meantime, feel free to copy my proposal to the MOS talk page, if you like, but the general view expressed by the delinkers was that they had had enough of talk. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, canvassing in the way you are doing it is forbidden by policy. Have you read the policy? It doesn't matter where you place your proposal right now. Tony (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

As indicated, that is the intent.--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to concur with Price on this one. It's fine and routine to work with specific parties on userspaced content, of any kind (keeping also in mind that we don't totally control our own user pages or subpages thereof, and WP is not a web hosting service, of course). There's plenty of precedent for exclusionary collaboration in userspace, even with regard to draft material eventually intended for broader discussion in the "Wikpedia:" namespace (cf. WP:ATT and all the drafts and redrafts and polls and drafts and redrafts of polls, and positions on polls, and so on, about it back in the day; a great deal of that was developed by limited groups of people in userspace, with editors explicitly excluded for WP:DE reasons if they were inimical to whatever proposal was being worked on). I also have to concur with Price that WT:LINKING has become a hostile and unproductive environment borderline WP:OWNed by increasingly tendentious parties, small in number but virulent with vitriol, and that this makes calm drafting of reasonable changes to propose nearly impossible there. That page is overrun with pure, knee-jerk hysteria. It will be much more productive for consensus for editors who feel that WP:LINKING has gone off the rails to agree on exactly what's wrong with it and how to fix it and then present a clean, unitary proposal, instead of a bunch of people randomly throwing ideas into a pot that is already boiling over the rim. We need less mess, not more of it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, it has been a way of gaming the system. Tony (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Repeated links proposal

Hello. You have a new message at SMcCandlish's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Michael C Price/links's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Earth

My seven-year-old son asked me today why the earth spins around on its axis. I can't find an explanation anywhere. Can you point me to any resources with the possible answers? Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The best one-word answer I saw was from an SF short-story: "inertia". --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure, inertia could explains why it keeps rotating. but aren't there satellites that don't rotate? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Longer answer: sure, some don't rotate now, but they used to rotate. It's like water going down a plug hole, which has nothing to do with coriolis forces contrary to popular mythology, BTW; 2 objects passing eachother have a joint angular momentum, unless they collide head on, which is unlikely. Similarly with the gas clouds that formed the solar system, they have an initial angular momentum. As they contracted they had to gain angular velocity to conserve angular momentum, so angular velocities or rotation is magnified during the contraction, like an spinning ice-skater. So any planets that formed would be spinning. That why the planets spin in the same direction - almost.--Michael C. Price ^talk 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"censorship"

I think you're just being boring with this revert, calling it censorship. The thread's tired and was in a downward spiral, which I was attempting to break. You are welcome to continue participating in the spiral, as seems to be your wish. I'm done. Have it your way. I hope you find your nirvana. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to reflect on what bias, WP:COI and cognitive dissonance mean. Archiving an active talk thread scores pretty high on all three. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Einstein on Bohm's theory

In his paper Elementare Ueberlegungen zur Interpretation der Grundlagen der Quanten-Mechanik (published in Scientific papers presented to Max Born on his retirement from the Tait Chair of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, London, 1953, p. 33-40) Einstein discussed a simple (one-dimensional) stationary wave function to demonstrate in case of macroscopic particles the impossibility of an individual-particle interpretation of the quantum mechanical wave function (as opposed to his ensemble interpretation). On page 39 he discusses the Bohm theory (in which momentum of a particle is represented by the quantity $\scriptstyle \partial S/\partial x$, S being the argument of a polar representation of the spatial part of the wave function). The argument hold against the Bohm theory is that for the considered wave function $\scriptstyle p=\partial S/\partial x=0$, whereas according to the Born interpretation measurement of momentum yields a result that is different from 0. His rejection of the Bohm theory is evident from the following quotation on this page: ``Dieser uebrigens schon vor ein Viertel-Jahrhundert von Pauli erhobene Einwand gegen diesen theoretischen Versuch ist im Hinblick auf unser Beispiel besonders schwerwiegend. Das Verschwinden der Geschwindigkeit widerspricht naemlich der wohlbegruendeten Forderung, dass im Falle eines Makro-Systems die Bewegung mit der aus der klassischen Mechanik folgenden Bewegung angenaehert uebereinstimmen soll.WMdeMuynck (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Be careful about doing blind reverts as you did here; the changes I made were explained in edit summaries. They relate to WP:OVERLINK and WP:V. --John (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I did look at your previous edits, as well as the section blanking. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So why have you restored stuff that isn't verifiable and/or doesn't conform to our linking guideline? I refrained from templating you as I thought you were an experienced editor; did I judge correctly or do you need an explanation of how we work here? --John (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look up "isn't verifiable". --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am an administrator and have four years' experience in enforcing WP:V. I routinely block people who are unable or unwilling to follow our policies. While this is not intended as a threat, I strongly suggest you turn down the snark level a bit. You are wrong and I am right. Let's take this to article talk, unless you need to go somewhere else to learn more about our policies WP:V and WP:CIVIL. I don't think you really need that, do you? --John (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. You said "isn't verifiable", which was wrong. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't. Explain why it's wrong. My patience with you is wearing thin at this point. John (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mine too. See article talk page.--Michael C. Price ^talk 01:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Why has the linking at the opening of that article now been degraded by splashing low-value links around? The article is already within two NYC categories. The high-value links at the opening are "Kew Gardens" (it already has "Queens" in the target title), "Social psychology", "Bystander effect" and "Diffusion of responsibility". Why would we want to weaken the visual impact of those links with "New York City" (which I note is piped as well to just "New York", a confusion between state and city and a duplication)? This is bad linking practice. Tony (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unjustifiable removal of POV template from The Jesus Dynasty

Your completely off-topic comment on the talk page did nothing to address the legitimate concerns raised, and thus there is no justifiable reason to remove the template. Please do not engage in an edit war by again removing the template until and unless the concerns raised have been addressed. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

You're an old enough hand at this game I won't insult you with a standardised templated message. The lack of archiving at WT:Linking has gone on for long enough; it is causing problems now that the page is standing at 385kB. I doubt if earlier sections are being read. Now other editors changed the archive settings over concerns about its size. You can contribute to restoring a semblance of sanity there by not resisting the archiving at 14 days. Thanks for your cooperation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your insistence at decreasing the archive time would be easier to accept as impartial if you hadn't engaged in selectively achiving active threads in the past. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't

Don't do this kind of thing [2]. I've reverted it, of course. If there is something you don't understand, then ask William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Little Big Man

I understand your thought that the historical character of this name should have an article of his own- but I'm not sure that I see the point of wikifying the current LBM ref on the Crazy Horse page when we both know that a) there is no current article on the man or DAB, and b) clicking on the wikified link will take readers to the completely unrelated film. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait to wikify LBM until there is an article that is properly about the referenced individual? Sensei48 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't mind either way. I was hoping the link would inspire someone else to do the work. :-) Might make a start tomorrow if no one objects. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites 2 Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Ebionites 2 case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been rather active today, actually, but I see that you haven't made a statement in the above yet. I do think that might be a comparatively high priority, and have to wonder why you have, at least so far, not made a statement of your position yet. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI. The mediator left a note for you on the mediation talk page. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Eugenie Blanchard

You made an edit to Oldest people related to Eugenie Blanchard's death, but you didn't bother editing to mention who is now the world's oldest woman. Georgia guy (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because I'm not sure yet! --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony Miles

I've added a link at Tony Miles about the 1984 controversy - see if you think that is sufficient. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The link is helpful, but I still don't understand what the controversy was about. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about WeijiBaikeBianji's possible COI

(This comment is being posted to several editors who were involved in the AFD for High IQ society.)

I’ve just noticed the now-closed AFD for this article, and the concerns that were raised in it about WeijiBaikeBianji’s possible conflict of interest on IQ-related articles. I’ve also had some concerns about WeijiBaikeBianji’s editing behavior on these articles, and so have a few other editors who weren’t involved in the AFD, so I recently brought up this issue with Coren, one of the arbitrators. The discussion about this is here. Coren is offering some advice about how this issue ought to be handled, so he suggested that I contact the other editors who’ve been concerned about this possible COI.

One thing that Coren is suggesting is to start an RFC about WeijiBaikeBianji. Whether you agree with that suggestion or not, I think it would be a good idea for any of you to participate in the discussion in Coren’s user talk, in order to help figure out what the best way is to deal with this situation. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Singularitarianism, you may want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

86.174.64.123 (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)?

1. LOL
2. Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism article. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding this article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
3. I find it disgusting that User:86.174.64.123 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
4. In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't take the bait. Plenty of fun elsewhere. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The dispute between me and 86.174.64.123 has been more or less resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

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. You were not specifically named, but you appear to be involved in the discussion where the user is complaining about conduct. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI re 3RR warning

I placed a 3RR warning on John Carter's talk page which he promptly deleted here. No further warnings should be required. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe he is already in 4rr. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that John Carter has taken this matter to AN/I without properly notifying any of the other participants. A warning about sock puppetry has been placed at User_talk:John, if this is indeed a sock, John Carter is probably in violation of 4RR. Ovadyah (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that John and JC are the same. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and I have already apologized to John for this mistake. Ovadyah (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You know, Michael, both of your most recent "explanations" for your reversions of the weasel words template are, basically, nonsensical. You indicate that the entire article does not need a rewrite in your edit summary, and, on that basis, you remove a template indicating that the article uses weasel words. I realize you have been told this repeatedly by several people before, but we do have guidelines for both talk page comments and edit summaries. Would it really be asking that much of you to ask you to abide by them? John Carter (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read the template display text???? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Which template, Michael? The one that includes only the words "weasel words" and links to the relevant guideline, which is the one you have been removing, or the template at the top of the page, which was added some time ago and discussed at fair length then, and which you seem to be challenging in your reversion? Once again, your comments do not seem to make much sense. Please try to make a bit more sense in the future. Please. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter: both templates are inappropriate. Ovadyah explained why the inline one was not appropriate, and I have explained why the article template was inappropriate. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael, whether you believe this or not, and apparently you don't, it is not the place of a single editor, such as you, to arrogantly state that templates are inappropriate without indicating why, and there has been no discussion on the talk page from either you or Ovadyah to indicate that the templates are inappropriate, although reasons for their addition have been made. Also, it seems I must once again ask you to make a bit more effort to make sure that your accusations of others are accurate. The fourth reversion was done by John, not John Carter. Please feel free to report your own inability to differentiate the two, but also realize that false, threatening accusations such as the one you made are also potentially serious violations of user conduct guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that will teach me to not bring charges while I'm recovering from 'flu, but even in this addled state I can't help but notice that you have failed to address the substantive point made: explanations have been provided in the edit summaries, you're just not interested in them. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for your having the flu, and I hope you recover quickly. I don't know how bad the strain where you are is, but a lot of the people I deal with here have been struck fairly seriously by it. And, actually, I did address the substantive point you made. I indicated that it was completely irrelevant to the edits you made. The restoration of the template for complete rewrite was made a few days ago, based on the fact that it had been removed by another editor, Ret. Prof., who was comparatively new, some time earlier, based on the fact that mediation was about to begin. As we both know, it hasn't, and the points made for adding the template when it was first added have yet to be addressed. So, while your comments may have been substantive, they were basically irrelevant to your edits themselves, so they basically failed as relevant edit summaries. If, as is certainly possible, your flu makes thinking more difficult (and I know some things that have happened over the years have done that to me) maybe it would be a good idea to refrain from making such edits until you are more thoroughly recovered. I've done that myself quite a few times around here. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you still get epilespy, or did you eventually recover from the mugging? And, no, I don't know the strain, but probably swine 'flu, since it seems of short duration - I do feel better now. BTW I see no evidence that Ret Prof removed the template because of the ongoing mediation. Evidence please. And please stop whining about the lack of active mediation - you were the one who derailed the previous mediation with your spurious accusations against the mediator. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

incompleteness theorem

To answer your question about how we know G_PA is true: if we assume PA is consistent (an assertion denoted Con(PA)), then we can prove G_PA. Stated more formally, G_PA is a theorem of PA+Con(PA). G_PA is not a theorem of PA all by itself, because (second incompleteness theorem) PA does not prove Con(PA). In fact, you can prove Con(PA) if you assume PA + G_PA.

Torkel Franzen's book cited in the article bibliography explains all of the above pretty well.

67.122.209.190 (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Inflation

Could you explain this revert? Mayby I'm wrong, but in the discussion, TimothyRias supported my point of view. Olaf (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The black hole slows C, not speeds it up, but the rest of the statement is correct. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Panspermia

The disagreement about panspermia.org might best be discussed at the external links noticeboard, so please have a look at the report I created at WP:ELN#Panspermia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Epiphanius

Hi Michael, you said you would like to see the Hennecke-Schneemelcher (i.e. Vielhauer-Strecker-Wilson) chapters on Gospel of the Ebionites. It is, I find, here. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd Messenian War

Hi Michael. Sorry but there is a problem when an article presents a mythical account as if it were history. The listed sources are poorly cited primary sources, obtained via intermediate online sites, and what look like garbled lecture notes. The problems are so many I could almost tag every sentence. In fact almost nothing is known about the second Messenian war - it's a matter of scholarly speculation, not heresay passed on by unnamed ancient sources. The general tag I place at the head of the article was borrowed from First Messenian War, which has the same problems. Maybe you should remove the tag from there too. McZeus (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Legends (not myths) are based around a kernel of truth (e.g. Trojan war), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't report them here. Rather than tag the entire article as flawed, just add a rider to the intro stating this -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I added a 'rider' i.e. a tag alerting the reader and editor to major problems with the article i.e. absence of reliable sources and the need for a complete rewrite. I intend reinstating the tag because I have no time to do the major repairs the article requires. Evidently you have no time for it either. Cheers. McZeus (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see much in need of repair. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've removed the tag again and replaced it with the statement that it was a "legendary war". The war was real, Michael, only the treatment is legendary. Do you even know who the real sources are? There is nothing worse for WP's credibility than a failure to acknowledge mistakes and short-comings, and that is what you have achieved by your strange response. Keep it, if it means so much to you. I have better things to do. McZeus (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is the sort of problem that an unspecific tag generates. I don't know which sources or statements you're contesting. Your edit comment mentioned "fantasy" - how is anyone to know what you mean by that? Why don't you tag the particular statements? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The tag was very specific - the entire article lacks reliable sources and it needs a complete rewrite. It needs to be sourced in clearly identified modern scholarship and it needs to be rewritten from that perspective. It currently retails info from primary sources (and that's against WP policy) - mainly Tyrtaeus (whose very existence is open to question) and Pausanias (who sourced his info from a poem). It's like writng an article on Troy using only Homer as your source. I don't understand your object to a tag. The article looks even worse if there is no tag to warn the reader. Same as when you go to the supermarket and a spillage has made the floor slippery - warnings are better than no acknowledgement of the problem. You should restore tags to both Messenian Wars. I'm not going to fight with you over it. I'll just shop for my history somewhere else from now on. McZeus (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of the Ebionites

If you have time, can you take a crack a tidying up the wording and provide a reliable source (or sources) for the Ebionites section of the GoE article. As I mentioned on the talk page, I like the short description of the Ebionites as a sect in three sentences, but it reads like somebody's recollection. Maybe one or two of John's encyclopedic sources that he's so eager to use would do the trick. No rush. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Bit distracted at the moment, though. Just as well there's no rush :-) My first thought is, do we even need an Ebionite section? Would not a single link or two to Ebionite suffice? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make more work. Maybe we can just leave it out. I'll check the other J-C gospel pages first and leave a note on the talk page if I take it out. Thanks for taking a look. Ovadyah (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The text was lifted almost word for word from Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities (2003). That's fine as a source. I'll try to make the wording more concise. Ovadyah (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Ebionites regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been identified as part of a tag team (with me) in this incident report. I thought you might want to know. Ovadyah (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious, all that bluster, and then the mountains spewed forth a mouse. :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Eek! A mouse! :0) Ovadyah (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the law of unintended consequences is striking again! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, John carter has removed the attack page against me and the material he collected that violated copyright. Consequently, Jayjg is ready to begin mediation again if all parties to the content dispute are willing. Ovadyah (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Panspermia.org

The Hoyle interview may be a relevent link (just meets #4 of WP:ELMAYBE), but the site's owner has a really bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to spamming his site (he refuses to discuss things with me; really only talks with people to look for ways to promote his site, ignoring their advice when they don't give him a way around WP:COI and WP:RS). Multiple editors have explained to him that he shouldn't promote his site, that it doesn't meet our sourcing guidelines, but I've just reverted him for using it as a source. I think that the two instances that it's in article space are only encouraging him. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not a good reason for removing an informative link. IMO -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

FWIW, it might be useful to know that revelation of confidential e-mails, live Ovadyah has done, is itself unacceptable to the ArbCom. Also, I think you should note that I never said in the e-mail that I was going to seek to ban you - rather, I indicated that your own behavior would result in that outcome, if the matter ever goes to ArbCom. I believe, based on your edits since then, that would still be the likely outcome. Anyway, considering you and Ovadyah have been tag-teaming for some time on this article, I figure he will see this message here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean the revelation of emails that you promised to make available upon request? Can't see what you're protesting about. BTW I suggest you think about the difference between tag-teaming and collaborative editing. Have a nice day. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, John Carter (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Michael C Price. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 04:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

History Lesson

John Carter was announced as one of the three main contributors to the Ebionites article during opening statements requesting arbitration. I thought you might find it instructive to see an accounting of the total of his contributions of any kind to the Ebionites article during the entire time he has worked on it, as well as his total contributions of sourced content to the article. here That's all folks! Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, his "contributions" are invariably negative and deletionist. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A single sentence added to the lead section, overwritten and forgotten while I was on extended break. A Modern Ebionites section added to the article, all the while complaining that the other editors are POV-pushing modern Ebionites. All of his other edits - well, I'll leave it to the reader to decide. Ovadyah (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you make any sense of what John Carter is saying on Jayjg's talk page? First he was castigating me for adding content about the EJC to the article, until I pointed out to him that he added that material himself. Then he switched to castigating me for not adding content about the EJC to the article. He seems to be about ready to implode. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

John Carter never makes much sense to me. His posts - which he once described as "streams of unconsciousness" - are riddled with innuendo and factual errors, and written with the minimum of effort (e.g. not even putting section headers in his notifications). He will always argue both sides of an argument, whichever is most convenient at the moment. There also seems a streak of paranoia - anyone who disagrees with him is eventually accused of colluding or tag-teaming. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration Ebionites 2

The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits completed to Quantum decoherence

Greetings,

I wanted to inform you that a paragraph and a few sentences were added to the article Quantum decoherence, for which it appears you have been the primary author. It was my intent to add some plain-language descriptions, in hopes of creating more readability or comprehension for folks who are not Quantum Physics majors.

I've had the honor of some direct contact with several of the experts, including Zeh, Joos, and Zeilinger. But my perception is that you must have an excellent knowledge of the subject, to write some of the content you did. It is a very tricky subject. When writing about decoherence, entanglement, non-locality, or superpositions, I know I have nailed it, when the word processor prompts me to change 'is' to 'is not.'

But; having been sternly corrected by Dieter Zeh, I did go back and learn more about some things. I hope I have done the subject justice, by what I have added. If so; it should greatly aid comprehension for non-experts, and we can get rid of the silly "too technical" tag. I thought it was fine for a technical summary, but a knowledgeable friend said it was incomprehensible, so I thought I could add some explanatory notes.

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau JonathanD (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I had noticed the article was evolving in a generally favourable direction. I wasn't sure what I thought of the layman's paragraph in the lead when I last looked - it made me pause for thought (always a good thing) - but I haven't had time to really digest it yet. (I'm a bit busy off-Wiki at the moment.) Thanks for the note, I'll certainly look over the material and see if any further tweaks can be made. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Life in a Mortal Universe section of ultimate fate of the universe

Hi, I'm worried that this section is present and given an undue weight since they appear to be mostly fringe theories. just posting here to draw your attention to the talk page for discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Buoyancy

Please don't edit war. If your edit is reverted, then the WP:BRD system expects you to discuss the edit, not immediately revert the reversion - it's not BRRD! I've re-re-reverted your re-reversion for reasons that will become apparent, but how long do you intend to continue this method of settling a disputed piece of text? The one who edit wars longest has consensus? Believe me, I'm just as certain that you're wrong as you are that you're right. So let's discuss this collaboratively, shall we?

The story of the gold crown has nothing to do with buoyancy, as only a knowledge of density is required - i.e that all gold objects of the same weight will cause the same amount of water to overflow, and less water than a silver crown of the same weight. Bouyancy is the upthrust that a body immersed in a fluid experiences, and no matter how you look at it, that has nothing to do with the crown. That is particularly true for the WP:OR you introduced in your second edit (I mean that's not what the source says). That's because Archimedes didn't realise "that the weight of the water he displaced was equal to his own weight" – he realised that for a floating object, the weight of the water it displaces is equal to equal to the weight of the object. That is not true for an object which is not floating, and I don't believe that many gold crowns float. In fact, a sunken object displaces its own volume of water and weighs less by the weight of the volume it displaces (that's the buoyant force). Have a look through the talk page archives and you'll see exactly the same discussion occurring. If you still don't see the point I'm making, I'll copy this to the article talk page and we can see dispute resolution. --RexxS (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said the crown was about bouyancy, I said the bath incident was (see my edit comment). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My problem wasn't with what you stated in your your edit summary; it was with the content of the text that you inserted into the article[3]. Perhaps you might be willing to concede that that was just a little bit too crown-centric for an article about buoyancy? Cheers! --RexxS (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So why delete the bath incident, which is about bouyancy? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I threw the baby out with the bathwater! But it was a very small baby and a lot of bathwater in that edit you made. Have a look at the talk page archives, where if my memory serves me correctly, there was a general agreement to get rid of the anecdotes. I think the reason is that they are frequently misunderstood (as in the misconception that the case of the crown is somehow related to buoyancy). Most of us don't even float in the bath, we sit on the bottom (although we could float if it was a larger container), so it's a pretty poor example to be working with to help explain buoyancy, wouldn't you agree? Would it belong in the article on Archimedes, perhaps? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall look at the archives, but I would never agree to remove useful anecdotes. Most readers can relate to concrete examples better than abstract explanations. If they are poorly understood that means they are poorly explained (as was this one before I corrected it, prior to your deletion). And I'm afraid I can't agree that it is a poor example - it is iconic and universally known - and, yes, commonly misunderstood. What a perfect example for correction and illumination. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what's your view on removing useless anecdotes? Having taught for more than 25 years, I can assure you that no matter how good you are, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear: you pick a good example to start with, and bodies in baths just don't cut it. If you're really interested in educating folks about buoyancy, you're much better off floating a cube of wood in water, and making some measurements. Then you can work towards the conclusion that the volume of the cube below the waterline is the same as the volume of water whose weight is equal to the weight of the wooden cube. However, we have to write our encyclopedia from reliable sources, not from our own half-remembered anecdotes. Your edit correcting the story of Archimedes is actually plain wrong:

• "Puzzling over this whilst entering a bath Archimedes realised that the weight of the water he displaced was equal to his own weight"

In fact Archimedes realised that the submerged crown would displace a volume of water equal to its own volume – a result somewhat obvious nowadays, but a possible basis for the story. See Archimedes#The Golden Crown for a fuller discourse on the subject, along with three sources to consult. If you do decide that the buoyancy article is in need of the golden crown story, then at least work from the source that speculates how it may have been related to buoyancy. Vitruvious says something different. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what's your view on removing useless anecdotes? is begging the question. BTW I also teach. And my correction to the anecdote was not plain wrong - no one knows whether his insight began with the weight or the volume of displaced water. You're assuming the latter. One again you're begging the question. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

GE peer review

Lads, I opened a page for Peer Review on the Gospel of the Ebionites article. Your input is most welcome to get the article ready for GAC. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit busy right now, but will try and contribute. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No rush. I think they leave the peer review page open for a month. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of Material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External link question on Ebionites

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

Ebionites mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Didache

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

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

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

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

Ebionite Jewish Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP Physics in the Signpost

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

How does a unitary time development operator imply detailed balance?

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

Durant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vitamin C megadosage and Vitamin C and the common cold

Hi Michael, here's something you may wish to comment on: [4]Vitaminman (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD

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

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

Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Abortion

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

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

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