User talk:Michael C Price: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:36, 15 August 2006 editCri du canard (talk \| contribs)339 edits →3RR ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk \| contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{semi-retired\|date=March 2012}}
			{{Archive box\|auto=long\|age=100\|bot=MiszaBot I}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav\|noredlinks=y}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 8
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(100d)
			\|archive = User talk:Michael C Price/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
	'''Welcome!'''		'''Welcome!'''

Line 12:		Line 22:
	You did very nice edits on ]! Welcome to wikipedia! --] 10:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)		You did very nice edits on ]! Welcome to wikipedia! --] 10:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
	: Thanks DD -- glad you liked it. Thanks for the links. I'll probably confine myself straightforward textural edits for the near future whilst I get the hang of the metatools.--] 12:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)		: Thanks DD -- glad you liked it. Thanks for the links. I'll probably confine myself straightforward textural edits for the near future whilst I get the hang of the metatools.--] 12:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
	==IQ societies==
	Michael, you, together with ] seem to have become the voice of those who are against the deletion of many of the articles. May I make a suggestion? Userfy them, and work on them until they would pass muster. An article like Giga is not going to stand on its own; it is a prime candidate for brief mention in a parent article. An article like Hoeflein (pardon the spelling) may well be able to, if it is properly filled with accounts or information that show notability. Further, if significant improvement is made to the article during the AfD, that is grounds for asking people to reconsider their opinions. My prime goal here is to make Misplaced Pages better according to the currently accepted rules and guidelines. You know my opinion of rap vs. IQ from the other discussions. Also, I would have had a different opinion on the run-of-the-mill public school than others, but wikipedia is run by consensus, and that is the current consensus. I'm sure you have heard of Nomic; Misplaced Pages, to me, is a living example thereof, and this is a particular case. Misplaced Pages would be better off with articles on these topics that meet its standards, but some of these, to me, just do not. -- ] 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

			== Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can ==
	==Apologies==
	My apologies for deleting the talk page text. Next time, I'll simply post my snarky comments beneath. ] 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
	:That's what I normally do. :-) --] <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

			<div class="messagebox cleanup metadata plainlinks">
	==AfD's etc.==
			{\| style="width:100%;background:none"
	I do not have a vendetta against High-IQ societies ''per se'', although my ] membership leaves me with dubious of most of them. My goal is to make Misplaced Pages a better place overall, in accordance with the policies and guidelines in force at the present time. My instinct, as I write on my user page, is I'd rather no data than garbage/inappropriate data, but I am not going to throw out things on principle. Although I haven't undergone analysis recently ( :-P ) I do not think I am motivated by any sense of jealousy or spite, even though I know the results of the only accepted standaed test I took do not make me eligible for Prometheus etc. (I think my sigma was around 3.68 or 3.69 or something like that, I have to check. We dummies don'r have as good a memory as you geniuses :-P ). Researching these AfD's I have come across a lot of interesting data, such as the discussions of 24, 16, or 15 points of IQ per SD, that mega paper comparing various tests, the various College Board reports on the SAT, recentering, and correlations with g and intelligence, etc.) In my opinion, FWIW, these are all things that should be in the High-IQ article, and the various individual society articles should discuss their particular spins on them. You and those with whom you associate are in an excellent position to enhance Misplaced Pages in that regard, please do so. While ] are items to be uprooted, truly notable information ''should'' be kept and enhanced. Thanks. -- ] 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
			\| bgcolor="#ffdead" width=60\|]
			\| bgcolor="#ffdead" \|'''The article ], to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring ].'''<br>
			If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Misplaced Pages's ]. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the ]'s talk page.<br>
			<small>You have been left this message by ], an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on ].</small>
			\|}</div>

	:Actually I only just scrapped into Mensa on the standard tests (I do better on untimed ones, and you might be surprised how well you and a lot of folks around here would do on them).

			== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
	:I am rather taken aback that you are explaining that you don't have a vendetta going -- I assumed you'd seen my apologies to you and Byrgenwulf on that score on various talk pages, although I most definitely think that that is a motivating undercurrent for some contributors.

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	:Where we disagree is that I would rather almost any bad data be kept because it can be tagged with warning notices and be used as a basis for future expansion and correction. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2022\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	I must have missed that edit, thank you, I do appreciate that. On the second topic, you may enjoy this, it has lead to many a bloodbath and userbox deletion crusade: ]. ''Bon appétit'' -- ] 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
	== Many worlds interpretation ==
	Hi. I have been looking at the article on the MWI, and while it is undoubtedly comprehensive, there are a number of quibbles I have with it...but rather than jump in headlong and start uprooting long-standing content (much of which is of good quality), I have left a message on the talk page there, outlining the first of my quibbles. I thought I should point this out to you, since it seems you have a bit of an editing history there and are an afficionado of the theory judging from the blurb on your userpage. ] 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

			</div>
	:I have just started answering your question on the MWI talk page. See over there shortly. Have you looked at ] as well? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1124425183 -->

			== Stop reverting my referenced edits. ==
	==Mega Society==

			I put my content back and added another source. ] (]) 20:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
	You may. Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

			:You are degrading the article with changes no one else agrees with - and which are often false. wholey or partially cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
	The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Misplaced Pages to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Misplaced Pages is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Misplaced Pages, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Misplaced Pages, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	If your supporters were more familiar with Misplaced Pages, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "<s>faster<s>, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, ] 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	:Actually not just me, but also "my supporters" as you call them, help develop the userfied version -- we were in the process of expanding the mega society article when the AfD guillotine came down. Anyway, that's besides the point, I ''am'' heartened that you seem to be indicating that the userfied article can be restored in good faith. In view of this I guess it is rather academic, but why did you discount the votes of, say, ] or ]? They are not new users, not did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith?
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2023\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	:On a more general point I am disturbed at the divergence between procedure and practice in the AfD process. And it's not just a question of vague wording -- votes should not be the determining factor in the AfD (although in the DRV, yes); the guidelines are quite clear about this. And they are clear that if a consensus is not reached the default should be '''keep'''. There seems no way to address procedural errors within the AfD process, within the DRV process itself. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	::Speaking as admin now, and not as the closer, I can say that there was no flaw in this AfD in my opinion. Administrators are given "discretion," remember; although it is not formally written within policy that the standard for DRV review is what the law calls "abuse of discretion," admin discretion is still broad, and it is understood that two different admins might make different decisions in close cases: this is what the concept of discretion implies. One very common case where admin discretion is employed is discounting sockpuppets. This AfD began with a slew of IP addresses voting "keep" without offering a rationale. It is a fact of administrative life that, absent very compelling circumstances, this assures the article is of questionable merit. Floods of IP and new votes are very, very, very, very, very counterproductive: I cannot stress that enough, obviously. Unless many established Wikipedians appear to agree with these floods, and barring the intervention of an unprecedentally-powerful advocate, the article will be deleted. This is what the guideline is referring to when it says "AfD is not a vote-count": if two experienced Wikipedians say to delete an article, and five hundred IP address say to keep it, it will probably be deleted (of course, the admin checks the article to ensure that the Wikipedians' arguments are reasonable as well.) If the maxim "AfD is not a vote" is invoked 20 times a day at AfD, in 18 of those cases, it is invoked to ignore "a raw majority" of sockpuppets and new users arguing without sufficient background in policy. Needless to say, we get these sockpuppet floods in ''great numbers''. Occasionally, perhaps, an article of merit is deleted because it so happens that it is supported by counterproductive means -- if that happens, the article's supporters need to understand that in the merits of the article, and not in the intricacies of process, lay their best hope. Best wishes, ] 17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

			</div>
	:::I do understand the concept of discretion but that is not what I saw operating here: discretion operates within bounds and these bounds ''in practice'' appear to bear no relation to documented policy, although I do take on board your point about IP addresses. Even if practice is not going to change (and I suspect it isn't) the policy documents need to be updated to reflect this. Returning to the specific DRV, can I remind you of my question of how you discounted the votes of ] or ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 -->
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 11#Hyperstars}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]]] 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
	::::User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, ] 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	:::::I'm not impressed by your assumptions. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2024\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	::::::It was eventually (but far from initially) admitted by User Canon that he is Chris Cole, an officer of the Mega Society. Therefore, his participation in the deletion and deletion review processes arguably constitutes a conflict of interest and an instance of "shilling". ] 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	Why? It is a conflict of interest, perhaps, were he the closing administrator, but I see nothing preventing him from voicing his opinion. -- ] 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

			</div>
	==]==
			</div>

			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->
	Hi, Michael, I think you will be interested in this MfD. ---] 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

	==RFC==
	Hi. The RFC I was responding to was posted to ]. There wasn't a separate discussion, it just links to the talk page. --] 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	Shalom Michael,Ijust saw your message today.im on aol and am blocked from editing every other time i log in for some reason about subjects i never posted about SOOO I dont often read my talk page. my Email is nazirenemystic@aol.com. thats more relible.] 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	], see my reply to your post on my user page. --] 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Re: FYI Mega Society Judgement ==

	Thanks for taking the time. The new article looks good to me, it is going to be much harder to shoot down... ] 18:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Inflation==
	I understand your concern, but it doesn't need to be taken to talk first, although I should have been clearer and noted that your comment appears to be OR. By whom is it seen as today's version of a steady state theory? In fact the two are fundamentally different. Hell, I can't figure out how steady state theory fits in that cat: it was not a pseudoscience, it was a scientically valid theory theory that was falsified, there's a big difference. In any case I placed a fact tag on that statement meaning a cite is required. ] 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
	:The similarity is that both the steady-state universe and eternal inflation adhere to the ] -- although the latter on a scale beyond that of the observable universe. I don't regard this as OR and I'll see if I can find a citation. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Citations added: Past-] can be viewed as a mainstream steady state theory.<ref>Anthony Aguirre, Steven Gratton, ''Steady-State Eternal Inflation'', Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 083507, </ref>, since it adheres to the ] on the largest scale. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Orthomolecular medicine ==

	Recruiting meatpuppets to overwhelm legitimate edits of articles is not appropriate Misplaced Pages behavior. Please stop encouraging vandalism of the pseudoscience article. -- ] 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Stop pushing your POV. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

	::I'm happy to include both POVs: that's what NPOV is about. The current articles fail to acknowledge the mainstream viewpoint. -- ] 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

	Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages under the ], which states that nobody may ] a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --><small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC{{{3\|}}})</small> (also formerly 70.232.110.230)

	Hi Michael. I think you doing a good job on repelling the "pseudo--" stuff disparagement. Sorry if we're all a little tense right now, I know I am pretty insulted about the "PS" nonsense, too. Although I wrote immediately after you to maintain chronological sequence, my quote & request was for 70.232.110.230's demonstration of hard facts, I should have additionally addressed him directly by his id number. Sorry for the confusion, I have now added 70.232's correct number so everyone is clear who I am requesting add'l sourcing from. You might want to delete your reply, since my inadequate id is the source of contention, thread control is going wild already. --] 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
	:OK, thanks for the reminder -- straightened things out. It might be a good idea if you created login account/user name....... :-) --] <sup>]</sup> 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Wow, it's like trying to reason with a primal force of nature. This person seems intent on wrecking the orthomed related pages and billboarding any disparaging link that can be twisted to his pov. He's invoking Ackoz(= Azmoc), an indfinitely blocked identity or editor. What next?--] 05:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::Reason is a waste of time with this sort. We'll have get him blocked over a ] violation, which requires coordination amongst the OM friendly. What do you think? --] <sup>]</sup> 06:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Uh... ==

	Moved to MWI talk page -- your edits were probably clashing with mine, or there's some problem with an old talk page version being reverted back. Should be okay now. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	==Semiprotection for ] article==
	I'm willing to semiprotect it, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus for this action on the talk page. I think the policy is wrong:general articles such as that one should be easily semiprotected without encountering wikirocracy.--] 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't quite follow your answer, but you're right there is no consensus, so I withdraw my request (for the moment). --] <sup>]</sup> 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	:: Well, there are all sorts of procedural obstacles for doing anything which restrict freedom of editing. However, for general articles (with higher visibility) semiprotection should be no big deal.--] 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Teaching physics, the contemporary way ==

	http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/~cew2/P209/part11.pdf
	and here:

	http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch11.pdf Have a look at chapter 11.8.

	:Already read them. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Based on your edits it seems that you haven't understood. Try reading again or taking the respective course ] 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's right, if someone disagrees with you it's because they're stupid or ignorant, not you. Thanks for the info, O wise one. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I didn't say that ] 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Please stop removing my POV tag ==

	I object to the POV of the lead paragraph. -- ] 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:And I am happy with it. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes, but that you are happy with it is necessary, but not sufficient, to remove the POV tag. -- ] 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::Same logic applies to its insertion. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::::The fact that you say that shows you greatly misunderstand Misplaced Pages POV tags. The tag is a flag of a '''lack of consensus''' over whether the article complies with NPOV. To claim that there needs to be a consensus over the addition of the tag is false. The fact that three separate editors have complained about the pro-minority-POV-bias of the article shows that there is not consensus, and that '''is''' sufficient to add the tag. Consensus is needed before the tag can be removed. -- ] 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Mediation ==

	:FYI, you've been listed as an involved party at ]. My advice: ignore the case until it affects you personally, or you are asked for direct involvement. ] 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Thanks, that's exactly what I shall do. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Photon mass ==

	Sorry, you cannot say that the photon mass is E/c^2. This simply gives a lot of ammunition to dozens of crackpots . Especially in light of the many experiments that constrain the photon ONLY "mass" to about 6*10^-17 eV which is about 17 orders of magnitude smaller than the 3eV you would get by applying m=E/c^2. Now, if you want wiki to be the place that encourages the crackpots, this is another story, just say so. ] 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I didn't say "the photon mass is E/c^2" nor "that there is no such thing as relativistic mass ". If you have trouble reading English, just say so. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Please look at the sentence that I keep deleting and you keep putting back in ] 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::The clause is "The relativistic mass of such a particle may be taken to be its energy divided by ''c''<sup>2</sup>. " That implies neither of your above claims about what I said. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::::"Such particle" in the context is the photon. Therefore it means m_photon=e/c^2 where e is the energy of the photon ] 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Which implies neither of your above claims about what I said. I'm glad you raised the 3RR issue -- you've motivated me to investigate the reporting procedure. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::::::You obviusly can't read English, nor do you understand physics. As to 3RR , I can report you just the same, BFD.] 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Go ahead, that's your priviledge. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Kinetic energy of single particles==

	Does not exist as an objective thing. Proof: Translate to a frame where the molecule is at rest, and kinetic energy is gone, poof. Kinetic energy is a property of '''systems''', not things. It is not stored in THINGS, but in the fabric of spacetime itself, as Wheeler and Taylor note. You have to go to a system of 2 or more molecules to get kinetic energy which can't be made to go away by choice of frame. THAT energy is weighable. And that frame where it can be weighed as invariant mass, along with the rest energies of the particles themselves, is the COM frame. ]]]] 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Ah, Wheeler. I often have a problem with this "if it ain't a tensor or is geometry it don't exist" position. Can't say I agree -- seems a misuse of langauge. Anyway, it ''can'' still be weighed, no matter how you define it. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Point is there's only two ways to weigh it: 1) get into its rest frame (in which case the kinetic energy and the mass associated with it goes away), or 2) Trap it, in which case you have introduced a second object (the box) and now have a system of two objects and and must weigh in the COM frame of same. So kinetic energy (KE) is only weighable as a system property, which is why it only has invariant mass as a system property. <p> No geometry or tensors, here! Think of two equal mass M particles, headed in opposite directions, at a mutual separation velocity we'll call V. All the KE is in particle #1, as seen from viewpoint of #2. But KE is all in #2 when seen from #1. And divided equally between them when seen from the COM frame, in which they are each headed away with equal velocity V/2.<p> But how much IS the KE? It's not the same in these scenarios. From the rest frame view of either particle, system KE is '''(1/2)MV^2.''' From the COM frame where both particles move at V/2, the KE of each particle is (1/2)M *(V/2)^2 = (1/8) MV^2 for a combined KE of '''(1/4) MV^2'''. We just lost half of our KE by chosing that frame. Now, how much mass and WEIGHT did we lose? If you're convinced we can weigh KE, which KE value do we '''weigh'''? This will either be immediately apparent to you, or else you'll learn something by figuring it out. You see, you can't get away from the system problem if you want to talk about mass. Nothing but algebra is needed, but even so you do have to get used to the spooky relativistic proposition that energy is not localizable. ]]]] 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::No, I don't buy it. The algebra is equivalent to the tensor or frame argument. I can transform away velocity in a Galilean frame -- that doesn't mean things don't move. For the same reason "unlocalisable" energy is not spooky -- just frame dependent, which is why we use the ]s when we have to. I know your position is a popular one, but it boils down to how we want to use the langauge; it doesn't have physical content (our positions are not empirical distinguishable). --] <sup>]</sup> 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Blatent lies ==

	The ] article currently contains a statement that is utterly, totally false. I am not deleting it because I'm already sick of the lunacy of the dispute.

	:''"Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." ''

	Any disease? Really? ], anyone? We are now denying that vitamin C cures scurvy? Feel free to start whatever proceeddings are needed to ban Cri du Canard as a vandal/crank. I've had enough of this non-sense. ] 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:It is from a reliable source, so you can't delete it without consequences. Scurvy, vit. C? What's that got to do with OM? Keep in mind guys, your edit histories are under observation, and there is accruing massive evidence of conspiracy against other editors, bad faith editng on your parts, as well as failure to assume good faith. Your words above are quite incriminating. -- ] 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Actually it is not a reliable source -- it hasn't been through peer-review. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::There are other types of ] recognized by Misplaced Pages. It also happens to be a summary of the published scientific record, which has been peer-reviewed. Since you claim it's not a reliable source, please provide the precise quotes from the policy page to back up your claim. -- ] 23:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	I am deeply troubled by your attitude on this page Michael, particularily the lack application of WP:NPOV. Further to your comment on Cri's talk page: ''"Restoring text deleted in bad faith is not in violation of 3RR."'', that in fact can contribute to 3rr. The only exeptions are in the case of biographies of living people, banned users, or ''blatent vandalism'', of the "ERIC IS A FAG" kind. Allegations of concerted action have been made against you and a fellow editor which are very worrying after reviewing some of the evidence and may neccesitate a review of some of those editing the page. I suggest that you review some of Misplaced Pages cores polies very carefully regarding some of your interpratations of the rules. ] 14:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

	:See ]
	::;Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.
	:Canard is adept at adding misinformation. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

	== 3RR and AGF on orthomolecular medicine==

	You are in danger of violating the ] on {{{1\|a page}}}. Please cease further reverts or you may be ] from further editing. <!-- Template:3RR4 -->
	*
	*
	*
	-- ] 13:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

	] Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you ''']''' in dealing with other editors. Please stop being ] to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you.<!-- Template:agf3 -->
	*

Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of March 2012.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Bohm interpretation, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Misplaced Pages's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop reverting my referenced edits.

I put my content back and added another source. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You are degrading the article with changes no one else agrees with - and which are often false. wholey or partially cheers, Michael C. Price 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Hyperstars" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hyperstars has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 11 § Hyperstars until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)