| Revision as of 06:36, 10 August 2006 editMichael C Price (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,197 edits →Please stop removing my POV tag← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:44, 10 August 2006 edit undoMichael C Price (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,197 edits →Orthomolecular medicineNext edit → | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| ::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) | ::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... == | == Uh... == | ||
Revision as of 06:44, 10 August 2006
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:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out 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)
IQ societies
Michael, you, together with user:Promking 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. -- Avi 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Apologies
My apologies for deleting the talk page text. Next time, I'll simply post my snarky comments beneath. Esrever 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's what I normally do. :-) --Michael C. Price 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD's etc.
I do not have a vendetta against High-IQ societies per se, although my Mensa 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 walled gardens are items to be uprooted, truly notable information should be kept and enhanced. Thanks. -- Avi 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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.
- 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. --Michael C. Price 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
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: meta:Conflicting Misplaced Pages philosophies. Bon appétit -- Avi 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
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. Byrgenwulf 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have just started answering your question on the MWI talk page. See over there shortly. Have you looked at universal wavefunction as well? --Michael C. Price 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Mega Society
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.
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.)
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 "faster
, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, not did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith?
- 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. --Michael C. Price 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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, Xoloz 17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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 User:GregorB or User:Canon? --Michael C. Price 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not impressed by your assumptions. --Michael C. Price 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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". DaturaS 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? It is a conflict of interest, perhaps, were he the closing administrator, but I see nothing preventing him from voicing his opinion. -- Avi 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig
Hi, Michael, I think you will be interested in this MfD. ---CH 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
RFC
Hi. The RFC I was responding to was posted to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. There wasn't a separate discussion, it just links to the talk page. --Alecmconroy 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.NazireneMystic 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Michael C. Price, see my reply to your post on my user page. --Ovadyah 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... GregorB 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. •Jim62sch• 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The similarity is that both the steady-state universe and eternal inflation adhere to the perfect cosmological principle -- 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. --Michael C. Price 10:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Citations added: Past-Eternal inflation can be viewed as a mainstream steady state theory., since it adheres to the perfect cosmological principle on the largest scale. --Michael C. Price 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. -- 70.232.110.230 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Stop pushing your POV. --Michael C. Price 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. -- 70.232.110.230 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cri du canard (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (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. --69.178.41.55 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....... :-) --Michael C. Price 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?--TheNautilus 05:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reason is a waste of time with this sort. We'll have get him blocked over a 3RR violation, which requires coordination amongst the OM friendly. What do you think? --Michael C. Price 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. --Michael C. Price 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Semiprotection for Physics 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.--CSTAR 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). --Michael C. Price 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.--CSTAR 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. --Michael C. Price 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop removing my POV tag
I object to the POV of the lead paragraph. -- Cri du canard 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- And I am happy with it. --Michael C. Price 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but that you are happy with it is necessary, but not sufficient, to remove the POV tag. -- Cri du canard 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Same logic applies to its insertion. --Michael C. Price 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)