Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:19, 5 September 2011

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:

• 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)

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.

Talkback

Vitamin C megadosage and Vitamin C and the common cold

Hi Michael, here's something you may wish to comment on: 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 ( 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 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 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 17:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Reply

Reply for you at my talk page.

It's unlikely to matter, but feel free to quote if anyone asks or wants to note my view. FT2  01:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting Orangemarlin banned

Obviously, someone who uses a disagreement with a MEDRS as an excuse to make comments like "maybe Cochrane has its head up its ass" isn't going to be brought under control without the use of administrative force. Arbcom isn't an ideal resolution, given the fiasco caused by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, and the committee's possible unwillingness to take further action against this user. However, since AN/I didn't work, the only remaining option is to open Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Orangemarlin, then bring an arbitration case. I'm certainly willing to sign an RFC. Chester Markel (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, me too. OM seems to have ditched his mentor, so perhaps Arbcom might be suitable (they view incivility in a dimmer light than mere admins, it would seem). But either way, an RfC might be the way to go first. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It did not take an Abrcom hearing to get me topic banned indefinetly, broadly interpreted, and even then some folks wanted it to be a site-ban! I still think the editor who instigated (not enacted) that ban over-dramatised the whole matter. But I won't get into that. In any event I don't see that an RFC on an editor would do any harm. DMSBel (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What ever happened to the RfCU? – Lionel 09:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If their is indication of backing, I would give substantive input. Who's going to kick it off? -- cheers, Michael C. Price 10:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ankheg

Hello,

I noticed that you participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons). I'd like to let you know that Ankheg is also up for deletion. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As well as Medusa. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing vs. agreeing

Hi, just to explain one thing (as an aside):

• Ed, So I can understand why a euphemism would be preferable. Nope, don't see it

I should have said that I can understand why they might prefer it; I on the other hand would much rather spell it out. I'm all about clarity. (With that, I'll return to talk:Abortion.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this comment. I agree with the need for clarity. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 06:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cryogenian

This is a good faith discussion outside of our various not so good faith battles. This edit creates a self-link from Marinoan back to Cryogenian. I don't think that's accurate because the Marinoan is an epoch (and I'm not even sure of that) within the Cryogenian. That's why I eliminated in the first place. Unless you disagree, I think I'm going to kill the redirect from Marinoan to Cryogenian, and maybe stub out an article on Marinoan. What do you think? There appears to be only around 10 references to Marinoan on Misplaced Pages, so that is concerning that it's not a typical designation for the epoch. OrangeMarlin 05:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The pronoun "it" is not very informative and contradicts the diagram and lead, where Marinoan is distinguished from Sturtian. New articles are always a good idea. Well, usually! -- cheers, Michael C. Price 05:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to go with Marinoan glaciation. Help out on it, if you desire. Please. OrangeMarlin 05:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Amelia Dyer

> "Actually anything above 1 victim is speculation, since she was only convicted of one murder. However that number is clearly ridiculous, since she had been bumping them off at the rate of perhaps 3 or 4 a week for 3 or 4 decades"

Agreed. The police identified the other bodies by Dyer's "calling card", the tape used to strangle them left tight around their necks.

I am perfectly willing to concede the total of Dyer's victims exceeded 4, I simply wanted to point out that the very precise figure of "274" is not based on any verifiable source. Given the mechanics involved in baby farming – advertising, receiving replies, visiting the parents, arranging to take the child – I find it hard to believe that the total was as high as 3 or 4 a week, either, though it plainly could easily have been substantial. Dyer's biographers refrain from making a serious estimate and while that's frustrating it's probably wise.

Anyway, I leave it to you to decide what to do about Dyer's place on the list. Mikedash (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abortion_lead_sentence_-_straw_poll_consensus

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - RoyBoy 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve

Do you mind telling me what does Atheism have to do with this article? http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/2.long — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAndrian (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

it's a quote! -- cheers, Michael C. Price 18:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from where? That still doesn't explain what does it have to do with the linked article — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAndrian (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, from where? From the reference, of course! -- cheers, Michael C. Price 22:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the reference? At least make a search for inconvenient and/or atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAndrian (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mitochondrial Eve. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Donald Albury 21:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You've had enough of your time wasted

I'll wait for someone to AN/I it. Be a laugh if OM does it himself. ] Hope I have not been too heavy handed, but I'll just ask for a topic ban once it goes to AN/I.

Lol, I'll maybe end up going down too, but it might make others sit up and take notice. :-)DMSBel (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I doubt anyone would notice. OM's behaviour has been like this for years and arbcom/ANI pretty much lets him get away with it. Watching the mob hysteria of his crowd makes you realise how thin the veneer of rationality is. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 20:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll wait and see what the outcome is. He knows there are limits. Thanks for your contributions and sane comments in the discussion. DMSBel (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Some of your edits are being discussed at WP:ANI#OrangeMarlin burnout / talk page personal attacks. Fram (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal and extended dfns.

Michael thanks for continuing to drop in on the discussion from time to time. It's important to have a few editors who have been involved from at least the beginning of this round. By the way, I am somewhat responsible albeit indirectly for the debacle, I placed a POV banner on the lede. Honestly I wondered if someone would not subvert it from what it was in regard to, to something else. Lesson learnt. I'll use inline tags from now on, except for rare occasions. If you have time would you take a look at the following, it might even be of help to you in your own editing.]. Going by this I cannot see how the lede definition was incorrect in its earlier version, as far as the first sentence goes. It seems to follow conventions laid out in this guide for definition writing. I have more of an issue with the use of "termination of a pregnancy" as synonymous with abortion in general speech and writing. Things are too heated to make much changes to the article, except to revert to consensus. Maybe when some of the related disputes are settled there will be a few new genuinely neutral editors and a few less disruptive ones. Any thoughts?DMSBel (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not?

Why not "demise"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Because is a euphemism, or less common. Like "passed away", "with Jesus". Isn't "death" clearer? -- cheers, Michael C. Price 22:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a euphemism, but it is a commonly-used one, and it might buy us some article stability. But I have much respect for anyone familiar with the names Louis de Broglie and David Bohm.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It also lacks clarity because "fetal demise" is a term of art that applies exclusively to spontaneous abortion. 74.5.176.81 (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clear English, and it's also clear medical jargon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clear in some ways, but "fetal demise" is spontaneous abortion, and "induced fetal demise" only covers abortions wherein the the doctor performs a feticide in utero via lethal injection prior to extracting the dead fetus. Most abortions are NOT "induced fetal demise". That's why I think it's confusing (because terms of art that use the word "fetal demise" are among the rarest types of abortions). 74.5.176.81 (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reflecting current scientific knowledge

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

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

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

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

Good definitions

Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions:

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

— Diderot

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

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

— Definition

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

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

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 2, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Addition of the Term Destruction in the Lead of Abortion Article

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

Get some people to weigh in

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

Shahriar Afshar article

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

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

TurtleMelody

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion Motion

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

Pimlico mystery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blade Runner

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

Your recent post on Talk:Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited lede of Martingale (probability theory)

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

geology

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

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

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

Probably from OrangeMarlin - he thinks I am, for some reason. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 17:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Condescending verbiage and complete nonsense

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

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to an currently open Arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 01:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 9714637, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=9714637 instead.
2. ^ Template:Broken doi
3. Diderot, Denis, "Encyclopedia", Philip Stewart, trans., in The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Ann Arbor: Scholarly Publishing Office of the University of Michigan Library, 2002.
4. Note: they must not be largely or completely related only by the titular term
5. Dictionary of lexicography By R. R. K. Hartmann, Gregory James