User talk:Michael K. Edwards

Michael K. Edwards is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in mid-November

Hello, Michael K. Edwards, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia: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!  Mak (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Edwards. I like your one-line self-description.

It acquired a second line somehow.  :-)

Hmmm. My memowy is pwaying twicks again.

Your memory is fine; I altered it because somehow it lacked that je ne sais quoi.

Thx for your edit of the above. I was wondering if you had access to Meier's AJM v. 2 that would permit a page citation for your characterization of Meier's conclusion:

In Meier's evaluation, several of the miracles attributed to Jesus are quite strongly attested, perhaps no less so than any biographical detail beyond his existence and approximate dates.

I could not find anything quite like that in his summation on pp. 967-70. BW, Thomasmeeks 13:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page 630. If you have a copy, perhaps you could flesh this statement out with a direct quotation; otherwise, I'll do so next time I'm at the library.

I do have a copy.

I'm close to deciding that I need to own a copy myself. I'm not really qualified to judge, but my impression (based on volumes 1 and 2) is that AMJ is among the most balanced and scholarly surveys of "historical Jesus" scholarship accessible to the general reader. I'm looking forward to reading volumes 3 and 4.

Yes, an encyclopedic treatment but with elegant architectonics & simplicity that keeps it from lapsing into the ponderous.

P.S. If you (or I) could get a quotation in AMJ substantially the same as in the interview, I think its citation would be even better than the interview quotation.

page 509. Again, there are fairly quotable stretches. Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thx. Saved a few hundred pages of search for the needle. JPM has a nice distinction between the global & particular question of miracles at the end of the book worth working in. (I try to keep quotations down per Wiki without sacrificing accuracy.) BW, Thomasmeeks 00:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and am still acclimating to its community standards. Guidance is welcome. Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 01:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wiki itself quite a learning tool. And by Wiki standards, you're already a veteran. BW, Thomasmeeks 10:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your note. I did expand b4 based on your provocative quote by going to the souurce (AMJ). I just now went back to v. 2, p. 968 in response to your note and revised to bring in it closer to what's on that p. (and your quotation), which page and discussion in the article I believe are substantively what your quotation discuss. BW, Thomasmeeks 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent reports at AIV. Unless I missed it, you didn't issue any warnings to them. In future it would be useful if you could use an appropriate warning from the ones at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Please don't interpret this as a rebuke; I really appreciate the trouble you took to report these vandals. --Guinnog 10:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be more consistent about warnings, even when an account or IP address has been used for nothing other than blatant vandalism. (I do always check the user's contribs and talk page before reporting, but I have sometimes skipped the subst:bv step; perhaps I had best go by the book.) Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article should be deleted, but it should go through WP:AFD. Frankly, their being involved in a rip-off scandal makes me think it's more likely they should have a page, not less. Cheers! Mangojuice^talk 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see how long the write-up I added lasts. Waste of my time, really; but I do rather dislike Wikispam. Michael K. Edwards 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really certain. Personally, I think we were probably in a better state when we didn't have a List of dictators article. The article is flame bait for POV pushers like Patchouli, and almost certain to have serious POV problems both as a result of this, and as a result of more benign POV issues with reasonable editors. Your idea seems vaguely attractive to me, but I do worry about how far into the muck of listing *every* modern non-democratic ruler as a "dictator" or in your "quasi-dictator" category. Would it make sense to put Egon Krenz and Erich Honecker on the same list? john k 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote of quasi-support! Not that I was really expecting my poor child of an article to stand on its own once removed from the save womb of my user subpage, but it really is astonishing how many people have stopped by to vote to delete. It would appear that the time is not yet right for a wikipedia article about a wikipedia article. john k 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my comment at the talk page of the article. Katzmik (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here; please read WP:MSM, especially the section WP:MSM#Writing style in mathematics. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for the definition of 2^x you added? It seems to disagree with the exponential defined by Martin Kruskal and Harry Gonshor, which (according to Philip Ehrlich on MathOverflow ) is the one everyone uses. I would like to learn about this alternate definition/notion, if you could point me to a source. (And otherwise I suppose that section should be removed.) Sniffnoy (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your edits at surreal numbers. I was wondering about the following point. In non-standard analysis using Abraham Robinson's hyperreals, there is a theorem called transfer principle that connects Robinson's infinitesimals to the rest of real analysis. Is there a similar surreal principle? Katzmik (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know; but I am no expert in this area. I'm ordering up a copy of the recent reprint of Gonshor's book; I'll let you know if I find something analogous. (The proofs with which I'm familiar make fairly explicit use of transfinite recursion/induction.) I would love to identify an initial subfield of the surreals that is isomorphic to the hyperreals; but I think I'd need to understand ultrafilters better. Michael K. Edwards (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not to identify hyperreals with a subfield, rather what I was pointing out is that the logical complexity of the construction of the hyperreals is due to the necessity of taking all of real analysis along with it, so to speak. If the problem was merely one of a set-theoretic construction of an ordered system containing the infinitesimals, it would be much simpler. Here is a sample question: does every real function on R have a natural surreal extension? Katzmik (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have contributed to the Epsilon nought article, using tetration on ordinals without defining ordinal tetration. Do you have references for this material, or is it original research? —Deadcode (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael K. Edwards. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael K. Edwards. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]