User talk:Thomasmeeks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Thomasmeeks, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 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! RJFJR 03:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Social Choice and Individual Values
I screen the WP collection of articles once in a while so I wounded up reading your article.
It lacks in :
- sectionning
- inline citations
- NPOVness, it has point-of-vue orientation (though I don't know the subject very well)
- as you say, linking to other articles to let other people give feedback
- that there is no lead section appropriate to what encyclopaedic search for
See Krazy Kat or The Illuminatus! Trilogy for template-like articles that can help with improving the article.
Other than that, your prose is really good and the text flows when I read it. Best of luck. Lincher 15:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It looks good to me, but its still missing inline citations (as in referencing the books that were used for the article). For more info you should ask a Peer review or go into Good article phase in order to get more in depth advices. Lincher 15:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I cannot give you more info on your article, to me it seems well written and referenced though some other fellas might find it needs more and a Good article nomination can help you with that. Lincher 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I removed the cleanup tag for you, you could have done it. As for the spoiler, it can stay there, since it tells people that they might find info from the book on the article. Lincher 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
User Talk page
It is easier if you write on my user_talk page so that when I log on, I can see your comments or questions. Thanks Lincher 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Social Choice and Individual Values
((help me)) 1. This is the title of a new WP article I wrote. How can I make GO connect to it if I use only lower case for the GO window?
2. I'd like to get review comments as to clarity and content on it before I put links in other articles. Should I just go to the Talk page of related articles and solicit comments on the Discussion Talk page for Social Choice and Individual Values? (It's about a book by the economic theorist Kenneth Arrow.)
Thx. Thomasmeeks 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- A redirect should do the trick. I already created one for you, but for more info check out Help:Redirect.
- Posting on talk pages sounds like a great way to get more feedback. I would also suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Books as another good place to ask for feedback and see more details about this type of article. --Hetar 23:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Your message
Thanks for the message on my talk page. I'm not sure where I saw Social Choice and Individual Values... did you post about it on the Help Desk? It's on my watchlist and I often answer (and ask!) questions there. MCB 05:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
test
test Thomasmeeks 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Help request for logging in Dear RJFJR: You were my greeter on April 22 when I was a Wiki newbie. What a difference a few months make. I have since created a couple of articles near the top of Google searches for that subject (perhaps more usual than not, I admit) and edited many more articles.
Yesterday something odd happened. When I prepared to Save the edit, Wiki said that I was not logged in. I tried to log in using my User name and password. The message was that I had successfully logged in, but the top line far righthand side of my Wiki portal indicated otherwise: log out. I tried getting a new password, which was received within seconds via email. It made no difference. Same thing today. I conclude that I am blocked from fully logging on. The "fully" refers to that my Wiki portal says "log out". (I have received no communications recently on my discussion page.) Is there anything that can be done to fix this? Or can you refer me to someone for assistance? My thanks.
One other detail and possible explanation: When I originally registered, Wiki responded by email, noting my IP address. With the change in passwords on July 22 and again yesterday Aug. 3, the Wiki email response noted that I had an IP address different from mine. It's where my User name (Thomasmeeks) should be in the present message. I had assumed that the discrepancy was a Wiki assignment. But I'm wondering if the discrepancy might be responsible for blocking my fully logging on. 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Odd, you have signed this with an IP address indicating you are not logged on, but the message "log out" at the upper right hand corner is where you click to log out and should only be shown if you ARE logged in. (Note that it says "log out" not "logged out"). If it lists your user name the the top right hand section then it knows who you are and you are logged in. You may get more information at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). RJFJR 20:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I see. I have lapsed into Sign in status yesterday & today in edit efforts after attempting to log in, possibly an unrelated problem that I conflated with log-in status. Thx for your help & reference. At least my User name is back. Thomasmeeks 21:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Any way to remove underscoring of within-article hypertext?
The argument for underscoring is, I suppose, that newbies will more quickly figure that the hypertext is a link. As reader, however, I underscoring an unnecessary distraction. Thx. Thomasmeeks 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Either go to your perferences and click on the "misc" tab, then select "never" for the underlining links part. Or you can put this in your monobook.css:
a { text-decoration: none; }
If you don't want to bother with links at all, use:
/* IE-able */
a, a.new {color: black; text-decoration: none;}
/* NON IE */
a, a.new {color: inherit; text-decoration: none;}
GeorgeMoney (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Thx. Done. BW, Thomasmeeks 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Indifference Curve Properties
Below is an example of a standard indifference-curve map showing three indifference curves:
Each point on the map shows the quantity of each of the two commodities that the individual in question might hypothetically consume (though only one bundle per period). An indifference curve indicates that the consumer is equally satisfied with any combination on the curve.
Indifference curves for nonspecialized consumption are typically assumed to have the following stylized features to explain how changes in price and income affect the consumption mix of the individual:
- An Indifference curve slopes downward from left to right (negative slope). The negative slope reflects the assumption that the consumer would like to have more of each commodity (non-satiation). So, if consumption of one commodity (say X) increases, consumption of the other (Y) must decrease to keep total satisfaction unchanged, as the indifference curve requires.
- Any 3 Indifference curves are assumed to have a transitive relation to each other. Transitivity is the at least as great as relation R. Thus, for the indifference curves l1, l2, and l3, if the level of satisfaction of:
- l3 R l2 and
- l2 R l1, then the level of satisfaction from
- l3 R l1.
- Indifference curves farther from the origin (in the northeast direction) yield more total satisfaction. This is an implication of non-satiation. Proceeding up any given straight line from the origin increases consumption of both commodities. More is wanted of each good by non-satiation. So, if consumption of each commodity increases along the straight line, total satisfaction increases in ascending the line.
- No two indifference curves intersect (cross). If they intersected, the point of intersection would indicate equal total satisfaction. But by non-satiation, a straight line from the origin through the two curves where they did not intersect would indicate different levels of utility. The two curves would then convey contradictory (thus, false) information about total utility, analogous to: (2 < 4) & (2 = 4).
- The curves are convex to the origin, which can be described as a consumer requiring have larger successive amounts of one good for giving up each successive unit of the other good. This is the behavioral counterpart of the law of diminishing marginal utility). Think CDs vs. food, assuming you like both.
- The Indifference curves are ubiquitous throughout an indifference-curve map. In other words, there exists an indifference curve through any given point on an indifference-curve map. Each point having an indifference curve go through it makes the indifference-curve map continuous. Each point decidable as
Since an indifference-curve map describes a set of personal preferences, the exact position shape varies from one person to another, even if the general properties described above apply.
Assumptions
The first three assumptions are necessary, the next two are convenient.
Rationality: Consumers know their individual preferences and can choose between consumption bundle X and consumption bundle Y. They know either that X is preferred to Y, Y is preferred to X, or that they are indifferent between X and Y.
Consistency: If a consumer chooses bundle X to bundle Y in the first instance, then he cannot choose bundle Y to bundle X in the second instance.
Transitivity: If a consumer prefers bundle X to bundle Y, and prefers bundle Y to bundle Z, then he must prefer bundle X to bundle Z.
Continuity: This means that you can choose to consume any amount of the good. For example, I could drink 11 mL of soda, or 12 mL, or 132 mL. I am not confined to drinking 2 liters or nothing. See also continuous function in mathematics.
Non-satiation: This is the idea that more of any good is always preferred to less.
Convexity: The marginal value a person gets from each commodity falls relative to the other good. In a two-good world, if a consumer has relatively lots of one good he would be happier with a little less of that good and a little more of the other.
Examples of Indifference Curves
Below is an example of an indifference map having three indifference curves:
The consumer would rather be on I3 than I2, and would rather be on I2 than I1, but does not care where they are on each indifference curve. The slope of an indifference curve, known by economists as the marginal rate of substitution, shows the rate at which consumers are willing to give up one good in exchange for more of the other good. For most goods the marginal rate of substitution is not constant so their indifference curves are curved. The curves are convex to the origin indicating a diminishing marginal rate of substitution.
If the goods are perfect substitutes then the indifference curves will be parallel lines since the consumer would be willing to trade at a fixed ratio. The marginal rate of substitution is constant.
If the goods are perfect complements then the indifference curves will be L-shaped. An example would be something like if you had a cookie recipe that called for 3 cups flour to 1 cup sugar. No matter how much extra flour you had, you still could not make more cookie dough without more sugar. Another example of perfect complements is a left shoe and a right shoe. The consumer is no better off having several right shoes if she has only one left shoe. Additional right shoes have zero marginal utility without more left shoes. The marginal rate of substitution is either zero or infinite. Thomasmeeks 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
table example
In compatible browsers, an edit toolbar can be automatically displayed with the edit box, provided that this has been set in the preferences.It appears automatically for editors who are not logged in. This functions partly as a typing aid and partly as a reminder of the available functions. All the functions are available simply by typing the code directly into the edit box (such as [[link]]) - this may be easier.
The toolbar works with Internet Explorer, the Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey, Firefox, Konqueror, Safari and Opera.
For example:
To turn a piece of text into an internal link, select it and press the third button.
In Mozilla browsers and IE, you can format existing text by highlighting the text you want to format and clicking the relevant button on the toolbar. If you click a button without selecting any text, sample text will be inserted at the cursor's position (like so: Bold text). In other browsers, clicking on the button presents an explanation for that feature. (Pre-release 9.0 versions of Opera browser also seem to support the advanced functionality.)
All of the toolbar options, and further editing options, are available in Bananeweizen's Firefox extension.
List of functions
(apart from the last two examples, these pieces of wikitext are created by typing abc, selecting it and clicking the buttons on the toolbar)
| Icon | Function | What it shows when editing | What it shows on the page |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
Bold or strong emphasis | '''abc''' | abc |
 |
Italic or emphasis | ''abc'' | abc |
 |
Internal link | [[abc]] | abc |
 |
External link | [abc.com] | |
 |
Section heading | == abc == |
abc |
 |
Insert image | [[Image:abc.jpg]] |  |
 |
Insert media | [[Media:abc.ogg]] | Media:abc.ogg |
 |
Mathematical formula | <math>abc</math> | abc |
 |
Ignore wiki formatting | <nowiki>abc '''[[Bold text]]'''</nowiki> | abc '''[[Bold text]]''' |
 |
Sign talk comments (with time stamp) | --~~~~ | --Gareth Aus 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC) |
 |
Horizontal line | ---- |
|
New on the English Wikipedia: create redirect page. Template:H:f User
example of table
August Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
criterion of multiple attestation
I created a new article. I would appreciate your imput and review of it. My biggest concern is that the introduction basically consists of a long quote from Meier. While it is always good to make sure we have the authors views corectly, it seems unencyclopedic to start an article off that way. This problem exists in the criterion of embarrassment article as well. Anyway, tell me what you think.--Andrew c 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to move this discussion to talk:criterion of multiple attestation, if you don't mind.--Andrew c 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Book of Daniel
This article achieved its current layout through the efforts of a large number of editors cooperating, so the talk page of that article should be used to discuss changes or improvements to that layout, since more editors who took part will have that on their list and can join the discussion, without being left out. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the talk page of this article should be used to discuss the changes so that more editors can take part. Also, I am one of those in the 6th century BC school myself... The reason the sentence was added that you are trying to move, is precisely because it has direct bearing on the reason many people think there is an early date. It is not the only argument but one of the main ones that is used for 6th century authorship (This point has already been discussed at length on the talk page, so moving the sentence without joining in there seemed a little pre-emptive...) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Meier and miracles
I have been watching with interest your expansion of John P. Meier. I thought I'd call this quote to your attention, from page 482 of the Biblica 1999 citation: "Not only the global argument but also the probing of all the individual miracle stories and sayings point to a historical Jesus who claimed and was believed by his disciples to have worked miracles during his public ministry." This seems to get the balance of emphasis right, and might be worth using in a summary of this aspect of Meier's work (which he seems to regard as fairly central to his personal contribution to the wider dialogue).
Keep up the good work! Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Derivative
Hi. I don't understand this edit. Not at all really, and not for lack of mathematics education. Would you please visit talk:Derivative and explain what you mean? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Never mind, I think I got it now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry. I have been kind of grumpy and inconsiderate. I don't own the derivative article, so please feel free to edit it. I won't interfere with your changes anymore. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Derivative again
Hello. I am not familiar with your use of "represent" as it applies to the derivative. You say "social science apps often use derivative + or - sign to 'represent' empirical-theory relation". I'm not familiar with this use - can you provide a reference to an example of such use? Also, I'm not sure this applies in the sentence in the article: is this use the representation of a property of a function? Also, I removed the wikidictionary link since it didn't point to any specific definition, and I don't think pointing to a definition of "represent" would really help the reader understand this use. Thanks, Doctormatt 18:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Kingdom of God (Roman Catholic interpretations section)
I posted a reply to you on my talk page. Wikiwopbop 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Misc.
-
-
- May I respectfully suggest that you review this thread and talk page guidelines. I was not aware that deleting a Wiki template that I thought no longer applied (and for which I gave a reason) is suppression of a viewpoint. Thomasmeeks 19:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
IIA
Thanks for the link to the online 1951 article. I had no idea it was online.
I'm not going to change anything substantial you did, since as the Ray article points out there are differences between some versions of IIA. (This depends on the type of IIA as well as the logical framework -- just because they're stated differently doesn't mean they're distinct, of course.) I did add a clarifier* that the two concepts are related because I feel this is important: everyone thought that the two concepts were the same for many years, and the intent was to get at the same concept in different ways. Frankly I see the need for a new article expanding on Ray's, discussing the ways to unify all the different types of IIA conceptually under one theoretical framework, making their differences clearer. Further, such a work could clarify what types of IIA are actually used in various proofs invoking them: I would not be surprised to see one type assumed and another used in the proof in some cases.
Regardless, best of luck to you in editing the article -- it could use some work, I think.
- Actually my clarifier was poorly worded. When I think of something better I'll edit it; otherwise feel free to do the same.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
