User talk:McKay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commons talk page

G'day Brendan and welcome to Wikipedia. This website can be very unfriendly to celebrities sometimes -- some people have very strong views against self-promotion. I've put up a pre-emptive defence for you at Talk:Bible code. It looks like you're famous enough that there couldn't really be any rational case against your Bible code article, but you never know with some people.

A few tips for you:

-- Tim Starling 09:32, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bible code

Hello.

I want to communicate with you or Drosnin about the code : is it possible ? I have few questions...

First question : what do you(Kay and Drosnin) think of the parisian Chamman ?

Second question : what was the size of the nuclear explosion in 2006 in Paris ?

And few others...MKay

[edit] Big O notation

I noticed that you contributed to Big O notation, so thought I'd leave you a message here about it. I put together a new form of the table on the Talk page and I thought I'd solicit some feedback on it. If you have a moment to look it over I'd be grateful. I have some math background (B.S.) but I'm not a mathematician, and I'd hate to leave something important out.

While I'm here, I'll also mention that I'm a fan of your work on the Bible code. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Binomial distribution

"this rule" refers to the rule of thumb introduced in the preceding sentence. Unfortunately it seems that it has no proper name. It has two parts: the first part is about the criteria for a good, the second about the criteria of an excellent approximation. I've just checked the link and it worked.

Falk Lieder 15:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Are you Brendan McKay? Kamope · talk · contributions 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD on Alexander Rotenberg

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Rotenberg. There is a debate about whether this is indeed a notable Torah codes researcher. Strangely, somebody has attempted to impersonate you on the AFD talk page, claiming notability for Rotenberg. --C S (Talk) 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Hi Brendan...

I'm going to paste the entire criticism section into the talk page for you to edit and comment as you see fit, the section will be monitored to make sure that this "edit space" is exclusively used for you. I think it's best that this happen in public view on the talk page, for obvious reasons.

Also, FYI...there were one or two acts of possible IP vandalism at the Bible Code article immediately before you tagged the article and posted on the talk page. I'm thinking of having the page locked so that only established editors can edit, because if unregistered users are making edits that appear to represent pro-MBBK POV's, they could be either well-meaning friends, or they might be unfriendly. Please protect yourself by making sure you always log in.

Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you invite user User:Audacity (a skeptic) to look at your proposed changes, that you discuss the changes you'd like on the talk page, as you have been invited to do. Please don't continue editing the article directly without discussing on talk, I find your recent edits to be heavily POV'd and this is a problem in the context of your WP:COI on the topic. WNDL42 (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
WNDL42,
You are quite wrong that these edits are "heavily POV'd." The changes made by McKay in these edits (a) corrected incorrect information, and (b) corrected instances where viewpoints are presented as facts (in violation of the WP:NPOV policy). If you believe these edits are "heavily POV'd," then please explain why.
The only change I would suggest is that in the instance where McKay added the word "claimed," he should have used the word "argued" instead. The WP:WORDS policy says that the word "claim" should be used only in limited circumstances.
AviN1 (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)