User talk:Michael K. Edwards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
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)
[edit] John P. Meier
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)
-
- 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.
- 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.
- I do have a copy.
- 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.
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)
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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- Well, Wiki itself quite a learning tool. And by Wiki standards, you're already a veteran. BW, Thomasmeeks 10:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
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)
[edit] Vandal warning
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)
- 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)
[edit] Ozura Mobile
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! Mangojuicetalk 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Khamenei
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)
[edit] Elephants
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)