111:. Generally, editors are discouraged from adding information about themselves, their associates, or their own work. There is a valid reason for this. An editor is not able to make a neutral judgement about his or her own publications. Even if the information is accurate and appropriate, it still represents a conflict of interest, and the editor is inherently biased about its relevance to the topic. If your work is worth including in an article, it may very well be found by someone else and added into it later. In the meantime, welcome to Knowledge, and please feel free to use your knowledge from
426:
make about
Christensen in the field as a whole. In my experience the editors overall do a good job and things if reversed are generally done so for meritorious reasons. An edit claiming to have solved a 3000 year old series of problems, phrased in the manner of your comments above is (in my opinion) unlikely to survive for long, especially with a commercial link. EIther way my talk page is not the place to debate this. Oh, and if you can see any other commercial links in the article do us all a favour and delete them --
425:
If you want to amend an article you just do it, if you think it is controversial then discuss it on the article talk page first. Your comment makes a series of bold assertions with a few put downs and if I can give any advice it would be avoid that. Also you might want to situate any comments you
410:
Christensen's theory may or may not merit discussion. The claim that the riddle of epistemology being solved begs several questions such as "which riddle" and you can't have a theory of knowledge that is in effect a theory of information. Whatever you can suggest wording for the article and you
440:
Oh and a PS, if you make a statement like this " A debate over whether a theory of knowledge can or cannot be a theory of information seems to me to be a debate over semantics" then you ignore significant and major debate. It is not an issue of semantics, or is only one if you see knowledge as a
373:
I think anyone would support you in adding material to the article based on cybernetics, although I don't think you can say it is neglected. If you look at the work of the
Churchlands and others you will see that the naturalizing tradition has picked it up although there are controveries there.
186:
Do you expect to expand it into a full articel in the near future? Perhaps a list of the common types of statitical fallacy? would it ever be anything that was not reduandant with the misuse article? And please apply a proper stub tag to new artilce in future, see
315:
Your paragraph, meanwhile, is somewhat incomprehensible, even to a nuclear engineer. You appear to be saying that the statistical methods used in industry can never have any validity, whether applied to steam generator tubes or RPVs - that can't be a correct
129:
Dear Terry: I'll put your comments back in if you don't within a day or two, and I remember. You should do it though, they are your comments on risk. Make sure they flow well with the rest of the article so the other editors don't go knee-jerk on you.
275:
I've added my comments to your question about the defensibility of the claim that minor variances in the amplitude of digital recordings are meaningless or insignificant. As you'll see, it's an inaccurately worded statement that has a kernel of truth in
254:
anymore, I thought I should do you the courtesy of pointing out a couple of comments I've posted there recently, because they explain why I've removed/altered your warnings about empirical violation of probability. Respectfully,
236:
Also, please sign all your comments on talk/discussion pages with four tildas (like this ~~~~). The software will convert this to your user ID (or customized signature if any) and a timestamp. Thank you.
291:
There was nothing wrong with what I had there already. Certainly it is far clearer than your new text - which, boiled down, appears to say that statistics can't be used in nuclear power plants.(!)
339:
Knowledge isn't a personal blog - presuming that the NRC has reasons for ignoring your original research, those reasons belong in the article. I'm confident they have some
Statistics PhDs.
188:
65:
49:
374:
Complexity theory is also (in my opinion) displacing systems thinking. What is unacceptable is to promote your own web site or methods. --
312:
You're right, I'm not an expert on this topic - that's why I wrote off to the NRC, and will insist on including a summary of their response.
211:
as that is an established article, and as not all misuses are fallacies, strictly speaking. Feel free to suggest moving this article to
25:
to
Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
68:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out
69:
359:
is not a place to promote your modelling capabilities. This type of commercial promotion is not permitted within
Knowledge. --
182:. At present it is little more than a dictionary defination. as such, my first temptation was to convert it into a redirect to
112:
82:
336:
Anonymity is allowed by
Knowledge. There are aggressive kooks in our society so I choose to remain anonymous, for now.
34:
22:
108:
219:. If there is consensus in doing such a move, but you want assistance in carrying it out, feel free to ask me, or at
216:
54:
441:
form of information. Try your pet theory out on ethical issues (or aesthetics) and see where it gets you. --
278:
411:
might want to reference some of the work. It is however WRONG to publish a link to a commercial offering --
29:
61:
256:
300:
By the way, notes go on the
Discussion page - that way a banner comes up when there are new comments.
149:
Lunch would be great. I'm free Wed-Fri or next week. Or even today if you call me at 650.793.0162. —
208:
183:
212:
204:
179:
172:
269:
241:
227:
195:
162:
44:
446:
431:
416:
401:
393:
379:
364:
251:
150:
134:
100:
99:
Mr. Oldberg, please do not be offended by the reference to vanity that was made on the
39:
238:
224:
192:
442:
427:
412:
397:
389:
375:
360:
294:
And, as you've been cautioned above, there are rules against citing your own work.
220:
342:
319:
303:
116:
104:
86:
73:
107:
was being insulting. This was a reference to an actual
Knowledge policy about
450:
435:
420:
405:
383:
368:
356:
345:
322:
306:
281:
259:
243:
229:
197:
165:
155:
139:
119:
89:
76:
133:
Also, please sign your replies on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ —
81:
Well, hopefully you know who I am. :) Just be careful about the whole
203:
In light of your response on my talk page, I have redirected
333:Again, comments belong on the discussion page.
189:Knowledge:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types
72:or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --
8:
297:I've written to the NRC for their comments.
388:PS Please don't enter any response on my
60:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
355:Please note that a philosophy article
7:
125:Please sign your posts on talk pages
14:
392:the proper place for that is the
70:Knowledge:Where to ask a question
270:Analog signal: False assertion
161:I am an expert on this topic.
1:
260:21:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
250:In case you are not watching
30:The five pillars of Knowledge
282:03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
244:18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
230:18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
198:17:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
166:02:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
120:05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
90:22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
77:22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
50:How to write a great article
156:20:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
140:07:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
466:
346:19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
323:17:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
307:18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
217:Talk:Misuse of statistics
21:Hello Terry Oldberg, and
451:20:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
436:20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
421:19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
406:17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
384:17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
369:08:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
221:the requested moves page
103:. I do not think that
329:Vandalism of User Page
115:to edit articles. --
113:non-original research
209:Misuse of statistics
184:Misuse of statistics
101:statistics talk page
213:Statistical fallacy
205:Statistical fallacy
180:Statistical fallacy
173:Statistical fallacy
35:How to edit a page
178:You just created
109:vanity guidelines
95:Vanity guidelines
83:original research
457:
465:
464:
460:
459:
458:
456:
455:
454:
353:
331:
316:interpretation.
289:
273:
252:Talk:Statistics
176:
147:
127:
97:
55:Manual of Style
12:
11:
5:
463:
461:
352:
349:
330:
327:
326:
325:
317:
313:
288:
285:
279:HarmonicSphere
277:
272:
267:
265:
263:
262:
247:
246:
233:
232:
175:
170:
169:
168:
146:
143:
126:
123:
96:
93:
66:sign your name
58:
57:
52:
47:
42:
37:
32:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
462:
453:
452:
448:
444:
438:
437:
433:
429:
423:
422:
418:
414:
408:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
381:
377:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
350:
348:
347:
344:
340:
337:
334:
328:
324:
321:
318:
314:
311:
310:
309:
308:
305:
301:
298:
295:
292:
287:Nuclear Power
286:
284:
283:
280:
271:
268:
266:
261:
258:
253:
249:
248:
245:
242:
240:
235:
234:
231:
228:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
196:
194:
191:. Thank you.
190:
185:
181:
174:
171:
167:
164:
163:Terry Oldberg
160:
159:
158:
157:
154:
153:
144:
142:
141:
138:
137:
131:
124:
122:
121:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
94:
92:
91:
88:
84:
79:
78:
75:
71:
67:
63:
56:
53:
51:
48:
46:
43:
41:
38:
36:
33:
31:
28:
27:
26:
24:
19:
18:
439:
424:
409:
387:
372:
354:
341:
338:
335:
332:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
274:
264:
257:Joshuardavis
177:
151:
148:
135:
132:
128:
98:
80:
59:
20:
16:
15:
62:Wikipedian
40:Help pages
394:talk page
390:user page
357:Knowledge
351:Knowledge
64:! Please
152:James S.
136:James S.
45:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
443:Snowded
428:Snowded
413:Snowded
398:Snowded
376:Snowded
361:Snowded
85:thing--
23:welcome
343:Simesa
320:Simesa
304:Simesa
117:Cswrye
105:Avenue
87:Shanel
74:Shanel
145:Lunch
447:talk
432:talk
417:talk
402:talk
380:talk
365:talk
276:it.
239:DES
225:DES
215:on
207:to
193:DES
449:)
434:)
419:)
404:)
396:--
382:)
367:)
223:.
445:(
430:(
415:(
400:(
378:(
363:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.