User talk:Terry Oldberg

Welcome!

Hello Terry Oldberg, 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:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Shanel 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully you know who I am. :) Just be careful about the whole original research thing--Shanel 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity guidelines

Mr. Oldberg, please do not be offended by the reference to vanity that was made on the statistics talk page. I do not think that Avenue was being insulting. This was a reference to an actual Wikipedia policy about vanity guidelines. 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 Wikipedia, and please feel free to use your knowledge from non-original research to edit articles. --Cswrye 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts on talk pages

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.

Also, please sign your replies on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ —James S. 07:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch

Lunch would be great. I'm free Wed-Fri or next week. Or even today if you call me at 650.793.0162. —James S. 20:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an expert on this topic. Terry Oldberg 02:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical fallacy

You just created Statistical fallacy. At present it is little more than a dictionary defination. as such, my first temptation was to convert it into a redirect to Misuse of statistics 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your response on my talk page, I have redirected Statistical fallacy to Misuse of statistics as that is an established article, and as not all misuses are fallacies, strictly speaking. Feel free to suggest moving this article to Statistical fallacy on Talk:Misuse of statistics. If there is consensus in doing such a move, but you want assistance in carrying it out, feel free to ask me, or at the requested moves page. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not watching Talk:Statistics 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, Joshuardavis 21:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analog signal: False assertion

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 it.
HarmonicSphere 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Power

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.(!)

And, as you've been cautioned above, there are rules against citing your own work.

I've written to the NRC for their comments.

By the way, notes go on the Discussion page - that way a banner comes up when there are new comments.

Simesa 18:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 interpretation.

Simesa 17:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of User Page

Again, comments belong on the discussion page.

Anonymity is allowed by Wikipedia. There are aggressive kooks in our society so I choose to remain anonymous, for now.

Wikipedia 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.

Simesa 19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge

Please note that a philosophy article Knowledge is not a place to promote your modelling capabilities. This type of commercial promotion is not permitted within Wikipedia. --Snowded (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Complexity theory is also (in my opinion) displacing systems thinking. What is unacceptable is to promote your own web site or methods. --Snowded (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please don't enter any response on my user page the proper place for that is the talk page --Snowded (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 might want to reference some of the work. It is however WRONG to publish a link to a commercial offering --Snowded (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 --Snowded (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 form of information. Try your pet theory out on ethical issues (or aesthetics) and see where it gets you. --Snowded (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]