User talk:Tparameter


 * Hello. Please do not put automated or template warnings on my talk page. I am an experienced editor - so please respect me enough to discuss issues without using those annoying warning tags. I encourage constructive editors to feel free to discuss anything here in a civil way. Thanks. Tparameter

regarding your art
hi regarding your article, you did not support citation. the one holder you put i looked into it was dead link. can you support more please. thanks 93.173.241.51 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Tparameter (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And welcome to WikiProject CS too...
Having just welcomed you to WP, allow me to also welcome you WPCS. Glad to see that you've decided to sign on as a participant. I encourage you to stop by the project talk page to see what's going on with the project (a browse through the talk archives will probably be alternately amusing and confounding - some of the arguments are pretty silly in retrospect :-). Anyway, welcome aboard! --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

citation needed tags
Please use nc or fact, instead of the more laborious coding. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW
Hey T, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 00:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cookies
Hello, I just wanted to give you a plate of cookies for being a Wikipedian. Peace, 24.15.169.196 01:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

re: civility
I was addressing Grim regarding personal attacks and civility. The reason I posted to the article Talk page rather than to Grim's Talk page is remind everyone that it is a community effort to keep the discussion civil and on topic. Thanks! --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Austrian economics
Please discuss your changes to the article on the talkpage, here: Talk:Austrian_School. Thank you. Zenwhat (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Austrian school
I like Friedman and I saw some stuff on the article on the article on Monetarism that made me skeptical of it, but my economics professor seems to be a monetarist, since he didn't go into too much detail about how short-term effects of aggregate demand have a meaningful affect on inflation and unemployment. He mentioned the basics of Keynesianism in the beginning, but towards the end it seemed to be mostly about Monetarism. I asked him about the stuff I saw on the Monetarism article, he said he didn't know what I was talking about.

I like Thomas Sowell, but I don't like the fact that he's a Republican.

Overall, I think Wikipedia is filled with Austrian economics nonsense. There's a legitimate argument for more laissez-faire policies, but not minarchism or market anarchism. Austrian economics are Classical economists who simply refused to give up their theories when they were debunked. As the years went by, they became more radical, with Mises and Rothbard being apologists for Nazism, Fascism, anti-semitism, and so on. Today, they are viewed as nutcases by serious Libertarian thinkers, like CATO, though they're unfortunately influential because they're good at running websites.

The same thing happened to Marxism when Capitalism failed to collapse, workers' conditions improved, and Socialist nations became corrupt and poor. While Austrian economics and Socialist economics are both influential historical schools, their modern adherents are pseudoscientists.

It was probably a bit silly to tag Austrian economics with "pseudoscience," but I saw another user named ScienceApologist doing the same thing, so I thought, why not? Overall, though, most of the stuff I've attempted to put into articles on Austrian economics has been good. There are a lot of users, however, who seem intent on flooding this site to the point that it looks like Mises.org. Also, I find it practically impossible to debate with any adherent of Austrian economics. All I can really do is whip out the citations of Mises in Omnipotent Government calling Fascism a "victory" for property rights and his assertions that the Nazis were on the cusp of winning World War II, and hope for the best.

&#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Bryan Caplan's criticisms were dead on, however. Any of the Austrians who weren't cranks (like Hayek) became Neoclassical economists, such as Caplan himself. Ironically, I discovered this not too long ago, because though the Austrians object to the mainstream scientific method, their own site contains a large abundance of fairly recent papers where they use it. The Austrian economists that get published in academic journals and hold teaching positions only do so because they are Neoclassical economists who hold Austrian economics as a personal belief. This is sort of the same way that some creationist biologists manage to do the same thing, but they simply don't let it be reflected in their work. If it does, they get fired. I agree with you on Sowell. I haven't particularly made up my mind on a lot of things. There are too many Neoclassical economists denying market failure and too many Keynesians denying government failure. So, I take a centrist position on a lot of things:


 * I support universal healthcare, but only if it's a national pool funded by taxes (Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards' healthcare plans of "force everybody to buy health insurance" is horrible)
 * I think the FDA should stop approving food and drugs, but it should still continue labeling, the Consumer Product Safety Commission should receive greater funding, and the FTC should go after hucksters like Robert Barefoot and Kevin Trudeau
 * I support welfare, but think it should be re-structured to "welfare for work" and simplified (and taking the emphasis away from token groups, abolish "social security" for old people, welfare for minorities, etc..)
 * I support anti-trust, but think it shouldn't be strictly enforced.

Those are just a few examples. I'm an American Liberal, but a practical one which places me above the average American Socialist riff-raff. On the other hand, I think that Libertarians' definition of "liberty" is untenable, because it ignores the fact that liberty is valued for the opportunities to make ordinal decisions that it brings, and that strictly negative liberty leads to some pretty absurd conclusions, like Rothbard's claim it should be legal to abandon children and Walter Block's claim that slave-contracts are valid. And then there's Hans Hermann-Hoppe who supports aristocracy. In A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he specifically argues that the economic liberal position is unjust because it leads to aristocracy. The consistent liberal position argues against the infringement of individual rights for the sake of a greater number and does not see positive liberty as a magic justification for all socialist reforms, but also would object to the "natural aristocracy" which stems from laissez-faire.

- &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I avoid the term "Libertarian" for obvious reasons. I think people like Jimbo should, too. Because the term is currently used by two people:


 * Radical anarchist nutcases at the Mises Institute and LewRockwell, who are about as anti-liberty as Marxists.
 * The Libertarian party, which despite popular misconception, is not "big-L Libertarian." It is, in fact, a small-l libertarian party. I say that because a number of political conservatives (aka the Bible-thumping "Constitutionalists" like Ron Paul) seem to have taken the party over, forcing a vote that removed the support for voluntary taxation in their manifesto and re-worded the language on immigration.

There is CATO, of course, which is genuinely Libertarian, but then I think even they are a bit too radical, since they're all minarchists. Unlike the trash at Mises.org, their reports are insightful. As an example, I pointed out recently on Mises.com how this article on Mises.org invokes Marx's notion of class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I think it contributed to the growing anger there that led to me being permanently banned. My last post there involved me quoting John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and telling them how the act of banning me demonstrated their lack of regard for liberty. Whereas I've cited CATO's handbook on immigration in a lot of discussions on it.

To use Wikipedia slang, the term, "Libertarian," was a POV fork of Liberal because economic and social liberals were so opposed, and because of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the New Deal, social liberals grew so great in number, that year-after-year, the distinction between "Liberal" and "Socialist" became more blurry. This didn't happen in Europe (which is why I prefer the term "European Liberal" for myself), particularly because the closeness to the Iron Curtain reinforced the Liberal\Socialist distinction. In America, economic liberals reacted by attempting to claim the terms Classical Liberal and Libertarian. Mises made some pretty hubristic predictions (such as that Fascism will go down in history as a great thing for Europe and that the Germans were going to win World War 2) and, towards the end of the 20th century, when it was clear that the Federal Reserve wasn't going to collapse and prices were relatively stable, American economic liberals became more and more radical. You saw the same thing with Marx: Roughly 50 years after he put forth the claim that Capitalism was doomed to failure, his disillusioned followers declared themselves Anarchists and sparked a renewed interest in subversion and violence. I somewhat worry that these "market anarchists," may go the same route, if they continue in the same direction. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

American History X
I'm not sure I've ever seen it. the_undertow  talk  07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked
ScienceApologist is a doctoral candidate in the astronomy department at Columbia University. He gave this presentation at the last NYC Meetup. In Nightscream's photograph taken at the meeting, he is the fellow sitting down in front of the Mac, third from left. I'm presently pondering expert retention, which bought me to your edit and question. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal
I've come across AIDS reappraisal advocates (mostly associated with Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives) in very strange places. Phillip E. Johnson is one, for example, which should give pause for thought. Global warming skeptics are also generally pseudoscience supporters in the sense of the Great Global Warming Swindle. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics
Hello. Evidence for mathematical results can often come from other areas of science such as theoretical physics. The subject of scattering theory, used in automorphic forms, representation theory and operator theory, is one rather old example. Differential calculus is an even older example. String theory as I mentioned before provides other examples. The organic nature of mathematics makes it behave rather like any other scientific subject. After phenomena have been observed, mathematicians try to explain what is going on, through proofs of precisely formulated assertions. Even logic now functions in tandem with computer science and quantum mechanics. So I don't quite see why it was felt that mathematics should be separated off in this way. I don't think it is a helpful way to understand the problems raised by homeopathy and how we should understand it as a pseudoscience: homeopathy does seem to demand separate and unachievable standards of evaluation and this is not true of mathematics. Indeed mathematics places itself close to other sciences (it is a basic science): in my experience with the CNRS, the Royal Society and the Miller Institute in Berkeley, where scientists from different disciplines regularly interact and exchange views, there is no real difference in approach, except perhaps that pure mathematicians do research less often in groups. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Movie directors
The directors you named to me I have skimmed over their articles here, all sounds great. I haven't seen any Kubrick films personally and I've never heard of the former two (Leone and Peckinpah) because in these years I've not seen a single Western film! Sorry for the ignorance. But I added them into another section "Recommended_by_other_users" and eventually I will check out their films. Thank you and happy editing! Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

intellectual understanding
It seems to me that the math people are very rigid, narrow, seemingly rigorous, etc. But who do you ask "What is a number?" "What is rigor?" "What is logic?", etc? You ask analytic philosophers. In philosophy, we have standards the same way mathematicians have them. So to accept the dog level of understanding as understanding really is to throw away the whole project of identifying and furthering intellectual values in a very real way. Incidentally, this is an unwinable argument because a good philosopher will always be able to appeal to some higher level of anaysis, some bigger picture, etc. Once it is identified that there exists some higher level of analysis, that becomes the standard. As far as the pragmatists, well the truth is that pragmatism as it exists in the social/political world really isn't a principle. It is really just calling something that is not a principle a principle. However, that is not the same thing as pragmatism in the Peirce, Carnap, Quine tradition of analytic philosophy. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If only you could get philosophers to agree on their respective philosophies! Tparameter (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation/model
Please see my response at WT:WPM. I hope we can figure out how to mesh all the differing terminological conventions together to make something coherent. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

type token distinction
The type-token distinction is a topic we talked about during the first week of class in "Advanced Logic." It was first identified by Peirce. It is in the category:metalogic.

This is the language that is used to talk about these very things:sets, theorems, etc. I am surprised that it doesn't ring a bell for you. In my mind I'm thinking that here is a new aspect of the topic that hasn't been covered, and we should all be grateful. I guess I should think of it as you giving me credit to say that you think its or?! I think it's just original to you, but that doesn't make sense.

That a theorem or a set is an abstract object or at the very least an "abstraction" is noncontroversial, well known, and apparently admitted. This is as evidenced by the presence of Category:Mathematics within Category:Abstraction historically.

You are going to force me to dig up references for a fact which upon expression becomes fairly obvious to anyone. This is the math bias I am talking about. Some statements stand in need of justification and some do not.

This type of content is rejected systemically. A person wanting to understand the topic intellectually, will be denied the tools, whereas a person being trained will get their tools. It's a shame.

(I've filed a complaint against all of the bullying btw. I don't count you among them because you are pretty sincere about trying to teach me. I already knew those distinctions you pointed out on my talk page, but thanks. You can tell I know them if you read my discussions carefully, especially with Carl.)

Be well,

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * T, I am very concerned about your response on my talk page. Should I even bother to dig up sources if you and the others are just going to decide its all as irrelevant as apples?


 * You don't understand the difference for why this is relevant to theorem, but not apple. That is a big problem.


 * Quine, Carnap, Tarski, and a few others spent a year together at Cambridge. They worked on a nominalist-finitist project. That is to say, they embarked on creating a logical system that presumes that nominalism and finitism is true.


 * The point is, that logicians have to consider very fundamental questions in the formulation of their systems. Therefore, that a theorem, a set, and number are abstract objects can be quite relevant to a logician's approach.


 * The following analogy is intended respectfully: I want you to imagine that there is a wikipedia in a world with living cavemen. Further suppose that the cavemen wikipedians outnumber the geologist wikipedians. Obviously the articles dealing with rocks will be affected. All of this silly talk about sedimentary, and igneous become quite irrelevant and is deleted. Rocks are tools and that's all that matters, right?


 * Mathematicians use sets, and numbers, as tools. However, if we want to ask an expert what a set is we more appropriately go to a philosopher of logic, not a mathematician. If you want to know what dirt is, you appropriately go to a geologist, not a gardener.


 * Obviously this issue is irrelevant to apples. So, I find the analogy on your part shocking.


 * It would be nice if you would just defer to my judgment on this issue, as I do with members of WP:MATH. I know whereof I speak. You are not correct in your view that this content is irrelevant.


 * I do not seek to insert these fundamentals in articles like apple. There are a few articles such as number, set, and theorem, these are terms in which almost all other abstract objects are expressed. These are the very most important abstract objects that exist. In this light I hope you reconsider your view.


 * I am considering starting a category:abstract objects if I continue to have problems. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Common ground
Sorry if I ever came off as being uncivil. Also, would you be interested in joining the Homeschooling WikiProject? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling May 2008 Newsletter
 The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

Newsletter
Hope you like the newsletter! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing
Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with WikiProject Computing for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 12:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science
I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project  here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks --  Tinu  Cherian  - 12:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fru Martin
Arguably. That list is moreso for "iconic" guitars he plays, of sorts. Guitars he is seen playing. There's already a blurb about the Martin in the article; not really any need to reiterate it in the infobox. I was considering removing that little bit entirely because its almost irrelevant anyway. NSR 77 T 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely. The Martin is his solo-signature sound. NSR 77  T 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Lane
You just edited the Billy Lane article to suggest he was convicted. Do you have a source for this information. If so, you need to include it -- otherwise the statement you put in the article is fairly meaningless. 842U (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Food for thought. I wonder if "fairly meaningless" has more or less meaning than just simply saying "meaningless" - and thus, would "extremely meaningless" make sense? Moreover, does one who suggests that a lack of reference or the addition of a reference to the exact same statement gives or takes away meaning? These are questions for philosophers, poets, and revolutionaries my friend - however, they are welcome questions that have brightened my day. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Tparameter! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Lou Banach -

WikiProject Homeschooling Roll Call
Hello, ! You are receiving this message because you are on WikiProject Homeschooling's list of members. WikiProject Homeschooling is holding a roll call to identify active members. All members will be listed under "Pending". Please move your name to "Active" or "Inactive" based on your ability or interest in contributing to the project. After two weeks all names still listed under "Pending" will be moved to "Inactive". If you are actively interested in participating, we are in the process of trying to revive the project and would welcome any help. Discussion can be found at the project talk page. Cheers! 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Nomination of Jocko Willink for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jocko Willink is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jocko Willink until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)