User talk:TBR-qedMV replyTeahouse talkback: you've got messages!Hello, TBR-qed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Chamith (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Disambiguation link notification for January 13Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Instrumentalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Experimentalism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC) January 2015Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Instrumentalism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Quotations?Hello again1 I see that you are working on the article. :) Very nice! One question: I see that you have several places where you have made the text appear in "boxes" by placing a "space" first in the sentence. Are these intended to be marked as quotations? If so, there is another way that this should be done. I have made the first "box" as a quote here. Use the same coding in the article if you like.
Or if you want to have the rows in the box beginning at certain words, you use the : like this:
The basic form of a "qoute-box" is this:
The rules of coding within a quote-box are a bit different from the ordinary coding. I hope this helps you somewhat. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Instrumentalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Value. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Hello, TBR-qed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Hello, TBR-qed. You have new messages at Modocc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Your draft article, User:TBR-qed/sandboxHello, TBR-qed. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox". The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Teahouse replyHello, TBR-qed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. InstrumentalismPlease stop deleting the categories, etc on the Instrumentalism article.--Bamyers99 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 15Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Instrumentalism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deduction and Induction. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Reference errors on 5 MayHello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Re:changing title; infringing copyrightHello, TBR-qed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Reference errors on 29 MayHello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Hello, TBR-qed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gestrid (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, TBR-qed. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Hello, TBR-qed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Your thread has been archived
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, TBR-qed. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Changing page nameI am planning to revise the title above to "Situational logic." Will this title change cause any problems with existing links? IF so, how can I resolve those problems? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
[[1]] The simple version of how to do this- remove all the old text from Sit. analysis and leave this as the ONLY text on that page For example #REDIRECT situational logic Drop a note on my talk page if this isn't clear and I can do it for you, once you have created the new pageSethie (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter messageYour thread has been archived
Your thread has been archived
Your thread has been archived
Your thread has been archived
Your thread has been archived
Your thread has been archived
Babel boxesHi! In order to indicate the languages you understand, you may wish to place a template like {{babel|en|fr-3|es-2}} on your user page. You should modify (or omit) the number suffixes according to your needs. Regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Hello, TBR-qed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Your thread has been archived
Your thread has been archived
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Hello, TBR-qed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template. Your thread has been archived
Problem of inductionHi! I saw you started a major revision of Problem of induction, and removed the funeral picture. My motivation for inserting both the sunrise and the funeral picture was to indicate why there is a problem of induction at all. Seeing only the sunrise picture, a reader will most likely think "So what? I already knew that the sun always rises in the east". The funeral picture (inspired by Russell's "chicken induction", found at Inductive_reasoning#Criticism) should indicate that inductive generalization of properties may lead to problematic conclusion. Maybe another picture is better suited for that purpose, but I think some picture indicating a problem should be present. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Your thread has been archived
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageYour submission at Articles for creation: Problem of induction (December 5) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SK2242 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
I immediately grant the appearance of these violations, but argue that the following substantive issues show I am not violating but covering new ground. 1) present article is obsolete. 2) It cannot be corrected with additional sources, but must be reframed for 21st century conditions. 3)The valuations reside in the subject matter and are made by scholars described, not by me. I suspect that testing the validity of my response will require opinions of subject matter experts, not just judgments of violated WP protocols. Please respond to this explanation of why I am not violating the rules. 1). The following table shows scholars covered in present article, in my primary source Sloman and Lagnado (S&L), and in my proposal, documenting my charge of obsolesence. It is not sensible just to add a few names to the existing long list. COVERAGE: Why the present article “Problem of induction” is obsolete: Present article S&L my proposal Philosophers Hume Hume Hume Popper Popper Goodman Goodman Goodman Pyrrhonists Logical empiric Pyrrhonists Carvaka Hempel Carvaka Quine Quine Dewey Stove & Williams Miller & Lipton Campbell & Costa Carnap al-Ghazali & Ockham Hacking Scotus Nagel Salmon Kuhn Hard scientists 0 0 Duhem Social scientists 0 Rosch Rosch Tversky Kahneman Kahneman Shepard Rips Carey Sloman Osherson Lopez Hampton Gelman & Coley Mandler & McDonough Nisbett Gopnik & Meltzoff and more. 2). I have numerous secondary sources—10 out of 19 by my count—which is not low for modern evidence. 3) The subject ”Problem of induction” is itself a criticism of this form of reasoning, and most of my scholars deny its rationality as they use it. Duhem and Dewey solve the problem of induction. All of the others perpetuate it as they condemn it. These are not my valuations. I can’t believe that WP protocols are intended to be inflexible in a 21st century encyclopedia.TBR-qed (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Your thread has been archived
Your thread has been archived
AfC notification: Draft:Problem of induction has a new comment
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Problem of induction. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Problem of induction (December 14) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:
The comment the reviewer left was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Your thread has been archived
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia