User talk:Taak

Hello

I like the additions to the fallacies list, although I think some organization is necessary -- such as suggested by David H. Fischer's book, Historian's Fallacies. Currently, it is hard to locate a fallacy (or particular fallacies used in certain areas.) I also started an article political argument.. I put some stuff on social choice theory to give it some structure, but that is somewhat questionable. This is related to some of your more recent additions.

CSTAR 18:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I don't have a copy of Fischer's book, but I see that there's a copy at my local library, so maybe it would be a good excuse to pick it up next time I go down there (it's been on my Amazon list).

I agree that there could be better ways to organize the list. Maybe there should be both an alphabetical list and a categorized list. I've always liked fallacy files' taxonomy and the table of fallacies is interesting (though the latter would be too opaque to anyone who wasn't already very comfortable with formal logic).

I like the idea of suggesting fallacies that may be relevant to different subjects. For political argument, maybe we could list misleading vividness, slippery slope, perfect solution fallacy, ad hominem, lump of labour fallacy, appeal to emotion, off the top of my head. We could say For fallacies related to a specific subject, see: and list political argument, formal argument, etc.

I also was thinking it would be cool if we could have some sort of standard classification table for each of the fallacy pages like they have on all of the animal species (like, say deer or roundworm), which might list type (informal or formal), parent fallacies, subfallacies, etc.

Taak 22:17, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-- Standard classification table for each fallacy. This would be very useful. Fischer does attempt something like this. CSTAR 20:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, well I'll get that book out soon. We should probably propose/discuss this on Talk:logical fallacy so that anyone else who might be interested can comment. --Taak 17:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on linking to sub-sections! Alanyst 04:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's to undocumented features! --Taak 17:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fallacies

Hello, it's been a while since I've talked about these pages. One of the things that would be worthwhile pointing out are distinctions between:

Purely logical fallacies (e.g. All males are mortal, Mary is mortal, therefore Mary is a male.)

Fallacies in some technical specialty (your lump of labor fallacy is a good example from economics) or fallacies in mathematical reasoning

{\frac {a+b}{c+d}}={\frac {a}{c}}+{\frac {b}{d}}

or fallacies in probabilistic or statistical reasoning.

Fallacies arising from violations of principles or argumentation. There's a whole fairly recent of argumentation theory which

proposes rules of argumentatitive dialog. These can be regarded in some sense as fairness rules.

Talking of Slippery slope, from Kevin Drum:

Texas Senator John Cornyn:
It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right....Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.

CSTAR 02:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The most basic and frequently-used way that I've seen fallacies split up is between those of formal logic and informal logic.

It makes sense to split them up between different circumstances of use in real life, however, in the interest of making it easier to use. There's also no reason why we could provide several different organizations of them.

Maybe I'll work on some sort of draft for a classification table to put on all of the individual pages, soon (which may require asking on the irc channel for tips on how to do this).

--Taak 22:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did you take a WikiVacation?

I haven't seen your contributions here in quite a while or in DK. I also notice the last date of contribution was dated Nov 3 ;) CSTAR 22:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Dave Barry libertarian?

OK, this is really old, but... Is Dave Barry really a libertarian? I've read everything he's ever written, and I don't particularly get that impression. Do you have a source, or an example, or something? (I don't particularly care, just curious.) --MarkusRTK 18:08, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=dave+barry+libertarian

Image copyright?

I don't know if you're watching Image talk:Iraq-prewar-antiamerican-cartoon.jpg, but some copyright issues have been raised there... - Mustafaa 14:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

tickerbot

Please read and reply to my comments made at Wikipedia talk:Bots. Thank you! -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illusion of control

I have a question about some of the text you contributed to the Illusion of control article. I suspect that there is a typo in the sentence: "...it has been shown that people tend to throw harder for high numbers and lower for low numbers." Should that read softer for low numbers? see also Talk:illusion of control. Thanks! --Amoore 22:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Someone else made the change, so unless it's wrong, I don't think your intervention is required. Thanks! --Amoore June 29, 2005 15:30 (UTC)

Lump of labor fallacy

I would like to know if you could clarify me a doubt. In this article, it says "It remains the law in France, although rollback proposals have been floated by Raffarin. Some economists contend that such proposals are likely to be ineffective, alleging that there are usually substantial administration costs associated with employing more workers, such as recruitment, training, and management, that would increase average cost per unit of output that would reduce production, and ultimately lower employment." "Such proposals" seems to refer to Raffarin´s proposals; however, what follows seems to give reasons of why reducing the amount of working hours doen´t mean just redestributing the total amount of hours among more workers. So, what is the article trying to say?--Please answer here--Wikiwert 01:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article

Dear Taak, Could you please create an entry for the "psychologist's fallacy" that you mention on the historian's fallacy entry? I am curious and do not have the expertise to do it. Apparently it is by William James.

Possibly unfree Image:Iraq-prewar-antiamerican-cartoon.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Iraq-prewar-antiamerican-cartoon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Terualsiege.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Terualsiege.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist

Dear Taak,

Image you have originally uploaded to English Wikipedia is now proposed for delisting from Featured Pictures.

Your comments/suggestions/etc are welcome here

--Mothmolevna ( © ® ) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Spe-encounter.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spe-encounter.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 08:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Soldiers-english-coast.jpg

File:Soldiers-english-coast.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Soldiers-english-coast.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Soldiers-english-coast.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Inner Party for deletion

The article Inner Party is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Party 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Insensitivity to sample size, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sampling theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Clustering illusion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Priming

Conjunction fallacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wimbleton

Conservatism (Bayesian) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bayesian

Illusion of external agency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Daniel Gilbert

Lady Macbeth effect (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bloodstain

Naïve realism (psychology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrew Ward

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extension Neglect

Hi Taak, do you have any ideas about fixing Extension neglect? The wording there is not helpful, and there doesn't seem to be much information online. I suspect that this is a phrase used in fairly limited academic contexts at the moment, most of which refer directly to Kaaheman's article. We should probably fix it or delete it. Kevin Saff (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Minor term

The article Minor term has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDIC; unclear if it would be useful redirect to Syllogism, where this is already contained.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Major term

The article Major term has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDIC; unclear if it would be useful redirect to Syllogism, where this is already contained.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Availability, salience and vividness for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Availability, salience and vividness 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Availability, salience and vividness 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Illusion of external agency

The article Illusion of external agency has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to meet the notability guideline, as the article only refers to the original paper. Upon a Google search, I couldn't find any reference to the concept of "Illusion of external agency" other than Wikipedia and the original paper itself. The article itself is also a bit confusing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 7804j (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Outer Party

The article Outer Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. (Note: cited academic paper here is unreliable). If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Inner Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inner Party 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Party (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Outer Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outer Party 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outer Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]