User talk:83.67.217.254

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Carbonara

Since the English definition of Carbonara does include cream, than how is it not POV to start with a different definition? Your first comment was “Traditional recipe first please”, in the English speaking world the “traditional” recipe does include cream, and I included multiple source to confirm that. If I had found otherwise I would have pointed that out in the article. Note that I am not arguing whether the original Italian recipe includes cream, nor even if some English users might mean the original Italian recipe when they say Carbonara, simply that to most English speakers (as evidenced by the English books I cited) Carbonara does “traditionally” include cream. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 83.67.217.254). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. --h2g2bob 07:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock please

((unblock|see below)) ((unblock-auto|1=83.67.217.254|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Throw away account number two". The reason given for Throw away account number two's block is: "username...".|3=The Anome))

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

On second thought, I'll allow you to edit from this IP, as soon as we can get into the toolserver to clear the autoblock. Please be patient with us!

Request handled by: —Pilotguy go around 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(Not sure if autoblocked or The Anome blocked me directly) The block seems a bit harsh:

  1. My contributions have never been vandalstic, please check.
  2. Reason for blocking ("username...", which I interpret as, "registration under user name 'throw away account number two'") does not seem to constitute in itself enough grounds for an indefinite IP block. It seems to me like the blocking admin has made incorrect assumptions about my intentions and/or past history.

Thanks. 83.67.217.254 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Try, now. Autoblocks are a bit tricky to understand, but suffice to say they're a sort of double-blinded server utility that blocks the IP addresses of recently blocked users for about 24 hours; this is useful sometimes, such as when somebody has a whole bundle of sleeper accounts ready for action, and other times it only makes things worse. Anyway, try editing and see if it'll work for you. If not, feel free to restore the request. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Political correctness

Hi there,

I notice (too late) that you have made remarks in Talk:Political correctness that are exactly in line with my more recent objections. At the moment there are a lot of people in denial editing that article. Perhaps you would like to join the current debate again and weigh in.

I think that what you say about there being a completely different approach to the term (or as you correctly point out, the phrase) in the UK than in the US may be the essence of the problem and why there is such a clash about that article.

All the best! 83.67.217.254 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, and thanks. Yes, I will certainly weigh in, and have been sitting back biding my time as I recognise this page as perhaps the most difficult of all Wiki pages to get truth onto (much rests on PC remaining obscure) --Memestream 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] law of total probability

Your edit was horribly wrong. We DO NOT want to condition on the event's actually occurring; we DO want to allow general random variables and not just indicator variables of events; and the fact that we sometimes condition on events of probability 0 and therefore need to talk about density functions in order to apply the result to those cases in no way means the identity is wrong. Michael Hardy 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You continue to appear very very confused about this. See my comments on that talk page. Michael Hardy 22:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a new section to conditional probability that I hope will clear up your confusion on this point. Michael Hardy 19:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maddox's mention of the Nokia E70

Hi. Maddox's mention of the Nokia E70 was the most notable thing to happen to that phone, yet the main editors of the Nokia E70 won't have his link included. If you have an opinion on this, please volunteer it on the E70 talk page. Thanks.--Loodog 02:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] law of total probability

I find it very interesting that your new definition almost exactly replicates my original edit.
While I'm glad you are starting to understand, conditional probability given a continuous random variable is still not covered (unsurprisingly) by this novel definition of yours. Therefore, as I was suggesting in my edit comment, the definition of the law of total probability for continuous variables is still ill-defined. Horribly horribly yours, 83.67.217.254 13:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's get this straight. In your "original edit" you changed "random variable" to "event". I said that was horribly, horribly wrong and changed it back to "random variable". Now it still says "random variable". But you say there's some "new definition" somewhere that "almost exactly replicates" your "original edit". Where do you find this "new definition?

Sometimes I edit Wikipedia anonymously, and I don't normally have a problem with anyone else doing that, but in your case, you're doing it out of cowardice. Michael Hardy 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)