User talk:Limit-theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Limit-theorem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Your change to the intro of Stochastic volatility is spot on. Keep going, I'm sure you can help with the rest of the article. Ronnotel (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albert Tarantola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (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) 09:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Please read WP:BRD and WP:EW. I'd like to politely ask you to undo your reinsertion of that content and instead open a talk thread which addresses the reasons for my change. That way the disagreement can be resolved. EW will not resolve it. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Càdlàg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

  • For a semi-open interval, brackets "(" and "]" do not necessarily match. Limit-theorem (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit in ISIS[edit]

(a) Please could you correct your "califate" misspelling; (b) no other source calls it this and the group does not call itself this either; (c) please convert your footnote from a bare URL to the customary Wikipedia format using the cite-web or cite-news template (see [1] at 3.1). --P123ct1 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


how is the characteristic generator defined in your opionen? Br Shuozi — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It has very specific properties, best presentation in a paper by Sam Kotz ... I will integrate it when I have time.Limit-theorem (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about \Pr or \mathbb{P} in stats articles[edit]

Hi, a friend was looking through some statistics articles on Wikipedia and noticed that probability is denoted by \Pr in some cases and \mathbb{P} in others. I noticed that you had changed those symbols in the Markov's inequality article in this edit. I wanted to ask how you decide which symbol is appropriate in which case.

I looked at the WikiProject Mathematics Manual of Style, which reads "An article may use either boldface type or blackboard bold for objects traditionally printed in boldface. As with all such choices, the article should be consistent. Editors should not change articles from one choice of typeface to another except for consistency." But that doesn't answer the question as fully as I'd like, so I figured I'd ask you. How do you decide which one to use?

Thanks so much for your help. I appreciate it! wia (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your request. The tendency in mathematics (Springer) over the past decade, thanks to to LaTeX is to write \mathbb{E} for expectation, \mathbb{P} for probability, and \mathbb{1} for indicator functions. It makes the probability easier to spot and is much, much more elegant. See here: [2]. The problem is that when you go on google scholar most great probability texts precede LaTeX. So I would opt for \mathbb{P} for probability throughout. Limit-theorem (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance on this issue. LaTeX really is a game-changer; I'm getting more proficient with it myself too! wia (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It is addictive, we are getting so used to it that a mathematics text written without it looks hideous.Limit-theorem (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Stephen V. Cameron. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- KeithbobTalk 18:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback Stephen_V._Cameron[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Limit-theorem. You have new messages at Talk:Stephen_V._Cameron#Request_for_Discussion.
Message added 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dk3298371 (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback Stephen_V._Cameron (second request)[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Limit-theorem. You have new messages at Talk:Stephen_V._Cameron#Request_for_Discussion.
Message added 06:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dk3298371 (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be advised I will[edit]

…at the time of your next unexplained reversion, where you revert edits that at aimed at correcting violations of clear WP policies, take your actions/reversions to administrative arbitration.

I will try one last time to remove SELF-PUBLISHED material from the Taleb article. If you return material that violates WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUBLISH again, after today, I will not war with you, but instead take the matter to venues that will ensure that the Taleb site is not again populated with the Taleb website as a source.

NOTE: I explained in great detail IN TALK, HERE, [3], WHAT I HAD DONE IN THE EDITING, AND WHY. In addition to your violating WP:VERIFY policies by returning self-published material, you violated AGF and other respect-orented policies by making changes—hard work by a a clearly thoughtful and well-trained individual—without any glance or response at Talk.

Please review these policies, and reply here, BUT DO NOT JUST REVERT AGAIN WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE POLICIES BEING VIOLATED THROUGH USE OF THE TALEB PERSONAL WEB PAGE AS A SOURCE AT THE TALEB ARTICLE. Le Prof (the bizarre citation editing professor) Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for misconstruing your edits as those of another. And for my coming across so vociferously, above. I was responding to coming back on to the article, and seeing many hours of work destroyed, including much work completing incomplete citations, and removing redundancies. I see now that your edits were not the issue, and that the reverting that immediately began was another, far less thoughtful editor.
On the matter of a career summary section, I can only say, let's wait until the matter of using Taleb's personal webpage is settled, and lets look again at that question. Lay readers—the type of students we would wish to inform through an online encyclopedia—need overarching bird's eye view material early, and in this case, the lede and early sections do not accomplish this (instead, becoming far too complicated, far too quickly). Going too quickly into details only of concern to specialists ensures we will not reach our broad, general audiences.
Otherwise, I still stand by my call to look to the Talk section… because no one, since I left my Talk message conincicent with my editing, bothered to discuss my edits before reverting or markedly rejecting them. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Limit-theorem: Can you please read my Talk entry at the article, before you revert me again? PLEASE. As I note, (i) the citations that were in the lede appear complete in the main body, (ii) the edits have nothing to do with the ANI matter, (iii) reverting me reintroduces at leas one deadlink, (iv) etc. PLEASE, reconsider. This is separate form the ANI matter! Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrigible. Now, to muddy matters, you are removing the dead link. You have lost all my respect as a fair-minded fellow editor. Have your way, enjoy your article. I am done. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)