User talk:Gandalf61/Archive12

Thanks for your response at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. I've posted a followup question I hope you will be able to address! Thanks again. 87.91.6.33 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandalf, with respect to COI of the author: I play open cards now but this is not rewarded. This is understandable if there are stringent wiki rules. What is the best solution? Ask a collegue to place the article on wiki? When exactly does an article comply with wiki's notability demand? The article has been shaped after the example of the WIKI page about 'life'. Why are there comments on the style? It has been thoroughly checked for NPOV now. Thank you in advance for helping me to become a better wikipedian 81.207.79.153 (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest and how to avoid it is at

WP:NOTE). In a nutshell, Wikipedia is not the right place to try to publicise your theory. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Gandalf, thank you for your prompt reply and very usefull remarks. Hope to get a little bit more of your time. Two questions: ONE: can you help me 'raise' the wiki-editors-forum you indicate above? This would indeed be a valuable solution. TWO. You indicate that already having the theory published in (5) international journals (of good standing, see references in the wikipedia article) is not enough. It should also have been discussed by third parties....? Does it help in this respect to indicate that the theory has been discussed in several Dutch newspapers (three years ago), been discussed in the magazine Bionieuws for all dutch and belgian bioligists and ecologists (Bionews, a two page centerfold article!) and that it has been presented in the dutch science programme (Labyrint) on Dutch television (this month)? The NASA allied journal Astrobiology has last year written an article about it. And there are two dicussion papers in Foundations of Science that discuss my theory, at least the definition of life part. Would these references amount to sufficient support for notability? Then I would of course gladly add the references in the article. Thank you again, Gerard Jagers 81.207.79.153 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandalf, the reaction of Nergaal on the "the operator theory" talkpage gives direction to the notability debate (following my list of 3rd parties). Now it becomes even more interesting to understand your suggestion of the group of wiki editors you mention above in relation to the COI. By the way, I think the article is not biased, but you may give examples of sentences that still need rewriting so that I can learn.Jager008 (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandalf, a regular graph does not necessarily need to be a simple graph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.199.179 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a

reliable source that says that ? Many of the properties of regular graphs described in the article do not hold if the graph is not assumed to be simple. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I will take have taken it to AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at braid group you edited over my correction of the Coxeter presentation of S_n, so that now adjacent simple transpositions commute? why did you do this?

67.255.14.227 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just reviewed my edit and realised that you version was correct after all - I had misunderstood your change. So I have reverted back to your version. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thx 67.255.14.227 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean really DUH! Who still believes this? Your own posts deny it! This is the problem with Brits ... they constantly contridict themselves! I guess this is the 'royalty' thing ... generations of lying to yourselves. DasV (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey i like this a lot did you make this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levy_C_construction.png - a cool dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.98.218 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gandalf61, Thanks for the correction. I was confused because Germen and English usage of σ differ. My intention was to clarify English usage in this article. In the abstract, σ₁ is defined, in 'Related concepts' section, just σ is used for the same w/o saying that this is the same. Could you please unify this usage or alternatively add an appropriate comment? Thanks in advance! :-) --Ernsts (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i need genuine help..it seems that my facts/misc. info is misunderstood/interpreted in a wrong way i have written an article stating a new type of mean{releted to maths}(anti geomtric mean and anti-harmonic mean)

(don't hesitate to read plz)

who AM I? i am Shrenuj Parekh,india,mumbai.i am a small kid aged 17 years old. i love mathematics and aim to be a contributor(in terms of articles,innovations,inventions,formula's,etc.)in the field of Maths.

History of wiki contributed articles: i created an article on "anti geometric and anti harmonic mean"(a month back around) it was deleted reason(UNSOURCED ORIGINAL DOCUMENT) SOURCE WAS MY BRAIN..............how could i ever link it with an external link?

i had gone a study tour in some town are(via college cause club).........so could not edit the page within 7 days and my article got deleted

a solution was sort by me.i wrote an article on my website relating to the same(aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com)....dated 0ct 16

i decided to write the article again with an external link........... the twist in my story.........my blog has been shifted to (aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com(does not exist as of now)) TO (picturequizquestions.blogspot.com).for better traffic

WHAT DO I WANT? my page is facing a chance of deletion.plz follow the link below to know more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_71#Anti-geometric_mean_and_anti-harmonic_mean_needs_rescuing

copyright issue{*don't tell this to anyone*} i am a 17 year old who likes to show off!!(just like any other teenage boy...) so in an attempt to impress peers i wrote"COPYRIGHT SHRENUJ 2010".........FOR MERE SHOW off and to impress friends........... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrenujparekh (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the right place to publish your own original ideas. You should read our policy on

"no original research". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

u may select multiple morals!plz reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrenujparekh (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... was improper and out of process, and verges on revert warring. I am not reverting you back in the interest of avoiding this. I invite you to revert yourself back and preserve your viewpoint's legitimacy in a broader discussion; "Futurama theorem" is purely an original research construction by someone who saw the episode and cannot be defended on any policy basis. Andrevan@ 22:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back after seeing this diff. Why would you revert me? There are no sources and per

WP:BURDEN this material should be removed and it may be redirected to allow for appropriate coverage as it exists. Andrevan@ 23:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

My single revert was certainly not "improper" and the only one ignoring process and edit warring here is yourself. Replacing an article that has several months of history with a redirect without any attempt at discussion is deletion by stealth. If you think it should be deleted, take it to AfD. If you think it should be merged, start a merger discussion (as you have done, eventually). Okay, you were bold, I (and another editor) reverted you - now following

WP:BRD we can discuss on the article's talk page or elsewhere. But keep away from my own talk page until you learn to make your point in a civil and polite fashion. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"Keep away from my own talk page?" That's the definition of anti-wiki. I have only been civil and I have neither edit warred nor violated policy. Andrevan@ 08:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for whatever i may have written inconvenience is deeply regretted.efforts will be made to regret this in future.Shrenujparekh (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandalf61. Thanks for your interest in epsilontics-related pages. I don't really mind your edits, but "epsilontics" seems to be a rather widely used term. I can cite a few scholarly references, as well as courses of instruction in north america where this term is used in the course title. Arthur assures me that there is no problem whatsoever with (single) redirects, and "epsilontics" does seem shorter that "epsilon, delta definition of limit". Tkuvho (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's shorthand jargon and it makes our articles less acessible. When we mean "(ε, δ)-definition of limit" we should say so, without obfuscation. If you disagree, start a discussion at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to determine consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandalf61,

I was a bit surprised at how swiftly you removed my Composite Number additions today. I am new to editing Wikipedia but I was quite surprised by how little information there was on the subject of Composite Numbers. Was there something you particularly disliked about the content I added?

Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alangarrod (talk • contribs)

There were various issues with your additions to composite number:

1. They were written in an essay style, addressing the user directly in the second person with "we". If you read other Wikipedia articles you will see that they are all written in the third person, which is strongly recommended in the
   Wikipedia style guide
   .
2. The sections were written as if you were writing a textbook. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
   not a textbook
   .
3. You did not provide references to any sources. Third party reliable sources are crucial to Wikipedia - see
   our policy on verifiability
   .
4. Your sections appear to be original research, which is
   not allowed on Wikipedia
   .

Wikibooks or Wikiversity would be a more appropriate place for this type of material. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gandalf61 - There's no need to throw the whole book at me, one reason would have been sufficient. I take the points though. I suppose this sort of thing happens when you don't read the rules first. Alangarrod (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gandalf. If you are interested what indefinite sum looks like please look at www.oddmaths.info page 1 and 2, or www.oddmaths.info/indefinitesum . There indefinite sum is completely reduced to indefinite integral and one can take sum with arbitrary complex number boundaries and even non number too. There is a single formula for all analytic functions and separate one for non analytic functions. So you were wrong when you said in the article that there is no simple formula for every function. The formula at the site www.oddmaths.info/indefinitesum can be easily verified in a couple of minutes. There is at the site live examples with detailed instructions and commentaries. One can insert a function at one’s choice and compute it. Please don’t ignore it. Sincerely yours Ascold. --Ascold1 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Ascold1 June 21 2011[reply]

Dear Prof. Gandalf.

Your article on indefinite sum needs to be replaced because it is outdated (look at www.oddmaths.info/indefinitesum ). I need to discuss the subject with you. Sincerely yours, Ascold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascold1 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a professor, and I do not own the article. The correct place to make comments on the article is at Talk:Indefinite sum. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this edit, I'm not sure what you mean by 'count'. Maybe we could come up with a different wording? — kwami (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my explanation at Talk:Numeral (linguistics). Gandalf61 (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]