# User talk:Gandalf61

## Fractran

I must ask you to immediately stop revert my edits on the Fractran article and start discussion this subject instead. Please explain why you think that your version is correct and not mine. TraxPlayer (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just discovered that the ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{7}}}$ fraction was missing. Why did you comment that you reverted back to Conway version ? I strongly believe based that Conway version included the important ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{7}}}$.

TraxPlayer (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, the sequence of 14 fractions given in Conway & Guy The Book of Numbers and in Havil Nonplussed does not include 1/7. We can't just change stuff because we think it is wrong - we have to stick to cited sources. I have removed 1/7 from the sequence in the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Also note that the version given in Project Euler Problem 308 is different from the Conway & Guy and Havil version because it ends in 13/11, 15/2, 1/7, 55/1 instead of 13/11, 15/14, 15/2, 55/1. Probably achieves the same result, but the article should stick to cited sources, and published sources are more reliable than a web page. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I found a primary source on the fractran program. Written solely by Conway. And it contains the 1/7 version.

Please see this page [2] from the book Problems in Communication and Computation. This book is from 1987 and contains the original paper by Conway. That must the best primary source. The Book of Numbers can't be primary source. I believe that Guy wrote most of the book including the Fractran part. What is your opinion on the picture from page 116 from Mrs. Roberts book? TraxPlayer (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And here the first page on the original Conway paper -
``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by TraxPlayer (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
```

## Deletion of Erdős number information

Hi! Thank you for all of your contributions!  :) I noticed that some guy has been going around Wikipedia deleting Erdős number information, which I think is unjustifiable. I just reverted one such deletion, explaining why. Your point of view on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

## 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) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## Spigot algorithm

Thank you, your example about log 2 is great! 185.19.20.240 (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Gandalf61. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Gandalf61. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Future Perfect

His closure of the Q was uncalled for, and especially his removal of your link to the guidelines saying a discussion should be left open for at least a week, where his edit comment said he was reverting you as a banned user (you aren't, are you ?). He also reverted my comment agreeing with you. If you would like to submit a complaint on him, I will support you. He also threatened to block anyone who reopens the discussion. This type of behavior, using Admin powers and threats, to get his way, is unacceptable. See this edit and the previous one: [3]. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not a banned user :) I assume FPaS was referring to 82.47.242.185 (talk · contribs) who restored my post before FPaS deleted it again. As regards FPaS's behavior, I pretty much agree with you, but I see no point in complaining at ANI or anywhere else. Admins always close ranks and support each other, and the response would simply be "maybe he was a bit naughty but he's a good lad really and he meant well ...". But thank you for your offer of support anyway. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it's like the police policing themselves, there's a huge conflict of interest there. Behavior which would get a user banned is completely ignored when it comes from an Admin. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Original Barnstar I found your user account by searching through the revisions to the generating functions article, which my new article draft suggests as the main article for the topic in my page header. Would you mind reviewing my related article located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Generating_function_transformation_(Mathematics)? It contains notes, listings, citations, and examples on transformations of generating functions, which is again related to the main article topic, but is of sufficient length and I think has broad enough topic coverage to have a separate article dedicated to it. I have been waiting for someone to review the article since I posted it as a draft 3-4 weeks ago. I guess math articles require special mathematician reviewers. Good job on the first generating functions article. Maxieds (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar. Your draft article is well written and interesting, but I notice that quite a few of the results are unsourced - I think it would be better with more references. Also, in terms of style, you need to bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a textbook. If you would like a wider opinion from the mathematics community on Wikipedia you could post at the WikiProject Mathematics talk oage. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

## Proof by Exhaustion

I can see why you reverted this, but I would like to argue that the process of finding a counterexample would require case by case analysis. For less obvious problems, you might not always find the right answer on the first case you try. (Perhaps a better example should be used in the article?) Let me know your thoughts =) Popcrate (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Gandalf61. 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)