User talk:Gandalf61/Archive18

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:. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I am not a banned user :) I assume FPaS was referring to 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!

 * 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
Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proof_by_exhaustion&oldid=prev&diff=779555197

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)

Nomination of Examination of Apollo Moon photographs for deletion (discussion here)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Examination of Apollo Moon photographs 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 Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd 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. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)