User talk:Gandalf61/Archive6

Leonardo numbers

Thanks for catching that :) —porges_(talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Infra Logarithm Function

As I noted in the edit summary, the article could be transwikied to Wikibooks, or if you wish, you may take it to WP:AfD. utcursch | talk 11:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The empty polynomial

User:Lambiam had edited the definition of a polynomial in several places to allow for polynomials with zero terms. The zero polynomial has one term, that is a constant term zero, and is of zero degree. But it does not have zero terms. I restored the more standard definition, in which a polynomial must have at least one term. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. Then, would you say the 0 polynomial has zero terms? Rick Norwood (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Graphical timeline of the Big Bang

You commented in the above. I am strongly on the side of those who would like to change the timescale to log(time) from 10*log(time). See my comments there. Regards LouisBB (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to withdraw my remark, regretfully, having realised that the problem you stated is indeed a programming problem, which does not seem solvable. LouisBB (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

<RD Barnstar moved to user page Gandalf61 (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)>

Thank you for the Barnstar and for your kind remarks. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate fate

Thanks for intervening on the above subject. I hope you will not mind a discussion about it though. I am convinced, that talking about ultimate fate of the Universe is wrong, because it has not yet been established if its fate will be death or survival.

In the article we are not only hypothesising about what sort of death the Universe will have, but also whether it will ever die. If it survives then it will not be an ultimate fate, so the term is nothing but LOOSE TALK!

So what I said might not have been nicely put, but it was not wrong. I said it, because I prefer logic rather than following the tribe. I hope in Wikipedia we are not compelled just to rattle off what was said before. Questioning the accuracy of statements is also our duty. LouisBB (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref Desk talk page thread

Gandalf, we're being used on WT:RD for a game of "let's see you and them have a fight". Please don't reopen that thread without emailing me first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to back up your assertion that we are being "toyed with" ? I've looked at TreeSmiler's contributions and I see nothing more than an inexperienced contributor learning the ropes and making a few understandable mistakes along the way. Are you quite sure you aren't being a touch paranoid on this one ? Tell me what you know, so that I can understand where you are coming from. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't discuss this on-wiki. Confidential discussion by email would be acceptable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, TenOfAllTrades, I don't want to get into some "confidential" off-wiki e-mail discussion. If you have any evidence that TreeSmiler is not what he seems, why not put it up for everyone to see ? Where is the need to be so secretive ? Gandalf61 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed DuncanHill. I'm disappointed that neither of you has considered there may be good reasons for my request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read your (rather bad-tempered) dialogue on DuncanHill's talk page, and I now understand that your "good reasons" are that you think TreeSmiler is a Light Current sock. But since you won't present your evidence and you haven't tagged his user page or added this account to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current, I assume you don't have any hard evidence of this. So I guess you must be going on circumstantial evidence - this is an editor who mainly contributes to the RDs etc. Well, sorry, I don't think your "good reasons" justify your deletion of TreeSmiler's posts and your assertions that we are being "toyed with". Unless and until you have hard evidence that the TreeSmiler account is a sock, we should follow WP:AGF and treat TreeSmiler on the basis of his actions within this account - which, so far, look fine to me. Your witch-hunting approach to this case does not encourage me to place more trust your judgement in the future, either. I can live with your disappointment. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is abundant evidence that this is Light current. (For anyone familiar with his editing style, just this one edit contains a number of unique markers.) If we were engaged in witch-hunting, I – or one of several other admins who is aware of his identity – would have blocked the TreeSmiler account months ago and been done with it. If you've forgotten why he was banned in the first place, you can review the extensive history of abuse.

Instead, we're leaving him alone unless he edits disruptively in areas where he has caused trouble in the past (usually involving the creation or enforcement of Ref Desk policy.) We're letting a banned editor participate in Wikipedia as long as he doesn't stir up any conflict. That's as good as he's going to get, and much more generous than the usual banned editor ever sees. I don't know whether it's your personal animosity towards me or a generalized bad feeling you have about admins, but your own judgement about who is conducting a witch hunt here is skewed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So ... your "evidence" is, as I thought, entirely circumstantial - editing style etc. You can't block the TreeSmiler account because you have no hard evidence that it is a Light Current sock, and the TreeSmiler account itself has, so far, done nothing to merit a block. However, you are hardly "leaving him alone" when you accuse him of being disruptive on the RD talk page, delete one of is posts from the RD talk page, and post this inflammatory post to his own talk page. It rather looks as if you are trying to provoke him into doing something for which you can block the TreeSmiler account. So if TreeSmiler is not Light Current then you are attacking an innocent bystander, and if he is Light Current then you are giving him exactly the attention that he seeks.

Of course, all this fuss would have been avoided if you had simply explained at the outset on the RD talk page that you suspected TreeSmiler was Light Current, instead of being all mysterious about it. But I guess you know that, and so I can only conclude that you wanted to stir up a controversy all along. Well, I don't want to play any part in your game, so now that I understand why you are harassing TreeSmiler, I will stay clear. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I see you have now actually blocked TreeSmiler, simply because he would not admit that he is Light Current. So if the accused protests their innocence, it is simply further proof of their guilt. I believe the Spanish Inquisition also used this strategy. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm pretty familiar with LC and his various socks. This is very obviously him. Sometimes these things are best discussed privately, and not because any grand conspiracy is happening. Friday (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Friday - obviously you can have as many private, highly confidential, off-wiki conversations with TenOfAllTrades as you like. If you want to play secret agents behind the bike sheds, that really doesn't bother me. All that I ask is that you don't try to drag me into your games. Next time you and TenOfAllTrades want to play "hunt the sock puppet" perhaps you could tag the relevant account, or put it on a list somewhere, or at least give a straight answer to a straight question. Drop all the dark hints and innuendo and the "I won't discuss this on-wiki" nonsense. Just come right out with it and say "we are harassing this apparently innocent user because our special powers tell us that he is the arch-villain Light Current in disguise". Then I won't waste my time wondering what the heck is going on, and you won't hack off useful contributors like DuncanHill. And please keep your juvenile drivel off my talk page - should I have the slightest interest in your opinion, I will ask for it. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. For the record, I haven't been running around playing secret agent, or whatever it is you're talking about. I just happened to recognize this editor as a LC sock as soon as I saw him, due to long experience. I don't believe I ever said I wouldn't discuss it; I'm discussing it right here. If some editor has seen fit to stomp off, that's unfortunate, but I can't help it. Friday (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stochastic matrix

Is there a barnstar of patience? I thought there was, but I can't find it.  :-) You did a lot better job explaining that stuff than I could/would have. --W0lfie (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Help

Hi, I have been working with Tangerines on the Math for America Wiki pages, but I seem to have lost him . . .can you help me with the pages? I am trying to determine whether I have listed references properly and what needs to happen for the remaining tag to be removed. Can you help me with this? Or is there someone else I should be corresponding with? Please advise. And thanks. - jo Jolandawilliams (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Stochastic matrix Question 4

$\mathbf {p} _{k}=\mathbf {v} P^{k}\,.$

We want to find the probability that the system is in a given state after a given number of time steps. The set of probabilities for each state after k time steps is given by the probability vector p_k. The purpose of the formula is that it gives an expression for the probability vector after k time steps in terms of the initial state vector v and the stochastic matric P - so if we know v and P we can find the probability vector at any subsequent time. The "mathematical induction" part just means that we can derive the general formula for p_k by looking at the formulae for p₁, p₂ etc. and then generalising the pattern that we see to k time steps. Can you see where the formulae that I give above for p₁, p₂ come from ? Can you see how they lead to a general formula for p_k ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming the formulae $\mathbf {p} _{k}=\mathbf {v} P^{k}\,$ that you gave above for p₁, p₂ came from Summation? If this is true then can the formula be put in Sigma notation format $\sum _{i=m}^{n}x_{i}=x_{m}+x_{m+1}+x_{m+2}+\cdots +x_{n-1}+x_{n}.$ ? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any connection with summation at all. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Then could you answer Can you see where the formulae that I give above for p₁, p₂ come from ? Can you see how they lead to a general formula for pk ? I don't know. Please help, would really appreciate. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Then go back and carefully read the explanations that Lambian gave here and that I gave here. They show how the general formula for p_k is derived. If there is a step that you don't understand, then say which step you get stuck on. It is not possible to help you any further unless you say which part of the explanation you don't understand. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

FLT

That article is a mess, and a crank magnet as well, but Fouvry is for real. E.g.

Deshouillers, Jean-Marc Théorème de Fermat: la contribution de Fouvry. (French) [Fermat's theorem: the contribution of Fouvry] Seminar Bourbaki, Vol. 1984/85. Astérisque No. 133-134 (1986), 309--318.

Amusingly, note the Fouvry was mentioned in the title, while Adleman and Heath-Brown weren't! Arcfrk (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. The original change was the only contribution made by an anon editor, it was unsourced, and Etienne Fouvry was a red link, so I was suspicious. If the update is correct then I have no problem with it. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the Big Bang

We are discussing your edits to Grand unification epoch and Electroweak epoch at Talk:Timeline of the Big Bang#Someone keeps changing my corrections. You might want to skip through the first part of that section and search for your username. Note that someone is asking for a page number in a reference you supplied a year ago. Art LaPella (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented at Talk:Timeline of the Big Bang. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Coxeter's loxodromic sequence of tangent circles

I've added Coxeter's loxodromic sequence of tangent circles to the list of circle topics. If you know of other articles that should be there and are not, could you add those? Thanks. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that's an interesting list. All the relevant articles that I can think of immediately are already on it. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Identity

You're not GCS, are you? 138.38.150.117 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Who or what is GCS ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My mutual fund question

Thanks again for your answer to my mutual fund question over at the Reference Desk. Yours was the first straight answer I could get out of anyone, and I've asked that question to lots of people. I'd still like one little clarification if you don't mind: when you talk about the separate roles of "trust company", "fund manager" and "custodian", which of those is typically played by a company such as Vanguard or Fidelity? And who plays the other roles? Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Abelian grape

I have no objection and you make a good argument for such a redirect so I have created it myself. Thanks Davewild (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My remainder question

So it could be expressed as -1a + b=28 then?

89.242.2.102 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. We have

$f(-1)=(-1)^{3}-2(-1)^{2}+(-1)a+b$

$\Rightarrow f(-1)=-1-2-a+b$

$\Rightarrow f(-1)=-3-a+b$

$\Rightarrow -3-a+b=28$

$\Rightarrow -a+b=31$ Gandalf61 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it all seems so obvious now!!!

So the simultaneous equation would be

2a + b = 1 -a + b = 31

and I could subtract these to get

3a = -30, a = -10 and b =21

89.242.2.102 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes !! Good work. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thabk you very much problem solved, eh?

78.144.65.1 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

You are violating the rules to some extent by resetting the flags. I'm setting the flags as I read them as a common man (Not many bother to write details - That is the trend on Wikipedia that I noticed for all these days - It is good that you noticed something today.) I'm trying to help here the Wikipedia readers. Usually I work on wikipedia during weekends or after my office hours otherwise. I have any productive time left for a good editing or to write a a few comments on weekdays.

With the flags on, it should be authors’ responsibility to go through and improve the quality of the article. I will help to correct them as I find time (I have corrected a few so far).

I would say you leave the flags on for two weeks at least and let someone (the authors) apart from administrators reset them after going through the material. A majority does not write the details and does nor respond back.

I heard from many on Wikipedia - Make the technical material readable for a non-mathematician reader to understand . Otherwise what are the fun dumping heavy jargons on wikepedia? I agree with them. I'm observing that most of the math articles on Wikipedia look very busy. This is my opinion and I hope a few out there who would agree with me. --Tangi-tamma (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote - "None of the articles that you tagged have significant or large-scale problems".

A problem is a problem always whether it is asignificant one or a bay problem.

degree (graph)

How users will know what are Isomorphic graphs? Thanks.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a definition in Glossary of graph theory which says "Two graphs G and H are said to be isomorphic, denoted by G ~ H, if there is a one-to-one correspondence, called an isomorphism, between the vertices of the graph such that two vertices are adjacent in G if and only if their corresponding vertices are adjacent in H". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That means the users have to go to Glossary of graph theory. But there is no link to go from there.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cocker's Arithmetick, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Timeline of the future in forecasts

This is because Timeline of the future in forecasts is a hodge podge ranging from sports events to space events while Future timeline of Earth was only for event in Earth at planetary level. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the articles have completely different subjects, and so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth is not a precedent for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the future in forecasts. I understand now - thank you for your explanation. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering me. Now I need your help again

• I've asked (on the mathematics desk) to find a function F (which can be represented by an arithmetical formula) from the set of natural numbers to the set of real polynomials, such that for every real interval, there is a polynomial F(n) having a root in the interval.

• You've suggested the product function $F(n)=x\prod _{k=1}^{n^{2}}\left(x^{2}-{\frac {k^{2}}{n^{2}}}\right)$, and you indicated that you'd received it by thinking about truncating the infinite product representation of sin(nx).

• Thank you a lot. I like your product-function, it really helped me much. Now I need your help again: What product function would we get if we truncated the infinite product representation of cot(nx)?

• P.S

$\sin(\pi x)=\pi x\prod _{k=1}^{\infty }\left(1-{\frac {x^{2}}{k^{2}}}\right)$

$\cos(\pi x)=\pi x\prod _{k=1}^{\infty }\left(1-{\frac {x^{2}}{(n-{\frac {1}{2}})^{2}}}\right)$

$\cot \left(\pi x\right)={\frac {\cos \left(\pi x\right)}{\sin \left(\pi x\right)}}$ for every non-integer x.

Eliko (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you won't have a polynomial, because of the poles, but you can get a rational function. If you want 2n²+1 roots every 1/n between -n and n, with a pole mid-way between each pair of adjacent roots, you could use

$F(n)=x\prod _{k=1}^{n^{2}}{\frac {\left(x^{2}-{\frac {k^{2}}{n^{2}}}\right)}{\left(x^{2}-{\frac {(2k-1)^{2}}{4n^{2}}}\right)}}$

Hope this helps. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! However, I still want to make sure that you really referred to the Cotangent rather than to the Tangent, Did you? Eliko (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose what I gave is the analogue of the tangent function, as it has roots at multiples of 1/n. If you want an analogue of the cotangent function, just invert the expression to swap roots and poles - so you get

$F(n)={\frac {1}{x}}\prod _{k=1}^{n^{2}}{\frac {\left(x^{2}-{\frac {(2k-1)^{2}}{4n^{2}}}\right)}{\left(x^{2}-{\frac {k^{2}}{n^{2}}}\right)}}$ Gandalf61 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies and for your patience.

Let me explain why I insist on the Cotangent:

Let's look at the following new theorem (which is a little bit similar to my previous theorem): "For every real interval there is a polynonial: $\left(x+i\right)^{n}$ whose imaginary part has a root in the interval". This (new) theorem is easily proven by trigonometric (or analytic) means, i.e. by simply choosing $x=\cot \left(\pi q\right)$ out of the interval - for some rational q, and using De-Moiver's Formula. However I would like to prove this (new) theorem by pure algebriac (non-trigonometric non-analytic) means, just as you have wonderfully done with my previous theorem - although you were inspired by the trigonometric function of the Sine. Now, I assume that for proving my new theorem one should be inspired by the Cotangent rather than by the Sine, right? So, after you truncated the infinite product representation of the Sine, thus receiving a pure algebraic (non-trigonometric non-analytic) formula, the question is whether we can find an analoguous truncated algebraic formula for the Cotangent, which will probably help prove my new theorem by pure algebraic (non-trigonometric non-analytic) means.

Unfortunately, the formula $F(n)={\frac {1}{x}}\prod _{k=1}^{n^{2}}{\frac {\left(x^{2}-{\frac {(2k-1)^{2}}{4n^{2}}}\right)}{\left(x^{2}-{\frac {k^{2}}{n^{2}}}\right)}}$ can't do the job, as you may easily see.

Have a nice day.

Eliko (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Good luck with that. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Graph (degree)

I'm still working on it. It will take a few days to complete. Thanks.

Is hangon code ok? --Tangi-tamma (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the hangon tag is inappropriate - if you read its text, you will see that it refers specifically to a speedy deletion proposal. I suggest you remove it.

{3,3,3,1} is a bad example of a sequence that is not a degree sequence, because there is a graph with this degree sequence - it is just not a simple graph. As the example comes immediately after presenting the degree sum formula, a sequence like {3,3,1} that clearly breaks this rule is a much better example. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking here simple graphs (no loops, no multiple edges - read it carefully. It comes under the heading undirecteed (no loops, no multiple edges.). There is no graph with (3, 3, 3, 1), yes there is one with this if you consider graphs with loops or multiple edges; I do not find charm with degree sequences of graphs with loops or multiple edges (it is trivial). I'm writing for simple graphs.

If you do not like it, I will stop writing this article.

Let me know what code you are suggesting.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The graph theory literature is, unfortunately, not consistent in its definitions. Sometimes the term "graph" implies a simple graph, sometimes it is used to mean a graph that may have multiple edges, or loops, or both.

When illustrating a statement such as "not every sequence is the degree sequence of a graph" it is best to use an example that is as simple as possible. It is not obvious that there is no (simple) graph with degree sequence {3,3,3,1}. It is more obvious, once the degree sum formula is known, that there can be no graph with degree sequence {3,3,1}. My example is simpler and therefore better.

Yes, I would prefer you to stop editing the Degree (graph theory) article. Your edits are often confusing, and sometimes wrong. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote ":The graph theory literature is, unfortunately, not consistent in its definitions". I think you need to work on fixing the connfusion for the article that somone wrote here. I'm not understanding what you are trying to influence? I want someone to intrevene here. You are pointing here at everybody including me when you are failing to understand the subject. The degree sequence that I'm talking here is for graphs without loops and multiple edges. Let me know what was confusing for you on this article. I'm setting the article for cleanup. --Tangi-tamma (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll intervene; I agree with Gandalf61. This is not to say that simple graphs should not be discussed at all, but they come later in the logical progression. Melchoir (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A baby example was given. Updated with a solid example. Also updated the definition of simple graphs to avoid confusion. Thank God someone tried to understand the material. --Tangi-tamma (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Substitution rule/substitution principle

I think I've figured it out... what I was thinking of is "variable replacement" or "variable substitution". I created the article "variable substitution" -- it didn't exist... and re-directed it to "Substitution of variables."

Despite what you wrote, I think "substitution rule" is ambiguous, especially if you look at the name of the article integration by substitution, though I'll agree that by popular usage it refers to integration. That said, I think the Integration by substitution article is the real problem-- it should link to substitution of variables as this is the fundamental concept behind it. I added a not to be confused with{diff} for the math terminology challenged folk out there like myself. Nephron  T|C 06:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sphere packing and Close-packing

Ok, I'll defer to your judgement. I have removed the merge tags and replied there with a question. Thanks for your input so far. dorftrottel (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hofstadter sequence

Thx. for moving the stops and texifying. I've to confess I'm still not good at Tex. =;-) Jörg Preisendörfer (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Chaos Theory

How does f(x)=2x imply repeatedly doubling an initial value? Maybe f'(x)=2ⁿx for some n isn't well defined but then there should be some note that the repeated doubling is achieved by composing f(x) with itself for some number of compositions--68.35.200.12 (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The mapping f:x → 2x is composed with itself (or "iterated") to produce the repeated doubling. Repeated iterations produce the family of functions fⁿ:x → 2ⁿx, but it is usual to define an iterative process in terms of its base mapping, not the resulting function family. I have added a couple of words to the article to make this clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Vendetta

Can you explain why you think I am involved in a vendetta - I was not involved in the first AFD and never saw or editted the article before day. I'd ask for evidence of such a vendetta or I will ask that you are warned for unsubstanced personal attacks. --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, which says that comments on actions are not personal attacks. I did not personalise the comment - I simply said that your actions (i.e. your use of a very recently created account to rapidly re-nominate the article instead of going through the proper channels of deletion review) look like a vendetta to me. Note that the policy also says that accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is in itself considered a form of personal attack. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So what is the basis for the comment? Oh and this is not an alternative account (since you asked). I had an account a while back and used my right to vanish (because it was my real name and it was causing me problems - that was last year). I never edited the previous AFD. --Killerofcruft (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. WP:RTV says "Vanishing is not for users who are not exercising their right to leave". I find it difficult to see how it is reasonable for you to claim the protection of RTV when you have clearly not left Wikipedia. Don't bother responding. Your arguments here, at the AfD and on AN/I are becoming increasingly bizarre, and I am done here. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf, giving up a real-name account and reincarnating under a new anonymous one, while not technically an instance of "RTV" in the narrow sense, is generally an accepted practice and totally legitimate. KoC is under no obligation to disclose his previous account(s). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that KillerofCruft changed his username to Allemandtando, was subsequently shown to be a sock puppet of a banned user, and was blocked indefinitely. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

about my nom

I have answered your question about my nom here. If you don't use twinkle, you should try it, saves a lot of time - Pop-ups is very good as well. you can turn both on in your user perferences under gadgets. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we're getting off-topic

..for the AFD page, but I just wanted to clarify. When I say I don't care, I mean, I don't care at this moment in this context. Disruptive editing is something I care about in general- in fact, not being much of a writer, damage control is most of the work I do here. But, poor behavior of a participant can't just invalidate whatever they participated in! If we did that, we'd be paralyzed- the proper running of any process could be disrupted at will by any disruptive editor at any time. What I'm after is minimizing disruption. Calling the AFD tainted and disregarding it, after all this time and effort, is maximizing disruption, not minimizing it. Hope this clarifies where I'm coming from. Friday (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviosuly he didn't just participate - he initiated the invalid AfD and then defended it by edit warring. That makes the whole AfD irretrievably tainted. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Irretrievably tainted? Only because you say so. It doesn't have to be- that's my point. There's a few kernels of useful information in there, along with the rest of it. These kernels are enough to give an astute observer what they need to know. We already know the AFD isn't invalid- it was discussed, and it was allowed to continue. Maybe this doesn't matter much- I have a feeling this with end up at deletion review, regardless. Hopefully this works out- last I frequented deletion review, the discourse there was of a generally higher level than at AFD. If people pay attention to policy and the relevant facts, I think the answer is apparent. Friday (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not just me who says so - I count at least 4 other editors who have said keep on procedural grounds, so they also think that the AfD is invalid.
• We don't already know that the AfD is valid - the consensus on that issue will be decided by the closing admin (good luck to them) as part of their closing.
• The AfD was only "allowed to continue" because attempts to early close it were obstructed first by the nominator's edit warring and then by your own refusal to accept the nominator's withdrawal of their nomination in favour of a clean re-listing at a future date.

There is no point in continuing this discussion - our views are (as usual) too far apart to find much common ground. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)