User talk:Dedhert.Jr
| User page | Let's talk! | My sandboxes |
NOTE! It is recommended to use English to create a new discussion, in order to give a chance to other users to give another reply after reading this. Foreign languages is not recommended and it should be discussed on Wikipedia with that own language.
Archive
|
|---|
|
Discussion : 1 |
March 2024 GAN backlog drive[edit]
| Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| For your in-depth GA review of the article Arithmetic! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
Hi Dedhert.Jr, I hope you're well. A couple of months ago you we had a brief exchange about the new article Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group. While I recognize there are inherent limitations on approachability of this topic (basically all the references are textbooks intended for PhD students or researchers), I've recently tried to make it a little more gentle by the addition of a Background section. I was wondering if you could take a second look, and whether you had any other suggestions for increasing accessibility of this material. Thanks, JBL (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @JayBeeEll Thank you for improving. I think I can give a B-class pass, although I am not an expert in this topic. By the way, I wonder if you could possibly add some images to give more illustrations on this topic? As well as the images, I think that the article should be consistent in using one of them: {{math}} or LaTeX. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions! I've added images. I have the (idiosyncratic?) opinion that, in the current state of the two kinds of rendering available, {{math}} is genuinely better for very short (especially, one-character) formulas (as well as captions and section headings), while LaTeX is genuinely (much) better for everything else, and my choice of math formatting reflects this. I hope that the LaTeX implementation we have continues to improve (it is much better in many ways than when I started editing, but not as much better as most of the rest of the internet) so that one day it will make sense to switch over to it completely. --JBL (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated 0.999... for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
elementary Johnson solids[edit]
By the old definition, only J84–92 (arguably excepting J87) are elementary. Your definition adds J1–6, J63, J80, J83; was this your intent? Was the change discussed anywhere? It feels odd to say the octahedron, icosahedron, cuboctahedron, rhombicuboctahedron, icosidodecahedron, rhombicosidodecahedron are less elementary than their diminishments. —Tamfang (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Tamfang I was meant to describe "elementary" based on some sources. The definition as "do[es] not arise from Platonic and Archimedean solids" cannot be found in some sources. It looks like Johnson gives more solids that is elementary after I read it again. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)