User talk:Qzekrom/Archive 3

Please get an account[edit]

If you'd like to sign your comments as "The Doctahedron.EXE", please create an account with that username. Otherwise you must sign with your IP address.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me: I'm planning on getting an account as soon as I get into college. I'm not supposed to be editing per my parents. 00:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your parents would not know it would be you. In fact, if you continue using your IP address, it's even more likely they'll find out, since they also know your IP address (for sure), and therefore that makes you trackable. You don't have to (and shouldn't) use your real name (or even part of it) for your username.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they know. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, parenting issues aside (you may want to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors), if you want to play around with userboxes and be able to make userspace drafts, you should get an account. Also, your IP address doesn't stay with you (it will change in a month or a few), but if you get an account your contributions are all linked to you.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to recommend getting an account. When you move to college you will have a different internet address so this current page will not be relevant. It will take hardly any time to do and give lots of benefits and actually make it harder for your parents to know you have been editing. You could move you current user page there. As it stands now your userpage is of questionable status and could be taken to WP:MFD.--Salix (talk): 05:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Qzekrom. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requested templates.
Message added 15:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 15:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning <redacted>[edit]

It has come to my attention that <redacted>. Please, I must urge you to <redacted>. Any efforts you could take in this <redacted> would be appreciated. Thank you. — Isarra (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; it would seem my <redacted> is not <redacted> cabal. This <redacted>. — Isarra (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted>. --<redacted> 07:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I give up. — Isarra (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get what you're saying here, that I shouldn't use the colloquial term "wiki" when talking about Wikipedia? By the way, your wiki syntax is not well formed. Use < and > for angle brackets, even though it is preprocessed. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Wiki' is not a colloquial term for Wikipedia; it is a class of website design. While Wikipedia is a wiki, so are the other WMF projects and many other projects as well, mediawiki-based and otherwise. — Isarra (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, concerning your comments below, Wikipedia is big. It's easy for things to get lost here, including editors, and IPs especially so; people seem to have been trained to ignore them over time or something. Point is, just because nobody says anything doesn't mean your efforts are not appreciated, especially since you have been making decent edits and working in good faith. It's just easier to folks to give people warnings when they do wrong than to thank them when they do well, so for everything you have done so far, thank you. All else aside, I do hope you continue to stick around. — Isarra (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will continue to actively improve Wikipedia for the foreseeable future but especially since I am going to Stuy HS in the fall. In fact, I'm proofreading Civil Rights Address right now. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your school is probably something you shouldn't out, by the way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cierto. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"God Polyhedron"[edit]

I don't think such a polyhedron exists, but you could try asking at WP:RD/MA. (BTW, you now have a userpage at User:68.173.113.106 - some other constructive IP users have userpages created for them by helpful users with accounts too.) Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! And I've kinda given up on that search but would be happy to restart it. Can you please move the subpages of this page (most of which are userboxes) from User talk: to User:? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me dependent on other users to do any real userspace work because I still can't create or move stuff. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of April Fool's Day joke? If so, yeah right. I didn't even realize people appreciated me much here on Wikipedia as much as on that other site. (Well, they didn't really appreciate me much there. That is, until I created an account. Hi. I'm Qzekrom. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an April Fool's joke, it would have been listed here. Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've moved your subpages. (There are still redirects at their original locations.) Was the search for the "God Polyhedron" the inspiration for your fake username? It sounds like a portmanteau of dodecahedron and octahedron. Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask Tomruen about that. It was a somewhat controversial edit to Stellated octahedron. BTW, the name actually comes from "Dr." 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the question for you; see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Octahedral_and_icosahedral_symmetry. Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually hoping to reserve that name for when I create an account here 5 years from now. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more polite to refer to you that way, as it makes more people actually think better of you (it is unfortunate that IP addresses are not always treated as users with accounts would be treated). BTW, if you could create an account on Uncyclopedia, why not here? They don't even have to have the same names, and a userbox would be sufficient to show the relationship between the accounts. Double sharp (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the tetrahedron has no higher symmetry than T_d. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a temporary measure. People already respect me sufficiently here. All I'm saying is, I'm not really ready for the promotion yet. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, shouldn't we black out Wikipedia again? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a promotion. You're still the same good-faith editor to those who already knew you as an IP user. However, the account would let you work on more high-profile articles with less risk of your edits being reverted as vandalism by unknowing editors. It would also give you more freedom by allowing you to create new pages (you complained above about being dependent on other users to do real userspace work). P.S. Why should we black out Wikipedia again? Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CISPA. Duh. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not do the blackout too many times - if we are as powerful in stopping things as we were with SOPA, a lot of organisations or governments may become interested in controlling us. Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's do something more creative. We'll probably come up with something over at Uncyclopedia soon (I work there part-time). 68.173.113.106 (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions[edit]

I saw your questions about Skilling's figure (gidisdrid) at Talk:Great disnub dirhombidodecahedron. While I have answered the first question, I'm not sure about the second (but it may have something to do with gird), and I've also been wondering about the third for some time. (I can answer the equivalent of the third question for gidrid, though.) Double sharp (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. Wow, I didn't know that was actually written somewhere. You know, I was thinking about another reason to discourage WP:FORUM on talk pages. That is, you might as well add what you know to the article rather than posting it to the talk page. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not explicitly written anywhere, AFAIK, but you can check this in Stella: go to Skilling's figure, and then select "Poly → Create Convex Core". I admit that this might be considered WP:OR, but so might the convex hulls of the Colohimian polyhedra (also on Wikipedia). Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we should probably put it on some website and then cite that page. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just put this information in, since the convex hull information (equally WP:OR) has been placed in the articles for all the Colohimian polyhedra. Putting it on some website and then citing that page would not qualify under WP:RS. (You could raise WP:RS concerns for a lot of sources for our polytope articles, since they're almost all personal websites, and I haven't checked if there are any that aren't. In fact, following that policy would necessitate removing the Bowers acronyms everywhere! However, these websites are made by experts in the field - Bowers, Olshevsky, etc.) Double sharp (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If those aren't wiki-based sites then we could ask them to include that on their sites. I'm only semi-active here. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shouldn't just add what we know to the article rather than the talk page. The talk page allows material to be discussed first before deciding where and how to insert it. Also, the discussion might determine the accuracy and reliability of this information, which are both very important. Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah. See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing whether or not this is a uniform polyhedron. It is a uniform exopolyhedron (see the Glossary for Hyperspace by Olshevsky). I suggest we work on Miller's monster instead: the duals of Miller's monster and Skilling's figure have the same outward appearance, and I know more about Miller's monster than Skilling's figure. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should try a systematic, active task force working on a specific group of polyhedra. I suggest we try the uniform polyhedra first, and perhaps the uniform polyhedral compounds second. Double sharp (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miller's monster? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's another name for the great dirhombicosidodecahedron, probably because it is the only non-Wythoffian non-degenerate uniform polyhedron. Double sharp (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't really understand, though. Where do these names come from? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. P. Miller was probably the discoverer of this particular polyhedron. The Bowers style acronyms are generated from abbreviations for the polyhedra: for example, the great snub dodecicosidodecahedron is abbreviated to GSDID, and vowels are inserted to make a pronouncable name (in this case, "gisdid"). Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. At least gisdid is not as crazy looking as gidisdrid. But I meant, where does "disnub" etc. come from? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask User:Tomruen to email someone more likely to know (e.g. Klitzing). You have just passed the boundaries of my polyhedral knowledge. Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm getting ready to archive this. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering[edit]

How much disk space does Wikipedia use by now, and will we ever run out? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical answers how much disk space has been used (more or less). Why would a top ten website ever allow itself to run out of space? Plus they rake in millions upon millions each year in fundraising. Disk space isn't really an issue. Killiondude (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the long haul, it may become an issue. There's simply not enough material in the Universe to create enough disk space for a compendium of all of the world's knowledge. (Boy, I wish there was.) 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were. Wikipedia won't host all of the world's knowledge (despite the easy catchphrase). It has a scope and a list of what it's not. Killiondude (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I've actually read those before, and actually I was about to suggest a compression utility for the software. And "was" is correct, actually, as in: "Boy, I wish there was [enough disk space for a compendium of all of the world's knowledge]." 68.173.113.106 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correctly killing the English subjunctive. :) Killiondude (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article I linked? Try #To express a wish and this, too. The latter has a more succinct summary (and probably better examples). Killiondude (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Even my grammar ~~aren't~~isn't perfect sometimes. On Uncyc, they joke about that ALL THE TIME. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]