User talk:Dedhert.Jr

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.

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
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)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your in-depth GA review of the article Arithmetic! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cube, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Timaeus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say it's very kind of you to thank me for the small edit I did, thank you. Incidentally, I'd inadvertently left an extra "all" in my edit which I've now removed (it now says what I said I'd changed it to originally). Just out of interest, what is your first language? Mine's German although I've lived in England since I was 10 (I turned 65 just under two weeks ago), so my English is much better than my German now. I'm impressed with the number of articles you've written and I think the ones I've seen are all excellent. Well done. SaintIX (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintIX Frankly, English is not my native speaker: some vocabularies or sentences would be grammatically copyedited. I don't have to answer this personally; otherwise, internetians are getting overproud and I would probably considered as the user listed in WP:COI. You can check my historical background in my first joining Wikipedia in a different language, which is somewhat difficult to search. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I hope I didn't offend you. That was not my intention, quite the opposite. And of course you don't have to answer if you'd rather not. I really was just genuinely curious. I admire anyone who's prepared to write in a language that isn't their native tongue. As I said, English isn't my first language either even if it's become my strongest but that's only because I've lived the majority of my life in the UK (50+ years). Also, I would be very happy to chat in German, if that were your mother tongue. Alas, I don't think my French would be adequate; I would dearly love to improve it – I learnt more in the five weeks I spent in Suresnes (a suburb of Paris just the other side of the Bois de Boulogne) in our school exchange visits than in the five years spent in class. When we first came to England when I was seven (for an academic year: my father was a mathematician and partook in an exchange lectureship programme) I was sent to an ordinary school. I knew just three words of English: ‘yes’, ‘no’ & ‘bye-bye’ but I picked it up in about three months (I'm still amazed how I managed to do that. I'm sure it would take me longer now but that's ideally how I would like to improve my French, spending a decent amount of time there and ‘picking it up’). We used to speak German at home, partly to keep practising and partly because my mother didn't speak much English. Sadly we don't any more so my German gets a little rusty. I've found that it takes me about three weeks before it really comes back. Ironically, it's when I go to France to visit my parents' house that my German really improves. We have Friends from Berlin and Düsseldorf living either side and I spend most evenings chatting with one or the other over a glass of wine or three.

Anyway, allow me thank you for your impressive contributions and to wish you all the best. SaintIX (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintIX Chill. No problem, and your welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there isn't a reference for every single contribution DOESN'T mean you should eviscerate other people's work. You even took down the section on Cartesian Coordinates and its relation to the Golden Ratio, WHICH HAD A REFERENCE attached to it.

Before destroying the collective works of others: you should see if they are true and include references if they are. ONLY IF they are false should you take things down. Otherwise you are just destroying information and being a malicious troll. F1XDfuZ5V2CoSgqYya (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@F1XDfuZ5V2CoSgqYya Considering that people's work is somewhat messy, unsourced, and includes many tables, I prefer that rewriting as a prose is better option instead. Many polyhedral articles or some geometrical articles contain more tables with original research (works that are not quoted or explained in unpublished sources). In the case of the article Regular dodecahedron, the Cartesian coordinates are related to the golden ratio, which I already described in the section I rewrote. Wikipedia articles should have cited sources as supporting facts, not adding WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should keep the image along with the coordinates, as it provides more insight than just a few lines of text.

Also, it would be better to have the section on the Regular Dodecahedron being a Platonic Solid come first before its relation to the Golden Ratio. F1XDfuZ5V2CoSgqYya (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@F1XDfuZ5V2CoSgqYya I appreciate your suggestion. Will take care of it. You can ask me if you have something missing in the article. Regards. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]