User talk:Qzekrom/Archive 4

April 2012

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Continue the discussion below this line

What do you think about starting an aggressive uniform-polyhedron-article-improvement campaign? It sounds like it would be a good idea. Feel free to move around this set of polyhedra haphazardly. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember that Tom was running WikiProject Polyhedra at one point, but not that many people wanted to join it. Of course, we could restart it. I've broached it with him before. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As a start, we need articles for pseudo-uniform polyhedron and pseudo-great rhombicuboctahedron. There are two pseudo-uniform polyhedra: they are the pseudorhombicuboctahedron and pseudo-great rhombicuboctahedron. Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then we should probably get started! (Of course, I can't start any of them. Ha ha.) 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded hemipolyhedron as well. The deeper you dig into polyhedra, the more there is to find. With some polyhedra, there is a wealth of stuff at the core. :-P Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice pun you got there. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a stub (still incomplete) for pseudo-uniform polyhedron. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll get the attention of WikiProject Math. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The search bar

Hey, what's wrong with the search bar? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stellation terminology

BTW, for better or worse, the term "stellation" seems to encompass stellation, greatening and aggrandizement. Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course. That's just how the mathematical overlords decided to define it, and the average geometer wouldn't know the difference and might just use the generic term "stellation". Say, is it possible to configure Wikipedia's MediaWiki software to use the canonical URLs for editing by default (ex. "/wiki/User_talk:68.173.113.106?action=edit&section=4" rather than the circuitous "/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.173.113.106&action=edit&section=4"? I mean, I've brought it up at the Dump but haven't gotten a response. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Surplus Userboxes

I agree, but I'm afraid I have no idea how to do that. Ben 10 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what are you talking about? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The collapsible tables? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at User talk:AndyTheGrump‎. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thanks. What's offending me here is that AndyTheGrump labeled me as a "troll" (not assuming good faith). 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ATG calls everyone he disagrees with a troll. But if you continue to edit war on his talk you'll get your ass blocked. Best to just leave it. Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. Should I go to WP:DR? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is a content dispute yes. If it is because of his personal attacks you need WP:WQA Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it's not even that serious. I just want permission to use the following images on my website:

• 
  Bouncing
• Exploding
  Exploding

Thanks, 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well of course you can use them, everything on Wikipedia is released under GNU. Just say were you got the images. Facts, not fiction (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

These are official logos (not GFDL). 68.173.113.106 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(out)If it is not for profit you can[1] Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)