User talk:Apocheir/Archives/2021/September

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Utica Zoo at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Utica Zoo

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Trenton tomato pie

Greetings, Apocheir. I noticed that you added a "merge to" tag on Trenton tomato pie, suggesting that it be merged to Pizza in the United States. If you look at WP:MERGEPROP, the recommended procedure in this case would be to start a new discussion section on Talk:Pizza in the United States, explaining why you think the merge would be a good idea. So, you might consider doing that. I would be against merging the two articles, because I think Trenton tomato pie is a notable type of pizza, different from other types, and that that's supported by the references already in the article. But I can post about that if and when you create a talk page section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

MDY

I will respond to the Cornhill question later, but I noticed you're trying to put mdy tags on all Utica related articles. Using Auto Wiki Browser is a faster way to do this! Buffaboy ^talk 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have AWB access on Commons, but not here. I suppose I should apply for it here too.-Apocheir (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Goldberg–Coxeter construction

On 16 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Goldberg–Coxeter construction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Goldberg–Coxeter construction can be used to study fullerene molecules, nanoparticles, and basket weaving? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Goldberg–Coxeter construction), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Coptic polyhedron listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Coptic polyhedron. Since you had some involvement with the Coptic polyhedron redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 09:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Acoptic polygon listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acoptic polygon. Since you had some involvement with the Acoptic polygon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 10:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Acoptic polygon

Hallo, Is Acoptic polygon a synonym for Simple polygon, or a special case? The term doesn't appear in the article, so the redirect would leave the reader wondering. Could you clarify in the target article, as this seems to be your subject? Thanks. PamD 22:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Conway Polyhedron Notation

Thanks for your very kindly reminder on original research policies! I have currently reposted my images under the knowledge assumption that expand = ambo*ambo and the definition of ambo. If you would like me to remove them again, please kindly notify me via this talk page.

Otherwise, incidentally user Tom Ruen had constructed almost every single image, which may be a unhealthy example of monopoly. Harry Princeton (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I have already added citations. Harry Princeton (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The citations that you added only assert that e = aa. You still do not have a source for your operator — or the assertion that these tilings are in "canonical form". (As far as I know, there is only a canonical form for genus 0 polyhedra.)

I don't see anything wrong with the fact that Tom Ruen created most of the images on the page. That just reflects the fact that he created the page, and it's really only him and I who edit it substantially. Previously this page had many more example images, but Tom and I came to the conclusion that the images were not really very informative, they just looked neat, and they cluttered up the page, so we moved them to a page on Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conway_polyhedra . I also see that some of your additions are duplicates of those in the earlier "On the plane" section. Also, the table you added is way too wide for my screen (2015 Macbook).

I have reverted your additions once more. I recommend you work on this in your sandbox further, or make your additions on Commons instead. -Apocheir (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your very kindly reply!

Your reply, though, is far from impartial. This page should not be headed by you or Tom Ruen; it is public domain, and I have edited the page substantially as well. I have not added back my images for courtesy, but I would like a negotiation. For example, Tom Ruen posted planar tiling images in Chamfer (geometry) (Chamfer regular tilings) without citations; he just did it. I would very much like to believe that I have done the same here. Also, you have not moved my images anywhere (I have checked the links), but rather disposed of them. Your consideration is very kindly appreciated, and have a nice day :)!

Harry Princeton (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I have also checked the View History, and your claim is not entirely true.

The new PNG images by Harry are confusing, hard to see what is being drawn, like this File:Dual_of_Planar_Tiling_(Uniform_One_3)_4.6.12.png. Fill colors are only slight shade changes, and two color edges, and both hard to see, and I can't even guess what they are doing. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Tomruen! Yes, you are correct about the faint lines, but that is the point. It accounts for the duals of all possible polygonal dissections of the Truncated Trihexagonal Tiling. It's sometimes beneficial to be open-minded. Also, Wikipedia images are meant for look-through (where the description comes in), not just glancing thumbnails. (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Apocheir: "I also see that some of your additions are duplicates of those in the earlier "On the plane" section." They are not duplicates at all. If you take the time to see the images clearly, then you could observe the dual lattices superimposed on the original planar tilings. It is a happy accident that all of the Archimedean symmetric planar tilings are such that the deltoids in the ortho versions have the exact same orbits as the regular polygons in the originals. Harry Princeton (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Apocheir: also, be careful of the 3-revert rule. Yes, in fact I have added my images to my sandbox before adding them to Conway polyhedron notation. Harry Princeton (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nobody owns any pages on Wikipedia: that's policy, WP:OWN. I don't own Conway polyhedron notation, neither does Tom Ruen, and neither do you. What's also policy is WP:STEWARDSHIP, which says:

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem, if it is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. This is in keeping with the BRD cycle, which stands for bold, revert, discuss. Though not an official policy or guideline, it is a dependable method for dispute resolution.

I reverted your changes because I thought they decreased the quality of the article, and have attempted to explain why I felt that way. I am asking you to work in your sandbox first so Tom and I can give you thorough feedback before you make changes to the article, with a goal of preserving or improving the article quality. You do not seem to be willing to compromise on any of the changes you want to make, though, and that is frustrating. -Apocheir (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shirley Hayes (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shirley Hayes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shirley Hayes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Apocheir! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Shirley Hayes

Hello, Apocheir. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shirley Hayes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Request To Reconsider My Links With Informative Content

Hi Apocheir,

Thank you for taking the time out to read my articles. I understand some of the links submitted by me contained promotional content. And to maintain the authenticity of Wikipedia, I’ve re-written them with as much informational content as possible.

I’d request you to reconsider the following links:

https://www.rananjayexports.com/blog/all_that_you_need_to_know_about_herkimer_diamond_the_april_birthstone

https://www.rananjayexports.com/blog/how-much-is-opal-stone-worth

Thanks and regards, Rachel Parker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker Rachel (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2020 New York's 22nd congressional district election

On 31 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 New York's 22nd congressional district election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 2020 congressional election in New York had a sticky problem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 New York's 22nd congressional district election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 New York's 22nd congressional district election), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)