This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Anton,

I finished my hyperbolic-honeycomb tables (I'll recheck tonight on a paper copy). There's 76 forms, some interesting isotopic (identical cells) like the bitruncated p33p regular forms, and omnitruncated cyclic p3p3 forms. Wendy mentioned some non-Wythoffian, but I'm still trying to see if any are compact (finite celled, and vertex figure). I'm hoping Rocchini can make some pictures! Tom Ruen ( talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Convex_uniform_honeycomb#Hyperbolic_forms

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r ^c 07:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I reverted your changes to the star polygon article, because I think they need further discussion - which I started here. Hope you are not offended -- Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tamfang!

I was wondering whether you could help me out by proofreading the description of a Coat of Arms I made while translating the article of a German town to English. The article can be found here. Your help would be very much appreciated, as somehow they neither teached us English heraldry vocabulary at school nor at university. I used the wikipedia heraldry page for a start, but I'm still not sure whether the description is correct.

Thank you very much! -- Blutkoete —Preceding undated comment was added on 12:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Have you four names? Rowan says hi and hopes you are well. —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how I missed this before? Anyway, sorry for the delay in answering, and yes, I have four names. I hope both you and Rowan are well as well. I'm married, and our sons just turned 18 and 15. I'd be pleased to further converse in a more private manner if you or she would like. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have seen fit to revert my addition. This was indented to show that the person concerned was not a Duke (or earl). I use pages such as this one as a disambiguation aid to discover the accepted name form for a peer. This may also be for the peer as an MP before he inherited or as a notable person in other contexts. The object of this is so that I do not create a redlink that some one else may turn into an article, duplicating an existing one. It also allows me to remove redlinks created by others. I have on a few articles inserted into the lists entries (such as for William Russell, Lord Russell) for notable holders of courtesy titles. If I come across a person using such a title, I will search for "Baron Russell". Since it is a subsidiary title of the Dukes, the article on that title redirects to that on the Dukes. However, I would be none the wiser because William Russell does not (or did not) appear there, because it was a courtesy title and he failed to inherit. My addition is that for a purpose, and I propose to reinstate it, but would like your comments first. I do not wnat to engage in an edit war. If you want to discuss this further, I would suggest this conversation be continued on the peerage project page. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting such persons in a "see also" section would certainly also work, but I think it a less satisfactory solution. I think this is something that cannot be resolved between the two of us. I have copied the whole correspondence (except this item) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and would suggest that the discussion be continued there. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Anton! Thanks for the proofreading at convex uniform honeycomb, hyperbolic honeycombs. I ran out of steam or eyes to look for typos, and I'm still on low-edit wikbreak on my alternate account, sneaking a bit of work here and there on lunar eclipses lately. SockPuppetForTomruen ( talk) 19:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'd like to get Wendy's nonwythoffian forms on there at some point, but no real published sources for most, so they just sit for now on my user page: User:Tomruen/hyperbolic_honeycombs#Nonwythoffian_forms SockPuppetForTomruen ( talk) 20:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am always happy to learn new things, be they keyboard shortcuts or uses for gulls. BrainyBabe ( talk) 08:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just had dump a bunch of edits becasue of a conflict with you jumping in. I am in a process of going through the whole article applying a limited set of consistent changes - how about backing off just a little bit so I can complete this process? J. Johnson ( talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to edit classical hamiltonian quaternions.

We need good editors like you to clean up the spelling and punctuation. Be warned that some of these old 19th century words don't always show up on spell checkers.

Thanks again, if you have any questions about how to improve a sentence with out changing the meaning just ask!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobojaks ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 March 2009

Your question has scrolled off the page, but has at last been answered. Matt Deres ( talk) 01:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see what changes you have made here, except for a quote mark. This is probably the inadequacy of Wikipedia's diff or of my browser. But as a friendly warning, for some reason I think there are lots of people around right now just making trivial, mostly destructive, changes to Wikipedia and not any real changes. I think there may be a new bot out of some kind cos 23 March was particularly bad (I edit and watch quite a wide spectrum of articles).

I don't think you fall into that category. I am wondering even whether to bother to post this since patently you are not. Had I seen the minor punctuation faults I would have changed them myself (I do not even pretend to "own" this article). I'm just saying that the bots and admins seem to be having a bit of sweep of edits like this that add little value. I am probably a bit grumbly because I got edits on my own talk page swept up by some idiot's new bot, I wonder if there is a new version out today (23rd) or something. I try to check my edits and of course we all make mistakes, so thanks for tidying up no problem there.

Sincere thanks for all your good work. I hope you take these remarks in the spirit they are intended. SimonTrew ( talk) 05:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tamfang, could you take a look at this IP user's edits to Pyramid (geometry), especially the area/volume formulæ? They look a bit fishy to me, and in any case, some of them appear to be either copied out of a textbook without any citations, or original research. What should we do with this persistent pattern of unhelpful edits?— Tetracube ( talk) 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

O Tamfang, dimmi per quale motivo hai cancellato il mio contributo alla storia di San Marino (in italiano per favore, visto che fai il capiscione). Brutaldeluxe ( talk) 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK you deleted the dead link, I undid your edits because I took time and effort to correct and improve the article, and to translate from websites operated by governmental agencies of San Marino. Although I'm not from RSM, I'm the closest thing you could find, as I was born and raised in the shadow of Monte Titano. Where were you when it wrongly stated that San Marino declared war on other countries? I intend to add a lot more to the article in the future, I'll welcome your corrections, but I won't tolerate arbitrary deletion of whole sentences. Brutaldeluxe ( talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me know about the contentious sentences you would like to review and let's look at it tomorrow with a fresh mind, possibly on the talk page where these things should really belong. Brutaldeluxe ( talk) 00:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

High five back, bro! Dermus ( talk) 17:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it's about _socialist_ heraldry isn't it? It doesn't follow the _Soviet_ template (red star above, wheat on sides), but it clearly incorporates all the elements and characteristics in a _Modern_ design. Call it post-soviet socialist heraldry if you will. Only allowing for soviet seals in the socialist heraldry article doesn't make sense. Dermus ( talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to see my proposal here. It's by no means a perfect suggestion, but it seems like a far more stable long-term solution. - Jarry1250 ^{( t, c)} 17:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question.

See the answer at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What are the benefits of a tree structure?.

The Transhumanist 03:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Noticed your note about "Francois" in the Reference Desk thread. It looks like the "C" is something different than what I have on the keyboard or perhaps I misspelled the name. Actually the article name is going to be M. Francois Coignet with Francois Coignet as a REDIRECT. If you have something you believe to be better, can you leave here as a redlink and I will use these others as REDIRECTS. Looks like you speak French, so you would know better than me. Can you give it to me with the "M." as the first name and "Francois" as the middle name. I'll look back here on your Talk page for the redlink suggestion, so we can keep the conversation in the same place. Thanks.-- Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. I've never heard of anyone named Francois without the cedilla (ç), that's all. I don't know what you mean by "Can you give it to me...". M. is the abbreviation for Monsieur, not a name; multiple given names in French are usually hyphenated. — Tamfang ( talk) 16:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, see what a person can learn from a Frenchman. I wondered why some references had the "M", while others did not. The cedilla also I never heard of. New to me. I'll use it in the name. I'll use Francois Coignet, however how to I get the cedilla? I don't think it is on my keyboard. Would not most people in searches spell it F-r-a-n-c-o-i-s?

In MacOS 'ç' is option-'c'. I don't know how to get it in other systems but there must be a way; you could ask on RD/Computing. In Wikipedia, set the character menu (below the editing window) to 'Latin' and click on the letter to insert it (it's in the sixth group of letters).

Yes, people searching for foreign names will likely leave out the diacritics; that doesn't make it right for the article to do so. Without the cedilla, the 'c' is pronounced /k/ (because the next letter is not 'e' or 'i' or 'y'); with it, it is pronounced /s/. A redirect from the misspelling is appropriate (see Francois for example). — Tamfang ( talk) 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Then François Coignet would be the correct way the article should be, with Francois Coignet as a redirect. Oui? -- Doug Coldwell ^talk

Jawohl. — Tamfang ( talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mijn vrouw komt uit de stad Groningen. Ze is momenteel haar familie genealogie en het gaat terug tot de veertiende eeuw. Ik zie dat je veel talen spreekt, spreekt u ook Nederlands? Ik niet. Ik heb moeite met het Engels.-- Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can make educated guesses about most of that paragraph, but that's all. — Tamfang ( talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Google translate is what I used to put it into Dutch and checking when it puts the Dutch back into English, it comes out close. Just drop what I sent to you (which is probably "broken" Dutch) into Google translate to get close of what I said. You are quite knowledgable to know so many languages. I have trouble with just one, English.-- Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Article is done. Thanks for the information on the cedilla. Learned something new and interesting.-- Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I almost missed your reply to my Language desk question. Thanks for replying. I have not enough time to look into things with more detail but it's very interesting to see how the process of translating and transliteration has such an "approximate" result. The joy of languages... doktorb _words ^deeds 05:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Goat Star
		For contributions to Caprinae Solidarius Lance Corporal William Windsor salutes you!  Chzz   ►  22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The award is documented in User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!  Chzz   ►  22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit seems to have been intended merely to replace "clunky" language, but it also changes the meaning, as can be seen by looking at characterization (mathematics). I don't think conveying the additional meaning is crucial in this case, but noting that in the edit summary would make it clear that it's an informed decision. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Overall style guide for Anglo-Norman blazons. We would benefit from your perspective if you care to add any comments. Thanks. Wilhelm_meis ( talk) 02:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Abce2| Free Lemonade Only 25 cents! 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that! Another user was trying to do it, so I tried to help, but I deleted it when it didn't work. Abce2| Free Lemonade Only 25 cents! 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Mullet Pierced
		Truly miscellanous, contributions to lots of pages, helping others with this regard, doing leg work. (About time.)- Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you raised a point over wether single terms like "A bordure wavy is a sign of illegetimacy" in accordance with current MoS guidelines, it's just got to conform to WP:MOS#Words as words, which means either:

• A "bordure wavy" is a sign of illegetimacy.
• A bordure wavy is a sign of illegetimacy.

- Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to say: I think the latter is preferable if talking about the term generally (on the bordure article, for example) whereas the former is just as acceptable if you had the blazon of someone in particular above, and where explaining the symbolism/significance of it. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But a bordure wavy isn't a word-as-word; the phrase is not the symbol. — Tamfang ( talk) 23:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to read it a couple of times, but my conclusion is you're right, but it's a case of how you put it, so that if you had this:

The coat of arms of Lord Example is Ermine, a bordure wavy gules. "Bordure wavy" indicates the presence of a border that undulates with a sine wave. A bordure wavy is normally a sign of illegitimacy.

Then you could have "" marks as above because we're "mentioning (to discuss ... wording)" because we're examining the meaning of those words. Here, the words have a meaning distinct from the symbol itself. I know it looks a bit silly with "" then italics, but remember it's optional to use "" instead of italics. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In the middle sentence it's words-as-words, because it's defining the words. In the last sentence it's not, nor is it the first use. If the two explanatory sentences are combined —

A bordure wavy, that is a bordure whose edge undulates, is commonly a sign of illegitimacy.

it's not word-as-word, but it is a first use of a term of art and so marked. — Tamfang ( talk) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The point of the three sentences was that two was Word-as-words but three was not. Sorry for the late reply. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tamfang,

In your refdesk question "Translation, please", you wrote: "By the way, I tried to convert the redlinks with [[fr: (and a pipe to hide the fr:) but the result didn't show properly."

The reason is that you should have written ":fr:" instead of "fr:":

La mère de Brunehilde est réputée avoir été une femme de pouvoir, énergique et déterminée, ainsi qu'une fervente arienne.

-- NorwegianBlue  ^talk 17:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"By the way. Why don't you indent your 76.21.37.87 ( talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC) to match your text?" -- Cause I often forget in the rush to get things posted (and I don't consider this to be all that important at any rate). Thanks for the reminder, though. 76.21.37.87 ( talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC) BTW, congrats on your 2 barnstars that you got so far. Keep up the good work. Clear skies to you! 76.21.37.87 ( talk) 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you were the original performer of the enclave/exclave merger, I suppose your opinion would be most valuable here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.81.75 ( talk) 15:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't see that link. It should be enough, but the sentences (and links) need to be reworded to make it clearer, or else people are going to keep on changing that to 1972. -- Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 06:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The social safety net page is now finalized. This page is now number when when you google 'social safety net'. I've created a 'social safety nets in developed countries' section under the 'customizing safety nets' subheading. You are more than welcomed to contribute to it and improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safety Nets WB ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anton! Do you still use JENN? Could it be used to draw some 4D ditopes or hosotopes, like listed at List_of_regular_polytopes#Degenerate_.28Spherical.29_3. Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Here, you asked me to elaborate on "I'm too young". I didn't notice at the time (I'm browsing my own contributions to see what discussions I've missed before). So here's the explanation: I was raised on modern films with modern sound effects, acting, and action. Anything from before 1990(ish) just...grates, due to how diferent it is. Vimescarrot ( talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I was so pleased to see your recent constructive edits on two Carls ("Charleses") who were Kings of Sweden. Your last edit, though, leaves something to be desired: "Charles VIII" was never known as such in his time. If you read the sentence which you edited there just now, I hope it will become more clear to you that he was known as Carl ("Charles") II in his own time. Will you please adjust the sentence back to reflect that, in a way that you would be happy with? As it looks now, since your last change, his dead queen's tombstome would refer to him as "VIII", whereas ""II" is the actual fact. Cordially, SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to delete it, just replace the whole page with {{db-author}}. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 09:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tamfang, I've added the counts for comics #1496 though #1505 to your impressive work at Talk:Questionable Content#character counts. I hope you don't mind. You can check my numbers. I assumed that when you said "to #1495" you meant "through #1495". — Wdfarmer ( talk) 08:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anton! Can Jenn4D product duals of uniform polytopes?

I'm just thinking of the Hyperoctahedral_group article. A 4-spherical image of the dual of the omnitruncated 16-cell would represent the fundamental domains of the C4 group.

Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Fritz? — Tamfang ( talk) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Tamfang! I was searching an old thread when I noticed your last "pedant" remark! :) I never noticed your post before, thanks for the correction! I was meaning radii, so I don't know what was the worse mistake: the one of declining incorrectly rationes or the one of taking ratio for radius ;). -- Pallida   Mors 14:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, that was the book of which you were thinking. He wore a pink necktie and, as I recall, his teeth had had gold applied in such a way that soup was all he could eat. (Sorry if anyone finds this enigmatic; we're talking about a murder mystery and my habit is to not spoil the possible enjoyment of anyone who hasn't read it.) Accounting4Taste: talk 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of female stock characters.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female stock characters (2nd nomination).

Ikip ( talk) 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Regular Polytopes cover Dover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)