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.

The article Pentagonal pyramid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pentagonal pyramid for comments about the article, and Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Randomstaplers -- Randomstaplers (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ldm1954 Hey, congratulations on the GA promotion. I apologize for not responding back in December - I was really burned out back then.

Still wondering why my username was grabbed by ChristieBot... ⸺(Random)staplers 06:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomstaplers No problem. If you ever feel you can't take a review, you can ask other editors to take it over. Period. Speaking of the bot adding your name, that is probably just how the system works. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wondering if Ldm1954 got the credit, that's all. It's easy to easy to miss a template parameter here. ⸺(Random)staplers 00:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Randomstaplers thanks for the thought about credit. I am OK about not getting any, I did not do that much. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in your input/suggestions from a topography and/or math viewpoint on a couple of articles I am working on. The most obvious one is icosahedral twins which can have some (I think) different Johnson shapes for variations in the surface energy for different facets. I am wondering if there is more that could be added about the topography, perhaps as a separate paragraph later.

The other article is extended Wulff constructions where maybe less can be added. The equation forms I use are "right", but I don't know how conventional they are. Probably there is no useful topology that can be added for the other shapes, but I thought I would ask anyway. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not really good at these subjects, but I think I can help with the cleanup instead. I would say the article is already in good shape, but you can ask for peer review or ask the WikiProjects. And I see you already nominated the second one. But for the sake of the GACR, I might have to say there are many out-of-context images on each paragraphs, and what it has to do with them? This is just one of the criterias. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the edits, I am not as good a proof reader as I should be. I only changed one or two. I did add a little more specific connection to the different figures, and also added anchors to link to the specific figure if the reader is unclear.

I may ask on WT:Physics for second opinions, but these are areas where I am rather well known so except for clarity for others the technical side is OK. I will ask a couple of people outside of WP who also know the topic of the one I nominated for GAR. The other one is not ready yet. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, most technical articles may have background explanations before the main topic in order to make the non-science readers understand. Mathematics GA articles have those, but I have no idea about the science ones. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I made the first paragraph gentler. (N.B., many math articles at NPP don't have non-technical intros.) Ldm1954 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Triangular bipyramid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Triangular bipyramid for comments about the article, and Talk:Triangular bipyramid/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CosXZ -- CosXZ (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free kitten for contributing to mathematics articles. I'm obsessed over mathematics too.

Somerandomguy55 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dedhert.Jr. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Johnson solids – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not get a response to this question which I just saw in the archives. Did you find what you needed somewhere else?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I got nothing. But the problem has already solved, I suppose. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]