User talk:GeometryGirl

Hi,

welcome to WP! Congrats and thanks for your nice work on Mayer-Vietoris. I have just reviewed the article. In case you have not noticed yet, there is also a discussion board for mathematics articles etc. at

Hi again. Most probably I will not be able to keep my promise to help out on this article, at least not this year, sorry. However, one generalisation, namely MV sequence for (classical)

MR 0842190. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey GeometryGirl, I saw your request for graphics and I posted a reply there. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, that was very kind of you. You've done a great job with the Mayer-Vietoris sequence article by the way. It's your hard work on that article that gave me the motivation to try to make these graphics. So thanks for that, too! RobHar (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, in the commutative diagram showing the naturality of the MV sequence (Mayer–Vietoris_sequence#Naturality) the rightmost homology groups should be H_{n-1} (not H_{n+1}). Since you made the png, I figured it would just be easier for you to fix it. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! GeometryGirl (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Thanks! Happy new year to you as well. GeometryGirl (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might have suggested that an A-class review might be the next step for this article. I think you'd be more likely to get useful feedback from WPM reviewers than from FAC ...

Martin 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

.. about that "non-mathematicians can assess 1a" bit. Of course I know where you're coming from. But not in the rules. And a little impolite... too fine a point, and all that. But I'm sure you'll disagree. Good luck with the nom.

Sorry, I did not mean to be rude. GeometryGirl (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't be discouraged by the unsuccessful FAC. The timescale for an FAC is typically 1-2 weeks, and the work needed on the article doesn't really fit into that. The good news is that you have lots of suggestions for improvements, and you can try again at FAC anytime you want. I'm still watchlisting Mayer–Vietoris sequence, and will try to be more help when I can.

Naturally, my first comment on your talk page has to include a belated welcome from me, and my congratulations on your excellent choice of username. :-) Wikipedia can be a funny place sometimes, but it has lots of great editors, who are friendly and want to help out. Good luck with your studies, and with your contributions here. Geometry guy 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually I'm very happy with the FAC since I got much more feedback than at peer review. Term will start soon and I have work to do. But when I get the time I'll study the stuff I don't know about, such as sheaf cohomology. I'll also read about the history of algebraic topology. Thanks again! GeometryGirl (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit! I'm familiar with sheaf cohomology, and will also try to read around the history a bit more. Geometry guy 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeometryGirl. You have new messages at Salih's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

To disagree is not enough. Please rationalise your disagreement, because it is a mathematical fact that the additional lines here are mere re-arrangements of what was had before. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few reasons:

why is 'base' in bold? why is 'hemisphere' in bold?

why is the z-axis? why can't it be the x-axis or any other axis?

why is the year of publishing added in the text?

'we' (used several times) is not encyclopaedic

"the AB definition" can be better stated

"Beman relates that" is awkward

"if we extropolate the same principle" is awkward

etc.

GeometryGirl (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the bolding of base and hemisphere (as terminologies particular to the article) is within standard for mathematical articles on Wikipedia – I can pull up a large list of them that use the same house style.

Please do so. GeometryGirl (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Function_(mathematics)#Vocabulary, Category theory, Exponentiation, Set theory#Basic concepts, Factorial#Factorial-like_products_and_functions, Cartesian coordinate system, Vector calculus, Pushforward (differential), Interval (mathematics), Topology, Homeomorphism... need I go on? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italicisation could probably be used instead, but I believe bolding is fine too. Also refer to the WP:Manual of Style.

The z-axis is as good as any, and was used by the reference.

The existence and definition of spherical wedges have nothing to do with the embedding in R^3 and the coordinate system endowed to it. The reference just builds an example. If you really stick to this then put it elsewhere than the second line of the introduction.

You're correct. However, we were taking an example in the AB semidisk explanation. To complain about my choice to use the z-axis seems equivalent to complaining about my choice to use 'A' and 'B'. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The year of publishing is, again, within house style for Wikipedia. Refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Where exactly can I find that? GeometryGirl (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is nothing grammatically awkward about those phrases, though I'm not opposed to a reword. The "we" could be removed.

I didn't say grammatically awkward, I said awkward: it doesn't sound nice, it is not smooth. GeometryGirl (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point. I have since completed the rewords. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of those phrases could be reworded, but everything else is fine. Unless you have further objection substantiated by common practice or the style guides listed above, I'll restore the old version and make some of the wording less awkward. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, please don't boldly revert what represented some amount of work. Why did you revert back, for example, to "The volume of a spherical wedge can be intuitively related to the AB definition". This really is not encyclopeadic, nor is it even good maths. GeometryGirl (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than "it's easy to see", which is far less formal, and is subjective. Do remember that in replacing the content already there, you removed what represented "some amount of work" on my part. Some of your points were valid; others, as I have demonstrated above, were not. I've tried to find a compromise between the two versions. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disgusting comment has been placed on the Metrication in the United States talk page. Can you remove it?

There are two principal reasons why the United States of North America has been unable to change to a sensible measurement system that 200 / 203 countries use.

1. The financial cost of such a change would probably cripple a weakening economy.
2. The average American lacks the intellect necessary to be able to handle such a change.

ILuvAmerica (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and User:Rjanag have done an outstanding job on the article for Chinese classifier! I'm truly impressed. I'm afraid, however, that my knowledge in this area is still quite limited, since I have only been taking Mandarin Chinese language classes for the past two years. Therefore, my review of the article might turn out to be shortsighted. I perhaps wouldn't catch everything that needs to be fixed in order to make the article FA material. However, to express my gratitude for your fine work, I will present you and Rjanag with an honorary barnstar for your efforts.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Pericles of Athens, award Geometry Girl with this Barnstar of Diligence for her extraordinary contributions made to Chinese classifier, which is a Good and soon-to-be Featured article. Well done! Pericles of AthensTalk 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try my best. The article is quite long, though, so it might be a long haul rolling it up there. But details always matter.

Are you fluent in Chinese and English as well? ★Dasani★ 03:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not fluent in Chinese. I just know the very basics, having lived there a few years. Thanks for accepting the review! GeometryGirl (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any thoughts? Personally, I feel the article is ready and I'm thinking of re-submitting it within the next couple weeks (I'm going to be busy in RL for a bit, but in my experience my FACs don't get any substantive responses until a week or so after the page has been transcluded). But I wanted to at least check with you, since I haven't gotten any messages from you in a while, and User:Dasani seems to have gone inactive (and his message on my talk page suggested that he wasn't going to review the article after all). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well go for it if you want. However two points: user:Brianboulton - a good copyeditor - said he would give the article a look, here. Also, do you think the structure of the article can be improved (cf my last post on the talk page)? GeometryGirl (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry about the late response) I did see your comments about the article structure; nevertheless, per my responses there, I still believe the current structure is better, and that if any changes do need to be made they could be accomplished as effectively by just changing the titles of a few awkwardly-titled sections rather than doing a wholesale reshuffling. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've [finally] finished up addressing your comments at the bottom of Talk:Chinese classifier; sorry about the delay. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my thoughts on the FAC page. You are doing a great job addressing my issues. GeometryGirl (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeometryGirl, thanks much for commenting on my FAC. I've replied to your last set of comments; please let me know if there's anything else you think needs changing on the FAC page. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Some of the comments are just personal preference. Hope it helps. Oh, BTW, I still haven't read the section History and taxonomy, it scares me. GeometryGirl (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attention to detail! Have addressed your comments and suggestions, most of which I agree with, and have requested clarification on how the annotation feature might be used for the article's pictures. Sasata (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Great job! Should support the FAC tomorrow. GeometryGirl (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the careful reading, and the support! Please ping me if you ever need a copyedit or peer review for something you've written, or if you need comments at an FAC, I'd be glad to help out. Sasata (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you! GeometryGirl (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I thought the nomination would be at least another week, but as it turns out it was promoted today! Thanks for your invaluable comments and the herculean amount of time and scrutiny you put into this article; it has definitely paid off. As you suggested at the FAC, I'm sure the article will continue to develop and improve as time goes on and new eyes come to it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I shall have to have read the proporal more carefully before leaving comments.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're closing/archiving threads too quickly. Give it some time to settle, it's not a live chat.... Asia is still sleeping. The Chinese will be upset when they learn how you left them out of the loop :)).

Oops, sorry. I just wanted to stop the flow of negative comments! My god, proposing something is a soldier's job. Might not want to do it again... GeometryGirl (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you my answer on my talk page:)--Judo112 (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GGirl, I think I've addressed all the points you made on the talk page. If you would be so kind, could you leave a note on the FAC nom to let the directors know if you think the article meets FAC standards or not? It would be a shame for it to tank because of insufficient reviews. Thanks for your help in improving the article. Sasata (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a further review. Glad to help. GeometryGirl (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in

Hi, just wanted to thank you for this excellent and clear article. --Erel Segal (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]