User talk:Geometry guy

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I am contributing rather sporadically at present and can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while and it is important, I will drop a note on your talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

Thanks for your comment here. I'm from a much more recent generation of active content editors (I was rather young in 2007 :) ) and have an interest in wikihistory. Around the time of that archive, I was running a GAN backlog drive that led to, so far as I can tell, the statistically largest decrease in the project's history, and reading a lot of archives of GAN-related talk pages from the 2007-2009ish era to try work out a historiography of the process. I coincidentally noticed that comment recently and was excited to notice you were still looking around. If you have a longer answer on that, I'd love to hear it, but the short answer is of great value as well -- I noticed the same tendency reading those late-2000s archive, and it's interesting to try trace the history there. (I was surprised to find out how contentious "GA icons on articles" were.) Vaticidalprophet 11:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you Vaticidalprophet: I'm impressed by the most recent GAN backlog drive, and that now 1 in 174 articles are GAs. With your interest in wikihistory, you probably know more about GA project history than I can remember accurately. For example, you may already know about the Featured Content Dispatch Workshop. This is no longer active, but a list of articles it produced can be found at Template:FCDW.

The articles most closely concerning GA are Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-19/Dispatches, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-15/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-15/Dispatches.

I can understand your surprise about how contentious GA icons were in 2008, as I felt this at the time. I think the problem in part was a polarization of positions (similar to what we see in US politics today) where one side (mostly GA reviewers) insisted that GA deserved the same recognition as FA, and another side (mostly FA reviewers) insisted that it had not earned such recognition. Moderate positions are boring, but there were moderate editors on both sides, who put forward the view that a GA icon should not be a big deal, but GA needed to improve its quality control.

I suspect GA Sweeps, which checked all early GAs for quality, had a significant impact on the ultimate acceptance of a GA icon. However, you can also see around 2008 that many editors (such SandyGeorgia and myself) already saw that we were on the same team regarding article improvement, and GA and FA came to understand and respect each others' processes.

I have not been active on Wikipedia for a while, but it seems to me that GA and FA are islands where editors care about article quality above ideology and social status, and hope that the collaboration and common interest between the projects remain good.

I will be happy to say more about the history as I recall it, but perhaps you should write down the results of your researches somewhere, and ask for comments. Geometry guy 23:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're occasionally active. Hope you're doing well; would be good to see you around more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a familiar name after so much time. Geometry guy 22:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December songs

story · music

Nice to see your name on my watchlist! - I returned to DYK because (almost) nobody else handled the topics, and survive the discussions which also have become shorter. - Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you here also, Gerda. I admire your energy in highlighting daily stories, music and places. Geometry guy 15:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ;) - today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. Don't miss the pictured doggie! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk, Virginia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 2 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. λ NegativeMP1 05:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for your share in Emmy Noether, introduced (in 2008): "This article has been intensively rewritten, refined, and revised for the past two months by myself (mostly the bio) and WillowW, with some extraordinary assistance from the kind folks at WikiProject Mathematics – particularly Geometry guy and R.e.b.. It has also received two peer reviews, from JayHenry and Karanacs." - Now it became rescued with the help of others. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda, you are always so kind. I did not contribute very much to this article, but it is a very important one, and I am glad it has retained its FA status. I am not a big proponent of the "women in mathematics" meme, but Emmy Noether stands out as a truly exceptionally brilliant mathematician, innovative and transforming. She deserves to be celebrated. Geometry guy 18:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics (Academy of Sciences as if for Noether ;) ...) - but too many who died + I have a "defiant" cantata up for GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My current passion is Vivaldi. I would credit him with inventing classical music as we now know it. Geometry guy 19:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice way to put it. We once sang his Gloria in Rome, with an Italian orchestra. (sad article) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-harm has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

173rd Airborne Brigade has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GAR request has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Beland (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/Content review/Raw0 has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/April 2008 peer reviews has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/April 2009 peer reviews has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/April 2010 peer reviews has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/April 2011 peer reviews has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/August 2008 peer reviews has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Good articles in need of review has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JHD0919 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF/GAR has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Natural sciences and mathematics peer reviews indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Guy, thank your for all of your work on Spin representation. I have been studying this page for almost half a year. My goal is to understand the combinatorics of Bott periodicity. There is a part in the Spin_representation#Bilinear_forms section that I don't understand. Perhaps you could clarify that part. It says that "S is isomorphic to the dual representation S*" and then makes this isomorphism explicit as B: S → S^∗. I don't understand the level at which this isomorphism is taking place. I believe, first of all, that S and S* are equivalent as representations of so(3), that is, as Lie algebra representations. In that equivalence, the exterior product on S and the exterior product on S* are related as the vector spaces for their respective representations, and the two exterior products are related by matching generators a_i and alpha_i. But then B is used to set up the bilinear form beta(phi, psi) = B(phi)(psi), where phi and psi are simply elements (vectors) in the exterior product S (which is the vector space for the representation). So I'm confused how the equivalence B of representations and the function B on S are related. Furthermore, I can guess that there can be a mapping between X and -X, and there can be a mapping between monomials in the exterior product and the complementary monomials in the other exterior product. But at this particular point I'm lost as to how to understand B. Also, I am curious what sources I could read that would help me understand your exposition. I haven't been able to find or access any. I am very grateful for this page because it is the best source I've found to learn what I want to learn. I hope you are well and, if you are, I am glad if you can help or advise or clarify that page. Thank you! Andrius Kulikauskas AndriusKulikauskas (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Guy, I found this [| Math Stack Exchange answer] which defined equivalent Lie algebra representations in terms of the existence of a particular linear isomorphism between the vector spaces. So I think that answers my question. But I still would be glad to know what were the main sources for your exposition. AndriusKulikauskas (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]