User talk:Gramix13

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

[edit]
Hi Gramix13! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

-- 02:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

[edit]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize, and $500 in prizes for sciences and mathematics. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for the invite to The World Destubathon! I did want to ask for clarification on the rules for specifying countries when it comes to non-biographical STEM articles, what country would I have to put down for those article? Let's say I expanded Absorption Law during the event (I will not touch this article until then, although I haven't double checked yet that it meets the 1500 byte count to be considered a stub before the event), what country would I put down for it? Gramix13 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Pardon the ping, but I am still looking for an answer to the above question if you wouldn't mind answering it. Gramix13 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like that wouldn't be for a specific country. Though would count towards both the main $500 prizes and $500 STEM prizes. If you know who came up with a principle or coined something you could get away with claiming it for their place of birth though! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping me! MathKeduor7 (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an honor to receive this as my first Barnstar, thank you! Gramix13 (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your area of expertise

[edit]

Just out of curiosity! It's algebra, right? :) MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! I actually am not a professional expert in algebra, considering I only have a bachelor's degree in mathematics, but it is the subject I am most passionate about in math. If I ever do become a mathematician, this would be the field I would want to be an expert in. Gramix13 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking because I suffer from a mental disorder that sometimes causes me to have strong delusions (like believing everything I'll write will turn out to be correct), and I've created an article about a topic I know nothing about... That was years ago, in 2016: Hesse's principle of transfer. I don't understand it myself (only a very vague understanding, but no real understanding). Can you understand it? MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems like it has more to do with Projective geometry, a subject I am not too familiar with, so I am afraid I won't be able to help too much with this article, but maybe in my own time I might be able to look at some of the references and see what I can expand on (no promises on that). As a tip, if you want to go from "vague" understanding to "real" understanding, I would try to identify the parts that you don't really understand, and try to focus on understanding those smaller pieces to build your understanding to the bigger picture. When I read a complicated proof for example, I might write it down first, then underline each part that confuses me, and following that I address my misunderstand of each of those smaller parts until the entire proof makes sense to me without any gaps. That process might also involve looking at other sources that might address those smaller parts, or maybe I continue reading and find my answer later in the text. Hope that small advice helps you out when trying to go through understanding that article. Gramix13 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your answers! The first one makes me happy because of your enthusiasm for algebra, and the second one is really valuable advice. Best wishes! MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I was able to give advice you found valuable, and that you can see my own enthusiasm in algebra! :) Gramix13 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, since you are into expanding algebra stubs, maybe take a look at topological Galois theory (it looks like fun stuff!). ^^ MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to see what I can do with that article once I take a deeper look, I do know some topology but I will have to see how much of that knowledge will be applicable here. Appreciate the suggestion on algebra stubs! Gramix13 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destubathon runs until the 16th of July

[edit]

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for your thorough, thoughtful, and constructive comments at Talk:Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group/GA1! --JBL (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the barnstar JBL! I was actually planning to thank you for putting up with my comments in that review, being self conscious and worried I may have gone too far in giving in-depth feedback, but it warms my heart to see that you found them to be useful in improving the article and its understandability. This was a great article for me to get my teeth into and trying to find reasonable ways to help the reader comprehend what's going on in the math, from the lead of the article introducing the topic, to the applications in algebraic groups. After lingering in GAN for so long, I hope that Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group does pass the GA review - it is just at the finish line! Gramix13 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well my number 1 favorite kind of feedback on my work is "This is brilliant, I cannot conceive of any possible way it could be improved", but strangely for some reason I don't hear that very often; my number 2 favorite kind of feedback is for someone to seriously engage with the material as you have. Possibly it is true that this was in some way more thorough than is usual for a GA review, I'm not sure; my only prior GA review was also very thorough, so maybe I invite it somehow. Whether or not it ultimately passes, I am very happy with how the article has shaped up. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add, JBL, as a GAN regular, I think you could feel honoured to receive in-depth reviews - as you say, someone really wants to engage with the topic and your writing and, very impressively, they have known or sensed you would be good to handle a detailed review both in attitude and in taking on suggestions. I find collaborative GANs very rewarding, and even though I've sat on the sidelines more this time, digesting comments and responses and edits a bit more slowly to see how topic-based improvements have been made, it's been great to see! Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Mathematics Barnstar
I thought this an appropriate-looking barnstar. Your contributions to Talk:Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group/GA1 have been invaluable, and I am especially thankful for your gracious responses to me. Specialist, especially mathematics, articles are notoriously difficult to handle at GAN and your interventions have helped interpret between a complicated article and a layperson. Incredible work. Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incredibly high honor to receive, one I admit I have had my eyes on receiving one day ever since becoming an editor, thank you so much for recognizing me for this barnstar! I'm happy to see I was able to help foster a collaborative GA review, and I fully enjoyed picking through the article and seeing possible ways to bridge that wide gap in understanding. This review has in-part inspired me to take on a GA review myself (one that is still on-going), and with further work in GA reviews, I hope to continue creating that collaborative environment in the future that focuses on trying to make technical articles as understandable to their audiences as possible. Gramix13 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Gazette, Issue 1

[edit]
Issue 1, 8 August 2025
News
Current statistics
  • Number of GAs: 42,304
  • Number of nominations: 814
  • GAs for reassessment: 89

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR close on JK Rowling

[edit]

you should strongly consider undoing your close on that jk Rowling rfc.

see WP:IAR-abg and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. I don’t think you invoked it correctly and if it is invoked it would be stronger and better respected if done by another editor with a bit more experience.

As is, it would make more sense to see if there was consensus it was a bad RFC. I'm not sure there was yet? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for reaching out about your concerns about the closure I made. I do recognize that my closure was flawed in that I should clarified more strongly the reason for my closure (that being that I did not see any mechanism in WP:RFCEND that applied to commenters calling for a speedy close, other than RFCBEFORE not being follow which no editor explicitly debated) and explained my rationale for consensus (that being I judged that those making an argument for a bad RFC made stronger arguments than those participating in it, and the fact that it seemed even been those two sides). Leaving it to someone much more experienced may have been the right move here for a topic like this with my lack of experience. Seeing as the closure was reverted, I don't see a point in me continuing to defend that closure, so I plan to just drop it and move on, while carrying these lessons for next time I try to make a similar close. Going forward, I'll try to explain more clearly how I determined consensus in these close discussions, and I'll attempt to more explicitly state what rule I am applying IAR to better justify it.
Hope that helps reassure you I will be more careful with closures from now on. Gramix13 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not think IAR is required to close an RfC that has 1.5 times as many "bad RfC" responses as substantive responses after 30 hours, especially in a context where the two sides were unambiguously two of the options in a well attended RfC that just closed 2 days ago. I have reclosed on that basis. --JBL (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reasoning you gave is much stronger than what I provided, so thank you. It would be nice if WP:RFC had a section for handling calls for "bad RFC" so that I wouldn't presume the need to invoke IAR for this situation as someone new to closing RFCs, or maybe there exists an essay that better explains how to approach "bad RFC" that I haven't seen yet. Gramix13 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Gazette, Issue 2

[edit]
Issue 2, 22 August 2025
Ongoing discussions
News
  • No news for today!
Current statistics
  • Number of GAs: 42,352 (+48)
  • Number of nominations: 812 (–2)
  • GAs for reassessment: 61 (–28)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my previous comment and change status quo to Blue Zohran Yellow Cuomo

[edit]

I think I pinged you before on this but as you admit argument favors blue Zohran yellow Cuomo plus slight consensus. Going against this in favor of the less supported opinion is ridiculous. Please change this back otherwise I'm going to quit Wikipedia and encourage all the editors who I have also gotten to contribute to stop contributing to wikipedia. As the admin mentions discussion over colors is not important but to me it really is so please change this back. Orca🐋 (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as Acroterion mentioned, this should be brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard to get this resolved. I recommend going there if you seek some sort of resolution on this issue that I was unable to give as the closer.
Second, I would urge you to avoid making threats of quitting Wikipedia. This will not convince other editors to go in favor of your prefer change to the article. I would direct you to read the essay Don't be high-maintenance for arguments against making those threats to quit Wikipedia. Gramix13 (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections on parabolic ...

[edit]

This joke may be precision engineered to be funny only to me, but I wanted to let you know that it's been three days and I still chuckle audibly each time I see it. --JBL (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, glad to see the joke still resonating with you, so thank you! Gramix13 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]