User talk:Baelde
Contents
Categorization[edit]
Bonjour Ives, your handwritten SVGs show your skill for drawing complicated structures with simple SVG instructions. Nevertheless you should not add them to SVG Simplified (which should only contain graphics simplified to less than 5% of its former file size), they belong to Manually coded SVG. I changed that for your 3 files.  sarang사랑 09:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Arithmetic progressions along a knotted loop[edit]
Standard terminology is "{12/5} star polygon"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 I have changed this page. About names, several names can denote one only object…
— Baelde (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Categorization again[edit]
Hi, can you please explain in more detail your rationale for insisting that the four images File:A pattern of Pythagorean tiling.svg, File:A tiling in order to prove the Pythagorean theorem.svg, File:Academ Pythagorean theorem through a tiling pattern.svg, and File:Academ Pythagorean tiling and Pythagorean theorem.svg belong in Category:Tessellations, Category:Squares (shape), Category:Dissection Puzzles, and Category:Pythagorean theorem, and that they do not belong in Category:Pythagorean tiling? My own position is that
 These images are not about dissection puzzles and do not belong in that category at all.
 The images clearly depict Pythagorean tilings (as well as some other stuff overlaid on top of the tiling) and because of that they do belong in Category:Pythagorean tiling — otherwise people looking for mathematical images related to this tiling (e.g. by following the commons category link in en:Pythagorean tiling) won't find them. This category is intended to contain every image that prominently includes this type of tiling, whether or not the image has other things in it as well, and it already contains other images with math overlaid on the tiling, so they won't be unusual in that respect as part of that category.
 Because Category:Tessellations, Category:Squares (shape), and Category:Pythagorean theorem are all parent categories of Category:Pythagorean tiling, it would be redundant to include the images in those parent categories. As Commons:Categories clearly states, "Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic. ... always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those."
But obviously you disagree, because you have reverted me twice. I hope it is possible for us to come to a consensus on this rather than blowing it up into a larger dispute, but so far the explanations you have given in your edit summaries do not persuade me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Overly talkative. Another discussion page could be more appropriate.
— Baelde (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) If you don't want to address the issue it will be another forum, but that will necessarily involve other editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 What issue? — Baelde (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 Coming to a consensus on how to categorize these images rather than continuing to disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 If you don't want to address the issue it will be another forum, but that will necessarily involve other editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
"Pythagorean tiling" is an obscure expression for most people searching images about the Pythagorean theorem,
so the current link to 'Category:Pythagorean tiling' on the page 'Category:Pythagorean theorem' is an obstacle
in these searches, if images with mathematical reasonnings belong to 'Category:Pythagorean tiling'.
“Pythagorean tiling” is an useful expression, but it is an unsourced expression.
— Baelde (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion pointer[edit]
Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Baelde and Category:Pythagorean tiling. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see my justifications.
— Baelde (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Hi, I think that link to your "justifications" might be the wrong one  it links to a page which appears to have little to do with the current issue. I even followed a few links from it and they left me none the wiser.
 Also, the main discussion has now moved to Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Pythagorean tiling. The prevailing mood is to allow Category:Pythagorean tiling and the logical followup would be to add your diagrams back in. So you might find it useful to explain your reasons to us there, or at least to add a correct link to the justifications you refer to above. Or, are those anonymous IP contributions to the discussion yours also and you have in fact explained them all to us already? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 A new reply here.
— Baelde (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 A new reply here.




 Thank you. I have responded to it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


Persistent warring at Category:Pythagorean tiling[edit]
Hi,
You keep restoring your edit to Category:Pythagorean tiling, against the "Be bold  revert  discuss" cycle described at w:WP:BOLD. Simply stating your position is not adequate discussion; it is important for a majority consensus to emerge before such an edit can be accepted and restored.
I have appealed to you several times in this discussion to stop, but you are persisting.
Your actions comprise a typical act of w:WP:EDITWARRING and if not stopped can lead to sanctions against your user account.
Please heed this warning, before it is too late.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 I answered.
— Baelde (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 I answered.
Quality[edit]
In reply to your request on my talk page, I am not quite sure what you expect. Your English grammar is bad, your vocabulary not always appropriate. Sometimes it is hard for me to know what you mean at all. We could pretend that we do not know why, but it is very obvious to me that you are not a native Englishspeaker. That is just a fact, of course it does not in itself affect the quality of your English, and I must apologise if I gave the impression I thought it did, but it does explain very simply why your English is poor and why that can not easily be fixed. Can I make a strong argument to you that your English is poor? I gave some specific examples in the discussion  the use of "abuts" was one. Another is in your request to me; including your come back to "Category:Pythagorean theorem" makes no grammatical sense, as written it has no meaning. I can give you more, but would you believe me? And what good would it do? If you do not want to take my word for it, you had best ask some other editors to take a look and tell you if I am right or wrong. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 About "Category:Pythagorean tiling", you can repeat some worthless arguments, indeed, or you can look like someone for who some simple things are very hard to understand, yes. But you are not credible. In my opinion, you know that you are not credible. This contribution and this other one are regrettable, you know that. I invite you to correct them. Here is a great help. Today, there is one occurrence of "Category:Pythagorean theorem" on your personal discussion page. And then, in the lead text of "Category:Pythagorean tiling", we have not to describe something that does not exist in a Pythagorean tiling.
— Baelde (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 About "Category:Pythagorean tiling", you can repeat some worthless arguments, indeed, or you can look like someone for who some simple things are very hard to understand, yes. But you are not credible. In my opinion, you know that you are not credible. This contribution and this other one are regrettable, you know that. I invite you to correct them. Here is a great help. Today, there is one occurrence of "Category:Pythagorean theorem" on your personal discussion page. And then, in the lead text of "Category:Pythagorean tiling", we have not to describe something that does not exist in a Pythagorean tiling.


 There you are, just as I said. You find my comments "worthless", "not credible", "regrettable". That is why I suggest you ask some other editors what they think. I cannot help you any more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your tilings drawings[edit]
I appreciate the drawings you made for the "Other edgetoedge tilings" (by regular polygons) section. I have made some forward references to these pictures from the preceding section. That preceding section lists the vertex types that can occur "on their own"; which can occur in tilings; and which can occur in uniform tilings. Of the four vertex types which can occur in tilings, but cannot occur in uniform tilings, you give examples of 2uniform tilings for three of those four vertex types, but unfortunately not the fourth type. If you are interested, I'd like to ask if you would be willing to construct a drawing for the missing vertex type: 3.4.3.12. A picture of the unique 2uniform tiling that can be made with this vertex type can be seen here. It uses the two vertex types 3.4.3.12 and 3.12^{2}. Thanks, Chaveyd (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)