User talk:Dedhert.Jr

User pageLet's talk!My sandboxes

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 are not recommended, and it might be suitable to discuss on Wikipedia in one's own language.

Archive

Discussion : 1, 2, 3, 4

Your nomination of Augmented triangular prism is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Augmented triangular prism has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OzmoOzmo -- OzmoOzmo (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Augmented triangular prism has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Augmented triangular prism has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OzmoOzmo -- OzmoOzmo (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Riemann integral

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Riemann integral, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polynomial, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Field theory was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Personalised comments about my editing

Please do not personalise comments about my editing or reviewing skills on article talk pages, as was done in this edit ("I am worried that the reviewer may overlook the keyword below. This similar problem has already been done in Mayer–Vietoris sequence, demanding additional citation where the topic has been covered below"). If there is a concern with my editing or reviewing skills, please post on my talk page or raise the issue at WT:GA. It's also OK to take time away from GAN/GAR if the process is exhausting (as characterised in your comment): no article has to have GA status, and an editor does not have to "save" or make improvements to an article as we are all volunteers. Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720. You were right, I should have open the thread personally to your talk page. My apologize for this one.

To extensively clarify my comment. When I meant that "may overlook the keyword", I meant you continously ignored {{slink}}, which can redirect immediately in the below sections. Although GACR 2b stated "reliable sources are inline cited, all could be reasonably challanged", I don't think your demanding on citations does seems to be editorial discretion. In two articles, namely, Mayer–Vietoris sequence and Prime number, you already give {{slink}} to redirect and a section's summary before you deeply read the below subsections. So adding citations to them are useless, usually bombing with citations, but this might be depend on the environmental of given quality. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• I made a mistake in adding citation needed templates to those summaries without checking that the information was below. When I saw citations earlier in some of the paragraphs, I assumed that everything in that paragraph would need to be cited annd did not see that they were cited later in the section. However, review comments and citation needed tags are not "demands", they are posted to draw attention to areas where I think the article doesn't meet the GA criteria. When posting about it at WT:GA, many editors have stated that reviews should not be interpreted as demands as no one has to respond to them. If you think the process can be fixed to prevent this interpretation, I suggest posting at WT:GA.
• I saw in some of the discussions that you might nominate prime number to FAC: I recommend getting a FA mentor who hasn't reviewed or edited the article yet to get a new perspective of what improvements might be needed before the article goes to FAC. You can also open a WP:PR where editors might give feedback on the article (I usually recommend that editors open a PR if I am mentoring them so I can leave comments there). Lastly, I would review articles now at WP:FAC: this builds goodwill amongst FAC editors, helps clear the backlog so your nomination is more likely to be noticed, and helps teach the criteria to reviewers, as you can get feedback on how the criteria is interpreted. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  My apologies for excessive peacock on "demanding". I will try to do better in this. For FAC, this has been discussed in Talk:Prime number/GA1. But if I would like to promote this to FAC, PR is a good option according to you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Biaugmented triangular prism is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Biaugmented triangular prism is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ajheindel -- Ajheindel (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Biaugmented triangular prism has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Biaugmented triangular prism has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ajheindel -- Ajheindel (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Dedhert.Jr! The thread you created at the Teahouse, LLM in grammar, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi Dedhert.Jr,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox. And where can I propose? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You can either:

• Just edit a page to add an option, which is most easily done by copy-and-pasting another question and editing the numbers and options, then updating the table
• Tell me your proposal here / elsewhere and I can do it for you

I don't think there's a problem with adding more proposals now, but if many people don't !vote on it because they don't see it then it may not be regarded as highly when it comes to shaping coherent policy afterwards. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 08:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in WP:GARC

Hello, I noticed you are a user who has a number of open Good Article nominations and thought you might be interested in Good Article Review Circles. It is an initiative that helps articles get reviewed more quickly through collaborative efforts. By joining, you will review another user's article and get your own GA nomination reviewed in return. Check out the project page for more details! — ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 03:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Elongated triangular bipyramid is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Elongated triangular bipyramid is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Icepinner -- Icepinner (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Elongated triangular bipyramid has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Elongated triangular bipyramid has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Icepinner -- Icepinner (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2026 (UTC)