User talk:Introscopia

Hi Introscopia! I noticed your recent edits & was going to post a welcome message... but I realized you've been an editor just about as long as I have!

I just wanted to post a message to say that your edits are appreciated! Feel free to reach out if you ever want any assistance. = paul2520 💬 20:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Cheers, friend! Introscopia (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I like your new table at Johnson solid. However, I feel the ordering is very confusing and there are a few errors (spelling or Archimedean and not Archimedian and the placement of solids 47 and 48). I changed the table but the image is not reflective of it. Could you help me out to change the image please? Thank you!--Officer781 (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

No, I'm sorry, I won't be creating a new image at this time. I can share the .blend files if you would like to do so yourself.

If you can't or won't create the new version yourself, I must ask you to revert your changes to the Johnson solid page, please. I realize the numbering is not well ordered in the table. That's not a real problem. Johnson's ordering is arbitrary. It's not important that the numbers be well ordered, it's far more important, in my opinion, that the groupings are logical and consistent. I feel my original tables accomplish that in a better way. Introscopia (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it would be more flexible to split the 92 images and incorporate into the table as that way, changes to the table would not affect the images. I have restored the older images and removed your image. In my opinion the orthobi and gyrobi rows should be placed next to each other as the solids are very closely related, while bipyramids should be placed under both as they are neither ortho nor gyro, unlike yours where orthobi is equated with bi. I still find that arrangement very confusing. However your individual images orientations are actually more useful as they show the permutations better. If you could help to split it into the 92 individual solids perhaps we could replace the old images. I have also merged the naming section into the three respective subsections as it is less confusing that way, with the naming introduced only at the subsection where it is relevant. --Officer781 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

My friend. I appreciate all the enthusiasm for the topic. It's an enthusiasm I share. Hopefully you can appreciate that in your storm of edits you have completely and unilaterally re-written the page, completely overwriting and ignoring a long, labored, and most importantly: collective process that had arrived at the page as you found it yesterday.

I'm sorry if I seem unwilling to meet your ideas and arguments head-on, but you come with a big pile of "I think this, I think that", when these debates have been going on for a long time already, and the solution we arrived at in march was a carefully negotiated compromise.

I've already more than blown past my budget for hours to donate to wikipedia for this whole year. So, I'm sorry but I don't approve of your edits, I don't agree with your approach. You added a category called "Non cut-and-paste". Pardon me for being blunt, but that's downright amateurish.

I'm gonna have to decline taking the time to make 92 individual images to help you undo dozens upon dozens of hours of my work.

Peace be with you, brother. Introscopia (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Alright, I have restored your image. Thank you for your contributions for the March compromise though. I re read the conversations on the talk page and it must have been tough. I note that you were the one who proposed the tables and I am very grateful for that. As for the "Non cut-and-paste" category, if you have a better name for the last 9 Johson solids (which do have a category because I checked the internet sources) please feel free to replace my name. I took that from an older revision of the page. Other than that, if you feel there are areas that could be done better also maybe you could suggest, I will see if I have time to edit. Peace be with you too. --Officer781 (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Reply