User:Tomruen/archive1

ARCHIVED TALK PAGE: 1/7/08
Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! You've done some good work here. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

Before you start doing a lot of editing, you'll want to take the Tutorial. It gives all the basic info you'll need as you start contributing.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 06:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Since you're interested in tree species, you might want to check out WikiProject Tree of Life. At the bottom of that page, there's a list of some contributors to the species articles.  Those are probably good people to go to if you have questions about adding new species, or if you want comments on something.  Similarly, if you've got any questions about how we do math and CS here, you can check out WikiProject Mathematics or WikiProject Computing, respectively.

Exact trigonometric constants
I am looking forward to spending some time this page, checking values and reformatting as Tex math.

MathMan64 4 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)


 * Tom Ruen 06:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Appreciated in both respects! (verification and formatting)

Penrose Tiling
Hi. I plan to put this on WikiMedia COMMONS Image:Penrose7.gif unless you want to do it! I will add it to the Category "Tessellations" if that make sense. LoopZilla 10:09:31, 2005-07-28 (UTC)


 * Tom Ruen 06:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Unsure what this means (COMMONS), but do as you wish!

Featured Picture nomination
Hi Tom,

I've nominated your great animation "Moonc.gif" (at Libration) as a Featured Picture. It truly completes that article and highlights a very interesting phenomenon. Bravo, and good luck! CapeCodEph 17:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Tom Ruen 06:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, I love the animation, but I'd just like to know why on August 30 you reverted the image back to the original. I thought that it was agreed that the version without the crosshair, border and text was better? I know this is your image, were you not happy with the change? A little explanation would probably be appreciated. Raven4x4x 00:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Raven4x4x - I'm really sorry - totally unintentional. I wouldn't not have believed I was responsible except it clearly says so. Must have pressed something wrong. Tom Ruen 21:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Weee! Congrats, Tom!

Polyhedron images
As far as I can tell unless someone else somehow swapped the files, Image:Disdyakisdodecahedron.jpg (reference: Mathworld, Pretty page) and Image:Disdyakistriacontahedron.jpg (reference: Mathworld, Pretty page) are not mislabelled. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp  19:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The archimedean solid and catalan solid articles mention the alternate names, and so do the references. I agree that the names are weird, but I didn't name them. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp  06:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Minneapolis meetup
Hello Tom. I'm contacting you since you are listed at Wikipedians/Minnesota. I'm going to be at a conference in Minneapolis and am planning a Wikipedia meetup for October 8. If you are near Minneapolis at that time, please see Meetup/Minneapolis. Angela. 20:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lunar libration image
Wow. --Doradus 16:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Small rhombitrihexagonal tiling
Excellent work. freestylefrappe 20:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK
I've made the correction, thanks.--nixie 00:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the Day
Hi Tom,

Just to let you know that your animation Image:Lunar libration with phase2.gif is due to be the Pic of the Day on the 10th November. If you get a chance, you can check and correct the caption at Picture of the day/November 10, 2005. -- Solipsist 16:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Uniform prismatoid polyhedra
Hi. I was going through the list of orphaned categories and found your Category:Uniform prismatoid polyhedra. With my piddly Math B.S. and little knowledge in this area, this looks like a viable category to me so I gave it appropriate-looking parent categories and then added Octagonal prism to the category (and removed it from the less-specific categories it was already in). Do those two changes seem like appropriate things to do? If so, you might want to continue populating it as I did with Octagonal prism before the category gets tagged as underpopulated and deleted. :) wknight94 19:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wknight94. Thanks for the note. I made the category a while ago trying to organize the polyhedra articles. I then replaced usage with the obvious more general one (prismatoid polyhedra) since there's some Johnson solids (Like square pyramid) which are Prismoidal but not uniform. I don't know if there's any value is a category that combines two categories, but assumed not. I marked the category for deletion and moved Octagonal prism back. Maybe this is useful, but seemed seemed not since each article can have multiple categories. Tom Ruen 20:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. It's not uncommon to see one category that is a combination of two other categories and serves as a nice grouping of articles that are the intersection of the two.  In fact, that's an especially good usage of categories &mdash; but if you don't feel it's of any value in this case...  Personally, I wouldn't know.  wknight94 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Polyhedra
Yes I'm not sure what to do with the uniform polyhedra. I thought we could do the categories as all uniform=Platonic solids + Kepler solids + Archimedean solids + the remained in Uniform polyhedra. This would leave plenty of space for the 53 non-convex polyhedra. However only one of these has an article. I may well put the category back again. --Pfafrich 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Must leave ASAP... Simple answer NO. If you'd like to ADD Category:Nonconvex unform polyhedra, that's fine, but uniform is ALL of them. Tom Ruen 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK so I can't spell, sorry! --Pfafrich 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom your supposed to be on a wiki break! get back to your revison ;-). --Salix alba (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my poor follow-through. AND Sunday I even wrote a program to read VRML files and generate a list of vertex figure counts for all the Johnson solids, but fortunately no wikiedits yet, considering an article List of Polyhedra by vertex figures of something like that, since it is an interesting question that comes out of the near-miss Johnson solids. Tom Ruen 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In which case see User:Pfafrich/test I've managed to sort out a way of doing a database of info combined with a template to show uniform polyhedra in a fairly nice ordering based round wythoff symbol. --Salix alba (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lunar-libration.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Lunar-libration.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.


 * Please delete - see talk on image. Tom Ruen 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Howdy
I see you're on a wikivacation, but if you return you may be interested in assiting in an article titled Glacial retreat. We will need to tie in information of carbon dioxide gases and the effects of global warming as it pertains to the massive glaicial recession over the last 150 years. The article is only a month or so old and has many fine links and images and I noticed some of your graph work...anyway, if you're interested, please join in.--MONGO 08:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Grand antiprism
Hi, I just wanted to express my (very belated) appreciation for your making a picture of the vertex figure of the grand antiprism. Every bit helps!&mdash;Tetracube 01:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

test math

 * $$ \begin{bmatrix} 3 \\ 5 \\ \end{bmatrix}$$
 * $$ \begin{pmatrix} 3 \\ 5 \\ \end{pmatrix}$$
 * $$ {3 \choose 5} $$
 * $$ 3 \over 5 $$
 * $$ \frac{3}{5} $$
 * $$ \left( \frac{3}{5} \right) $$
 * $$ \left( { 3 \over 5 } \right) $$
 * $$ \left[ { 3 \over 5 } \right] $$

Need vertical symbol like {$$ {p \choose q} $$ } without
Can Wiki reproduce this?

Best I could find is this:
 * {$$ {p \choose q} $$ }

Obviously I'd like to insert numbers for p and q as well!

Any help is appreciated. I could find ANY help on "math" codes besides examples in existing articles.

Tom Ruen 09:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style (mathematics) is a good place to start.
 * It has links to various resources including Help:Formula which has


 * \begin{Bmatrix} x & y \\ z & v \end{Bmatrix} inside math tags


 * for


 * $$\begin{Bmatrix} x & y \\ z & v \end{Bmatrix}$$
 * So, your example would give $$\begin{Bmatrix} p \\ q \end{Bmatrix}$$ --Cavrdg 10:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks! Tom Ruen 11:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The \left\{ and \right\} notation is an alternative way to do this, and a bit more flexable
 * \left\{\sum_1^n\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\right\}

gives
 * $$\left\{\sum_1^n\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\right\}$$

--Salix alba (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Pentagonal_prism
Hello there. Well, i acctualy didn't 'move' the image, cause i can't do that. I save on my disk, and repost on wiki commons. Some admin might thought that images were the same so one could be removed. I think GFDL-en doesn't ontradict or override, and thats why it goes down, because the credit/author autorization must be follow to then follow the GFDL. At least thats how i understud, but if you want to change the order, do it :) I am not really sure about all this stuff, but since no one complaint about i let be that way. At the commons only Free use image are accepted. --R2cyberpunk 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mars photos
I would just like to clarify that I don't believe that the images on Mars photos should be removed, but just the image gallery page. Wikicommons would be a good place for these, and the image description page can keep the material you moved there, I think. Rmhermen 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I just figured it was safest to remove and just link to my user page until I found some better place for it. I created the mars photos page originally and of course neglected it. I've got another set of images for a 2005 mars animation, much better, but not done yet so anyway, I'll just keep it linked on my page for now. Tom Ruen 23:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Compass and straightedge
I'd appreciate your comment on Talk:Compass and straightedge. Thank you. John Reid 23:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Graphics
Hi Tom, though you might be interested in WikiProject Mathematics/Graphics which has just been created. --Salix alba (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cubohemioctahedron
Tom, first thanks for all your work on the polyhedra:good stuff! Could you take a look at my comments at Talk:Cubohemioctahedron - I think there is a problem in the diagram. Regards Cje 08:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Atmospheric CO2 with glaciers cycles.gif
I copied your Image:Atmospheric CO2 with glaciers cycles.gif to the Commons, because I intend to use it in the german wikipedia. The version Image:Atmospheric CO2 with glaciers cycles.gif could be deleted (but I shall not suggest it myself for deletion), because if an image does not exist on the english wikipedia, the software looks automatically for it on the commons.

Please consider uploading future images to the commons (commons:Special:Upload) instead of the english wikipedia, as the image can then be directly used in other wikipedia projects. --Neumeier 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't understand fully. The existing gif image is used on the page Timeline of glaciation. I don't know how to link images from commons into wikipedia. Tom Ruen 07:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Saros 131
I see that you just tagged Saros 131 for speedy deletion, as its content had been merged into Saros cycle. For GFDL reasons, we have to ensure that the history of every article remains intact, so unless you have any objection, I'm going to merge the history of that article into Saros cycle. Please respond here or on my talk page. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure merge the history as you like. Tom Ruen

Talk pages
I'm sure you are already aware, but just so that you don't take my revert of your removal of your comments from Talk:Moon the wrong way, generally it's frowned upon to remove something from talk pages unless it's inappropriate in some other way, as the talk page can provide a great record of why certain changes were done, etc. Anyway, nothing personal. Peyna 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see both sides - a quick misunderstanding cleared up seems a distracting record to log forever, and talk pages themselves have a history, so it seemed harmless. An clearner alternative could have been writing to the user's talk page that reverted my changes accidentally, and then he could decide to clean his own talk page. Anyway, I understand your view. Thanks! Tom Ruen 05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Truncation (geometry)

 * Hi Tetracube. Thanks! I appreciate the recognition. Of course always room for improvement all around.
 * I'm sure you've also seen: Snub (geometry), Rectification (geometry) and Dual polyhedron.


 * In fact, I haven't seen these until you pointed them out. I've been away from wikipedia for a while and have just returned a few days ago, and I see that much has taken place while I was away.&mdash;Tetracube 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And uniform polyhedron operation summary at: Uniform_polyhedron
 * Someday we need to get some articles on other operations: Runcination (geometry) and Omnitruncation (geometry), and all the others for the uniform polychoron.
 * And most fun are the relational diagrams and tables at:
 * Schläfli symbol
 * And
 * Schläfli symbol
 * I can't well "picture" word definitions, so pictures are my only hope at connecting these operations.
 * Any help to better organize and expand is appreciated, and my time is limited now for big additions.
 * If I had time, a next project would be to generate a summary diagram like Image:Polyhedron_kaleidoscope_triangles2.png for polychora/honeycombs domains like Image:Polychoron tetrahedral domain.png.
 * Tom Ruen 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the one thing that impressed me the most is the use of images to illustrate the concepts. Sometimes geometry is best explained by pictures rather than words. Now, if only I had the time/persistence to write a 4D polytope generator/renderer, I'd produce images for the uniform polychora. I'm personally a big fan of projections as the best way to visualize higher-dimensional space; the current wire diagrams are better than nothing, but they fail to convey what I see in my mind's eye when pondering these objects. What I really want is to render them using polygons in PovRay, and probably animate them (4D projections have a tendency to create illusions when viewed from a static angle).&mdash;Tetracube 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bowers style acronym
Hi Tom,

Just though you might like to know the Bowers style acronym was prodded today. I've removed the prod, but it might help if you give your thoughts on the talk page. I suspect there might be a few AfD's soon, relating to the Bowers pages, so any help in establising notability is apreciated. --Salix alba (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its happened. see Articles for deletion/Bowers style acronym, Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bowers. --Salix alba (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.... Tom Ruen 05:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Pentagram interior.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Pentagram interior.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Edge-uniform
Tom, maybe you can help clear something up for me. I've been fiddling with the polyhedra articles and added face-, vertex- and edge-uniform articles since they seemed to be referenced alot and I could only find the definitions buried in the Polyhedron article. I'm having trouble with the edge-uniform article. I simplified the definition to read "all edges have the same length". I hope that was essentially correct. But I also copied in a bit from the rhombic triacontahedron article that stated there were only nine convex, edge-uniform polyhedra. On further consideration that seems incorrect. There are nine (I think) convex deltahedra -- not the same as the list of convex, edge-uniform polyhedra. If I'm not mistaken the deltahedra are all edge-uniform. So something is amiss either with my definition or the claim about the convex, edge-uniform set. Can you shed any light? andersonpd 05:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul. I saw your new articles, links I've long neglected. Thanks, a good start. I've been afraid of defining them myself.
 * Something in the definition is needed like vertex-uniform, vertex-uniform means that for any two vertices there exists a symmetry of the polyhedron mapping the first isometrically onto the second.
 * The deltahedra would fail because there's different sorts of edges, different dihedral angles in the least.
 * Your offered definition, as equal length is merely equilateral.
 * In the rhombic triacontahedron you can see two types of vertices, and each edge has one of each. That's what it is saying at least.
 * Maybe best to abandon edge-uniform unless we can get a clear definition?
 * Quasiregular seems very related here as well, which isn't exactly defined. I would say quasiregular is a subcategory to semiregular, but implied exclusiveness in the polyhedron article as written.
 * Sorry I can't help more now. Tom Ruen 06:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole terminology may be nonstandard. Here's some comparable terminology from Tilings and Patterns:
 * Uniform for vertex-uniform
 * Vertex-regular for face-uniform
 * And book Polyhedra, Peter Cromwell (p.391)
 * Quasiregular is all 4 cuboctahedron, icosadodecahedron, and their duals (Also all are edge-transitive, but only first two are face-transitive)
 * Vertex-transitive for vertex-uniform
 * MathWorld defs:
 * 
 * Best I can find for now!

Tom Ruen 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Uniform tiling images
Hi, I appreciate the SVG replacements for my GIF tiling images. I'm not sure how you do the conversion.


 * Erm... manually? I do most of my SVG coding by hand, but Inkscape or Sodipodi could help a lot. You would still have to redraw the polygons by hand, though. --Fibonacci 06:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in showing the 32 uniform colorings for the 11 uniform tilings, and don't want to keep uploading inferior images. I'm wondering if you could help?


 * Sure. I'll start classes tomorrow so I'll probably be a bit busy, but sure I can help. --Fibonacci 06:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded temporary image from a book, showing he 32 patterns: Image:Uniform_tile_colorings_draft.png Tom Ruen 01:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Downloaded. But could you please explain me a bit about those colourings? I don't think the image is clear enough by itself. --Fibonacci 06:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The colors are unimportant. The pictures are grayscale, so a bit hard to see some maybe. The label shows a code, like 121212 means alternating two colors at a vertex. Or 1111 means one color, and 1234 mean four different colors around a vertex. Does that help? Tom Ruen 07:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I do understand. You want me to do an image like this, only with all the possible colourings? --Fibonacci 03:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Hopefully you can keep black lines on all tilings.
 * If you want to pick a color set for uniform tilings, might make sense to match those used in the uniform polyhedron set: (1) Red, (2) Yellow, (3) Blue, (4) Green, (5) ???
 * For file names, you can pick what you like, but maybe something like Image:tile_4444_color1112.svg? (Alternately you could merge the sets by tiling type, like your example, and say Image:tile_4444_colorings.svg? If you merged, them then maybe they should be each labeled below: (a) 1111 (b) 1112 (c) 1212 .... so they could be referenced individually.)
 * Well, just quick thoughts. Thanks! Tom Ruen 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Last thought, might be good to include the two nonuniform colorings I crossed out?

Uniform polychora references
Hi Tom, I'm sure you have Talk:Uniform polychoron on your watchlist already, but I thought I'd just drop a note to say that I've finally found some references (in academic journals) for at least the convex uniform polychora. I've posted the references on the talk page. I suppose we should actually retrieve a copy of these articles (or have someone do it) before we actually add the references to the article.&mdash;Tetracube 06:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo contribution
I like your picture of Lake Avenue in Duluth, Minnesota. But I think it could be improved by rotating it about 1.4 degrees clockwise. If you don't have a program to do so, I could rotate it for you. Thanks. Appraiser 17:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can rotate also, but limited time, so happy if you want to! Tom Ruen 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Compound of Cube and octahedron
I've added the "prod" template to the article Compound of cube and octahedron, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Compound of cube and octahedron. You may remove the dated prod template, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --  T H  L CCD 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Polyhedra
Uhh..... What's going on over at Semireg polyhedra db? There's no documentation that I can find, and the template is incomprehensible, so I'm asking you because you created it. How am I supposed to edit the infobox? How is anyone supposed to? Why does this template exist instead of using a regular infobox? — Omegatron 06:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Quick answer in User:Tomruen/polyhedron_db_testing. Another guy started setup the template system. Main idea for it is the same data can be displayed in different info boxes. Obviously harder to read and edit, and yes no notes besides what you can find from this user page. Sorry. Tom Ruen 07:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about moon calendary at Lunar phase
Hi. In the caption of your Moon calendar, found at lunar phase, it says that the images are taken 25 minutes later each day. Could you explain why? The article says you should do this about 50 minutes later each day, though there is some confusion on the discussion page as to the exact value. Thanks for looking into this. Lunokhod 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was done actually to reproduce observable phases. A new crescent is only visible at sunset. An old crescent is only visible at sunrise. So I calculated a period that moved smoothly between these two observable limits. If I had picked the moon's actual period (50 minute shift), like say when the moon is always at zenith, the moon would have to be seen in the daytime for the crescent phases. Here's a link to some actual photos I tried for the same effect, minus cloudy days of course: Tom Ruen 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Disphenoid
Thanks for adding the picture to the disphenoid article. -- Dominus 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

primarysources
A lot of articles containing just a primary source usually serve to promote the article in a biased manner. Criticisms for example are rarely (if ever) included if the only source provided is the subject's own website. It's a good thing to aim for external sources from as many external (reliable) sources as we can muster to give articles some balance. Newspapers may very well be a good source of information where online content is lacking. All too often we easily fall into the trap of "if it aint found at Google, it doesn't exist". Hope this help to explain my usage of the primarysources template. -- Longhair\talk 04:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I get lazy. I'll try to do better. Tom Ruen 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honeycomb images
Hi great Tom! I try to make a tessellation image for the dual of Cantitruncated cubic honeycomb, but you must sketch the wikipedia article. -- Rocchini 26 January 2007

Hi Rocchini. Thanks. I don't know what to call it yet, so I linked an image at the article. Also helpful for Omnitruncated cubic honeycomb. Tom Ruen 09:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cantitruncated cubic honeycomb
 * [[Image:Dual cantitruncated cubic honeycomb.png]]
 * Omnitruncated cubic honeycomb
 * [[Image:Dual omnitruncated cubic honeycomb.png]]


 * for a moment I have made the common image Order3_heptakis_heptagonal_til.png [[Image:Order3_heptakis_heptagonal_til.png|20px]],

but I not undestand how to insert in the List_of_uniform_planar_tilings page. Because in the original tilining the color is per face, in the dual tiling I have colored the surface per vertex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocchini (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks Rocchini! Sorry on the template confusion. The source (database) is at: Template:Uniform_hyperbolic_tiles_db. I added it for your example. I don't mind how it is colored, although best to have a full set of vertex-colorings if you could repeat them all that way. Thanks again! (I also linked image at Triangular_tiling) Tom Ruen 21:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006
The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 10:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Libration
Salut!

Can you make commons:Image:Lunar libration with phase2.gif version without shadow - nur libration? And without word "Date". Maksim-e 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Do you want the same month, or different one? Tom Ruen 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ALSO: A no-shadow example is at


 * Okay, new animation for April 2007 on commons Image:Lunation animation April 2007.gif. I picked 60 frames, starting and ending at apogee where animation would transition would be smoothest. Tom Ruen 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Maksim-e 10:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006 - Final
Your image has been chosen as one of the 11 finalists of the POTY 2006 competition. Congratulations! Please check Picture of the Year/2006 - Alvesgaspar 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Polytope VEFC data?
Hi, I'm just wondering if next to your VEF data for various polytopes you happen to also have data that includes cells? I'm interested in rendering polychora with back-face culling, which requires facet normals (which needs to know which facets belong to which cells, etc.). Thanks.&mdash;Tetracube 05:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas, so far my program only generates vef data. It builds polytopes by a vertex figure and reflection, so only initially knows vertices and edges. I added faces partly just to count them. I can equally add cells, but haven't, and not committed to getting it soon. I suppose a dumb approach would be to take VEF data compute cell center points, and then build face lists for each cell.
 * On a different direction, I just purchased Stella4D beta D as a generator for polychora, and played a bit tonight. It has some limitations too - mainly doesn't seem to recognize symmetries to color cells as I want. I'm also asking if it has or will have an export/import 4D option. It definitely has cell data, but only a 3D export that I could see.
 * I'll tell you if I get anything useful. Tom Ruen 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams
Do you think that Talk:Coxeter-Dynkin diagram could do with SVGification? If so, I'll do it once I get a free couple of days. Stannered 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Stannered! I'm pretty satisified. I've got mixed feelings. As symbols I don't think they need to be perfect, even printing seems fine to me as-is, and there can be artifacts or fuzziness on rescaling. I like CRISP white/black boundaries. I'm open for experimentation to see what the result might look like. Tom Ruen 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another issue, the symbols are variable width, but constant height, so to line-up they'd have to have the correct height, but Wiki scales images by width, so it would seem a pain to have to guess how to scale them. Basically they'd still have to work with a default size that is consistent. Just a thought. Tom Ruen 07:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Even SVG images have a default pixel height embedded in them. I'd just make that the same as the current images. I'll do a couple at some point over the next few days and post them up, see what you think. Stannered 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, what font did you use on the non-fractional ones? It should be obvious, but I'm having a brain freeze... Cheers, Stannered 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Arial font from MSPaint. I actually made them big first and resized them smaller to fit the symbol. Tom Ruen 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally tried printing, nice 1200dpi printer, and really svg images don't look better than the pixel ones. Is there any way to disable grayscale/antialiasing for svg conversion to png? Tom Ruen 07:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like [[Image:CDW ring.svg]][[Image:CDW p.svg]][[Image:CDW dot.svg]][[Image:CDW q.svg]][[Image:CDW dot.svg]][[Image:CDW r.svg]][[Image:CDW hole.svg]] any good? Stannered 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Compared to: [[Image:CDW ring.png]][[Image:CDW p.png]][[Image:CDW dot.png]][[Image:CDW q.png]][[Image:CDW dot.png]][[Image:CDW r.png]][[Image:CDW hole.png]]
 * Looks nice. I'm not sure what the advantage is. Main disadvantage is that the symbols are still somewhat of a work in progress, and I can't make my own svg files if want to try something different. I guess I should try a hard copy too and see how it looks, probably does look better with gray scale edges. Tom Ruen 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Penteractic pentacomb
Hi, Tom.

I ran across this while reviewing new math articles. The title of the page is penteractic pentacomb, but the article begins "The penteractic tetracomb &hellip;". I'm not big on solid geometry in five dimensions, so I'm not sure if the title is off, or if the lead sentence is. Anyway, it's confusing. Thanks! DavidCBryant 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Complete graph K9.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Complete graph K9.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Hemi-icosahedron.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hemi-icosahedron.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Snub cubes
Should the hexadecagon(?) in each of the diagrams in Image:Snubcubes in grCO.png be regular, or should the sides at $$\tfrac{n\pi}{4}$$ to the horizontal be longer than the other sides (as they seem to be in the PNG version)? Cheers, Stannered 10:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed! The front octagon? I don't have a simple answer on the source of the image. If I made the image I would have started with a uniform great rhombicuboctahedron, but the uniform snub cube would actually need to start with (I think( an even greater unequal edge lengths for the result to have equilateral triangle faces, like the geometry of a 2-snub-cube compound polyhedron Image:UC68-2_snub_cubes.png. (Also compare to tiling Snub_square_tiling.) The alternation operation applies any case. I'd just trace it, unless you could remake the geometry. I suppose I'd start with equal edge lengths if I made it. Tom Ruen 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant the outer shape, which looks like an octagon with sides at $$\tfrac{n\pi}{4}$$ to the horizontal with another slightly larger one with sides at $$\tfrac{(2n+1)\pi}{8}$$ to the horizontal. Looking at the external links for the great rhombicuboctahedron suggests that in fact these off-$$\tfrac{n\pi}{4}$$ lines should be parallel with the adjacent $$\tfrac{n\pi}{2}$$ lines, although that may just be a feature of a different projection. Think I'll go with that for now, as it's easiest to draw :-) Stannered 18:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's done - see Image:Snubcubes_in_grCO.svg. Waiting for a thumbs-up before replacing in articles. Only thing which might be annoying is that due to the alternate projection used, a couple of green vertices appear to be included in the green-vertices-excluded version (and the same for red). Hopefully that's not a problem :-) Stannered 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great! I see - the original image was a perspective view, causing bulging out the sides. I'm happy with the new orthogonal projection. Tom Ruen 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome :-) *updates articles*
 * I've just done another two of the four you requested; the fourth will be done in the morning most likely. Stannered 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:FracCumBallot.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FracCumBallot.gif, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 06:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award originated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer) Harrison-HB4026 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tile46t4bc.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tile46t4bc.gif, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT ( 416 ) 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Vertex configuration
I just reverted you at Prismatic uniform polyhedron. This is because the vertex configuration article talks about vertex figures, not the meaning I intended. This is a signifcant irritation on Wikipedia - people wikilink text without bothering to look at the article linked to, and it isn't about the right thing.

Can we decide which meaning of 'vertex configuration' we want? You've used it both ways. The way, the truth, and the light 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seemed correct to me. The vertex configuration is a description of a vertex figure. Tom Ruen 18:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, vertex configuration (as I meant it) means vertex arrangment. Maybe we should standardise on the use of 'vertex arrangement' with that meaning, and 'vertex configuration' to mean the 3.4.3.4 thing, as you apparently do. The way, the truth, and the light 19:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, slow, not been online, broke my collarbone in bike accident, typing one handed. Agreed need for clarity, and neither term is standardize, although vertex figure is well used. I have thought to merge vf & vcf. Main difference is the vcf notation limited to polyhedra as a sequence. No clear idea what's best except to look at some books, Coexter and Cromwell at least. va seems good, also referenced in ones like Schläfli-Hess polychoron, and edge/face arrangements too. Tom Ruen 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW
Hey Tomruen, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Stella question
Hi, I noticed you've uploaded quite a few images using the license tag. That tag doesn't give a link to any free use claim; in fact, the page linked in the tag reads Copyright © 2001-2007, Robert Webb at the bottom. Could you please add proof to the tag? Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Thanks,  Pagra shtak  16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I purchased the Stella software. I'm in email contact with the author. The author in fact made the first set of images for me to upload. What do you need as proof? Tom Ruen 18:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Polychora images
Hi TomRuen,

Sorry for taking so long to respond... I have been away from Wikipedia for quite a while now, and was just dropping by when I noticed your note on my talk page. Those images from Stella are really nice! The only nitpick I have is that I wish they showed the inner structure of the projections as well (perhaps via transparent/semitransparent ridges), but otherwise, they are really good. The more images the better, anyway. It makes these 4D figures more accessible to those who don't sit around all day trying to imagine them. :-) Is there an option in Stella for semi-transparent ridges? That would be ideal.&mdash;Tetracube 21:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - Webb has avoied transparency until he can get faces properly sorted for rendering. I hope he does add this as an option. I wish I had more time, but fun to do outdoor stuff too now that its nice! :) I'll do more when I can... Tom Ruen 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

pix mix
Image:Elongated alternated cubic honeycomb.png and Image:Gyroelongated alternated cubic honeycomb.png are mixed up. I wonder if it's possible to swap them. &mdash;Tamfang 03:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely - they can both be re-uploaded with the other image. I'll look into it when I get a chance, or you can swap if you're sure. I must admit easy to get confused by the naming - I mean I'd say the alternated cubic honeycomb IS gyrated by my visual interpretation! Tom Ruen 16:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're right. Images swapped! :) Tom Ruen 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the meaning of gyrated here is opposite to its meaning in in the Johnson solids, alas. &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PAT
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_26, I think you might be part of this as yet uncreated wikiproject.:) Cheers--Cronholm144 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, have you considered making a separate wikiproject to shepherd the polytopes (simply because of the size of the endeavour)?--Cronholm144 15:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cronholm144. Yes considered, most for polyhedrons, since there's a tricky template database there. A sort of organizational page here at least:User:Tomruen/polyhedron_db_testing. Overall I've been too lazy, just keeping adding bits as I'm inspired and able. Certainly I accept the value, a central place where multiple people can see the bigger picture and see what needs work. Tom Ruen 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I-35 Bridge

 * That is an amazing picture. Can you confirm that it was taken by you? -- Ownage2214 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be seen by literally millions of people now, so, good job. -- Cyde Weys 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's gotta be a story behind that photo. Can you tell us? Were you there when it happened? Did you run home to get your camera? Tell us! --YbborTalk 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I took it with my trusty Olympus 4000Z, jogged all the way around. I work 1/2 mile away. More pictures at Flickr account: Tom Ruen 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's on the Main Page now, in case you didn't notice. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my vote too, amazing! Maury 02:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. I'd wish for less horrific reason for praise. Hundreds of other cameras out there with me. I was just the humble Wikipedian who got back first! I just noticed my uploaded picture shows a yellow school bus. :( Tom Ruen 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * CNN Reported the school kids are fine, just minor bumps and bruises. So dont worry too much.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 02:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding my congratulations about the picture as well. It's hard to believe that the bridge could just collapse into the river like a bunch of Tinkertoys. Thanks for being Wikipedia's on-the-spot photographer. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic. However, your Flickr account says the same pic is "All Rights Reserved", but the Wikipedia image page says Public Domain. Don't know if you mind, but could you please change one or the other (preferably the Flickr image, obviously)? Mahalo nui loa. --Ali&#39;i 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry on the Flickr account. I didn't even notice there was a choice there for copyrights. Those are lower resolution images - considered "copies" which I don't care about anyway, just a quick way to share a bunch. I can email originals of those to anyone interested. Tom Ruen 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Square prism.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Square prism.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

TfD nomination of Template:Great Stella
Template:Great Stella has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Digon
You made an edit on digon which strikes me as incorrect, or at least unsubstantiated with respect to my limited background in this subject area.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digon&diff=95637845&oldid=90943633

It makes more sense to me as previously worded: a digon can be constructed with any two points on a great circle chosen as the vertices; if the vertices chosen are antipodal, one forms a regular digon. What principle of geometry (that I'm unaware of) excludes non-antipodal digons? I'm not presently tracking watch lists, so if you wish to respond, at least tweak my talk page. MaxEnt 23:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow up: I hadn't looked at your comment on the talk page. Your unstated suposition is that the edges of the digon must be great circles.  Why great circles?  The intersection of two mediocre circles also forms a figure with two edges and two vertices.  That figure is not a digon?  What is it then?  MaxEnt 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Polygons are assumed to have straight lines, the shortest distance between two points. On the surface of a sphere, straight lines are great circles. Two (different) great circles only meet at two antipodal points. This defines the digon. If you include curved boundaries, you have something different - what's a triangle called with circle arc edges? I don't know. Tom Ruen 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

template problem
Hello. Can you address the concern raised at template talk:Semireg polyhedra db? Thanks. Michael Hardy 17:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Lunar eclipses
Just wanted to say thank you for all your hard work on 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse - it has not gone unnoticed ! Gandalf61 09:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, not too much actual work, and a fun topic I've neglected. An idea I don't have time to support is crazy-nested-templates for a database, which allows easy conversion into different table formats, from an eclipse summary table, to stat boxes. (Looks like for polyhedra Template:Reg_polyhedra_db which is ugly but actually easy to generate from an Excel table.) Tom Ruen 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gregoriancalendarleap.png
Do you have the excel file you used as source data for this? I would like to see if I can derive versions for other calendars. —Random832 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll look for it, or re-create, might take a couple days... Tom Ruen 18:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What defines "zero" on the vertical scale? —Tamfang 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just centered by min/max range within the graph domain. Tom Ruen 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Meetup RSVP
 Minnesota Meetup Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00) Pracna on Main 117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota Map Please pass this on! RSVP here.  Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

i love books
What can you tell me about the Sommerville book? Do you have it? —Tamfang 04:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Anton. I just got a copy. Last chapter on regular polytopes is very good, includes elliptic, Euclidean and hyperbolic forms, naming them like 333 for tetrahedron. The last page has a table of all of them. He talks about homogeneous polytopes and honeycombs in n dimensions meaning regular topology rather than needing geometric scaled lengths. He shows Schlegel diagrams, linear and curved, and considers them equally as homogeneous polytopes, not just as projections. Much good material to share when I have more time. Tom Ruen 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions on IRV article
Please see Peer review/Instant-runoff voting/archive1. I think what needs to happen to get this to featured article status is that one of us needs to write an outline and basically rewrite the article, using the outline as a guide to copy whatever content from the existing article can be salvaged into the new structure, and introducing new content as needed. Now it's just a question who should do it. Once we get a suitable article posted that addresses the reviewer's concerns, we can then nominate it as a featured article candidate. From that point, it's just a matter of addressing whatever concerns are raised in that process, and of course remaining vigilant to reverse any bad edits until it gets approved as a Featured Article. If you do decide to make such a major overhaul, be sure to use Template:Inuse so that we avoid a situation where two people are trying to overhaul it at once. I have also posted this message to User talk:Tbouricius. Are there any others who may be interested in this? Captain Zyrain 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not in a position of time (or talent) to lead a rewrite, but glad for the suggestion and goal. I'll try to keep a watch on activity and see where I can contribute. Tom Ruen 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please help us!
Hi Tomruen. I am here to ask your help. I am an Italian wikipedian and I write on it.wikipedia too obviously. In these months a new user has created there some new articles on graph theory and polyhedra, spreading concern to the community on effective trustworthiness. At he moment, several of these articles are facing the “deletion process” under the Wikipedia rules. In the relevant discussions, users are often baffled by the huge topic complexity and votes for keeping articles hoping they will be improved one day or another. Here I ask for your help. Let’s consider this article it:supercubo. In the relevant talk I asked to this author a brighter classification in term of contiguity with the pentachoron. I simply asked if its “supercube” is a pentachoron or pentachorons are supercubes. The answer was ''"zero order supercube" is a folded Polyhedron. On the contrary the en.wiki Pentachron is published by me in it.wikipedia as first species hypertetrahedron in order to differentiate it from “second species hypertetrahedron” and “third species hypertetrahedron”''. After this puzzling answer and giving a look to his self promoted original works here it:Immagine:Supercubo di ordine zero - Studi.jpg (zero order supercube) included "supercubo" article, I voted for deletion. What is your opinion on this ? Please answer me here on my it.wiki talk or by e-mail: the correct graph/polyedra theory start on it.wikipedia is now based on you! Thanks for your help. --EH101 12:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm sorry, hard to follow the terminology and I don't read Italian. I've never heard of a supercube (hypercube?). A hypertetrahedron=simplex? I can translate with babelfish as that helps a little, but I still can't really make much sense of it. Tom Ruen 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do have some Italian and I can't make much sense of it. It seems to be a class of abstract polytopes, to which neither the pentachoron nor the hypercube belongs: the pentachoron is excluded because the faces must be quadrilateral, and the hypercube is excluded because the number of vertices minus one (7) exceeds degree of each vertex (4).  —Tamfang 04:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

images and voting systems
Seeing as you like images and voting systems, I thought you should look at Image:Condorcet Method argument map.png. - Grumpyyoungman01 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Irregular dodecahedron.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Irregular dodecahedron.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Weaire-Phelan images
Hi Tom. The colour relationships are correct, and the license is free, so no problems. As a minor technical thought - if the pentagons of the W-P tetrakaidecahedron are extended past the hexagons, I do not know if they would all meet in a single apex, or in two apices witha short ridge in between. Cheers, anyway. -- Steelpillow 09:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Question
Is SockPuppetForTomruen your account? IrishGuy talk 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Tom Ruen 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and a bit of irony.
Thanks for your Keep comment in the AfD for Range voting. The nomination was pretty silly; the nominator smells like a sock (newly registered filing an AfD, though it's not as blatant as, say, User:Yellowbeard). The nominator solicited User:Tbouricius to comment on the AfD. I hope Bouricius isn't foolish enough to vote for Delete! You might advise him that if he'd like to look good, he can join you in voting Keep (it's not going to make any difference, I predict), and then proceed to work on bringing that article up to snuff, he's complained about it as if it were my article, which it isn't. Don't happen to have any articles other than "a", "an", and "the." Well, maybe a few more.... In any case, I was motivated specially to write you to point out that the nominator made this charge against you: and then reverted it. Odd, though. There *are* dozens of writers with articles on the rangevoting.org site, I think, and there are lots of people writing about it elsewhere as well. User:Yellowbeard got the Center for Range Voting article -- and many other voting methods articles -- deleted apparently because nobody was watching; I think CRV was notable then (2006), though perhaps marginal, almost certainly it is now. --Abd (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome for my obvious defense. I continue to be amazed by your soap opera world - we're all individuals, and I am not directed by anyone. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not *my* soap opera world, it's Wikipedia, around certain articles. I've never seen any sign that you are directed by anyone, so it's my turn to be amazed that you might make that statement. Indeed, I haven't seen any sign that *anyone* in all the voting methods mess is "directed" by anyone; but it's pretty obvious that Tbouricius was, technically, a meat puppet, probably recruited by Richie (from timing related to personal correspondence with Richie), which is why the administrator, I think, blocked him. But that doesn't make him an actual puppet, he's a much better writer than Richie and he has his own knowledge and intentions, and I have little trouble AGF with him, though he can be obtuse. If you've read what administrators, particularly User:Tariqabjotou wrote about the affair, you must understand that there has been quite a constellation of sock puppets and heavy-hand anonymous editors (i.e., Richie) around the IRV article, but it also affected other articles.

User:Yellowbeard hasn't been active lately, but he did a lot of damage to the voting methods articles (in addition to AfDing some articles that deserved it, such as the Schentrup method. *That* particular affair is actually paradigmatic. Yellowbeard registered and immediately AfD'd Schentrup method. I don't know how much you know about the outside politics of all this, but Clay Shentrup has been an almost rabid, at times, promoter of Range Voting and opponent of IRV. I don't know who put the article up, but it easily could have been him (the spelling of the name is odd, but, in fact, he misspelled it himself, in posts outside), in any case, it *was* his "method." (Really, almost a joke. A serious method in itself, to be sure, but not a new one and not notable and certainly not deserving of an article. It's really a Condorcet resolution method technique.) So that a new registrant immediately sets out to kill Schentrup method is a red flag waving that this is an SPA, politically motivated, and, since Yellowbeard showed serious familiarity with Wikipedia process (and loopholes), almost certainly a sock puppet. For whom, I don't know. It might be another incarnation of our friends, User:Acct4 and User:BenB4, the latter being an in-your-face sock on an old smelly foot. ("Ben here B4, eh?").

You may not find this interesting. I do; in fact, it's more interesting to me than voting methods, as such. My interest is in organizational structure, you could say it's my life work. And Wikipedia is a laboratory for some of the pathologies that arise. What works about Wikipedia, and what does not, is extremely valuable information, if observed and analyzed.

My complaint about your involvement has been that you clearly saw what was going on with the IRV article that was illegitimate, you knew much more about Wikipedia policy than many, and probably care about it, and you did nothing. Which is why I was pleased that you voted in the Range voting AfD, you could easily have stood back as before, no mud would have splashed on you. My expression of gratitude was actually more of a compliment, since I have no critical personal interest in the Range Voting article, and it's quite likely the AfD will fail, and would have failed without your comment, and even probably without mine. So it makes it easier for me to continue to assume good faith.

Article deletions are one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia. When an article is deleted, almost all trace of all the work that was done on it disappears. User:StrengthofNations has now created a new article History and use of instant-runoff voting which is a blatant fork of the IRV article, without discussion or consensus, and far more POV than anything currently in the voting methods articles. And I'm not going to AfD it. Why? Because it contains a lot of good research, I suspect, if someone does the work of sourcing it, and I don't want that research to be lost. It's quite possible that moving history and use to another article could simplify the main article.

There have been persistent suggestions that deleted articles be available to all users, not just to administrators; the argument which is advanced against that is that deletion should mean deletion; yet this ignores that there are two kinds of deletions: deletions for offensive or illegal material and deletions for non-notability or other encyclopedic unsuitability. These processes should be separated and handled differently. The latter should simply be a move to a deletion space. It would make notability deletion easier and less serious. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I rather despise the label meat puppet, don't believe ANYONE should be given any such an offensive sounding label if they honestly identify themselves. I'd support requiring users to give their identity, but accept no easy validation process. I stay away from edit wars because that's not why I'm here. I'd rather edit in peace elsewhere where I can make a difference. I do have some 2800 watches which means I undo a lot of random vandalism, and I let go whatever I can't evaluate quickly.


 * I've considered an alternative to Wikipedia, Citizendium, which requires people to register on their own names. It's an honorable attempt, and I sort of imagine a time where Wikipedia will stabilize enough that someone will be interested in "mining the gold" and moving it elsewhere, with a more controlled structure for modification. Even within Wikipedia, I see the idea of taking the software alpha/beta/release version approach, including potential branching alpha versions (which can be done now with subpages). I don't know what effect it would have on new users if they found an error/typo and could only correct it in an alpha update and have to wait for it to be merged into the release copy.


 * I have nothing against the power of inspired anarchy on Wikipedia, AND I think it's great how news content can sometimes appear on Wikipedia faster than news websites with paid staff, like on recent Comet Holmes where I've mostly been supporting pictures/charts as usual. I guess for facts Wikipedia is fine, while for analysis and opinion, it becomes hopelessly messy to my sense of order. Maybe at least I can't leave out my POV in my writing, and so I'd support something like Citizendium perhaps doing better on single author (or controlled collaboration) articles where you JOIN an article to contribute and must be accepted. I mean talk pages can still be used for wider feedback. That might be a way to "bring in the experts" in a way that protects their work. Not an encyclopedia, but a place for experts to go in depth on subjects they know about, just like publishing a printed book, but allowing greater feedback by more people.


 * Anyway, I am NOT interested in analysing users for their hidden or not so hidden agenda like you, but I do think you are by in large annoying and too verbose. Maybe you don't realize your volumes of writing are largely ignored and serve little but to push others away. Wikipedia debates are FAR too draining for me to participate in any satisifying or consistent way. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar
Thank you for your most wonderful contributions to this article! Cheers and have a wiki day! Mmoyer (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a proud contributor - you're welcome! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comet Holmes
Thank you, Tomruen.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

rhombihexahederon
Hi Tomruen,

We're about to send off a paper on the structure of CBr4. In it the diffuse scatter forms something very much like your rhombihexahedron, except that the sides of the triangles and the squares are not the same. In fact they are 1:sqrt(2) so that half of the squares are rectanlges (could send you a pretty pic if you give me an email at folmer.jaap on gmail dot kom). I wonder if there is a name for our beast and if you would help us name it?

nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.193.137 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Small rhombihexahedron? Or maybe like this: with rectangles? Tom Ruen (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The latter! 152.1.193.137 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Jcwf


 * If you're working on a Windows system, you can download this free software to draw the convex model with rectangular faces. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to learn your opinion please
Hi, Tomuren. Early morning today I took this image of the comet Holmes. Do you believe I should add to the article or the article has more than enough images already? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Square (geometry) revert
Thanks for doing that revert of "A square is a triangle." I'd been trying to make my computer behave and undo that edit for about 15 minutes. Of course, the network comes back as soon as someone else undoes the edit I was trying to... Cheers! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:ShouldBeSVG
What's the use in adding this template to an image?! I suppose the word should always bothers me. I can edit a bitmap but I can't edit a SVG, so converting an image I made means I can't improve it later, which is freakin' annoying, so unless you want to change an image now, forget the stupid template markers. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is Wikipedia policy to prefer vector images to raster images (see Preparing images for upload). Most of us use the free program Inkscape to edit SVGs.
 * I hope that helps! —Remember the dot (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have time or motivation to learn inkscape. Does it do anything better than hand-tracing an image? If a source image is rendered as a bitmap, it seems a waste of time and effort to hand-re-trace it. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Inkscape is a full-featured SVG editor. Again, please read Preparing images for upload to see why vector images are useful, and do not remove the ShouldBeSVG tags from any more images. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I WILL remove the tag if I think it's WRONG, and I still don't understand - it's senseless to me to convert a rendered source image to a hand-regenerate SVG. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you continue to remove the tags inappropriately then you will be blocked for violating Wikipedia policy. If you had read Preparing images for upload then you would understand that vector images scale better than raster images and are easier to modify. This is why they are preferred.
 * Perhaps you don't understand that we will not use a vector image over a raster image simply because it is a vector image. Rather, the vector image must be just as good or better than the raster image before we will switch to it. Does that make sense? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My position is really sympathy for not wasting someone else's time. If I make an image, then I have the greatest incentive to make it SVG. If I can't make an SVG one, then someone else must do almost as much work as me to RECREATE my original image as SVG. And if my original image was not the best layout or whatever then someone else is copying my dumpy work, which is a waste of their time. And if later I want to make a better image, then someone ELSE must again remaking MY work to do so. It is a senseless waste of time if the original image isn't from SVG in the first place. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Often it's worth the effort to vectorize images due to the benefits mentioned above. If an image has a bad layout then the person who's doing the vectorizing would hopefully correct the problem. But you're right: it's best if users just upload images in SVG format to begin with to save us the trouble. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Snub dodecahedron
Hi! I'm fixing some polyhedra pages in the italian wikipedia. I came upon the snub dodecahedron and I have a doubt on [this edit] of yours. I'd be grateful if you could please check it. By the way, thank you for all your polyhedra-related images, great work! --Zio illy (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regular apeirogons
Tom, your new graphic on the Apeirogon page is very nice, but it does not show a regular apeirogon. The reason is, that its sides are colored alternately blue and yellow. Coloring is important for polytopes, and affects their symmetry. What you have drawn is a uniform apeirotope: congruent vertices, and two kinds of regular side. -- Steelpillow (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. How about archiving some of the older topics on this Talk page?.


 * Hi Guy - you're right, sorry. I actually created it for a test table Talk:Permutohedron, intentionally bi-colored as a uniform polytope, and thought I'd drop it under apeirogon too. I'll clean it up in a bit. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: IRV
What do you want to bet that this edit doesn't get reverted? MilesAgain (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea. This has been discussed quite a bit and this argument has been advanced by others before. I'd suggest using Talk first. I'll revert. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Season's Greetings!

Firefox text collision


Here's what I'm seeing.

As soon as someone takes a look at FixBunching's problem with extra vertical whitespace, I'll put it back. MilesAgain (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)