User:Tomruen/archive12

Twitter
I have added your disaprovL to the bottom list in this section: Wikipedia_talk:External_links. There are other discussions regarding twitter and other social networking there and on WP:ELN. The one you keep reverting is also not appropriate, it fails our inclusion standards. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Boerdijk-Coxeter helix
I believe the editor means z=nh, not just h.   It's just a typo. He's getting the formulas from here: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/rbfnotes/helix/helix01.html -B


 * I figured something like that, but I didn't want to guess. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Tomruen/Semioperators
Would you happen to have a reference for Coxeter's semi operator? The closest I can find is in Conway's The Symmetries of Things, where he describes semi-snub, but not semi-anything else. -Apocheir (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This would be the main source, working in n-dimensions. It would more be called alternation and mainly looking at uniform polytopes rather than as general operators on any polytope or polyhedron. Conway's semi-snub tries to differentate between Kepler's snub and Coxeter's snub, an alternated truncation (ht), or an alternated truncated rectification (htr or hta). But I accept it is better to keep them separate from Conway operators, since they only work on even-sided or even-valence polyhedra, and square faces are degenerated into edges, so element counts are more complicated to count. As well, as an operator, alternation is ambiguous, leading to 2 sets of vertices, AND those sets are not identical in general. That's why I attempted an H1, H2 operators for either subset, but there's no way to say which is which in general. Coxeter/Johnson also have an a-operator (altered) which takes BOTH subsets as a compound, so h{4,3} is a tetrahedron from cube {4,3}, while a{4,3} is a compound of two tetrahedra. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Coxeter, H.S.M. Regular Polytopes, (3rd edition, 1973), Dover edition, ISBN 0-486-61480-8

Edit of Matt Gaetz bio
I am trying to improve the bio of Matt Gaetz--remembering that it is an article about a living person and that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article." The reference that I deleted --especially parts of it--is just hearsay. Charges were dropped and anything that was quoted as being said is not fact. (In case you wonder, I don't know Mr. Gaetz, but came across his article and saw that it was horribly written.) Paragraphs like I deleted are not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The facts of the subject mentioned in the paragraph are found further down the article. (Liz Sterling (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC))
 * , I agree caution is warranted. If you can write it in a better way, that's fine, but it's sourced to local newspapers. I don't see the content of DUI and speeding elsewhere. People may hear "rumors" and look to wikipedia to see what the facts are, and Wikipedia is now linking to source articles, so that looks good to me. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Panorama of eclipses
Thanks for your panorama of eclipses:
 * Saros-Inex_panorama.png

But you have the colors labeled wrong. Red should be annular and blue should be total. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I confirmed, and reversed the legend colors. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Creation of minor-planet object articles
Hi Tom, this online-tool might assist you in creating minor-planet object articles (MPOA). I'm a bit worried about the amount of unnumbered MPOAs you are creating and the backlog this creates for the overall project: do you plan to continue with that rate? Best,  R fassbind  – talk  05:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's very fancy to start with! I wondered how you did updates. I didn't have any specific plans, partly testing what visuals are good, but I did realize any effort is kind of random, even like picking close flybys lately. Probably more sensible to only add articles for ones that have Radar imaging, or some observations sources more than discovery. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In addition, there are many existing articles that may need revision. I just came across TNO-stub 2010 TH192, you created last summer. It seems that the objects does not exist. It was deleted at and all observational records were removed in the 2010+TH192 object view. Can you look into this, and decide whether this anomaly should be deleted or if it should be expanded? (Currently, only 2008 KV42 links to it). Best,   R fassbind  – talk  12:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I put 2010 TH192 up for deletion, since I also couldn't see any sign of its status, as you say, no observations listed at 2010+TH192, although I don't know what it means. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It was discovered to be a mothership of our alien overlords and it's been covered up by the Illuminati. (But if anyone asks you didn't hear it from me, okay?) nagualdesign 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no idea either, Tom. Maybe it was a false positive? Anyhow, deleting was probably the best thing we could do. Thx for amending as well.  R fassbind  – talk  22:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Magellan trajectory
Hi Tom, I'd like to remake File:Magellan - trajectory.png and I thought you might like to help me. I was just going to recolour the existing image but I noticed that the orbits were wrong. Could you create a 'top down' view of the terrestrial planets and their orbits in a similar orientation as the existing image (unless you think a different orientation would be better)? You can make it as large as you like, which is helpful for me, and I'll probably shrink it down afterwards. Cheers. nagualdesign 20:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

...Maybe call it File:Magellan trajectory.png? nagualdesign</b></b> 22:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, that image is more schematic. I'll see what I can do. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * JPL doesn't have the trajectory of Magellan (spacecraft). So you just want generic inner solar system orbits? Tom Ruen (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was hoping your software might have the proper trajectory. There's a link on the image file page to the original NASA image, but it doesn't show the first and second orbits and I'm not sure which image, if either, is correct. Celestia only has 3D models of the craft, without the trajectory. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 06:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been doing a bit of googling and there seems to be a dearth of available information. I know that there was a course correction en route, so it isn't as simple as working out the 'free-falling' orbital properties either. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 06:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried adding something basic, planets on 4/28/89 plus a transfer orbit. I put earth on the bottom just for simplicity of the ellipse alignment! Tom Ruen (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The orbits of the planets is obviously an improvement but the trajectory of Magellan is less accurate than the existing image (I'm guessing). I'll just leave it with you for now, and if you have any bright ideas as to where we can find some bona fide trajectory information please let me know, and I'll do the same. I'm a bit gutted that your data source (JPL?) doesn't have what we need. It surely exists though, so I guess we'll just have to keep our ears to the ground (or some more appropriate space-related metaphor). <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 06:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. JPL Horizons data is here . You can select spacecraft and "Display list" to see what they have, a long list, so surprising they don't have it. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, Tom. Unless you work for JPL, in which case I'll send you a strongly-worded letter. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 07:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I updated my image with the 540 degree orbit, assuming it is an ellipse and a half ellipse. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Image on Eclipse article
Hello! On Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012, I'm interested in changing the infobox image. Even though I've added the image parameter to the Infobox Solar Eclipse, it still shows the old image. I've seen this method used on other eclipse articles, like Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017. Is there a way to fix this?

Old image: File:Annular Eclipse. Taken from Middlegate, Nevada on May 20, 2012.jpg New image: File:Solar Eclipse May 20,2012.jpg

Thanks! Codyorb (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * can you help with this? I admit the new system confuses me. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Codyorb, the best place to add it is in Module:Solar eclipse/db/200. if you search that page, you will find   and   just change that to your new image and caption.  make sure to update both the image and the caption. Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm getting a red "320px" message on where the image is located in the article. Is there a way you can fix this? Codyorb (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the error with this edit. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Article brush-up
Hi Tom, just to let you know that I revised recently created NEO article 2018 DV1. In case you haven't noticed this article yet you may want to check it and improve upon. Best,  R fassbind  – talk  14:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Earth orbit invisible on Juno orbital diagram
Thanks for the beautiful and clean renderings of orbits for various solar system objects. On the orbital diagram for Juno I noticed that Earth's orbit is missing. Can you please amend the picture accordingly? Kind regards, — JFG talk 09:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wonder how that happened. I replaced it with an update. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. — JFG talk 15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A/2018 C2
Hello Tom, Horizons shows the heliocentric eccentricity of A/2018 C2 drops below 1 starting with an epoch of July 2022. I was wondering if you could make a plot of the eccentricity dropping below 1 as an illustration for the Wikipedia article. It would be a great visual aid. I am thinking heliocentric to demonstrate how the eccentricity can start >1 near perihelion and become <1 while exiting the planetary region. 2018C2 is not really a borderline case that requires barycentric solutions. -- Kheider (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. JPL Horizons exports parameters, but I'll have to parse it with a little script first. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I uploaded graph 2000-2035, File:A2018-C2 eccentricity.png. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Kheider (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:B9 Coxeter plane graphs an Template:B10 Coxeter plane graphs
Hi, just in case you hadn't realised your edit to Template:B9 Coxeter plane graphs appears to have thrown up some missing images on 9-orthoplex, Rectified 9-cubes and Rectified 9-orthoplexes, and similarly with edits to Template:B10 Coxeter plane graphs causing missing images on 10-orthoplex, Rectified 10-cubes and Rectified 10-orthoplexes. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ultima Thule
Hello. I've retargetted back to Thule for now, as this explains the primary meaning of Ultima Thule with a hatnote to the disambiguation page. I can see a case for moving Ultima Thule (disambiguation) to Ultima Thule, but simply redirecting to Thule leaves a malplaced dab with lots of incoming wikilinks. Certes (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Your vertex figure images
Hi Tom, do you really think it was a good idea to remove the background color from some of your vertex figure images? You did it only to a small subset of these images, and even those were much clearer before. Would you mind if I change it back? I would also like to crop some of them - including the two shown here. Watchduck (quack) 17:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Now you reverted the one picture I used as an example. That just makes the image set more inconsistent, now even within the Archimedean solids. I tend to interpret you revert as consent to bring back the blue backgrounds. Watchduck (quack) 00:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not looked in general, but I agree a white line doesn't work if the background is transparent. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, I should regenerate them all as SVG. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

c:Commons:Overwriting existing files (don't)
Right above you can see how asking someone for permission to overwrite their images works. And in the description of files like you can see the sentence: Please do not overwrite this image - especially not with a cropped version. Was that too hard to read, or do you just not care?! The main files in this category show solids that all share the same midsphere, which requires most of them to have a margin. I uploaded perspectives without margins with " max" added to the file name, and some day I will do so for the orthographic projections too. (For now I will revert your edits, and upload the crops also with the " max" extension.) Please do not overwrite my images again without using my talk page first. Ideally you would not do this with anyone's files, including your own. (See above.) Watchduck (quack) 19:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize, easily undone right? There was no content lost in my view. I crop other people's images all the time and normally don't have a problem. Many people don't seem to have any cropping tools when they upload. Tom Ruen (talk)


 * Generally cropping is fine. In this case I was a bit annoyed, because I explicitly asked not to. In the meantime I have uploaded crops of all the Archimedean orthos.
 * Same topic: Please do not break the consistency of an image set by overwriting some of its images in a different style - even if they are your own. I have reverted hyperbolic domains 932 and 642, and uploaded the variants as separate files. It might be a good idea not to overwrite anything but obvious errors.
 * Just as a reminder: Please keep image sets together in their own category. These images by Roice3 were all over the place (just like those uploaded by himself). Whenever you throw all images of a set in a big category, you are destroying information that you already have.
 * Maybe you want to help with the categories around c:Category:Honeycombs (geometry). I am not quite sure which tilings are honeycombs and which are not. Watchduck (quack) 12:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Polygon subsymmetry diagrams
I notice that the new ones (22, 26, 28, 34) don't have these whereas the older ones do (24, 30, 32, etc.); is there a chance that they might be added for the new ones? Thanks in advance! Double sharp (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I planned to, but didn't feel any rush. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

New NEO flyby templates
Hi Tom, plz let me know whether you plan to add a documentation and talk page to the recently created templates If so, I suggest to create a single documentation for both of them (as done with mp, mpl,mpl- etc.). R fassbind – talk  09:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * and
 * I hadn't planned anything. I was just collecting 's work. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Honeycube?
Hi, can you check if the Demihexeractic honeycomb is really also called Demihexeractic honeycube? I can find no reference to support the use of the term honeycube! PS I don't really know anything on the topic, I am just hunting out weird words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It was a typo. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Position of Voyager 1 during the "Pale Blue Dot" image in 1990
Dear User:Tomruen and User:Nagualdesign, I would like to use the following image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Voyager_1_-_14_February_1990.png in a speech. I was wondering, if Voyager 1 took the "Pale Blue Dot" image on February 14, 1990, the than state of science was, that Pluto is a planet. This means, it would be interesting to see the orbit of Pluto in the image too. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Portrait_(Voyager) Voyager 1 did not surpassed Pluto's orbit on February 14, 1990. "... was not included because its small size and distance from the Sun left it too dim to image..." Maybe you already created a version of the picture that includes Pluto's orbit.

Regards, --Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi!, I certainly could make one with Pluto, although another editor prettified my generated image. I think I mainly skipped Pluto because it is significantly off the ecliptic plane, and so it can confuse the diagram a little. I added the vertical marker "ramp" to help show one target object off the ecliptic plane. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting idea but, as Tom mentioned, it would probably be difficult for readers to see the tilted plane. As you're probably aware, the inner planets plus Jupiter look like they're on the same plane (the differences from that vantage point are imperceptible) but the orbits of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are noticeably tilted. I've tried to show that, albeit rather subtly, in File:Voyager 1 - 14 February 1990.png where the orbits pass through the "ramp" - near but not at the bottom (the ecliptic plane). If the reader misses that idea it hardly matters, but I expect the orbit of Pluto would be a different matter entirely. I don't mind tying it out though, when I have the time. Watch this space...
 * Regarding the use of the image, feel free, and I'm glad that you're making use of it. By rights, the license requires you to include an attribution, but I wouldn't worry about it. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 01:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Barycentric
Where are you getting the barycentric data used in the Planet Nine article? I've noticed an odd pattern in the heliocentric data from JPL small bodies database for high perihelion comets (111 of them with q>5.5 AU) and have been wondering if it goes away if barycentric data are used instead. Agmartin (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The soon-to-be-published paper lists barycentric. Here's a copy of the table. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Agmartin (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

LD, not AU, on near-Earth asteroid diagram, "2010 WC9-2018flyby.png"?
Should the distances on the near-Earth asteroid diagram be labeled LD rather than AU (for 0.52 AU, etc.)?

Qwertyzoop (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch, absolutely! I fixed it. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

toastmasters
you left me an alert, but I cannot see all of your comment.  DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Polyhedron kaleidoscope triangles3.png
You uploaded or restored, File:Polyhedron kaleidoscope triangles3.png, but for various reasons did not add an information block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, please include own in the relevant source field, amend the information added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add  and an  to the media by uploader or presumed_self tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or own, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

It's okay to remove or strike this message once the issue has been resolved :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also File:Polyhedron truncation example2.png ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

John Iadarola
Per the discussion Articles for deletion/John Iadarola (2nd nomination) as Iadarola's career has grown, I have added additional sources covering his primary hosting of "True North" and "The Damage Report" series with additional non TYT sources. This is in addition to his daily hosting duties on the TYT main show. I have reactivated the article to mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

File usage permission
Hello,

I would like to use the file for M.C. Escher's "Circle Limit III" in my thesis, and I am wondering if I am allowed to do so. My thesis deals with hyperbolic geometry, and I find that this particular image illustrates beautifully the metric in the Poincaré disk model, but I would hate to infringe any copyright regulations in place.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best, Imiordanov (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iordan! The image is copyrighted, and Wikipedia just has a small 400 pixel image, See at: File:Escher_Circle_Limit_III.jpg under "fair use". I don't know the licensing details beyond this. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Tom, and thank you for your answer! I will come in contact with the copyright holder to get more details. Have a great day! imiordanov (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse infoboxes
Hello there. I see that you created many of the Wikitable "infoboxes" in the lunar eclipse articles. I just wanted to let you know that I have started to replace some of them with Infobox lunar eclipse and fill in some missing information. Seeing that you have worked on these articles significantly in the past and have been involved with that infobox template, I wanted to know if you have any suggestions or objections to this. EclipseDude (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks good. You might want to look at solar eclipses which use a database approach for central storage of fields, easier to update many that way then editing each article stat table individually, and easier to update if new fields are added. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

YT-video
Have you seen this this SciShow video on YouTube? R fassbind – talk  02:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! Cool he linked my graphics! He didn't need to include my name in the video, but nice of him. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Planet Nine
Hey Tom, I don't understand one of your recent edits, here. You replaced the ref by nowiki, which has broken the link (hence why I changed it back). If there's a problem with using ref in that instance then I'm happy to turn it into something else, but just breaking the link entirely can't be a solution. Renerpho (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , references are troublesome in talk since they all collect together at the bottom of the talk page and don't make any sense when new comments/sections are added. If you want a link, its better to just put in brackets, like . Tom Ruen (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Why the nowiki? Renerpho (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The nowiki tag just turns off markups which was the most transparent way to remove the problem. Usually when people put refs in talk it is because they've copied something from an article for evaluation, so nowiki adding no wiki leaves the content unchanged, and stops the misuse of reflists at the end of the talk page. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. Looks like can be added to talk pages to position references above the bottom of the page. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Compound of tesseract and 16-cell
Thanks for creating Compound of tesseract and 16-cell.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

"Please add your references."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Election page moves
An RfC just concluded with the consensus to name election pages year first. The link to the RfC should be in the page move log. This is an undertaking that will take time because of how many relevant pages there are. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then they should all be moved at the same time. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are thousands and thousands of these pages. A bot is doing page moves, but even then, this will take days, maybe more than a week to finish. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then they should be systematic, and move all same-type elections at once. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how they set up the bot, but even doing it systematically, which I presume they are, this process will take time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)