User:Tomruen/archive5

NASA Eclipse Images edit

Hello, you uploaded some Eclipse graphs showing a globe which you say are from http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/. One of them is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SE2011Jan04P.png . It looks like the source for this one could be http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OHfigures/OH2011-Fig01.pdf . The only difference is that your images have borders that are more than 20 years old (USSR, Germany,...) and the borders on the NASA website are more recent. How come? You uploaded this picture in 2009. --141.30.25.68 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NASA recently replaced their maps from older GIF to newer PDF, updating the maps to vector graphics. So the uploaded bitmaps are cropped from larger, older GIF versions. (The only ones are still there apparently, [1]) I imagine it might be possible to convert the PDF images to SVG (that wikipedia uses), since both vector plots, but PDF are encoded, so it would take someone smart to do it. (Someone could do screen copies of PDF, save as PNG, and upload replacements. If someone wants to do that for current events, that could be done, even if an incomplete long term solution.) The wrong country borders are annoying, but not essential to the astronomy! (The PDF are limited (at best) to events in 1901-2100, I think, while the GIF maps go back to 2000BC and forward to 3000AD.) I Tom Ruen (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, edit

I guess I'll just do that; minus the personal stuff. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard Klitzing edit

Hello Tomruen -- I am thinking about researching and creating an article on Richard Klitzing. As you probably know, there are a lot of red links to this geometer. I am surprised that nobody else has done it yet. Do you think this is a good idea? (For an example of an article I created, see Marc Culler.) --Foobarnix (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to defend as notable, partly on the English wikipedia since he's German, although most of his papers are in English. He just published a new paper, but only a reference online. Anyway, a bio might link some of his published papers, but nothing public about him personally that can be referenced. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Symmetry: Culture and Science, Richard Klitzing, Snubs, alternated facetings, and Stott-Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams Volume 21, Number 4, pages 305-480 (2010)

I think you are right. I did preliminary research and it is difficult to find out anything about him--even in German media. Thanks for your comments.--Foobarnix (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be remaking the reference links to his uniform polytopes as a template, and I'll leave his name unlinked there, unless some future date it can be added. (Actually for now, it's useful ([2]), so I can FIND all the references that need to be replaced!) Tom Ruen (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Kepler-11 lineup edit

I like your diagram of the Kepler-11 system.

Would you mind if I made an SVG version (with Kepler-11 itself also to scale, so that only part of the right side is visible in the image)?

You don't seem to have any permission info on the image page.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedalusCretus (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I could try myself, but can't do it quickly, still learning SVG. You can remake as SVG if you like. I also noticed I labeled wrong - planets scaled up by 50x, so I fixed that. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Our attempt was successful only in that it was tried: edit

I fulfilled your request, and was met by two 'fronts'; a stone wall and silence. All that I am seeking is a "simple" ruling on this matter. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. So your issue is (1) A possible error in the paper (written by Lisi), and (2) the wikipedia article about the paper, written by others about the paper. These are distinct fronts as you say. The wikipedia article can't deal with errors in the paper, unless there's clear publish sources to reference corrections. OTOH, stating concerns to errors on the wikiarticle is useful, even if no immediate response. As to the paper, and Lisi, I'd hope there was an avenue for communication. I'm myself not in a position to evaluate the paper or article. Sorry I can't help more. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Tom, how is everything? The original issue is, as I mentioned, the same as now. It has nothing to do with the wikipedia article so Scratch "and (2)". The ruling that I've mentioned deals specifically with the sentence [in Sci Am] that I described, and the 'two versions' of this sentence that I also described. Only one is correct. Indulge me, please, by letting me say that the tables-are-turned and I am a little confused: namely that I went directly to A. G. Lisi's mailbox and received your reply that refers to "a hope of communication". As Always ~ Betaclamp (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All resolved. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good - what was the answer? A typo or misunderstanding? Tom Ruen (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Commonist edit

With Commonist, what is the punctuation for two Categories? —Tamfang (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just direct substitution I thought?! Tom Ruen (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Direct substitution of what?

Does the categories box want "[[Category:Hyperbolic tilings]] [[Category:Poincaré Disc]]" or "Hyperbolic tilings, Poincaré Disc" or ...? —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First one! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

message for you edit

I left you a message in the section Disambiguating hyperbolic plane of User talk:Tomruen/polyhedron db testing. I am not sure you got it. Thank you for your time. P.s., Your diagrams are awesome!--Foobarnix (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Virus capsid geometry image request edit

I started a new section on viral capsids T-number, which is a simple class of polyhedrons. I really like your images of existing polyhedrons and wondered if you would interested in adding to the chart. It is mainly just hexagons and pentagons.

Specially for the Icosahedron , Truncated icosahedron and Truncated rhombic triacontahedron .

--vossman (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, at Capsid#T-number. I'll look more when I get a chance. Are there other forms that can be generated? Do you have sample images? This Jscript can generate many from a seed icosahedral symmetry (I) with topological rules applied: [3]. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the link. I added some of the Conway notations. Need to think more about the others. What program do you use to render the surfaces? --vossman (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://antiprism.com/programs/geodesic.html —Tamfang (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Bridge move edit

Sorry, I've moved a number of articles and thought I did it correctly. How is moving done properly without losing the edit history? Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a down arrow on the upper right with a "move" menu option, goes to [4], and moves are allowed sometimes, but some rule disables a move due to too many edits/editors, after which case you have to request a move, and leave a time for comments by other users. If it is disabled think you might just start with a talk page section "== request move==" and explain the request and see if others agree. I don't know what the proper convention is for upper/lower case in article titles. Goodluck! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rectangle article edit

Hi. On 2 October 2009 you put a section "Tesselations" into the article Rectangle, and you asserted that they are isogonal. Now another editor has disputed that and has deleted the word isogonal. Would you like to join the discussion of this on the article's talk page? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Quasitruncation edit

Do you think you could help with User:4/Quasitruncation? I was thinking of adding a section on that to Truncation (geometry). 4 T C 13:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Its something I've not looked at before. Apparently the terms are used in Models 92,93 of Wenninger's Polyhedron Models, coined by Norman Johnson for the first publication of the book. I added some BS'y starting explanations at Stellated_truncated_hexahedron, and Great_truncated_cuboctahedron. You can see the 4/3 terms are like 4, except considered backwards squares, just like 5/2 is a 2-step pentagram, and 5/3 is backwards pentagram, and 5/4 is a backwards pentagon!

I searched the PolyList archives and lots of matches. On a quick glance, the explanation might be to see that a truncation always has a degree, and a uniform truncation is defined so all edges are equal, which comes out to 1/3 cuts on triangular faces for instance, and 1/(2+sqrt(2)) for squares. However it is mathematically possible to imagine a truncation as going from 0% (none) to 100% (rectification), and FURTHER into the negative up to -100% where the edges are completely backwards, and I'm assuming the face plane might be moved also? So by that logic there might be a uniform truncation as perhaps -1/(2+sqrt(2)) which generates a uniform star polyhedron. It might be something like that! Perhaps doing some operations on polygons might show this graphically and see if it makes sense! Tom Ruen (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, works out pretty well on a sketch. The truncated edges are "flipped", so an octagon becomes an octagram. At least partly explained, not sure how the 8/3 comes out, except as 4/3 doubled! I guess my graphic should say t{4/3} --> 8/3! And qt{n}=t{n/(n-1)}? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

An interesting E8 symmetry edit

Tom, I think I have found a very beautiful E8 symmetry (not purely rotational as in the Coxeter planes). I was wondering if you would try generating some of your beautiful rectifications and truncations on it. I did a first pass without rectifications and it has 120 non-overlap and 24x2 & 24x3 overlaps (not shown in coloring of the pic below, which has physics particle size/shape/color scheme).
x=(2-4/√3, 0, 1-1/√3, 1-1/√3, 0, -1, 1, 0)
y=(0, -2+4/√3, -1+1/√3, 1-1/√3, 0, 1/√3, 1/√3, -2/√3)

Jgmoxness (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I tried 4 9, removed edge lines for most for smaller files: Tom Ruen (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

4₂₁ (Colors: 1 2 3)	t₁(4₂₁) (Colors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14)	t₂(4₂₁) (Colors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 27 34)
t₀₁(4₂₁) (Colors 1 2 3 4 5 6)	t₃(4₂₁)	t₄(4₂₁) (Colors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 46 47 50 51 52 55 56 60)
2₄₁	t₁(2₄₁)	1₄₂ (Colors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 16 18 19 20)

Wow - Thanks! Given the overlaps in the first one, I think this may help tease out a possibly physical relationship between the E8 to H4 & F4 Dynkin foldings.Jgmoxness (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably similar to Benoit Mandelbrot, this gives me a feeling that there are much deeper symmetries involved here.

(I had to laugh at what seems to be smiling clown faces in the 1₄₂ ;-)

Jgmoxness (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It does look close to the D₄ Coxeter plane, rotated so E6 symmetry visible, 72 points split into 1₂₂, and 27 points split into 2₂₁! Tom Ruen (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears like D4 and E6/F4 are orthogonal planes and this projection is a double rotation between these planes? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The E6 projection has that same ratio in the first four basis vector dimensions. The difference is in the last three of the 8 dimensions of the basis vectors.Jgmoxness (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've felt a bit intimidated by rotations between Coxeter planes. Do you know how to parametrically define this progression plane (double?)-rotation from D4 towards E6? Tom Ruen (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

4₂₁ polytope
D₄ - E₆ (?)	D₄	E₆/F₄
(240: 1x,2x,3x)	(240: 1x,27x,72x)	(240: 1x,8x,24x)
6D polytopes
	1₂₂ (72 points: 1x, 2x)	2₂₁ (27 points: 1x, 3x)

Polytopes on discussion at WikiProject Mathematics edit

Tom,

Some of the higher dimensional polytopes are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Polytope articles. You might like to participate.--Salix (talk): 07:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom, your post there has some obvious bloopers (like "an published" for "an unpublished"). Are you gonna clean them up? Shall I? —Tamfang (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed one. I'm going offline, if you see any others. :) Tom Ruen (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

SIMPLEX POINT PICKING edit

Tom,

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia so please forgive me for not sigining my response to your page on the unit simplex--I didn't know how to do it (perhaps still don't). Per your suggestion, I did find the section I was looking for in the history of this page. But, as I mentioned, there are articles on the Internet that reference the older version containing the section on Simplex Point Picking.

Since you are a more experienced user of Wikipedia, what do you say to my writing an article on Simplex Point Picking and then referencing (among other references) your article on the unit simplex? I think I can provide a few more details on the subject than the originial article.

I have recently learned I have a user workspace (if I can find it!) where I can develop my articles before posting them. Skinnerd (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Skinnerd

Sorry, don't have the time to help now. Referencing old copies is a legitimate way to source wikipedia links on the web, guaranteeing the content referenced will be there. There's a "toolbox" option on the right "Permanent link" that creates this current URL, and you can get old ones from the history as I showed. Your online references should link to the old copy. On the removal itself, the claim was the algorithm was unreferenced, so it could be restored with references, or moved to a separate article? You could copy it to a test user page like User:Skinnerd/Simplex_Point_Picking and edit there for practice. Good luck! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD for List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes edit

Nomination of List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes for deletion edit

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I see you have already commented at the AfD. I place the notification on your talk page anyway, in order to follow the procedure. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Saturn edit

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(Just testing this template, really. delete at will.)

Special Request edit

File:Solar1970.gif is awesome! Since I live in Tampa, FL, I would love to see one for Solar_eclipse_of_August_12,_2045. Will I live to 70? I don't know, but this animation would come a close 2nd ;) TimL (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see, at Solar_eclipse_of_March_7,_1970. I'll try (2045) when I have a moment! Tom Ruen (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw the article was missing this existing animation, File:SE2045Aug12T.gif, so I added it. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an automated process you can do to create these in a batch, but what you create is way better than the NASA animations IMO. (More to come.) TimL (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The animations must be one-by-one for now, but I can generate a sequence of images by automation, picking a view, start time, and time interval, and number of frames. I really need to add a view option that keeps the view over the same lat/long, rather than letting the earth rotate away. The NASA images are limited to like 1990-2050, so it is nice I can make any, including "Halley's eclipse" over England, Solar_eclipse_of_May_3,_1715, amazing to compare his map to the modern calculations! Tom Ruen (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That is really cool what you can do. Another idea would be to keep the view centered on the eclipse. TimL (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quick attempt:

That is beautiful. Can it can be slowed down a bit? May be a bit choppy I suppose, but might be a good tradeoff. TimL (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK so I just needed a GIF animator for Mac. Here is what I like for speed: Half Speed Thoughts? TimL (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably should have more frames rather than a lower framerate, sorry no time now for improvement. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar! edit

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For creation and submission to the public domain of wonderful animations like File:Solar1970.gif and File:Saturn timelapse-29 years.gif I award you with exuberance the Graphic Designer's Barnstar! TimL (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar! edit

		The Space Barnstar
		I, Kerowyn, hereby award Tomruen the Space Barnstar, in recognition of a frankly crazy amount of work on individual eclipse articles! ~ Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Solar Saros 136 edit

Hi. I added some details about saros 136. I was wondering if they should be added to the template. I really don't understand having summary information included in the template. It's makes for a compromise to add information to the Saros 136 article. I understand the need to template the table, but having summary information seems to complicate things. Also, do you know why the article doesn't have a TOC? Does that have something to do with the templating?

You can add {{TOC left}} to force inclusion of a TOC and location. I think it only adds if there sufficient number of sections, maybe 3? Feel free to experiment. I did many things quickly and didn't know what was best either. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting (to me) saros observation edit

Scouring NASA's eclipse tables, it seems solar saros cycles always begin at the second of two consecutive month's eclipses and always end during the first of two consecutive month's eclipses, i.e the beginning of a saros always follows an eclipse that occurred the previous month. There must be a reason for this, or a meaning to it that I fail to grasp. TimL (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, after a little thought, I figured it out. A saros always begins at the extreme end of the node (as the sun is leaving the eclipse window) and vice versa. Makes perfect sense now. TimL (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Saros_cycle#Example:_Lunar_Saros_131 edit

This section has a very long table. Would you consider creating an animation instead, like the one I put up for the solar saros? The table conveys similar information has is presented in the image above it regarding the cycle of lunar saros. --TimL (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

varying length of tropical year edit

Wanna make a graph? See Talk:Tropical year#Proposal of new sub-section. —Tamfang (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have Excel? Just a line plot? Tom Ruen (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have OpenOffice, and I guess I could learn to make graphs. (I thought of you because of your leapday graphs.) —Tamfang (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I did paste it into Excel and graphed it. Looks pretty random, but somewhat alternating high/low, and a 20 year beat frequency perhaps? I don't want the graph unless it can be explained! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's explained by orbital perturbations, which are inherently chaotic. Did you graph the individual deviations or the cumulative? I think the latter is more likely to be interesting. —Tamfang (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I graphed what was listed (offsets, deviations!) The cumulative graph seems a net drift ~50 minutes positive. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lunar eclipse animation edit

Hello, Tomruen. You have new messages at Ufo karadagli's talk page.
Message added 19:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A kitten for you! edit

Wikilove is sentimental sap with sharp claws

Tom Ruen (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's one scary kitty. —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First priority - trim claws ;-)Jgmoxness (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you! edit

For your tireless work on eclipses. You've made WP a great place to explore them. (If you don't drink, I'll take it.) TimL (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wideblank.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wideblank.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. –Drilnoth (T/C) 10:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A little puzzle for you edit

Hi Tom Ruen,

I've discovered this amazing sequence of matrix products that I thought you'd be interested in. Can you figure out what it represents? :)

A_{1}=\left[{\begin{array}{c}-1\\1\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{c}1\end{array}}\right]

A_{2}=\left[{\begin{array}{cc}-1&-1\\1&-1\\0&2\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}\end{array}}\right]

A_{3}=\left[{\begin{array}{ccc}-1&-1&-1\\1&-1&-1\\0&2&-1\\0&0&3\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{ccc}1&0&0\\0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}&0\\0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {6}}}\end{array}}\right]

A_{4}=\left[{\begin{array}{cccc}-1&-1&-1&-1\\1&-1&-1&-1\\0&2&-1&-1\\0&0&3&-1\\0&0&0&4\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{cccc}1&0&0&0\\0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}&0&0\\0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {6}}}&0\\0&0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {10}}}\end{array}}\right]

A_{5}=\left[{\begin{array}{ccccc}-1&-1&-1&-1&-1\\1&-1&-1&-1&-1\\0&2&-1&-1&-1\\0&0&3&-1&-1\\0&0&0&4&-1\\0&0&0&0&5\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{ccccc}1&0&0&0&0\\0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}&0&0&0\\0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {6}}}&0&0\\0&0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {10}}}&0\\0&0&0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {15}}}\end{array}}\right]

A_{6}=\left[{\begin{array}{cccccc}-1&-1&-1&-1&-1&-1\\1&-1&-1&-1&-1&-1\\0&2&-1&-1&-1&-1\\0&0&3&-1&-1&-1\\0&0&0&4&-1&-1\\0&0&0&0&5&-1\\0&0&0&0&0&6\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{cccccc}1&0&0&0&0&0\\0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}&0&0&0&0\\0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {6}}}&0&0&0\\0&0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {10}}}&0&0\\0&0&0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {15}}}&0\\0&0&0&0&0&{\frac {1}{\sqrt {21}}}\end{array}}\right]

Sorry for the spamminess of the math notation... I wanted to make sure the pattern is clear. The numbers under the square root sign in the matrices on the right are successive triangular numbers.

Hint #1: The rows of the resulting matrix should be considered as row vectors.

Hint #2: Try multiplying out some of the matrices (it's not hard to do by hand), esp. $A_{2}$ and $A_{3}$ . Do the rows look familiar?

Hint #3: Notice that the sum of every column in the left matrix is 0, which in turn implies that the sum of every column in the product is also 0. What does this tell you about the sum of rows in the product (treating them as row vectors)?

Hint #4: Try computing the norm of the difference between pairs of rows in the product (treating them as row vectors, of course). What does this imply?

Hint #5: The answer is related to polytopes. :)

I hope you liked this. :)—Tetracube (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks very interesting, but no guesses for me now. Sorry. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been inactive on WP. The spoiler is here.—Tetracube (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Rankballotnumber2.gif listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rankballotnumber2.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Onevoteballotname.gif listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Onevoteballotname.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Onevoteballotmark.gif listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Onevoteballotmark.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rosette_nebula_Lanoue.png edit

Thanks for uploading File:Rosette_nebula_Lanoue.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved --TimL (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Type size on Finite Dynkin diagrams edit

The text on File:Finite Dynkin diagrams.svg should be larger, as it is in File:Affine Dynkin diagrams.png. Without the labels it's a glob of graphics, for Dynkin diagram's purposes. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't see you'd changed it until now. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonconvex uniform polychora edit

I know there are way too many (1500+ at least) nonconvex uniform polychora known at this point to make an article on each one, but do you think the three ditrigonals, which happen to be the nonconvex semiregulars under Gosset's definition, deserve articles? They're sidtaxhi (small ditrigonal 600-120-cell), dattady (ditrigonal dis-120-cell) and gidtaxhi (great ditrigonal 600-120-cell) and are indexed 764, 765 and 766 in the list of uniform polychora. (I don't have Stella4D, so could you help on the images if you decide to create the articles? Thanks.) I've talked some more about this at Talk:Thorold Gosset. 4 T C 05:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry , outside my scope of interest for now. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Some more degenerates edit

Could you help me with small complex rhombicosidodecahedron (sicdatrid/scrid), complex rhombidodecadodecahedron (cadditradid/cridid) and great complex rhombicosidodecahedron (gicdatrid/gicrid)? Thanks. (Also could you make some dual images??) 4 T C 06:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Polychoron articles edit

Why did you merge things like thi (truncated 120-cell), xhi (bitruncated 120-cell) and tex (truncated 600-cell/tritruncated 120-cell)?? They're quite different polychora, and if we were consistent, we should merge tic (truncated cube and toe (truncated octahedron/bitruncated cube). 4 T C 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be related to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2011/May#Polytope_articles notability for individual polytope articles is limited.--Salix (talk): 14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was my best attempt to consistently group the uniform polytopes above 3-dimensions in response to individual article notability. There may be argument for mergings in polyhedra as well, but the Archimedean solids are common enough to be worthy their own articles. The noncovex uniform polyhedra are another story, although grouping is much less clear. Grouping does make editing easier in ways, but slows down page download/rendering on the negative side. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Using the Co2 graph of Glacial and Interglacials in a book? edit

Hello, I am interested in using your graph of Co2 in the ice cores in a publication. Would that be OK. Jennifer Moody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.209 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer. I assume you mean this graph: File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif. Sure! It might be good to remake it from the original data set(s). Also I believe the "EPICA Dome C ice core" data goes further back now than when I made it, from 800k instead of 650k? Let's see here - [5], and this looks best:3. Composite CO2 record (0-800 kyr BP). SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a relatively quick update with the new data, going back to 800k BP, at File:Co2_glacial_cycles_800k.png. I did less markup of the Glacial names. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Fifth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fifth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Fifteenth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fifteenth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Zeroth stellation of dodecahedron.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zeroth stellation of dodecahedron.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Zeroth stellation of octahedron.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zeroth stellation of octahedron.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Zeroth stellation of icosahedron.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zeroth stellation of icosahedron.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:First compound stellation of icosahedron.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:First compound stellation of icosahedron.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Second stellation of icosahedron.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Second stellation of icosahedron.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Third stellation of icosahedron.png listed for deletion edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Third stellation of icosahedron.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Table of lunar phases for deletion edit

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Table of lunar phases is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of lunar phases until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CTJF83 11:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

moon libration edit

Hi, I love your moon libration animation and would like to put it on my astronomy website. Please tell how to copy it to my site. When I use the "save image as" it doesn't work. Thank you for your time and have a great day. Urania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beingnonbeing (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to save it, from File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif, and right-click on the image, and selecting "Save Image as" or whatever your browsers asks. 173.240.25.249 (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Minnesota independence party logo.png edit

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Minnesota independence party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey edit

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Tomruen! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wallpapercellp1.gif edit

A tag has been placed on File:Wallpapercellp1.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Magister Scienta ^talk (16 November 2011) 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Compound of three octahedra edit

Hi, I just added an article Compound of three octahedra that you might be interested in. You don't happen to have any software that would make it easy to make an illustration of this model, do you? Obviously, it's illustrated in Stars (M. C. Escher) but we can't use that one (except on the article about the artwork itself) for copyright reasons. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Stella (software) generated all the uniform polyhedron compound images. I'll see if I can get this compound also. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I see you got an image! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Stella images edit

You may have noticed I updated the permission statement on a bunch of the Stella images you've uploaded (great work on that, BTW!). I noticed that {{Great Stella}} and {{Stella4D}} were somewhat self-contradictory, claiming both "any use as long as attributed" and CC-BY-SA-3.0. And then there were numerous images with other licenses tagged on too. And people not paying much attention when copying things to Commons made the situation much worse, some even lost the attribution! So I emailed Robert Webb and got things clarified. He asked me at the same time to update the website from http://www.software3d.com/Stella.html to http://www.software3d.com/Stella.php, credit "Stella software" generally instead of a specific version, and to generally make things the same on all the images, so I merged those two templates into {{Stella image}} and applied it to all the images I could find. If I've missed anything or broken anything, please let me know. And please do use {{Stella image}} on any new uploads (the template exists both locally and on Commons), it makes it much easier if the website address changes again and it links the image to the OTRS ticket holding proof of the permission.

Also, it looks like we don't currently have permission for some of the images: the permission currently granted extends only to the 2D images of rendered polyhedra and polychora, not to unfolded nets or 3D models. I sent an email to give Robert a chance to grant permission for those images too, but if he doesn't I'll hate to have to nominate them for deletion. Anomie ⚔ 05:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Great news, he gave permission for all of those images. Note if you want to put up more nets or images derived from VRML models, you'll need to forward the email from Robert granting permission to WP:OTRS. I'll fix the above-listed images soon-ish. Anomie ⚔ 17:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll also write to him too about the nets, he was a bit contradictory before. (And we don't have any 3D/VRML models on Wikipedia). Tom Ruen (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I know we don't have any 3D/VRML models themselves, but if you take the VRML model and make a derivative work from it (e.g. by rendering it) you still have the permission problem. Anomie ⚔ 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's sounding a bit over the top to me. I grab geometry data from everywhere. I don't think you can't copyright data. (His VRML/DXF files do have copyright comments in the VRML source.) Probably a good number of images I've uploaded are based in part on data from Stella, maybe like File:Jessen icosahedron with snub icosahedron.png for instance. For me sourcing attribution is courtesy for authors and also readers who want to reproduce something. If he's serious about this level of control, it gives me all the more reason to abandon his program and do my own work as much as possible, so it can be kept PD! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to just the raw coordinates for simple geometric figures, you may be right. Best to ask at WP:MCQ, where hopefully someone more familiar with such things can answer. Anomie ⚔ 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in affine Coxeter diagram edit

My image editing skills are awful so rather than fix this myself I figured I'd point it out to you. The picture of affine Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams has a mistake; the one for ${\tilde {C}}_{n}$ instead just shows the one for C_n. I don't know if you actually have time to fix this but thank you anyway! Sniffnoy (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see, missing a 4 label - fixed! Tom Ruen (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Polyhedra edit

Let's say someone wants some multicolored isosceles triangles, and they find yours to be just the right size. Generic things such as geometric drawings should always be kept, since unlike photographs they can be used for an amazing array of things. Moreover, blanking a page to get it deleted is not an appropriate thing to do. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I fully disagree. The LABELS on the polyhedra edges correspond specifically to vertex figures in 4-dimensions have no meaning in 3D. And I didn't blank a page, I marked an image for delete[6]! Tom Ruen (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's say I want a triangle image and don't care about the details of precise vertex correspondence — these images might well be useful. You removed all relevant source and permission information from the image description: you're free to say that it's not blanking if you want to be technical about it, but whatever term you use, it was a complete removal of legal information, and thus a violation of our copyright policy. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, next time I'll add the {{deletebecause|...}} without removing other information. And the only reason I marked it for delete is because I uploaded it, and replaced it, and just got a notice that it was an orphan image, and the labels I added mean nothing in any other context, and there's hundreds of other geometric figures to choose from than to take a markedup image for another purpose. By your logic there's no reason ever to delete any image! Tom Ruen (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hermann–Mauguin notation edit

Tom, this is what I see in my browsers (I checked Firefox, Internet Explorer and Opera in Windows7) http://comp.chem.umn.edu/~averkiev/Hermann.png What do you see? Something like

${\tfrac {4}{m}}$

3

${\tfrac {2}{m}}$

And making them in bold font will solve this problem? Bor75 (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I see, and yes, the bold fixes it! Tom Ruen (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG! :) It looks like any additional modification (bold, color change) will fix it. As I see, red symbols in the table look OK.

Could you tell me what you see now?

1. ${\tfrac {4}{m}}$ 3 ${\tfrac {2}{m}}$

2. $\color {Black}{\tfrac {4}{m}}$ 3 $\color {Black}{\tfrac {2}{m}}$

3. ${\tfrac {4}{m}}$ 3 ${\tfrac {2}{m}}$

4. ${\tfrac {4}{m}}$ 3 ${\tfrac {2}{m}}$

Bor75 (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Everthing is vertical except #2. Is it a latex bug in Wiki? (Do some browsers do their own Latex formatting?!) I'm using IE8 and Firefox 8, for WinXP. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OK - then I will add \color{Black} in all math symbols. #4 doesn't work either? I don't use latex, so don't know much about it. I have corrected the page. Does it look better now? Bor75 (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

4 is vertical also, but color code seems to fix them all! (Note: the Wiki math render uses LaTex, converts math to PNG) Tom Ruen (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:3-space symmetry groups edit

Template:3-space symmetry groups has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Garrett Lisi edit

I would like to mention that I'm trying to get a reasonable and NPOV version of Antony Garrett Lisi's page, that currently has been under censorship from User SherryNugil that does not want to include the current status of the Lisi's theory and that wants to keep all the articles and interviews and tv appearances and blog entries and forum discussions about Lisi. Not even for Nobel Prize Laureates there is such a complete list. I am also reporting that user for several reasons and it would be good if you could participate to the discussion giving your opinion, given that in the past you contributed to that page. Look at the discussion page for the last happenings. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Coxeter notation edit

Tom, thank you very much for expanding Coxeter notation page. I noticed, that N.W. Johnson books are referenced from this and other similar pages N.W. Johnson Uniform Polytopes, Manuscript (1991) N.W. Johnson: The Theory of Uniform Polytopes and Honeycombs, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1966 N.W. Johnson: Geometries and Transformations, Manuscript, (2011) but I cannot find them even in WorldCat (only Dissertation is mentioned there) Do you know how I can get them?

I also have one question about Duoprism, but I don't know - may I ask it here or I should go to discussion section of Duoprism.

Thank you

Boris

Bor75 (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Send me an email by Special:EmailUser/Tomruen and I can send you a PDF (~3M) the last one at least. And please ask the duoprism question on its article talk, since a few other editors might also be watching there. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything edit

It seems that I removed your edit. Sorry, it was completely inadvertent and must have been an edit conflict. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

Polygon/polytope density - merge articles and rename edit

Proposed at Talk:Polytope density — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)