2019

Extreme transneptunian object eccentricity vs perihelion.png

Hi Tomruen. Just to let you know, I used your recently created diagram File:Extreme transneptunian object eccentricity vs perihelion.png, in these four minor-planet articles: 2004 XR190, 2014 FC72, 2014 FZ71 and 2015 FJ345. Good job. Rfassbind – talk 00:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad! Do you prefer it to the SVG update? File:Extreme_trans-Neptunian_objects_eccentricity_vs_perihelion.svg. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed your alternative version (well done), but for the four objects listed above the png-version with the corresponding object-labels is much more appropriate. You're getting good at this ;) Rfassbind – talk 01:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I just happened to catch those four in the original one. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Compound of great icosahedron and great stellated dodecahedron

Be aware that there are two different ones! Burzuchius (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sunrise

Hi Tom. What are the Coordinates of the photographers position of this video? --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Latitude 45.057500 north, Longitude 93.22777 west, elevation 311 meters

Thank you very much! Hanspeter --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Tom in your video of the sunrise the sun rose under an Azimuth of 56.6° and the steepness over the horizon was 39.8° See German page Sonnenaufgang. --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse set templates

Following its appearance at AFD, I spent time time working out the story behind the August 2016 lunar eclipse (specifically, that there was no August 2016 lunar eclipse). However, I haven't removed that event from the Lunar eclipse set templates because I'm not exactly sure how they've been arranged. The August 2016 "event" is in Template:Lunar eclipse set 2016-2020 but the other 2016 eclipses (March, September) are in Template:Lunar eclipse set 2013-2016.

I suspect what needs to happen is that the August 2016 entry should be removed from the 2016-2020 template (and the navigation link from 2013-2016 changed accordingly). However, that means that there would no longer be any 2016 entries in the "2016-2020", so ideally that would also then be retitled "2017-2020" and the transcluded uses adjusted accordingly (or not, via the magic of redirects).

I know we owe a lot of the eclipse work to you, and I didn't want to offer my best bull-in-a-China-shop impression by making these changes without your input on the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and for looking into it - good details! We can wait to see if it is deleted. Otherwise seems fine to keep in template. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Query :: Apart from PolyView, what software do you use?

Dear TomRuen; Forgive me if im addressing this through improper channels. Long time reader, first time post

Apart from PolyView, what software do you use to generate the image sequence in your eclipse animations?

Kwixotic Kwixotic (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I wrote my own software, File:FullSkyAstronomySoftwareLogo.png.

I'm also curious about pictures such as File:Plutino_distributions_and_sizes.png. Is this also from Full Sky Astronomy? If so, can I download this program and run it off line? If not, do you know of any similar programs I can find that will run offline? Thank you, —Soap— 16:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was generated in Full Sky. I'm sorry, its not in a state I can easily share. I don't know any other programs that could do this, although many might be capaable, like Celestia, and Stellarium. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OK thank you! I will download both of those now. —Soap— 18:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Source

Why did you use Twitter as a source on FarFarOut? If you respond here, please use {{ping}}. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf:, because it was copied from a Youtube video. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that I understand that but isn't this contradictory to WP:SPS? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf:, You could link the video at a specific time, but less convenient. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

What video? Also, YouTube is a self-published source: wouldn't that be contrary to WP:SPS? (By the way, {{ping}} doesn't work if you don't sign your posts.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf:, I guess not youtube, from Carnegie public lectures, linked FarFarOut#External_links, at about 40 minutes. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Luhman 16

Hey Tom, maybe I'm being dense, but what is the source for this edit? I couldn't find those figures in the existing material. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I just rescaling the Jupiter masses to sun masses, but I didn't add errors. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I kind of figured it was manual, in which case I'm even more confused. Using both manual and this site, I get 0.031994 and 0.027259, respectively. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ouch, thanks for checking! I see I had the wrong mass for Jupiter for unknown reasons, d'oh, looks like my eyes accidentally moved from kg to lb in next row at Jupiter! Tom Ruen (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Heh, all good. I'd actually never come across that site before, and it's the only one I can find that converts between the two, so it's going in my bookmarks. Handy dandy site. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uniform hyperbolic tiling list table

Template:Uniform hyperbolic tiling list table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cantitruncated hypercube polytopes

Template:Cantitruncated hypercube polytopes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

SciShow Space video featuring your work

I noticed that several of your uploads were recently used in this SciShow Space video about the (real) ninth planet. Good work!

P.S. You may remember me as The Doctahedron. Hello! Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 05:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Main Page

Hi Tom, I hope you're well. Have you seen the Main Page today?

All the best, Joe

Hi Joe! Thanks! Are you Joe Haythornthwaite? If so, thank you!!! Tom Ruen (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The one and only.

I wasn't signed in on my phone and couldn't remember my password.

Yeah it cheered me up a bit seeing that. Keep up the good work! nagualdesign 14:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about parallelepipeds

I realized that the parallelepiped article does not have in-depth details about its special cases, just a line on two monoclinic types, so I've extended it to include as many subsets with different symmetry as I can following the rhombohedron article. As I've noticed that a number of geometry-related information was added by you on Wikipedia, I decided to approach you. Do you know if the list of 7 subsets of parallelepiped (cube, square cuboid, trigonal trapezohedron, rectangular cuboid, right rhombic prism, general rectangular prism, general rhombic prism) is complete? Thanks.--Officer781 (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I presume the 7/8 types are complete in terms of crystallography, but there might be other named forms of different value. Curious, I made a chart (right), looking at subgroup relations from cube down to the general form. An prettier one for article might be nice, at Parallelepiped#Special_cases. A similar graph for forms of a square File:Symmetries_of_square.svg is useful for comparison, while only 4 or 5 symmetry forms work upwards from parallelogram, depending on whether a gyro square is unique, while geometrically a regular square. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I added rhombohedron and other equal edge cases to the diagram. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Clinorhombic isnt really a crystal system though, it is the same as monoclinic (an older alternative name). I named it that way from some internet sources and was too lazy to rename it. I think there is also a relation from right rhombic prism to general rectangular prism as the rhombus can be transformed to the parallelogram with the rectangles just changing dimensions. Also the rhombohedron isn't really a special subset with unique symmetry so I find it strange it is labelled in the diagram. Im also quite curious whether these are all the relations possible?--Officer781 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A side note is we might want to remove the conditions like alpha not equal to 90 degrees etc as I think in a symmetry relations image it sort of suffices to just label what lengths and angles can change. The relations between the shapes themselves imply what conditions apply I think. Either way I find your image brilliant and it might be good to change the table to this image after some tweaking.--Officer781 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I updated the crystal system shared names. Rhombohedron has a geometric constraint, even if same symmetry, so I figured good to name it. A little patience can make a cleaner version when content is good. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. If Im not wrong the "equal length edges" right rhombic prism should have two pairs of faces coloured purple with the remaining pair blue? Two pairs of faces are squares. Anyway I can help point out image changes so long as it is not too mathematical.--Officer781 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed squares to purple. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that File:Full octahedral group; subgroups Hasse diagram; rotational.svg looks very similar to your image. Could this be the "template" for the relationships?--Officer781 (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Same idea, more a subset of this File:Full_octahedral_group;_subgroups_Hasse_diagram.svg or my version File:Octahedral_subgroup_tree.png. Parallelopipeds limit which subgroup symmetries are included, otherwise a distorted cube could be made for every symmetry form. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Some pointers: 1) I think a purple line from rhombohedral to triclinic has been accidentally removed. 2) I personally find the "box within a box" idea for the rhombic prisms ugly. Perhaps we can have two separate boxes, one for rhombic and one for rectangular with the crystal system above and spanning both boxes. 3) Im not sure why the line from right rhombic prism to general rectangular prism is a dotted line, is the relationship unique in some way?--Officer781 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. (1) I removed the purple line to triclinic because implied by an intermediate 2-step path. (2) I tried removing box in box, and tried vertical division line, keeping crystal groupings, but separated. (3) I also labeled the dotted line to help. I dotted because relationship harder to see since graphic orientations different. Images could be all drawn consistent orientations as well. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

p.s. A part of me wants to add acute and obtuse forms that look different. Examples here Trigonal_trapezohedron#Golden_rhombohedron. There are exactly two solutions for equal edge-lengths, diagonals short-short-long or short-long-long. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm not liking trigonal trapezohedron here since a larger class with kite faces, just happen to be rhombic for tri-form. Perhaps Isohedral rhombohedron would be more descriptive, although maybe rhombohedron itself is more general, for any figure of rhombic faces! Like [1]. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah the separator looks much better. We could change the orientation of the general rectangular prism but it will break crystallographic convention of using beta angle as the nonorthogonal one plus we may have to change the name to right parallelogrammic prism since thats the face that is facing up. Im not sure if this is better. I think isohedral rhombohedron is a good idea, but I dont know too much about the specifics of shape naming so I leave it to you. Also, Im wondering if we need to have all the constraint labels like a!=b given we already imply that in having separate a and b labels for example. I find they complicate the image unnecessarily. I actually considered removing those constraint labels from the bravais lattice images at one point.--Officer781 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I made a dramatic change, adding arrows bottom to top, so now arrows label special constraints, and dotted line special case with β and γ swapped. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It might also be reworked, aligned as 3 columns, a≠b≠c left, a≠c middle, a=b=c right. And 6 rows, only one form on top 3 rows, 3 forms on lower 3 rows as now. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the constraint labels for orthorhombic and tetragonal have not been removed yet, although the rest are no longer in the image. I like the 3x6 column x row idea. Although that might make the arrows from monoclinic to rhombohedral, as well as orthorhombic to cubic, a bit difficult to draw.--Officer781 (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the arrow from triclinic to the general rectangular prism should read "alpha=gamma=90°".--Officer781 (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, cleaned up. I tried matrix approach, but abandoned, visually more confusing on 2 level crossings. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont quite like the "two rhombohedrons" approach because its quite arbitrary. I mean we can do the same for tetragonal as well in my opinion and makes the image unnecessarily complicated. Also from general rhombic prism to right rhombic prism we should not have gamma=90° because gamma is still variable. Beta should not be in the general rhombic prisms as it is the same as alpha.--Officer781 (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Good eye again, fixed. I'd argue two isohedral rhombohedra are justified because they are discretely unique, while cuboid aspect ratios are continuous parameters. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Anyways, there should be two alphas in the general rhombic prisms, not alpha amd beta.--Officer781 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, good eyes! I also tried "oblique" instead of general prism, since a more standard term I think. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I know of an idea on how to have three neat columns. We need to remove the "all edges equal" right rhombic prism. Then we can put the rhombohedra in the a=b=c column. It is ok because the purple arrow of 6 can be split into a 2 and 3 which passes through tetragonal.--Officer781 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We could try 2 presentations if you like. I prefer to keep all the forms, but a simpler one might be useful too. And actually I just found there's a legitimate new form, diclinic, bottom row. 05:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, is diclinic different in symmetry? If it is not it's not a new crystal system. Thats why crystallographers dont use it. Im not sure we should label the crystal system as such and should only use "oblique rectangular prism".--Officer781 (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw diclinic here [2]. There's nothing in parallelepiped that says only crystal systems matter. For me, it actually helps to see the relation between triclinic and monoclinic. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Id prefer a more condensed image for article though. I mean if we want to be exhaustive we would have to include far more forms than is currently in the image to cover every possible permutation (how about oblique square prism, etc etc), which would make it irrelevant for article purposes (I dont necessarily mean crystal systems as symmetry. The different crystal systems are based on different symmetries). Perhaps a simplified one for the parallelepiped and rhombohedron articles. But yes for this exploratory image you can edit it as you like.--Officer781 (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We're certainly agreed we need something of both (especially if we're claiming completeness), but for simplicity of presentation, less is more. It makes sense to have one diagram oriented for symmetry and unique crystal families, and another which includes more special cases that don't change symmetry. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Special cases of parallelepiped, stripped down

I've created a stripped down version which is shown at right. This one only has the most basic information in it plus the relations between them. It is interesting to note that the left-facing arrows always set a new parameter equal to 90 degrees, while right-facing arrows always set an inter-relational equality.--Officer781 (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks very nice. Do you want to add a β←→γ in my dotted line? I might put rhombohedral text/symmetry on the left to keep graphic narrower. Do you have any interest in colored edges to clarify edge lengths, or filled faces for face types? Tom Ruen (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I swapped the angles instead as you have suggested instead of adding the notation. Let me see if I can come up with other changes to the design. For me I'm not sure whether face types or edge lengths is important to the discussion since some faces can be of multiple kinds and yet not change the symmetry. I'll think about it. --Officer781 (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried just face colors by type and seems helpful, whatever color set you like. I also rotated rhombohedral since special orientation, all α's on top and bottom. Tom Ruen (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Special cases of rhombohedron, stripped down

Looks good, I think we could continue to edit all the image ideas until we can have some that can be placed in the articles. By the way, isn't it in the wee hours of the morning for you? We could discuss this tomorrow.--Officer781 (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I prefer this arrangement because it sorts the shapes neatly into three "dimensions". The vertical dimension is symmetry order/crystal system, one diagonal dimension is number of right angles (none, two or three) and the other diagonal dimension is number of independent edge lengths (abc, ac or a). Also I noticed that for your images grey and purple faces are hard to distinguish. I made them more distinct in my svg image. Also I've fixed the different head colourings for the arrows and made the arrows thicker.--Officer781 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the edits to refer to the shape as trigonal trapezohedron instead of isohedral rhombohedron. I understand your logic but internet sources don't use this name. So I feel we should stick with what sources say, such as Wolfram. See here: [3].--Officer781 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made another image for the rhombohedron article. It's shown on the right.--Officer781 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, looks good overall. Thanks for adding colors. The rhombohedron chart can be compacted vertically. Perhaps symmetry diagonal axis could be drawn on isohedral form? Overall proportions could be adjusted a bit to look more equilateral. Some constraint label positions between arrows might be confusing, mainly one α=90° for parallelepiped. Finally perhaps form names can be included? Tom Ruen (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced the "crystal systems" with the form names both the rhombohedra and parallelepipeds and included most of the other recommendations you have suggested. Will try to figure out how to incorporate a vertical trigonal trapezohedron into both images. As I'm busier this week I will take some time.--Officer781 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the trigonal trapezohedron to a vertically oriented one. I've now incorporated the two images into the parallelepiped and rhombohedron articles. Thanks a lot for the help, I have linked both images in commons to your image to attribute your contributions to them. If there are any further recommendations you want to make to improve the images please let me know. Hope we can work together on new images in the future!--Officer781 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Parallelepipeds again

Octahedral symmetry subgroup relations with inversion center	Special cases of the parallelepiped

I read the tetrahedron article and was impressed with the close correspondence of the subsets with the subgroups. As such I made an image just for the parallelepiped article that lists the subgroups. These are shown above. Comparing the two images, I've realized that T_h, C_4h and S₆ don't have a distorted cube entry. Are these some kind of special forms?--Officer781 (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Those could be shown by surface markups. T_h can be drawn by marking 2 sets of 4 vertices, each set separated by 2 edge distances, like Compound of two tetrahedra, while each tetrahedron could be scaled independently, but distorting the cube would make nonplanar faces. This graphic marks up a cube edged with C_4h symmetry. File:Cube_rotorotational_symmetry.png, same color edges can be considered equal edge length constraints. It could be made with 4 trapezoidal lateral faces, and 90 degree rotation rectangles on the top and bottom. S₆ could be marked up from a trigonal trapezohedron, improper rotation mapping 6 lateral edges together directionally. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I presume T_h could be a coloured cube, while C_4h could be a coloured square cuboid and S₆ could be a coloured trigonal trapezohedron? Since this is parallelepipeds they have to keep the basic shape. Either way to keep it simple I might not add them. None of these shapes can be made without surface markups?--Officer781 (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I accidentally gave [4,2+] rather than [4+,2] symmetry above. Here's the 3, all with arrow markups, similar to 4-fold rotation markups for square symmetry. Numbers show rotational symmetry axes and orders. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the general symmetry diagram belongs at parallelepiped, but it could be linked in the caption. It's not an extremely helpful diagram with abstract Cycle graphs. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. So what do you suggest? Do we use a simplified graph like the one we can see at tetrahedron?--Officer781 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If you're interested in rotational symmetry, arrow markups work. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I added mirror lines as well that maybe helps. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a missing line for oblique rhombic prism but thats ok. I see how the gyrational square cuboid fits into the picture now. There is a whole set of 5 right prisms that are simply the 2D parallelograms extruded in the z-axis which includes the gyrational square. I still dont get how the T_h and S₆ works though. There seems to be additional lines in the octahedral subgroups image connecting those two.--Officer781 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I have replaced the arrows with simple lines and removed the parameter impositions partly to simplify the image and partly to satisfy math symbol conventions on Wikipedia as Incnis Mrsi has raised on the parallelepiped talk page.--Officer781 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

2013 RA109

2013 RA109's orbit in the eTNO orbit image looks like its longitude of perihelion is too small, could you double check it? Agmartin (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I checked both JPL and MPC and numbers match. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the orbit in the diagram looked like it was shifted too far from from its neighbors for it to be at 7.8 degrees. Maybe it just looks that way because of the inclinations and other orbital elements. Agmartin (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits to 24-cell

Thank you for correcting my bogus addition to 24-cell back in February! Since then I have made a great many more edits, and made many more mistakes in my attempt to explain more of Coxeter's findings in a way that is accessible to readers (like myself) unacquainted with mathematics, and (hopefully) corrected them as I went along. Would you look over the article again in its present form and tell me what you see that is still troubled? Dc.samizdat (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Tomruen/archive13,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Compound of five tetrahedra

Hi Tom!

I'm a researcher and I've been searching recently for further explanation behind the group theory blurb on the page Compound of five tetrahedra (I managed to track down that edit to you). It seems to me there is a more general statement about when one can take an orbit (in this case, the orbit Ix in S^2/I consisting of vertices of the dodecahedron) and split it up into orbits corresponding to cosets (in this case, cosets of the tetrahedral group T in I). Do cosets orbits always partition a given orbit? I've asked a question on StackExchange about this (no answers yet), but I was also wondering whether you could point me to a source that dives deeper into this. Thanks!

--ComradeVVA (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances

Hello, Tomruen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 08:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Strange the article draft was deleted at the time I read this message, see a copy here [4]. I don't remember making it as a draft, see its contents are probably distributed between various articles like Bucklin_voting#Example_application. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Help fix broken Infobox solar eclipse

There is an error at Template talk:Infobox solar eclipse#Infobox generates dead link that would benefit from your expertise. I don't think you got my ping. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

HD 139139 article (external video link)

Hi, what is needed to add in the external link to the Youtube interview with Andrew Vanderburg and science writer John Michael Godier that you removed? It is one of the best videos up right now. Andrew Vanderburg is one of the lead coauthors for the HD139139 science paper. If there is some technical Wikipedia issue, can you help with that? Here is the YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Ml8BsjSdPWo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom98006 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware I removed anything. Can you show me where I removed something? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HD_139139&action=history Tom Ruen (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Nyx stream

Hello, Tomruen,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Lithopsian and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Nyx stream should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nyx stream .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Abandoned (2015 film)

The article Abandoned (2015 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film, no significant independent coverage, per WP:NF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 18:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Rotating star polyhedra

Nice additions! Any plans for adding the icosahedral-symmetry ones? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I could make them, started with smaller octahedral set. Annoyed animations don't work in reduced sizes. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about your 2017 Conway Operator edits

Hi, You included a couple of operators (yank and exalt) that I can't find any reference to elsewhere)

Can you remember the source of these?

Thanks in advance -- User:Andybak

They were just shortcut names for composite operators: x=kt, y=tk, to better express geodesic and Goldberg polyhedra, so I picked yank and exalt to match the letters. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures

Hi Tomruen, I'd just like to say a massive thank you for the astronomical images you've made available through Wikipedia and Wikimedia. I teach astronomy and have been looking for images for my slideshows and videos, and your name comes up again and again with the best image for my purpose. Amazing work, cheers! Cosmogoblin (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm glad when I can help, always more to be done. I tend to add images in spurts when I see the need and I can make something or improve something. If you have any requests, there's always a chance I can help. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates to Jupiter's moons.

Beat me to it - I first learned about the new names from Wikipedia! ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 07:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Now we just need some orbital diagrams! Tom Ruen (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I wish I could do that. The orbital comparisons for the irregular moons haven't been updated since... 2007 or 2008? We need to redo them. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Grünbaum-Dress polyhedron

Tom, As a follow-up to your suggestion made off-wiki, I have started a draft on the Grünbaum-Dress polyhedra at User:Steelpillow/test1. I will do what more I can to it but will not have much time to spare, so feel free to take it over as you see fit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Omnisnub polychora

Would you mind elaborating the projections (ie. A4, B4, or H4) of the nonuniform omnisnubs?

I'll give the parameters:

Omnisnub 5-cell: direct alternation of the uniform omnitruncated 5-cell
Omnisnub tesseract: uniform snub cubes and pyritohedral icosahedra
Omnisnub 24-cell: direct alternation of the uniform omnitruncated 24-cell
Omnisnub 120-cell: uniform snub dodecahedra and pyritohedral icosahedra

Done some replacement of the vertex figures, because some of them are purely illustrative and not an actual rendering of such.

Cheers! Kwékwlos (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, many or most are topological presentations. You just need some care to avoid confusion if vertices or edges crossing in ambiguous ways. So like this one should be tilted a bit away from the symmetry view. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar

		The Space Barnstar
		For being an early contributor to the 2I/Borisov article. ↠Pine (✉) 06:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Transit of Mercury

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.

I sent an email to you about the next Mercury transit. Thank you very much. --Catalaalatac (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume you mean this File:Transit_of_Mercury_November_11_2019_path_across_sun.png? It was my own software, center of earth view facing the sun, although minimal parallax over the surface of the earth. The view orientation is ecliptic (horizontal yellow line). I marked the transit times by hand in MSPaint. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Gonggong

Hi, I've noticed that you added some additional information to edits by an IP user, which stated that the naming poll for 2007 OR10 was manipulated by someone who used a spam bot to repeatedly vote for Gonggong. I'm uncertain about this and I want to discuss about whether this should be included in 2007 OR₁₀'s article despite that no official sources have addressed this potential issue. Since you one of the only people who probably know about this, mind if you check the talk page regarding this? Sorry if I seem hesitant. Nrco0e (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree it really doesn't belong unless publicly sourced. At least there's a twitter response from Meg Schwamb [5]. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"We knew that was a possibility by the way we were set it up. There could have been others for the other names as well. Google doesn’t give ip addresses. Alternatives would have likely required me to pay a salary of a web developer and I have no grant that would cover this."

"We did the best we could and it wasn’t strictly forbidden and some of the others naming options likely had similar things so it might have been balanced"

"Our entire budget for this was 0 dollars. People donated the artwork, the domain, and their time and expertise. I’d been trying for 10 years to get some kind of public vote going and so eventually I had to settle for what tech (and its flaws) was available"

Proposed deletion of Rectified antiprism

The article Rectified antiprism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot find any article and essay is about this topic in Google, and it is not meet WP:GNG and WP:OR.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SCP-2000 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Mail

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.

Kushal Kishore (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This work is beatiful.

When I was researching the tesseract(not because of marvel) i seen the images of you octeract. Theres somethin so "spiritual" for a lack of a better word about it. It calls out to my soul in a weird way. I've seen this in my mind since I was a small child. Its someway seems primitive to our consciousness. Thank you for the work you have done. It's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. -Anon, Nov 11, 2019

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prism dual polyhedra db

Template:Prism dual polyhedra db has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Plot of path of Comet Hyakutake

The plot is incorrect - I am not sure where the error arose, possibly one of the orbital elements.

I have a photo of Hyakutake taken 03/23/1996 @ 23::00 CST and it is clearly in Bootes, Arcturus is in the frame.

I checked in Stellarium which confirms this.

This site shows the correct path:[6] Orbital elements and epheremis:[7]

2601:246:5500:FA80:21E:C2FF:FEC2:E8ED (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the check! I updated the image with the newest JPL data, unsure why the trajectory was different 2 years ago when I first made it, but there was a funny jag on the right side suggesting something funny was corrected. I'll try to include solution#s on future uploads. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)