User:Tomruen/archive3

2009 comments

hyperbolic honeycombs

Congratulations. Now I just need to learn to write a (nonEuclidean) ray-tracer ...

Wendy mentions some nonWythoff forms in Talk:Polychoron#H3. (I should save that section somewhere so I can more readily find it again.) One infinite family, the "bollochomea" whatever that means, includes both {4,3,5} and {4,3,4} as special cases. —Tamfang (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

bollochomea is actually an attempt at borromeachoron http://www.geocities.com/os2fan2/gloss/pglossb.html , is named after the Borromean_rings. The reference is through the film "Not Knot", that is, the complement of a knot. The duals of the tilings shown here happen to be uniform. The Not Knot film derives the tiling from the complement of these rings.

The general vertex figure, is an icosahedron of edge sqrt(2), ie squares, with six edges that are parallel or perpendicular to a given edge, representing a particular value (p). When p=2, the icosahedron becomes an octahedron giving {4,3,4}. When p=4, it gives a regular icosahedron q3o5o, leading to the regular {5,3,4}, and when p=(inf), it gives the verf of {4,4,A} as o4q3o.

E8 Graph

Hey, would you mind using Image:E8 graph.svg on your user page instead of E8 graph2.svg. That way the second one could be deleted. Thanks. --Truthful Cynic 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Polyhedron databases

I was looking at how the polyhedron db's you made worked...neat. I work on a smaller wiki, and I had independently made a different kind of database for something totally unrelated...anyway, it uses the {{#switch: parser function to call up the correct data, and then it uses a second template to organize the data. I though you method of instead giving each a name was a very cool way of doing it, and I wanted to compliment you. Timeroot (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only copied the idea from User:Salix_alba. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Runcinated 120-cell

Hi Tom Ruen!

I looked at this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Runcinated_120-cell.png, and I think there's a problem: we should not see a Rhombicosidodecahedron for the convex envelope, but a dodecahedron (or a tetrahedron, a triangular prism etc). Did you halve it for a better view? Padex (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Padex. I looked at Stella4D. Apparently it is drawing a "perspective" view of ~129 degree field-of-view so the central cell does not "envelope" the other cells. I was meaning to generate a new set of systematic images in each family, and never got past the 5-cell 8/16-cell families. Sorry it is confusing now. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Lunar parallax image

Hi, Tomruen, I was looking at a few of your Wikipedia images, and they look really neat -- specially to one who, like me, doesn't have that graphics skill. So I generally admire your contributions.

There's a couple of problems, though, with one of the images. I wonder if maybe it would interest you to confirm that, and (if agreed) possibly fix them in a fresh version of the image?

This is about the lunar parallax synthesis at [1]. This looks like a potentially very neat illustration of lunar parallax. But as it stands, I see the following practical problems with it:

(1) The four lunar crescents look so dark in the image, relative to the black background, that the crescents hardly show up at all on many of the computer screen settings that I have tried. The stars are hard to see also.

(2) The commentary says that all the viewing positions are on a great circle forming a square. The text embedded in the image says the viewing positions are on the equator at 0 d and 180 d longitude, and at the north and south poles. But these positional data look a very long way off being correct.

On the given date 1988 March 22, at 10:42 UT, the (geocentric) position of the Moon was (in ecliptic terms) at longitude 59d 38' 26" and latitude +4d 51' 10" (North). In equatorial terms it was at right ascension 3h 45m 12.1s, and declination +24d 48' 50.0" (North), and its horizontal parallax was about 57.4'. (This 57.4' should also be about the angular radius of the circle in the sky on which your four parallax points fall.)

On that date, and at that time, the Moon would therefore have been overhead, within a degree, at about geographical location 24.82 deg North, and 76 deg East, and relative to the stars it should then have been placed about the center between your four parallax points.

I can't see if your four parallax points of he Moon are exactly to the celestial North, South, East and West of the center, but if they are, then the corresponding geographical viewing position for the Moon at your North parallax point would have been at about 65.18 deg South, 76 deg East, where the Moon might be seen peeping up over the horizon for a very short time on a day when otherwise it would hardly rise, or not rise at all -- at the start of a period of a few days of that month when the moon, in spite of its waxing phase, would be too far north to be seen.

For the South parallax point, the view would have been as from about 65.18 deg North, 104 degrees West. At that place and time the Moon would have been starting to become circumpolar for a few days during that month, and at your chosen time it would have been about grazing the northern horizon at its lower culmination, instead of setting.

The viewing positions for the East and West parallax points would have been on the Equator, at about 14 deg. West and 166 deg. East, with the Moon on about the north-east and north-west horizons respectively.

I hope I worked those numbers out ok, and that it's still a matter of interest to you.

Best wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was made relatively quickly, hopefully accurately labeled, but I'd have to redo it to check. Ideally it would be done from around a tangent cone where the moon at the horizon to show the maximum parallel, but I just typed in fixed lat/long that were far apart.. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quick remake, as 4 images, with different orientation (up-vector). File:Lunarparallax22-3-1988-table.png. So looks close to me. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Uniform tiling 37-t0.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Uniform tiling 37-t0.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also STRONGLY suggested that you check with the programs authors, that they don't claim any additional rights in program output generated.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have email contact with the software author. I figure there's enough information for my patience. Thanks for asking. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, if you can get them to confirm the program output is OK with the OTRS permissions queue even better.

I note some other programs from the same author that might yield some useful images :).

Jeff Weeks generated a number of images by my requestion for Wikipedia, like File:Hyperbolic_orthogonal_dodecahedral_honeycomb.png, and has given me "hack" versions to do specific variations I've wanted. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow

I saw this image of yours. It's great! Keep it up! --116.14.72.74 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

--116.14.72.74 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But exactly how I'm going to try making it myself is beyond me... --116.14.72.74 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I signed the post here four times so that SineBot doesn't come and try signing every single line. --116.14.72.74 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You should really look into Stella (software), foldable nets for every polyhedron under the sun! Tom Ruen (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Please help me with this template: Template:Polyhedron navigator. --Euclidthegreek (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just got back online now. Wow! That's scary big! Unsure what should be done. It does seem nice to have one specialized for the Johnson Solids or other groups individually perhaps? --Tom Ruen (talk)

I made a specialised one for the Johnson solids: Template:Johnson solids navigator. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 08:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's one for near misses: Template:Near-miss Johnson solids navigator. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 08:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good on Johnson solids, although I keep wondering if images aren't worth adding. I don't do much with "navigators"!

I don't think the near misses are worth a template. They really individually don't deserve individual articles on this basis alone.

Tom Ruen (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

File:Uniform_polyhedron-23-t01.png

Excuse my asking, but shouldn't t_0,1{2, 3} be a triangular prism instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Fiendish (talk • contribs) 03:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're right! Wythoff_symbol#Dihedral_symmetry_.28q.3Dr.3D2.29, t_0,1{2, 6} = t_0,1,2{2, 3} = hexagonal prism. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a new copy under the correct name File:Uniform_polyhedron-23-t012.png and marked the old name for deletion! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Tetradecagon, hexadecagon, octadecagon

Are there images missing? Also, on my screen the figures clash with the infobox. Your screen may be unusually wide. Xanthoxyl (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry yes. They don't exist yet. I can make PNG for the higher n-simplex graphs at least, although would be nicer as SVG. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditopes and hosotopes

I haven't used Jenn in a while; let's see what happens ...

	$ jenn
	dyld: Library not loaded: /sw/lib/libpng.3.dylib
	  Referenced from: /Users/anton/bin/jenn
	  Reason: image not found
	Trace/BPT trap

Oh well. I may have to ask Fritz about that library. —Tamfang (talk)

Proposed deletion of Hemipolycron

The article Hemipolycron has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Tomruen, I don't like to badger other users into doing things, but it looks like I'll need you to upload some images for the hemipolycra. It'll at least have some content. By the way does the octahemioctahedron have tetrahedral or octahedral symmetry? That would explain

and

. Thanks. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 14:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you add more content now, you will just have to add it again to Hemipolyhedron when this one gets deleted. I'd suggest that you work on the article that's going to stay - I already copied the present content across for you. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks Steelpillow, I propose redirecting Hemipolycron to Hemipolyhedron, since they're duals of each other. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 14:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject

I think you'd be interested in WikiProject Polyhedra. Hope to see you around there! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 04:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dissected regular icosahedron

The article Dissected regular icosahedron has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No meaningful content; an image with the same title as article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a redirect for it to a section of grand antiprism. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hemipolycra

Hi Tomruen, you can make Stella show more of the hemipolycra faces by doing Ctrl+Left-Drag. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. The Hemipolyhedron#Duals_of_the_hemipolyhedra images were not from Stella. It makes really short prisms. I retraced them (and poorly color-shaded), mostly from Mathworld images. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Stella can grow the prisms to any length you want, just as the good Prof. describes. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposition

I propose making a template for all uniform polyhedra instead of the old ones. (We might also have one for duals.) Uniform index would be fine. After U75 we could put Skilling's figure and then go through some of the prisms and antiprisms. (BTW, why is it U75 and Skilling are the only polyhedra that don't have their duals shown?) Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to try a new template and we'll see how it looks. I added the U75 dual image, wasn't added before because it was one of the ugly "hemi" forms with vertices at infinity, but I used your trick to extend the default prism sizes in stella. Oh, and Skilling's dual is visually identical, linked to the same image. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like the minor planets navigator we have. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See Template:MinorPlanets Navigator. I wonder how they did that. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's template substitution, { { { 1 } } } represents first item after template name.

I'd appreciate it if you put {{talkback}} on my talk page whenever you reply, so that I don't need to keep checking back. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'll be lazy, whatever that is. You can just put a watch on my page, and look for the section header of interest.

It looks like

Hello, Tomruen. You have new messages at Example's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 08:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Snub

How do you make snub with KaleidoTile?!? I've been trying for ages! Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Doens't do it, only reflections. I've done it by hand for some tiling images, from an omnitruncation, and drawing over with MSPaint, connecting alternate vertices. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am using Jeff Weeks' software and have created out a batch of images for curved spaces. I've tried to upload the one for the Poincare dodecahedral space but, unfortunately, have found that you can't upload .bmp images. Still trying for now. ;-) Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Polyhedra

This was created by an indefinitely blocked user's sockpuppet, now also blocked. Usually I'd clear out his page creations, but as you've also contributed, are you happy to keep this running? --Step hen 23:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He might have been a clown in ways, but he asked a lot of questions helped prod a lot of useful help in the geometry/polyhedra articles. I'm not very ambitious for collabortive projects, but seems worth keeping. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll check back in a few weeks (if I remember!), if nothing much has happened I'll delete it. --Step hen 02:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just goes to show, banned users can sometimes make constructive contributions... Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Burlington IRV

Hi, there are plenty of references about the 2009 Mayoral election. The fact is that Montroll (D) was the Condorcet winner and was eliminated in the 2nd IRV round (if the Condorcet candidate makes it to the final IRV round, the Condorcet candidate will also win the IRV). I could send you an analysis/commentary regarding it, if you want. My email is rbj@@@@@@audioimagination.com. 74.104.160.199 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I emailed with Terry Bouricius and he sent me the data which I confirmed this interesting result. But what it really needs for Wikipedia is an online source to reference, either the data (that I have), or a published analysis. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please move: Great disnub dirhombidodecahecron --> Great disnub dirhombidodecacron

I really, really hope that was a typo. Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 13:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, fixed. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup

2009

Proposed date: Saturday, October 10.
Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: the meetup will be at 1 p.m. Sunday, October 11, in St. Paul. Click here for more details and to R.S.V.P. Jonathunder (talk)

Small stellated dodecahedron

The article does look much better with the art section split out. I realized that just removing one image from the gallery was not ideal, but I didn't want to change the overall layout of the article too much, and I couldn't see any other local change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stericated hexateron

Hi Tomruen.

Yes indeed, I'd be surprised if the vertex figure is a 16-cell. Althought, I thought it would be an elongated 16-cell, or something like that.

Sorry if I am wrong. Padex (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: a picture would be nice! (I do not have software to do it)

Thanks for your reply. Your guess was excellent. I confirmed it is a nonregular 16-cell. It's a tetrahedral antiprism (2 end regular tetra, 6 "middle tetra" connecting end-edges, and 2 sets of 4 pyramids connecting end faces and opposite vertices), or in general t04{p,q,r,s} vertf is a {q,r}-{r,q} antiprism. I'll see if I can draw it soon. I'm collecting them in tables at User:Tomruen/Uniform_polyteron_verf. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it was right. In fact I conjectured that in n+1 dimension, t0n{3,…,3} vertf is an elongated n cross-polytope. Thank you for the picture! But there is still missing a picture of the stericated hexateron itself. Hope it is coming soon! Padex (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've determined Petrie polygon skew orthogonal projections for the simplex/hypercube/orthoplex families, like File:Hypercube petrie polygons.png. My hopeful thought is to try to generate the uniform truncations for each regular from and see how they look. Actually I only compute vertices/edges now, so (as is) I could only generate rectified and truncated forms. So nothing soon from me, but not impossible! Tom Ruen (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Isotoxal figures

Hi Tom,

I'm afraid that my polytope library (nearly a whole shelf's worth now!) is packed away while we redecorate the house. Discussions on isotoxal figures may be found in several papers by Grünbaum (I have one or two), often co-authored with Shephard, including one which I do not have:

Grünbaum B & Shephard GC, Isotoxal tilings. Pacific J. Math. 76 (1978), pp 407 - 430

Hope all those polyhedra you lust added are listed as isotoxal by Cromwell or by another reference you will shortly be citing? If not, you are once again guilty of original research and should remove unreferenced examples forthwith. It is not for Wikipedia to decide which figures are isotoxal, but merely to report on published findings.

-- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All the uniform polyhedra listed are quasiregular polyhedrons by Coxeter (and duals), and they are edge-transitive because they are created by a Wythoff construction with the generator point at a corner of the fundamental domain, so only ONE mirror is active, and thus there can be only ONE edge being created in all reflections. Coxeter doesn't say edge-transitive or isotaxal, but this comes directly out from his definition.

I added the full list of isotoxal tilings made from polygon faces from Grünbaum, although his list of tilings includes more cases by marking the face orientation for different symmetry, and nonlinear edges. It would be nice to include those too.

Tom Ruen (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I see in general a one-ringed Coxeter-Dynkin diagram n-polytope is edge-transitive. And a one-ringed n-polytope dual is (n-2)-face-transitive. A one-ring polyhedron dual happens to be edge-transitive as well because n=3 (polyhedron), n-2=3-2=1 (so dual is 1-face(edge)-transitive). (There's a one-to-one correspondence between edges of a polyhedron and edges of the dual polyhedron.)
The bitruncated cubic honeycomb is edge-transitive AND face-transitive, so its dual is also edge-transitive, face-transitive, BUT only because they're both true. The rectified cubic honeycomb in contrast is vertex-transitive and edge-transitive, and its dual honeycomb is face-transitive and cell-transitive!

Tom Ruen (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Another issue that needs noting is "face markings", noted most simply as uniform colorings (keeping full symmetry of faces), but can be marked other ways too. A square tiling as {4,4} is edge-transitive, and as quasiregular t1{4,4} is also edge-transitive, but as t0,2{4,4} it is NOT!

Tom Ruen (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the GENERAL rule is that a vertex-transitive polytope is also edge-transitive if its vertex figure is vertex-transitive! (Since each vertex in the verf represents an edges in the polytope) Equally a vertex-transitive polytope that has an edge-transitive verf is face-transitive (since verf edges represent faces), and if it is face-transitive, the polytope is cell-transitive, and so on! You can call this wp:or, and I'll agree I need a source to confirm it!

Tom Ruen (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom, plese read Wikipedia:No original research carefully. Here are a few quotes:

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.|Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."

"'No original research' is one of three core content policies"

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."

It is clearly not permitted to assert that polyhedron X described in reference A can also be classified as isotxal because it meets the definition given in reference B. You cannot add a polyhedron to this page unless one of these references explicitly states that it is edge-transitive. Coming "directly out from [Coxeter's] definition", as you put it, is not sufficient justification - it has to come from his explicit discussion. Similar remarks apply to your other deductions. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Polyhedron inclusion isn't original thought, and it is verifiable fact by the definitions given. Generalizing the definition to higher dimensional polytopes I accept needs further sources that support my inferences. TECHNICALLY what I wrote up for isotoxal polygons section is deductive as well since I have ZERO sources that talk about isotoxal polygons, but they're a lower degree of complexity as polyhedra, so I felt that was justified. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting System FAR

I have nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous image licences

Hello, Tomruen. I'm currently conducting a GA review at Talk:Complete icosahedron/GA1, and I would appreciate it if you could clarify licensing for File:First compound stellation of icosahedron.png and File:Zeroth stellation of icosahedron.png (preferably with license templates). Thank you! --Edge3 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Were you able to determine the correct licensing?--Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No email reply yet. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the other stellation pictures are still free, right?--Edge3 (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply "Hello Tom, you can change the copyright note the way you suggested. I will probably change the applet itself copyright note in the similar way. All the best, Vladimir". I'll update licensing later tonight. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks for helping out with the article as well. --Edge3 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully all good now, used Template:Bulatov polyhedra stellations applet, except for images moved to common, which I pasted text directly. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work on complete icosahedron - the new structure is a big improvement. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Question...

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia, and have been wondering how to create an article concerning a NASA image, in which it would shed light on a 42 year old discovery which had been in the dark until recently (1990's). I don't want to sound weird, but the image itself can only be described as that. The image is from Lunar Orbiter 3, taken in February 1967, frame number 84MIII (LO-III-84H). Here is a list of links, which are mostly from reliable sources that have the enhancement versions of the image which contains object(s) in question. Some of these sites may contain conspiratorial information, which I myself am skeptical about, so please ignore that. This has nothing to do with transient lunar phenomenon or fake Moon landing theories (to be clear, the first is mostly natural, and I believe we have gone to the Moon), but this has to do with photographic evidence of something on the Moon.I always apply the scientific method to subjects of this manner. Just to know, I am a person of college level, not perfect, but other than that I prefer to remain an unknown user. The pictures are not fake, this is the first fact. There are others that I might show later on, but I decided to start with the The Shard. After appearing on two news sites, two works of art, and many mystery sites on the net, I think this is worthy of its own article, or its up to you, we can add it as a section to the Lunar Orbiter 3 article. Nothing has been added to the original image, only a tiny portion has been enlarged and enhancement to show the object(s). The object(s) are connected to the ground and have shadows (they appear in 5 different photographs from other missions), and the other tiny white cross marks, lines, and specks are the photographic defects. A NASA scientist has also quoted on the object(s) (I remember this quote, but have to find it). He was basically saying that you would need water or wind erosion to create it in millions of years (which there is supposedly none on the Moon), it may be referring to another object, but it goes something like this, "No geological phenomenon can explain this object" (the average height of both object(s) is 4 miles, or the size of the Himalayas). Also the appearance of the object suggests it is a crystalline glass structure (note, if artificial, it would take hundreds of years to build, and glass weighs 10 times more than steel on the Moon, but I'm not sure about the latter). This and many other details appear in the links given below. I am new to these subjects myself, and I chose your page to ask a question, because you have responded quickly to the messages on your talk page, and that you appear to have an open mind. The thing that astounds me, and should everyone else, is that it's just unbelievably ridiculous that this image has not made the news yet. There are 15 links, and I would like to apologize if they take too much time to look at, so thank you for your time. Therefore, I really appreciated and thank you for reading this message. Please, if you can just respond on your own talk page, that would be great, so best of regards.

Goodbye now, thanks again!--24.23.160.233 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry I'm not going to be much help. From what I've seen many space-based images have many visual artifacts that can appear to be things they are not, and such artifacts are routinely identified as such and removed from public images. I can imagine it would be exciting to see a mystery and want an explanation and to speculate. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, original research is not allowed, and copying individual speculation from websites alone can't be considered valid source material for articles. Wikipedia is also supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. The only way I can imagine any of this being defend able on Wikipedia is if there is ALREADY news and public debate on an issue, and documenting the debate, like if NASA published statements to explain claimed anomaly and their speculation, that would make it more legitimate. I wish you luck. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, I want to thank you for your response. Secondly, I understand that a legitimate source must be used for this anomaly, however, if I find the NASA quote on the object, news articles about it, and other confirmation of the object (as it appears in 5 different photographs), can I began to add some of it to the Lunar Orbiter 3 article, as a starting point? Also, the goal of NASA is not find extraterrestrial life itself, so they would ignore this relatively new subject, and would think anyone that believes in stuff on the Moon, to be like the crazy people who think there is a Face on Mars. This Moon stuff is now becoming more popular than doing xenoarchaeology on Mars. Now, I think it would be best to add it as a section in the Sinus Medii article (as the object(s) appears in this region of the Moon), and if it gains momentum to then think about having its own article, which seeing from your analysis that the second will never happen. I might become a user, so I'll work on it my user space, then I might add it to the Lunar Orbiter 3 or Sinus Medii article. For the time being, I am surprised to see that your not the least bit excited at the implications of the photograph, considering that this object(s) may still be on the Moon (and from what I know it's not the only one). I hope that you have checked out all the links, and if you were interested, I highly encourage you to do your own research on the object, to verify for yourself. The next links that I posted are the best I can find, so I humbly ask you to please look at these, just once.There is, however, another photograph taken by Apollo 11, uncatalogued, presented by Ken Johnston (LIFEMagazine.com, Blog spot article about his background, featuring a photo of Ken with Buzz Aldrin, First article on a news site, and there is more, about the subject), that shows another object estimated to be 10-15 miles tall, except most of the photograph is overexposed with light (possibly from the glass, as you may know NASA has even said the Moon has high concentrations of glass, and water ice at its poles). This is probably the best "public" photograph of them all. Firstly there is this object (it was taken at the same angle you would think it was taken at, it was also in the dark part of the Moon, so it would have to had produced its own light to be visible, height 10 miles) "The Castle", and this second one is the best one that I was talking about (you can't miss this, your so close), its not enhanced or edited, and you can still see the object "The Tower", When you go here, click twice in where the link is written, then press enter for it to work. You may want to read the Brookings Report, where it gives them legal justification to protect this information, because it might cause some extremists to threaten our current Earth society (and you don't have to be a con...... theorist to know this). I also found a highly reliable site that features (Lunar Micro-fossils, and a critical review of the article). Here are other interesting photographs for your enjoyment, they are from Apollo 17, the ones from NASA.gov have been edited, and they are either blank or have a blacked out sky; AS17-136-20780, LRV Floor? Sun struck. AS17-136-20767, (You must zoom in first) Top left corner of the hill, 3,000 mile long cable attached to a tower?, (When you go here, click twice in where the link is written, then press enter for it to work) Magnified for more detail. AS17-136-20758, (You must zoom in first) Above the astronauts head to the right, more cables and towers?. Still not convinced? This is just the tip of the iceberg. These appear to semitransparent and glass like, which you can almost see the stars behind them. I don't know how you can say that every one of these are visual artifacts, and that they should be routinely removed from public images to be kept where? Please remember, all I want is to see how Wikipedia's interested in the Moon people would react to this information, and maybe start to make this mainstream. I just want to have some dialogue, to know what you guys think, and your advice on how to handle this information. If you know any Moon person on Wikipedia that can help me with this information, then please say. So finally, I dearly thank you for reading, and if you can respond here one last time, that would be splendid, take care.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm sorry. I really can't recommend your enthusiasm in starting articles on Wikipedia on these subjects. You are too close to an advocacy side to be trusted. Unless you can find someone else interested in working with you to present a balanced article, and challenging sources, I'm sure you're going to run into trouble. I'm sorry. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing references

I'm cleaning up references which are not verifiable. Most were to an unpublished thesis, there were some to a dead AOL site, not really reliable anyway. WP guidelines state that references cited must be verifiable, meaning I can look them in a library or find them online. Unpublished work does not fall into this category.--RDBury (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't look very hard, do you. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Polytope in R⁴, Marco Möller
- 2004 Dissertation (German): VierdimensionaleArhimedishe Polytope

a) It's not my job to look; the cites were bad and needed to be removed. Please put in better ones if you have them. b) The references I deleted where to a 2001 thesis, not the 2004 dissertation you've given. Again, please add it to the articles if it's relevant.--RDBury (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not your job to look for references when deleting uncited material, but it is your job to look before deleting references used by properly-cited material.—Tetracube (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The 2001 thesis references were wrong, should be corrected. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I added the 2004 dissertation as a ref to Uniform polychora since it was refered to the the article body.--RDBury (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully it is all cleaned up now, at least within what was there! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Software used?

Which software did you use to create File:Schlegel wireframe 120-cell.png? please reply to my talk page. SharkD (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

what's who

Heh, will User:Uniform polyteron be your next sockpuppet? —Tamfang (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be the only way I'll focus long enough finish the article! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You have 5,552 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages).

I only have 2101, and dimly remember thinking that six hundred was a bit much. —Tamfang (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In the last few months I have whittled it from 18511 to 14410. Henceforth it should decay automatically as I have made "watch for one year" my default. —Tamfang (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Tom...

The article talked about the eclipse as if it were a current event and I thought it was a test page. My bad. I'll restore it immediately. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. Sometimes I really do pull the trigger a bit too fast; thank goodness my boneheaded mistakes are reversible! :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Polygon density

Tom, sorry to be a killjoy, but Cayley, Cromwell and Mathworld (apparently correct for once) apply density to the whole figure, not to individual regions. I'll check your Coxeter references, but am not hopeful. The local property of individual regions of a polygon is the winding number, not density - whatever we talk about among ourselves. Unless you know of a reputable reference to show otherwise? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture nomination

I just wanted you to know that I nominated File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif as a featured picture candidate. RobertJWalker | Talk 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I should mention a similar animation was a featured picture from 2006. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At (English?) PotD:Nov 10, 2005 and in [commons for Aug 9, 2006], 2006 finalist, comments copied at User:Tomruen/2006featuredpicture.

AfD nomination of Robert Williams (geometer)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Robert Williams (geometer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (geometer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good news

Hello Tomruen,

Instead of being deleted, the article Robert Williams (geometer) has been moved into the article incubator. The incubator is a collaborative environment aimed at helping new articles be brought up to Wikipedia's standards in an environment that is free from the pressures of impending deletion. To continue working on your article, please visit Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Robert Williams (geometer).

If you have any questions or need help, feel free to ask and I will be glad to help. — Sebastian 07:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lunar Libration

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! jjron (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I wasn't entirely sure of the origin of this - I assume you didn't actually take the photos used to create it so I tried to work that into the caption in the FP gallery; see Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Astronomy#By_Wikipedians. If you think that's misleading or wrong please tell me or fix it yourself (or both).

Also I was wondering what this version provides that the current FP image File:Lunar libration with phase2.gif doesn't, or is the older one now superseded? I don't think this was raised in the nomination. If it has been superseded then we should put the old one up for delist. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jjron! Thanks. Looks good to me. On issue of superseding, animations are interchangable in value, second has more frames, and higher resolution, so slower to download? There were comments in the approval process, but no plan for improvement. I made a newer one, also about the same File:Lunation animation November 2009.gif, but noticed I must have brightened the ambient light for the original animation, so different again. I have no great preference. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. A more fun animation I made a while ago shows Saturn's ring and shadows, File:Saturn_timelapse-29_years.gif, but I never got around to validation to show the "unlit ringside" appearance with the most recent actual photos from the Cassini spacecraft. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they could serve different purposes, I'm just thinking more in terms of FP whether there's any need to feature both, i.e., if they both illustrate the same thing, then we would generally feature just the highest res/quality version. Was just seeking feedback from you whether we should delist the older one now this one is featured - in terms of FP download speeds aren't considered a factor, it's just about featuring the highest quality. Good work on these BTW. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Per the above discussion I have put the old one up for delist at FPC - see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Lunar libration. Note this doesn't impact its status in articles, etc. --jjron (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure (book)

I've modified the template so that it can accept a page or pages parameter, e.g. {{The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure (book) | page=38}}. I think it works better to do that, when possible, than to append the page number afterwards, because it becomes a proper part of the citation template and is formatted the way the citation template normally formats these things. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

HEY thanks David! I never quite figured that out before! :) Tom Ruen (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Not only did you take it gracefully when a page you had contributed to was deleted; you even went ahead and did the necessary cleanup step in over 70 articles, elegantly employing a template for easier maintenance. — Sebastian 23:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)