User talk:Tomruen: Difference between revisions

At User talk:Fuzzypeg#Pentagram of Venus i communicated in more detail to the contributor of the most recent version of Pentagram#Pentagram of Venus about my concern that that section needs to become an independent page (and be linked from the Pentagram article). You also may want to consider commenting at Talk:Pentagram#Omnibunstrosity.
--Jerzy•t 01:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wiki/Talk:Star_polygon/Gallery

Hi, I found your images. Great. WHat software do you use ? I have made similar images as a description of rotation maps. The source code you can find at the image page or here - newest version. Have a nice day. --Adam majewski (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my own 2d geometry editor in Java, and scripting access via JavaScript. Sometimes I'll use Inkscape also for SVG post-processing. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. You should use attribute grouping, like <g style="font-family:Arial; font-size:20; stroke:#FF0000; fill:#FF0000;"> ... </g> for your SVG common elements. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I noticed you've been an important contributor / author for the articles on Platonic and Archimedean solids. I wanted to thank you for the images and information you've contributed, and also for being good at guiding newcomers. We need more like you. Thanks. -- 174.152.177.34 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's been my privilege to help here. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onus

I understand you are passionately in favour of including those books, but you are wrong to say that the default is the status quo. All content likely to be challenged, must be discussed and gain consensus. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. All anyone would have to do is drop some crap in an article, then forever after they can claim it's the status quo. I find it disappointing that you are so insistent on promoting these books. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My passion is context. If people are using a name "flower of life", I think it is pointless to try to hide the source, however passionate you are to hide things you find offensive. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center

The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon

Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016, 6–8pm
Location: Loft Literary Center, 1011 S Washington Ave, Room 203, Minneapolis
Sponsor: The Loft Literary Center

Hello Tomruen! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided.

For more information and to RSVP: → click here ←

We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planet nine artistic images.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Planet nine artistic images.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E8

Your file File:4 21 t0 E8.svg

Well its amazing. I'm working on a revised standard model of particle physics. Your file fits I think. Every red dot is a particle. Does that make any sense to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky1111111 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an exceptionally simple theory of everything. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewScientist

Hi Tom, There's an article in NewScientist that I thought you might find interesting. nagual design 13:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Too bad they didn't use the newest one. And now I know your name. I hope the pretty graphics help the astronomer's imaginings going long enough to find the real thing! I wish they'd not raise our hopes so much! A few months!? If its real, I'm betting we'll find it in dozens of existing photos, once we back-calculate its orbit. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to put an imaginary wager on when they'll find it? I'll bet you a i£1,000 that it won't be this year. nagual design 20:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think we're on the same side of that bet. I like sure thing bets myself. My favorite ironic scenerio is that the pattern is coincidental, and we eventually confirm that by finding hundreds of other outer bodies in more randomized positions, BUT perhaps there really is something big, lurking in the darkness that we'll find by accident, because of this newest search for planet 9/X. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Nine Path through Orion

The GAN is asking for more specific info about the chosen path. Is it the mean, the median, the line of best fit? Please let me know. Thanks. Serendi ^podous 10:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The path given represents the position and path shown in the Artistic conception [1], and the same as shown in our version of it. That is, the exact opposition position in the sky of the sun in the artistic image. I admit a better diagram might show a full set of simulated paths, similar to diagrams here [2] although it looks like none of those are pure RA/Declination plots. There is a full sky RA/Dec plot in this video/time, [3] showing the paths (sinusoidal gray areas) and Mike Brown points out that Orion is where it is most likely now. I can't remember if I've seen such a plot exactly, but it would be hard to reproduce. Mostly I thought my simple image would help convey a sense of approximately where it might be, and how it would be moving. A better version would show a wide gray area of varied orbits. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 1932 lunar eclipse Rating

I rated the page March 1932 lunar eclipse as a stub and of low importance. 78.148.76.115 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 The GAN is asking for more specific info about the chosen path. Is it the mean, the median, the line of best fit? Please let me know. Thanks. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 10:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 : The path given represents the position and path shown in the Artistic conception [http://www.findplanetnine.com/p/blog-page.html], and the same as shown in our version of it. That is, the exact opposition position in the sky of the sun in the artistic image. I admit a better diagram might show a full set of simulated paths, similar to diagrams here [http://www.findplanetnine.com/p/blog-page.html] although it looks like none of those are pure RA/Declination plots. There is a full sky RA/Dec plot in this video/time, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1jPxZQoVVZo#t=2634] showing the paths (sinusoidal gray areas) and Mike Brown points out that Orion is where it is most likely now. I can't remember if I've seen such a plot exactly, but it would be hard to reproduce. Mostly I thought my simple image would help convey a sense of approximately where it might be, and how it would be moving. A better version would show a wide gray area of varied orbits. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen#top|talk]]) 12:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
+== March 1932 lunar eclipse Rating ==
+I rated the page [[March 1932 lunar eclipse]] as a stub and of low importance. [[Special:Contributions/78.148.76.115|78.148.76.115]] ([[User talk:78.148.76.115|talk]]) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)