User talk:Tomruen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Tomruen's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Tomruen.
Please leave a new message.

Archives:

Contents

[edit] 2008 comments

[edit] WTF explanation

Tom, I was in the middle of editing Talk and the subhead got screwed up. This was about the mention of "single vote" in the introduction, not about the explanation of what "instant runoff means." this is all summarization of the RFC, since MilesAgain is editing based on his imagination of what the seriously defective RFC meant. (He asked three questions, then answered them with a single "Yes," causing all kinds of ambiguity in the subsequent discussion, as three distinct questions got all mixed up. That *might* be what he wants, I might suspect, but that would be WP:ABF though I don't have a lot of trouble with that assumption with sock puppets. Sorry for the confusion. --Abd (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm grumpy all around, least of all the confusion on the IRV talk page. I think your view is wrong. Single-transferable-vote is a darn good name for IRV, and applied to IRV outside the U.S. for single winner elections. However you want to word it, single vote deserves PRIME attention in the IRV intro. I can say no more without getting more frustrated, and I'm staying out of editing. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image:2-cube column graph.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2-cube column graph.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. —PNG crusade bot (feedback) 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Császár polyhedron

Hi! Would you like to try and make some image (or even an animation) of this strange polyhedron? I found some images here and there, and it seems quite a difficult job. Thanks --Zio illy (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, and agreed hard, even if I had the vertex-edge-face data, to draw a single perspective that shows much what it is. I must hold off now, but tell me if you find any data for it! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRV implementations in United States

Dear Tom Ruen, we already have an article on the history and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States. I recommend that this article and your article (IRV implementations in United States) should be merged. Markus Schulze 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Markus. I realized, but it seemed ignored and so it was easier to MOVE material from the main article than merge, so I'm happy if anyone else wants to sort this out. I was just trying to get the details off the main article.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Uniform dual polyhedra db

A tag has been placed on Template:Uniform dual polyhedra db requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if its deleted now, as long as I can recreate it when I get around to using it. Thanks! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Uniform dual tiles db

A tag has been placed on Template:Uniform dual tiles db requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I just wanted to thank you for the Eclipse page. Its really cool, and well done. Keep up the good work. 67.188.118.64 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your interspersed Talk edit

Tom, you made an interspersed Talk response with [1]. I used to be tempted to do that kind of thing because of my history with mailing lists, where interspersal in a reply is often very good; however, here, what serves as the effective primary record of a discussion gets cut up, making it more difficult to follow who is saying what. If it is justified, the prior section really should have a sig added to it (copy of the original), and a note that it is continued below). Instead, if I really need to respond to something point by point, I have adopted the practice of quoting it, often with italics to set it off. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments and specifically:

  • Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.

--Abd (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I think we should come up with a template for letting people know about this whole interspersed editing thing. In fact, I'm going to be bold and do it right now! The new template is Template:Intersperse, and it takes one parameter, e.g. {{intersperse|Talk:IRV_implementations_in_United_States}}. See below for example:

Please do not intersperse your comments with those of the editor you are replying to, as you did at Talk:IRV_implementations_in_United_States. While this is common practice in mailing lists, where interspersal in a reply is often very good, here it breaks up the effective primary record of a discussion, making it more difficult to follow who is saying what. If it is justified, the prior section really should have a signature added to it (copy of the original), and a note that it is continued below. Instead, if you really need to respond to something point by point, you may wish to adopt the practice of quoting it, perhaps with italics to set it off. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments.

Ron Duvall (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - Template sounds useful, although I was just copying Abd's old bad behavior! :) Tom Ruen (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Copy my good behavior, not my bad! I'll try to do the same with you... okay? --Abd (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shoulders of giants

Did you know that Sir Isaac Newton's famous humble-pie quote "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" was actually written to a dwarf scientist named Robert Hooke and clearly meant as an insult? Ron Duvall (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a mean-spirited person too! The ideal insults ought to be constructed so as to never to be recognized... :) Tom Ruen (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] symmetry

I didnt find out what I was looking for. I wanted to know how many lines of symmetry a cuboid has! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.75.157 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:E8_graph2.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:E8_graph2.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Nv8200p talk 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I've seen your important contributions for the article Exact trigonometric constants. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}, when n is natural (and is not given in advance). Do you know of any such general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression? (note that any exponential-expression-over-the-imaginaries is also excluded since it's trivially equivalent to a real-trigonometric expression).

  • Let me explain: if we choose n=1 then the term \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} becomes "0", which is a simple (non-trigonometric) constant. If we choose n=2 then the term \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} becomes \begin{align}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{align}, which is again a non-trigonometric expression. etc. etc. Generally, for every natural n, the term \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} becomes a non-trigonometric expression. However, when n is not given in advance, then the very expression \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} per se - is a trigonometric expression. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression equivalent to \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}, when n is not given in advance. If not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent.

Eliko (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, interesting question. Obviously it can be computed for a given n, by half angle identities. If we looked at: cos(45 deg), cos (22.5), cos(11.25), cos(6.625), probably we'd see a sequence of ever deeper nesting radicals. I'm not sure what you mean by non-iterative. I wouldn't expect the radials could be simplified further in general, but I don't know. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
By "non-iterative formula" I mean: closed formula. Anyways, thank you for your answer. Eliko (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guess What!

The Regret Tenenbaum Seal of Approval
Holy Crap! You were awarded the The Regret Tenenbaum Seal of Approval for being so awesome!

- Regret Tenenbaum (talk)

[edit] Bowers style acronym

Why you removed Bowers style acronym [2] ? Maksim-e (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the article Bowers style acronym was deleted. I figured better to hide the codes until some point they can be defended (like if they're referenced in a printed book someday.) SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting - delete nomination

I've nominated Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting for deletion. Please review and weigh in on this issue. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compound of great icosahedron and great stellated dodecahedron

Compound of great icosahedron and great stellated dodecahedron is writen to be nr 61 at List of Wenninger polyhedron models, but not seems to be similar to it!


Compound of great icosahedron and great stellated dodecahedron
nr 61 at List of Wenninger polyhedron models

Maksim-e (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like both have a great icosahedron, but second doesn't have a great stellated dodecahedron, but hard to tell what it is... I'll have to look further. It's constructed from the stellation diagram in the book. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


great icosahedron
great stellated dodecahedron

[edit] Rhombic triacontahedron

Just a quick request/question. I recently converted Image:Rhombictriacontahedron net.png into an SVG image Image:Rhombictriacontahedron net.svg; however, the PNG version is still on Rhombic triacontahedron. Could you please fix this, as I have no clue how the template works! Thanks. --pbroks13talk? 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, changed at Template:Semireg dual polyhedra db. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CO2 levels graph question

hey, just a question about your graph of CO2 levels over time, 650,000 years bp to now. The graph clearly decreases steadily several times, then jumps up. The decrease is always much slower than the increase. Also, the periods between increase and decrease are getting longer and the decreases and increases are increasing in amplitude. Why do you think this is? (the 3 things, I mean)? :)

Thanks for any response. It's an interesting graph, thanks. SpookyMulder (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Spooky. I basically only know it signifies the ice-ages, and correlates with average world temperature. CO2 itself increases generally with increased biological activity, so you might imagine less frozen land, more life, warmer oceans, more life, etc. There are theories that the ice age periods are related to periodic changes in the earth's oribit and axial tilt. On why the declines are slow and rise fast, my only guess is that once glaciers start to melt, they retreat relatively quickly (at least in geologic time), compared to forming? Anyway, my primary interest in the graph was to show named geological ice-ages as places in time, using the CO2 levels as a known absolute scale. It is very cool! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Graph: Image:Atmospheric CO2 with glaciers cycles.gif