User:Tomruen/archive14

¡Una barnstar para ti!

	La Insignia de Diligencia
	The Wikipedia articles on uniform polyhedra, for which you're in great part responsible, are what initially got me into the topic. Thanks! OfficialURL (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

non-square planes through exactly 4 vertices of the 24-cell

I relaxed 'square planes' to 'rectangular planes' because i believe there are rectangular planes through exactly 4 vertices, each rectangle having two edges of length 1 (they are 24-cell edges) and two edges of length √2 (they are 16-cell edges). These rectangles bisect the cubes of the inscribed tesseracts, their long edges being face diagonals of the cubes, and their short edges being cube edges. The diagonals of these rectangles are √3 chords of the 24-cell (long diagonals of the cubes), so each rectangular plane is comprised of two right triangles of edge lengths √1 √2 √3. I count 576 such triangles in the 24-cell, making 144 such rectangles. I didn't include these details (instead just mentioning 'some rectangles' in addition to the squares) because I can't find a source for this and wanted to avoid reporting 'original research'. Incidentally, I think these are the only non-square planes through 4 and only 4 vertices in the 24-cell. They do not lie in the hexagonal great circle planes (nor in the square great circle planes), and they are not great circle planes themselves. Dc.samizdat (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Why not create articles for all dual uniform polyhedra?

I've noticed that some dual uniform polyhedra have their own article, while others have been relegated to a section on the original polyhedron's article. Why? I get that there isn't much that we can say about most of these figures, but in that case, why have any of them in the first place? – OfficialURL (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit confusing to have some as sections of the uniform polyhedra, and some as their own articles. It could be argued either way, but the simplest rule might be to keep as sections, but if more to say about specific forms, they can have their own article. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Going around deleting stub dual articles will probably be much more of a hassle than it's worth. But I'm currently translating the polyhedra articles to Spanish, and what I'll do there is to simply keep them as sections. – OfficialURL (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Just posting to say Im glad to see youre still around after all these years and youre still editing articles about planets as well as lots of other interesting things. I appreciate your writings, ... thank you for all your hard work. —Soap— 23:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I use your Flower of Life ? #StopCovid - LOCAL FR - Non-profit

Dear Tom,

I actually need it now, it is to serve as a logo to our non-profit against Covid19 (heavy deliveries to old people, phonecalling them ...). The long story below. It is a very local need. But it is just the perfect logo :) Thanks so much for your approval. J. LD

ME : I am a very new user of wikipedia, I discovered you "Flower of life" material hence my Linkedin 1st approach :)

WHY YOUR LOGO SPECIFICALLY : See specific reason (4).

(1) We are here currently being stroke by Covid19 and obviously contained in our houses. Unfortunately the assistance to sick people takes all the time and focus of our good servants, letting aside those that are stroke by loneliness and un-connection (a lot of "white zones" here = no internet).

At least, we know eachother, so we know the needs we have that are ignored by our government tackling the heavy sanitary crisis.

(2) Indeed, we had a uncommon life experience last year where all the people from our remote countryside gathered, and we met, we discussed and laughted, and cryed, at what we call our "roundabouts". We had put on our Yellow Vests from our cars, so you might have heard the great dynamic we created. Then we disappeared, most of us were old, they vanished in peace, most of us struggled with work, kids, rent to pay ... We met so many different kind off palls : young, old, educated, uneducated, from all races, religions, politics, only sharing the survival spirit that took us in the street to claim our right to GO TO WORK (yes it was mostly it for a starter) ... we kept in touch. We kept taking care of each-other, visiting, catching up at the market, shouting stupidities or very relevant matters on facebook, meeting for a coffee, gardening for those who need, or helping with a roof matter, or for a car engine matters, we became a Helping Squad. And then the Covid19.

(3) We can not move without showing a paper to the police. But the needs are still there : drop a box of catfood, a pack of water, ... So the youngest decided : let's go get that F. paper that authorises us to go help with gloves and masks our elders, while mothers are homeschooling as they can ...

(4) The administration needs a name and a logo to approve a Police "Laisser-passer" The name comes quite easily, with YELLOW and WHITE, and the logo, quite easily also, countryside + Round-abouts + solidarity = your Flower of life.

Would you please accept us to use it ? With your agreement I guess I just have to download it and print it, and there goes our non-profit organisation to block the covid but spread the love and care from our cars to the windows.

We hope it will all vanish and the world will be free of the monstrous & fast spreading and killing disease. We hope you'll accept to share.

Regards from France.

MERCI Julie Little Drop (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)J. LD

Sure, use as you like. All images have licensing statements. I'm curious which image. One of these? [1] Tom Ruen (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The simple one, "Seed of life" :) Julie Little Drop Julie Little Drop (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

License on CDel_3sg.png, and SVGs in Template:Coxeter–Dynkin diagram

Hi Tom,

I'm interested in converting Template:Coxeter–Dynkin diagram to use at least some SVGs and have been uploading new vectorizations to Commons. While doing so I noticed that you licenced File:CDel_3sg.png () as CC-BY-SA 3 rather than public domain, so calling {{Coxeter–Dynkin diagram|3sg}} is technically a license violation - CC-BY-SA requires attribution, such as a link to the description page, and the template prevents the link from displaying. Do you want to change the license on that image to PD?

Many thanks, User:GKFX^talk 14:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not following that licensing problem. You want them all as PD? Would anyone actually complain on this? What is the value of the SVG versions? In the past I didn't like them because they were fuzzy/antialiased. Maybe less of a problem with higher res screens now. But what advantage? The only advantage I could see is if they were rescalable in some contexts, and I didn't see how that could be done with variable width elements. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Uniform polyhedra db

I had previously been going around, formatting the "fractions" in Schläfli symbols, until David Eppstein told me that this was actually against the math style conventions, and mathematically questionable. I tried to revert these changes in the uniform polyhedra db. If I made a mistake, I'd prefer you told me, instead of reverting it completely.

Lots of errors. You shouldn't make mass changes by search and replace and not look at the cases changed. [2] Most seem to be Ih --> I_h, Oh --> O_h. Also 3⁴ --> 34, 3⁵ --> 35. It it my job to look and correct rather than revert? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Coxeter diagrams with explicitly labelled 2-edges aka disconnected edges

Nodes, rings, and holes

Hi TomRuen!

Thank you for your reply on [with the notational issue] on Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams which explicitly draw disconnected nodes, aka nodes with edges of weight 2. Though it is obvious is exactly equivalent to , it is quite interesting that might not be equivalent to or even !

However I am clarifying, if there are any explicit examples of Coxeter diagrams where two equivalent ways of writing them differing only by leaving disconnections as is "" or drawing them explicitly as in "" turns out to be not equivalent? Since your previous comment states that labeling the disconnections explicitly means the mirrors are alternated as a set.

I am also finding resources which explain Coxeter diagrams in detail.

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Think of it as order of operations, whether for polytopes or marking subgroup symmetry. You don't know if alternation is applied to each connected subgraph independently or at the end. Unconnected Coxeter diagrams can be seen as products. So = [ ], one mirror. is two orthgonal mirrors, a product: × , [ ] × [ ]. Then consider means an alternation of one mirror, which removes the mirror, so identity, [ ]+ =nothing, symmetry order 1. Then is potentially ambiguous. It could be the product of two independently alternated mirrors in product [ ]⁺ × [ ]⁺, which is nothing, or it could be , which is the alternation of two mirrors together, which makes a 180° rotation or a central reflection, [2]⁺, a 2-fold rotation. Norman Johnson distinguish by for [2]+, leaving a gap in the connecting line, but I find this can also look confusing since not connected. In all cases the Coxeter notation with brackets is more explicit, using explicit 2's in cases to show connections. There's a third case as well, [2,2] is three orthogonal mirror planes, and [2⁺,2⁺] is double-alternation, index 4 subgroup that becomes a 3D central invesion. I'd write , while Norman would write . Tom Ruen (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

For polyhedra/topes, antiprism is the main example. It looks like you changed it wrongly there. is degenerate because it means × , the product of a point and a polygon. The first mirror is inactive. = . Tom Ruen (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It is indeed unique that edges of weight 2, aka disconnections, can be ambiguous, which isn't the case for edges of any other weight. That should be added to the Coxeter-Dynkin diagram page. I did read a bit about Norman Johnson's doctoral thesis; *The theory of uniform polytopes and honeycombs*, and I am surprised that Norman Johnson also distinguished disconnections as in a product, and edges of weight two.

I am proposing that all edges of weight two should have an alternate notation, in this case, a "failed connection", the notation Johnson uses. The current notation looks misleading and "bigger" than an unmarked edge of weight 3. Please let me know regarding clarifying the differences between and aka and situations where the two differ.

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Stella4D image permission

You've uploaded a great deal of Stella4D renders to Wikimedia Commons, and I was planning to expand this list with some of the non–convex uniforms (even if they aren't getting their own Wikipedia article any time soon). However, Stella4D's license seems to restrict use of these files to non–commercial use, which is no good. I'm assuming you must've gotten specific permission from Robert Webb to upload the files you uploaded to Commons, then. If so, what exactly did you agree on? Would the same OTRS ticket apply if I started to upload more shapes? –OfficialURL (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why Robert has such a harsh unusable public statement. Originally (2006?) I made a permission template with Rob's help, basically similar to modern standard licensing requirement for attribution. Of late, I've been lazy and claimed images as my own given I'm the one generating the models. It's not like images I make with MSPaint deserves a Microsoft licensing, or other graphic editors like InkScape. They're just tools, not a secret, but the images made are mine to share and release as far as I'm concerned. OTRS tickets make no sense since you are making the images. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is Stella4D Pro that specifically allows commercial use. IIRC before version 5 came out there was no such thing; judging by the version history, previously commercial use was probably OK (at least, I had version 4.4 then). My copy of Stella died with my previous computer, unfortunately, but it was certainly 4.4. Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know if it’s legal for Rob to claim ownership over these files. It’s quite unfortunate that he does, however. Why gatekeep such a small community?

Off–topic: Rob’s well known for treating his software as a trade secret. For instance, one of Stella4Ds main features is being able to generate polychora from a verf. I wanted to generate my own models, so I asked him how the algorithm works. He refused to tell me on the grounds it would diminish the software’s value. Turns out, not even Bowers knows the specifics of the algorithm. So cool, now if I want to visualize 4D shapes, which last time I checked are public domain, I either have to figure it out completely by myself, or buy a specific $60 software.

I don’t mean to slander him, but I do mean to express disagreement with his philosophy. OfficialURL (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed all around. I requested Rob add an "export 4d model" option to 4OFF, but same logic, he wants control. I think I did offer to pay him for the option. So I can make external models and import, but I can't take internal models export and modify externally, which severely limits its usefulness. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it should still be possible to make the full snub 5-cell and other such almost-uniforms even so; you can easily get coordinates for the omnitruncates, and not-so-easily manually alternate them. There wouldn't really be a canonical version, I suppose. Double sharp (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, with a 4D export, I could compute full snub as alternated omnitruncation, even if no uniform/equilateral solution. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been making my own 4D OFF files, independently of Stella. I don't have that many yet (only the convex uniforms and some CRFs), but I've released all of the ones I have to the public domain. Here's a link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nQZ-QVVBfgYSck4pkZ7he0djF82T9MVy – OfficialURL (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Voyager 1 - 14 February 1990.png

Hi Tom, I hope you're well. I was just watching a live stream from NASA JPL and was pleasantly surprised to see this. Yep, that's Richard J. Terrile, astronomer and Voyager imaging team member, which makes the two of us unofficial Voyager imaging team members by my reckoning. nagualdesign 04:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice! Time query doesn't seem to work, but I found it, around 27 minutes. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! I was just rewatching that bit of the video (starting 17 minutes in) and noticed that Richard (yeah, we're on first name terms) waved his hand around to gesture where Voyager 2 might be. I wonder if we could make another image showing Voyager 2's trajectory, and one showing both trajectories? Let me know if you're up for it. All the best, nagualdesign 21:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I can try! Tomorrow? I only draw one trajectory path at time, but with luck I can merge two images and show both. !Tom Ruen (talk)

I can't remember how you sent me your preliminary images last time, or whether I gave you my email address. And take as much time as you like, Tom. Regards, nagualdesign 20:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it Joe! Sorry, got a couple steps too low on my list. I'll get it done. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: A first attempt here - [3], or higher resolution, thin lines File:Voyage-1-2-1977-2020-high.png . What do you think? Tom Ruen (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Also on the topic of Stella renders...

Recently, some "polytopologists" have gathered and created a wiki on the topic (https://polytope.miraheze.org/). I want to upload some Stella4D renders there. At the same time, I want to maintain stylistic consistency with the models you've uploaded, so at the very least, the models are similarly oriented. So, is there any set of default settings you've used to generate the models you've uploaded? – OfficialURL (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've generally just used the default colors and no thoughtful plan on orientations. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, weird they're so consistent. Well, I won't follow too much of an exact plan myself, in that case. – OfficialURL (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

For 4D wire-frames, I did try to get them in orthogonal symmetry orientations but nothing magic. That is, Stella doesn't allow input of orientations, so you have to manually adjust to a view, which is HARD in 4D! I wish I could input vector directions for Coxeter planes, but they're dependent on generation coordinates, so they'd really need to be computed somehow. Rob wasn't interested/able. That probably why I never went beyond convex forms much which I could know what I'm seeing better. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Steriruncitruncated 6-demicube" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Steriruncitruncated 6-demicube. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Steriruncitruncated 6-demicube until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A present to you, another kitty, hope you have fun with him too, for your contribution for eclipse Articles

RazorTheDJ (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yellow arc in "C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE)" image?

Could you take a look at the "Trajectory section" Talk section of article "C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE)" please? I added a question: "What is the continuous yellow arc in Comet_2020_F3-skyview.png ("Comet position in the sky.")?", and judging from a comment you made there, I thought you might know. Thanks -- BMJ-pdx (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nyx stream

Hello, Tomruen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nyx stream".

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 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 London Marathon and shoes

What shoes someone who came eighth wore, and someone who didn't compete was going to wear is not beneficial to be added in my opinion. If you want to add it again, start a talkpage discussion first. The shoes were relevant to world record attempts in 2019, but we aren't going to list what shoes people wear in every marathon event. It wasn't an important part of the race at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

E₈ → B₈  Projection Plane

Greetings.

Might I inquire as to the projection plane you used to create this image? In general, if you have a reference regarding orthogonal projections onto root systems that you'd like to suggest, I′d gladly give it a read. I have the Dover edition of H.S.M. Coxeter′s Regular Polytopes, but it's been a while since my initial read through. My approach involving the conjugacy classes of the automorphism group of the E₈ lattice picked up all but that projection and this beauty, which already has the requisite planar coordinates listed.

Thank you,

OzoneNerd (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I computed the B8 Coxeter plane from the 8-cube (±1,±1,±1,±1,±1,±1,±1,±1), the plane that projects a Petrie polygon onto a regular 16-gon. Half of these 256 vertices are also shared within the 4_21 polytope, along with 112 permutations of (±2,±2,0,0,0,0,0,0). Technically probably B8 could be excluded since it shows only half the symmetry of the 8-cube. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I also found the projection coordinates buried deep within this talk page. OzoneNerd (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you happen to have those coordinates:

• u = {0.097545161008, 0.277785116510, 0.415734806151, 0.490392640202, 0.490392640202, 0.415734806151, 0.277785116510, 0.097545161008}
• v = {-0.490392640202, -0.415734806151, -0.277785116510, -0.097545161008, 0.097545161008, 0.277785116510, 0.415734806151, 0.490392640202}

in a higher precision format, say a hundred or two hundred decimal places, so I can use Mathematica′sRootApproximant[]to find their exact form? Thanks again, OzoneNerd (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You can compute yourself in Mathematica. Take the coordinates (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1), (-1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1), (-1,-1,1,1,1,1,1,1), (-1,-1,-1,1,1,1,1,1), (-1,-1,-1,-1,1,1,1,1), (-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,1,1,1), (-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,1,1), (-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,1), (-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,1), and find a 2x8 projection matrix that maps them onto (cos(2*PI*i/16),sin(2*PI*i/16)), for i=0..8. So 16 linear equations, 16 unknowns. That's exactly what I did. There may be a better way, but it was the first way I tried. You can test for a cube first, mapping (1,1,1), (-1,1,1), (-1,-1,1), (-1,-1,-1) into a regular hexagon (1, 0), (0.5,√3/2), (-0.5,√3/2), (-1,0), looking down diagonal. Can Mathematica compute exact solutions for these? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, by my understanding, you've given me an overdetermined system with 16 variables and 18 equality constraints. What am I missing? OzoneNerd (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I found the typo (repeating the last coordinate in $\mathbb {R} ^{8}$ and saying that i runs from 0 to 8, which I interpreted as [0, 8] instead of [0, 8) ).

Indeed, Mathematica gives a quite nice closed form solution:

$u={\frac {1}{4}}\left\{4\sin ^{2}\left({\frac {\pi }{16}}\right),\,2\cos \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)-{\sqrt {2}},-2\sin \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)+{\sqrt {2}},\,2\sin \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right),\,2\sin \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right),-2\sin \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)+{\sqrt {2}},\,2\cos \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)-{\sqrt {2}},\,4\sin ^{2}\left({\frac {\pi }{16}}\right)\right\}$

$v={\frac {1}{4}}\left\{-2\sin \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right),\,2\sin \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)-{\sqrt {2}},-2\cos \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)+{\sqrt {2}},\,2\cos \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)-2,\,4\sin ^{2}\left({\frac {\pi }{16}}\right),\,2\cos \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)-{\sqrt {2}},-2\sin \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)+{\sqrt {2}},\,2\sin \left({\frac {\pi }{8}}\right)\right\}$

Thanks again, OzoneNerd (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Very nice. I should have clarified I repeated first and last coordinates, which were repeats, same constraints.

For the curious who might stumble upon this discussion in the future: My analytic solution does not give the same plane as TomRuen′s, but the resulting orthogonal projection of the E₈ lattice minimal vectors (the vertices of the 4₂₁ Gosset polytope) is the same.

$|u|=|v|={\sqrt {2-{\sqrt {2+{\sqrt {2}}}}}}\approx 0.390$, and $u\cdot v=0$.

The elements of $u$ and $v$ are all quartic roots, and some are the square roots of quadratic roots. The Galois groups of their corresponding field extensions are all $\mathbb {Z} _{4}\!$ (cyclic). If you renormalize them such that $|u|^{2}\!+|v|^{2}\!=1$ or $2$, they are all square roots of the roots of a single quartic (which differs depending on your choice of normalization) and give $\mathbb {Z} _{8}\!$ as the Galois group.

As these Galois groups are all solvable, you can express these values in a closed form in terms of nested roots. In this case, only square roots are necessary, and you need two or three levels of nesting for the non-renormalized and renormalized cases, respectively.

You end up the same minimal polynomials if you rotate the projection by π/8.

It's not unlikely, however, that one could find a simpler plane with the same orthogonal projection.

- OzoneNerd (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I made it into an eight-fold quasicrystal, essentially just by taking the Fourier transform. Thought you might like to see it. OzoneNerd (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Very pretty. So your name is Samuel Savitz? Tom Ruen (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

square equalities

good afternoon. Let me ask you how I can leave some of my data in the topic of discussion of the square. the right word. Nean Like 09:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nean Like (talk • contribs)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Ranked-Choice voting" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ranked-Choice voting. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 1#Ranked choice voting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein speaks

Your recent editing history at Cairo pentagonal tiling shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Editar imagen eclipse 2020

Hola, editaste esta imagen https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eclipse_total_Gorbea_2020.jpg Lo agradezco, pero la hacerlo perdió calidad

Acá esta la misma recortada de una manera que no perdió resolución https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eclipse_m1.jpg

No se si puedes remplazar la imagen anterior por la nueva en alta definición, yo soy muy novato en esto.

Saludos — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuervoNN (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Translate: Hello, you edited this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eclipse_total_Gorbea_2020.jpg I appreciate it, but doing it lost quality. Here is the same cropped in a way that did not lose resolution https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eclipse_m1.jpg I don't know if you can replace the old image with the new one in high definition, I am very new to this.

I see! Looks like original image is protected now, but I can help reload a full resolution cropped version when it is released again. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)