User talk:Tomruen

Happy New Year, Tomruen!

Happy New Year!

Tomruen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Octagonal trapezohedron for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Octagonal trapezohedron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octagonal trapezohedron until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

1234qwer1234qwer4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Heptagonal trapezohedron for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heptagonal trapezohedron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptagonal trapezohedron until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

1234qwer1234qwer4 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prism tilings

Template:Prism tilings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you do 1001-gon?

. Otimaomo24 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There are lots of polygon articles being deleted or redirected. But if you have source articles that explain its significance. I see 1001 is 13x11x7. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So it is not classically constructible, if that's the question. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tomruen reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: ). Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Knock off the personal attacks

Comments like these [1][2][3][4] are not acceptable, especially when dealing with a contentious topic. Focus on the content, not the contributor. You've certainly been here long enough to know how to edit civilly, so please do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

When you see crap articles and the person defending them, it is hard. Ideologues are real people, and they have agendas. Denying that is hopeless. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks is not the way to proceed here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Great job deleting hist versions of the article showing possible improvements. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Women's Declaration International) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Now others can see the horrible article as undefendably bad. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You can civilly discuss your objections and issues on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Great job deleting my edit revisions.[5] We wouldn't want people to be able to look at possible improvements. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Revisions that contain copyright violations are routinely deleted. In fact, that is the first listed acceptable use of revision deletion. See WP:RD1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I added that could possibly be a problem was a list of Declaration items. I reduced to a single sentence to try to make it acceptable. Actually linking to the source is useful, unless you're an ideologue onyl writing content to demonize it. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Last warning on civility. Maybe take a break for a while, or have a cup of tea. You've been here for a very long time with a clean block log, and I don't want to sully it more than I already have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tomruen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I DID NOT intentionally try to restore anything not allowed. I directly tried to understand what the claim was and I correct it, while in the process of larger good edits being repeatedly reverted.

Decline reason:

You're blocked only from one article, for three days. Use the talk page to work out issue, but really. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I saw the reason for blocking as unjust, so I spoke up as any self-respecting person would do. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use an article talk page for general discussion, as you did at Talk:Martine Rothblatt. You have been on Wikipedia since 2004, which is before some of our other editors were born. You know how things work around here perfectly well. Your trolling was entirely deliberate. You have been blocked for similar behaviour before. I see no reason to make this anything less than a final warning. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I know. Trolling truth is still trolling. Truth is not allowed for special people who have special protections against factual reality. The emperor may have no clothes, but no one but children are allowed to say so, and they will be properly punished. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you really going to throw away your almost two decades old Wikipedia account by behaving like this? I hope not. That would be truly sad. You don't have to do this. Please, just drop the WP:STICK. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Am I free to editorialize on my own talk page? I see you are allowed your gender-cult biases against reality. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

User:DanielRigal#The_things_that_I_can't_stand To the people who deliberately misgender or deadname people in articles or on Talk We have all heard your spurious ideological justifications but nobody is fooled. You just want to hurt and humiliate other people who you perceive as vulnerable and within shouting distance. Ironically, you only diminish yourself when you do this. Besides, why do you even care enough about what gender somebody else is to be a dick about it? What is wrong with you? Note: When I revert deliberate misgendering I often issue warnings for "inserting deliberate factual errors". I don't do this for amusement. I do it because it is the correct warning for somebody deliberately making an article less correct in order to try to spread misinformation.

Are you OK? You used to edit constructively but now you are making personal attacks and getting into trouble over complete nonsense in a way that you never did before. Back when you tried to get Women's Declaration International spuriously deleted I was moved to speculate on the AfD that maybe your account had been compromised. I now doubt that is the case as you are still editing your mathematical essays but clearly something has changed radically, and very much not for the better. Please ask yourself honestly, are you OK? A lot of people are not. Please seek help from appropriate sources if you need to. Your behaviour isn't helping anybody, least of all yourself. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I've stayed the same. (Articles that can't be corrected for bias because cult editors have control are best deleted.) The cult thinking on Wikipedia and elsewhere in society is what changed. Of course there will be pushback when cult-beliefs take over institutions. And it is all dangerous, and the clarity for a NEED of pushback only increases every time we see censorship of facts is the rule. Groupthink is always bad, but worse when a group has social power to enforce it. Society won't survive these lies. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear who is engaging in cult like thinking here but I'm fully aware that there is absolutely no way for me to persuade you of that if you are not willing to consider the possibility. If you will just lay off the personal attacks and disruptive editing then we can just leave it here. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia after final warning then you know what will happen. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Reality must be a cult then, recognizing biological reality matters and defending sex-base boundaries. But the troubled cult can only exist in people who deny reality and use their power to silence others who are not in the cult. It'll reverse eventually, but I'm unhappy how much will be destroyed because the left can't police its own cults. We can check back our mutual assessment in 2030. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tomruen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry. What was my personal attack specifically?! Talking about cult thinking? Wikipedia supporting suppression of factual reality looks cultist to anyone outside of the cult. That's an opinion, not an attack. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tomruen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not understand what I was blocked for. I understand I can be blocked for posting opinions on talk pages. I will keep my offensive opinions on my personal talk page. What else can I do?

Decline reason:

At this point, you are headed for an indefinite block, not an unblock. I don't think that's what anyone wants to see happen here, but it's ultimately your decision. You may not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, and that includes on this talk page. If you are more intent on continuing to attack people or groups of people than being able to edit, there's only one ending to this story, and it's not a happy one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tomruen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't see how I can proceed, if I don't understand what a personal attack means. I'm liable to continue if someone else can define anything I say an attack and no one can give me specific example of what it looks like. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) :personal attack: An abusive remark on or relating to somebody's person instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments :: Abusive seems subjective. I've provided evidence for my case, suppressing reality, treating one class of people with special rules. I've been critical of the rules and a lack of historical integrity of wikipedia's biography articles. I've not attacked anyone personally. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per so much of above, and clear BATTLEGROUND mentality demonstrated in this unblock request. I have no doubt that if I unblocked you you'd be indefinitely blocked, TBAN notwithstanding, within a day. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tomruen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand wikipedia is run by poor volunteers rightfully who don't care about anything but not being bothered. I no longer have interest in bothering anyone, if that's the new standard policy for disagreement. I accept I have no power and the ideologue have already won their battleground, cleared the field. But I still don't think I'll understand more 7 days. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no reason here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned because it is clear from your recent edit warring, personal attacks, and overall tone that you cannot edit neutrally and dispassionately about this subject.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As you're already blocked, and I'm trying to let you edit areas where the are no issues I'll give you a warning rather than just blocking you for a longer time. Your topic ban applies to all edits anywhere on-wiki, including your talk page. Your post below is a violation of the topic ban. Hopefully this warning is clear enough. You cannot make any edit to any page that deals with gender related controversies or disputes anywhere on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Does that mean the 7 day ban wil be lifted? If so, thank you. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You have an open unblock request where you're referring to other editors as ideologues and have two topic-ban violating ChatGPT outputs that you posted after my warning directly above. There is no chance of an unblock while you continue personal attacks and flagrantly violate your topic ban. Additionally, due to your doubling down on topic ban violations three hours after you acknowledged the warning directly above I'm extending the block another thirty days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen such behavior. I see no personal attacks. I see opinions that should be reasonable to express. I don't see the purpose in this power you are exercising. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy things

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Weee! Congrats, Tom!

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to TomRuen for creating the excellent Truncation (geometry) page.—Tetracube 15:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The E=MC² Barnstar This barnstar is awarded to you for outstanding work on astronomy- and geometry-related articles. Gray Porpoise 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Hereby awarded for the outstanding work on the Images section in Duoprism—Tetracube 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For providing a 0-day pic of a current event. But, please upload it as jpg. --Random832 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Make that from more than just one of us!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Agreed. Thank you for your timely contribution. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

		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)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless efforts on Coxeter diagrams, and your patience in working with other contributors. Enjoy your wikibreak, et merci bien! —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I just discovered the pages for hemicube and other projective polyhedra. This is a delightful but forgotten corner of geometry, and I was delighted to find it on Wikipedia! Turning to the history page, the original responsible party is…Tom Ruen. Of course. Thank you! —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For creation and submission to the public domain of wonderful animations like File:Solar1970.gif and File:Saturn timelapse-29 years.gif I award you with exuberance the Graphic Designer's Barnstar! TimL (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Space Barnstar
		I, Kerowyn, hereby award Tomruen the Space Barnstar, in recognition of a frankly crazy amount of work on individual eclipse articles! ~ Kerowyn Leave a note 00:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Wikignome Award
		Thanks for the digonal antiprism and digonal trapezohedron images, and related editing. 75.150.168.6 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	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)

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)

		The Mathematics Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to articles on geometry and astronomy! Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	i like your shapes tom! - Stolenshortsword (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope you don’t mind me giving you some advice

I see that you have been blocked for making personal attacks, but that none of the admins involved has told you how you have been making personal attacks. This is in WP:NPA, which includes: There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. You have been referring to people with certain views on transgender matters as ‘cult editors’ and ‘cultists’. I am (very much!) not an admin, but I think that that is what got you blocked. You are now subject to a GENSEX ban. These are broadly construed – so do not mention anything to do with gender, transgender, sex, sexuality, sexual orientation anywhere on Wikipedia. This includes your own Talk page. Please don’t get yourself indefinitely blocked. Best wishes Sweet6970 (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Request	Give me the pros and cons arguments for Wikipedia's ban on deadnaming and wrong-sex pronouns before a person transitioned.
ChatGPT	Certainly! Here are some common arguments both in favor of and against Wikipedia's ban on deadnaming (using a person's former name) and wrong-sex pronouns before they transitioned: Pros Respect for individuals: The ban promotes respect for transgender individuals by using their preferred names and pronouns. It acknowledges their chosen gender identity and avoids misgendering, which can be emotionally harmful. Inclusive and accurate representation: By using the correct names and pronouns, Wikipedia aims to provide accurate information and representation for transgender individuals. It aligns with the goal of creating an inclusive and diverse encyclopedia. Avoiding potential harm: Deadnaming and using wrong-sex pronouns can cause distress, anxiety, and harm to transgender individuals. The ban helps protect them from such experiences and fosters a more supportive environment. Reflecting societal changes: As society becomes more understanding and accepting of transgender individuals, using their preferred names and pronouns aligns with evolving norms and practices. Cons Historical accuracy: Some argue that deadnaming and using wrong-sex pronouns can be relevant for historical accuracy, particularly when discussing individuals who transitioned later in life. Removing this information could potentially hinder a comprehensive understanding of their life and experiences. Editorial bias and censorship: Critics argue that the ban reflects a particular ideological viewpoint and restricts freedom of expression. They contend that it limits open discussions and may censor opposing perspectives or differing interpretations of gender identity. Implications for research and scholarship: Opponents argue that the ban hampers research and scholarship that examine the experiences of individuals who have transitioned. The restriction may impede comprehensive analysis and understanding of gender transitions. Potential for subjective judgment: Determining when to apply the ban and what constitutes deadnaming or wrong-sex pronouns may involve subjective judgment. Critics express concern that this subjectivity could lead to inconsistent enforcement or potential biases in editing practices. It's important to note that these arguments reflect different viewpoints and perspectives on the matter. Wikipedia's policy on deadnaming and wrong-sex pronouns is intended to address the concerns of misgendering and respect for transgender individuals, but it continues to be a topic of ongoing debate and discussion within the Wikipedia community and beyond.
Request	What groups pf people get special treatments in the biography articles that are unqiue to their self-identity?
ChatGPT	Wikipedia's policies and guidelines strive to treat all individuals fairly and avoid granting special treatment based on their self-identity. The focus is on ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing in biography articles. However, there are certain guidelines that may be relevant to specific aspects of a person's identity or experiences. These guidelines aim to maintain sensitivity and respect while providing accurate information. Some examples include: Gender identity: Wikipedia encourages the use of a person's self-identified gender and preferred pronouns in their biography articles. This is in line with the principles of respect and inclusivity. Name changes: When a person has undergone a name change, Wikipedia generally uses their current name throughout the article. However, there may be exceptions for historical context or when discussing specific events or periods of their life. Cultural and ethnic identities: Wikipedia recognizes the importance of accurately representing a person's cultural and ethnic background, taking into account self-identification and reliable sources. Personal experiences: Biographical articles may include information about a person's personal experiences, such as their struggles, achievements, or contributions related to their identity. It is important to ensure that these details are sourced from reliable and verifiable sources. It's worth noting that Wikipedia's approach to these aspects may evolve over time, as discussions and consensus-building take place within the Wikipedia community. The goal is to balance inclusivity, accuracy, and the principles of neutrality and reliable sourcing in biography articles.

May 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 30 days for violating your topic ban from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, broadly construed after a warning was issued and acknowledged.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Solar eclipse of July 1, 2011

The article Solar eclipse of July 1, 2011 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Although this is the closest we have to the start of a new sequence, this eclipse occurred only in the ocean and is therefore of no scientific value.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Q𝟤𝟪 23:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of February 1933 lunar eclipse

The article February 1933 lunar eclipse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The eclipse was too small to be of scientific interest.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Q𝟤𝟪 23:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Q28:Tomruen is currently on a temporary block so he won't be able to address these issues. Rather than put multiple of his articles up for PROD would it be possible for you to make a list of all the eclipse articles you think are not sufficiently notable (whoever made them) and put them all on a single AfD? That way it can be discussed by more people and we won't risk any possibility of valid or fixable articles getting deleted by default. Maybe I am being overcautious here but lets not risk it. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to say something similar. There's no rush on these, no BLP or promotional concerns, so I'd appreciate if you let it ride for a bit or bring them to AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:FAST J0139+4328

Hello, Tomruen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:FAST J0139+4328, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:FAST J0139+4328

Hello, Tomruen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "FAST J0139+4328".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Lunar eclipse from moon-2022May16.png

I reverted this file back to its previous revision for consistency. Per COM:OVERWRITE, a major change to a file should be uploaded as a separate file instead of a new revision. If you're unable to upload the reverted revision (as a separate file) I have it downloaded, so I can reupload it if necessary. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 20:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

astronomical diagram request

Harmonic Convergence

Maybe I'm confusing this with another date, but: I remember cranks warning of super earthquakes because all the planets would be "aligned", and astronomers saying don't be silly, they're spread over like 150 degrees of arc.

Could you easily add to that article a diagram of where the planets were on that date? —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Pentaapeirogonal tiling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pentaapeirogonal tiling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentaapeirogonal tiling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Tetrads in this century

Hi Tom

In your graph [6] you show seven tetrads in the 21st century, but there are eight. See here. By the way, I just added a graph to Tetrad (astronomy). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Graph from [7]. I wonder if it is a technical limit of definition of shadow limit, total versus near total? 2601:447:CE00:89B0:451A:BD94:4E7A:249D (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I've figured it out. According to Canon of Lunar Eclipses, 1500 B.C.-A.D. 3000 by Liu Bao-Lin, the catalog of Meeus (used in the link you provide) categorizes the eclipse of April 4, 2015, as partial when in fact it was total. So the tetrad of 2014-2015 was not counted by Meeus. And he has one too few total umbral eclipses in this century -- there are 85, not 84. If you reply, please Ping me. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Tetraapeirogonal tiling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tetraapeirogonal tiling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetraapeirogonal tiling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)