User talk:SockPuppetForTomruen

Thanks for creating these solar eclipse pages - however, it looks like there have been a few cut and paste cock-ups. I am unsure what is correct info and what isn't in the infobox - the pic doesn't seem to show the right eclipse, the name in the infobox is wrong and I don't know about the other info, whether it refers to the 20 July 44 or 9 July 45 eclipse. It needs your attention! Thanks. 86.152.23.37 (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (

). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by

]

Template:Lunarsaros db

]

The article June 2058 lunar eclipse is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2058 lunar eclipse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Ideal gas equation (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Solar eclipse 2099Sep14 Map usa.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

]

For when you get back

]

A tag has been placed on

, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Phuzion (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• see here

for a suggested better implementation. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see much difference, and more work than I care about. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a rowspan that was off and was causing an improper border-rendering. And so I looked, and split it all into discrete tables instead of pairs bugged together. There were what, 56 tables? Not something I'm going to pursue. Happy editing, Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make a dual for a polyhedron, you need to define a center. The center is obvious if the original has at least D or C_h symmetry, or if the vertices all lie on a sphere; not so obvious otherwise. Otherwise, ideally, there ought to be a notation about how the center was chosen (mean of the vertices? center of mass assuming constant density?) and conceding that the dual shown is only one of a family of equally legitimate duals. In my humble opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saros eclipse set info has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duopyramid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bicone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

]

Hermit.org Rewrite

Hi, I'm writing to you because of the huge effort you've put in to eclipses -- for which thanks -- and because you've referenced hermit.org for many of them, particularly referencing lists of Saros eclipses.

I'm the maintainer of hermit.org, and I've just completed a site move and huge rewrite. The site is way better organised and a lot more efficient now; it's all in PHP, and all the URLs are "clean" (no implementation exposed).

Unfortunately, this means that all the Saros links have changed. Instead of this:

http://www.hermit.org/eclipse/gen_stats.cgi?mode=query&page=full&qtype=type&body=L&saros=132

we now have this:

http://moonblink.info/Eclipse/when/lunsaros/132

I've added a redirect rule to the hermit.org site, which should redirect all the CGI queries for Saros pages to the new-style link on moonblink.info. As far as I can see, this works, and since it returns a 301 code, I'm hoping that some automated link-rewriter will kick in and actually fix the links. (I think Wikipedia has such things, judging by bot activity on my site.)

So, I just thought I'd let you know, since this impacts what you've been doing. Hopefully the new addresses will be stable for a LONG time. Let me know if you need any other rewrite rules.

Cheers, johantheghost (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johan, thanks for the update. I don't do scripting on Wikipedia, but it might be possible. The trick I've used is templates that hide the full URL, and so if the pages are moved to a different site, they can be changed in the template. I'll look what you have now when I get a chance. Hand-changing might not be so bad. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solar eclipse summary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Sandstein  11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 22nd-century lunar eclipses until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Merge proposal

Since you are the founder of

]

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]

Category:2100 in science, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Solar eclipse of March 7, 1598 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this was a notable solar eclipse.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TLunarEclipse2 stat table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NLunarEclipse2 stat table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

]

CCI Notice

Hello, SockPuppetForTomruen. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at

]

A kitten for you!

For your contribution to Articles on Eclipses, I present to you a kitty!!!! Hope you have fun 😁

]

The article Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no importance to this event, at least not for another ~30 years. There are no sources provided that demonstrate any sort of reporting of this future event, and a Google News search shows that the only mentions of this eclipse are "the next eclipse visible in the Philippines will be in 2053" etc - the eclipse is not the subject of any coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053 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/Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053 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.

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solar eclipse of September 4, 2100 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/Solar eclipse of September 4, 2100 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. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 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/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 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. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enneagrammic antiprism, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enneagrammic antiprism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q28 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q28 (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Solar Saros 162 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The most recent eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 100 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the cycle now.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Solar Saros 161 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This Saros cycle will not begin until 100 years from now, so there is no need to create it now.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Solar Saros 160 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The most recent eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 100 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the cycle now.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Solar Saros 159 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The most recent eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 100 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the cycle now.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Solar Saros 110 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No book in history has ever recorded a solar eclipse containing this Saros cycle.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q28 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q28 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ｑ₂₈ (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q𝟤𝟪 08:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q𝟤𝟪 07:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q𝟤𝟪 07:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q𝟤𝟪 07:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—VersaceSpace 🌃 06:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article

because of the following concern:

This eclipse was only available in the middle of the ocean, and it was impossible to do so under the technical conditions at that time.

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 06:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Q𝟤𝟪 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Solar eclipse of August 3, 2054 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This one is too small to be worth studying at all

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 23:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Solar eclipse of July 23, 2036 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This eclipse is too small and all over the sea to be of much scientific value.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 23:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Q𝟤𝟪 23:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article February 1951 lunar eclipse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This eclipse has no scientific value because it is too small.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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)[reply]

The article July 1973 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

.

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 23:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article July 2027 lunar eclipse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This time he was so small that no one would pay attention to him at all.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 00:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of solar eclipses visible from the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This list is incomplete to the point of being misleading. Taking the Charlotte, NC section as an example: it lists only 14 of the 440 solar eclipses visible between the dates selected 1001-2251. This list can never be made complete, nor should it. To accurately list solar eclipses from the 90 cities on the list would require ~50k bullets. That's excessive. Suggest deleting this, and starting over with a more focused view, and shorter time period (e.g. 1900-2100). A section on the most notable eclipses such as those with the longest duration, coast-to-coast paths, etc. Rather than have 90 sections for individual cities, have sections for each state and list only eclipses where path passes through that state.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MadeYourReadThis (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]