User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This Barnstar is awarded to User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr for their tireless efforts to improve numerous astronomy - related articles.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone pays attention. I've been impressed with your work on lots of these articles, especially the small efforts which take a lot of thought but aren't noticeable to the casual reader. (If you decide to move this barnstar to your user page you can modify the gender of the award if desired, with information on the Template:The Working Man's Barnstar page. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Reflector sight a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

List of telescope parts and construction

You have made the article look really good. I'm proud to be a small part of the effort but you have devoted substantial work to these articles where I'm just a small time dabbler. I haven't reviewed criteria for turning a list article into a glossary article. But this article does have a number of links so I'd hesitate to move it. Perhaps it might be good to create a glossary article as a redirect to this one? Perhaps you could ask the question and post it on the article talk page? Keep up the good work! Trilobitealive (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Getty the hetty

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I just wanted to let you know that your work on the Nikola Tesla article is appreciated. You have been very forthcoming in discussing changes with other editors, and you consistently balance the teamwork approach with a bold editing philosophy. Well done! – MrX 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. The article in question seems to be getting overall good faith editing, although whats added sometimes seems to need a "flip" end to end to bring it in line with tone. I hope I don't make people airsick with the flips ;) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar

		The Space Barnstar
		For defending, improving, and creating content related to telescopes and astronomy - Congratulations. Fotaun (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For great contributions over many years in many areas! Fotaun (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your diligent efforts promoting sane editing and compliance with WP policies. Keep up the good work! Noleander (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

ty for the compliment. Really didn't see the end result coming. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Firearm-Gun-.et.al. cleanup Project sub-page

Hi Bryn, With each link I click, its revealed more and more to me just how much of an unmitigated mess that ALL of the gun and firearm (and often their useless derivative articles) are. What do you think of the creation of a sub-page off of the main Project page so that we can organize the effort. Starting with a master list of articles to fix, clean up, delete, merge, etc. and then we categorize appropriately from there. There are just too many to keep track of across multiple Talk pages. Better yet, I'm pretty sure that I can bring in several other firearm informed (but neutral) editors to assist with the efforts. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

A sub-page sounds good. I can add some input as I see it where I can. Most of what I noticed is the problem with any article on a topic with a vast number of "aficionados", people singularly or in a small sub-group base an article on their personal knowledge instead of WP:V. Articles like Small arm and Personal weapon, even though one sub-group claims it as an exact definition, are a slam-dunk redirects to Firearm as far as WP:CCPOL goes. We only have one article per description, any sub description should be in that article. I guess another approach would be to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms talk page (which you already started), list the redundant articles, and ask for views on why we should not follow WP:CCPOL. Redirecting redundant articles is covered by consensus so you don't need further consensus to do it per: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Merge tags redirected to that discussion could be used as well. My two cents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC). No strods to be found here.

Before I go off "half cocked" (sorry, woke up early and I'm punchy), I left a message on the Firearm Project coordinator's (User:Mike Searson) talk page asking for input and guidance. The last thing we need is opposition from the "powers on high". Its always better to work with the system than outside of or against it... :) Anyway, once we get Mike's (assuming we get any) input, we can proceed from there. Seem reasonable? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, enlisting your support

So we have the go ahead from the Firearms Project to go ahead and use the Project to list and organize the articles that need fixing. I'd say we just start listing them in the section that seems most appropriate and work from there. I'm off to recruit help. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

2013

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For contributions to various projects and articles, especially optics. Fotaun (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Fountains of Bryn Mawr!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, and thanks for the star. Happy 2014! Fotaun (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering

Hi I see that you have contributed to the article Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering. Thanks for the expansion. However you have concentrated on the newly established section of inventions. How about splitting the article and creating a new article titled "inventions in electrical engineering" ? Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Perspective projection distortion

I am sure to mess up Wikipedia protocols until I learn more of the ropes. And that probably goes for this post. It seems that my current project of editing "Perspective projection distortion" needs my attention. One criticism appears to be regarding the Introduction. There was no heading Introduction when I started and which surprised me but it can be more or less seamlessly created with material already in the article. I will attempt to do so forthwith. There was also an allusion to my referencing my own work, i.e., http://www.scribd.com/robert_kelso_2, but which entails new science and is the only reference for the purpose used. I welcome your further input. Patkelso (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Pat Kelso

Perspective projection distortion

I have reedited the Introduction to Perspective projection distortion with about a dozen new references but I cannot find the file. If you can please give me heads up email. Thanks. Patkelso (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Pat Kelso

I have an intriguing question for you regarding Foucault knife-edge test

Hi, I've not been actively editing astronomy articles (and have mostly been doing trivial edits when I do them) for some time now and so I'm behind on all the rules, policies and recommendations for handling questions like this. And I have lost track of all the administrators who know about such things. So I thought to ask you what is a good way to approach a recent edit by User:Sadlylacking on reference 5 of Foucault knife-edge test.

You can see in the article's revision history that the user (1) asserts they are the copyright owner of the reference (2) deletes a link to a previous version of the text of the reference where the copyright was owned by the writer and the person posting the website had permission to do so (3) posts a link to the Amazon website selling the current version of the book with copyright owned by a person other than the author. So this brings to mind questions regarding both advertisement and copyright. Which I can't answer because I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policies nor the laws nor even the rules of etiquette for such matters.

So here is the question. Which is the correct course of action (a) link should be deleted, thus avoiding further hoo ha, (b) edit should be reverted due to advertisement considerations, encyclopedic information considerations or other considerations (c) edit should not be reverted, based on avoidance of strife, consideration for the feelings of the current copyright owner or other reason? I for one am choosing (c) at present but I don't know if this is correct.

Which leads to the next question: If you don't know the answer who would? Is there a particular administrator who does these things.

Regardless of whether you can enlighten me I do enjoy following your edits and the astronomy articles from time to time but right now I've got too many other fish to fry except for an occasional edit here and there. Trilobitealive (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, took a look at it. I reverted it because the linked page says "(Reproduced with Permission)". There is a Wikipedia policy that says "don't link pirated materiel" (forget the link for it right now :() but I saw no evidence of that. I don't think linking an Amazon sales page is kosher and the editor would have to prove who they are to an admin. That's my quick take on it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. I saw the disclaimer on the originally linked page. I'm sure there must be a policy about this somewhere but I'm only looking at Wikipedia a short amount of time so I try to avoid trouble. Trilobitealive (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Perspective projection distortion

Mr. Fountains, I need a steer to showing references in ==References==. Might have found a work-around but very labor intensive. Also need a quick how-to for controlling sext size. Thank you. Pat Kelso (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I just added references to your sandbox with the tag {{reflist}}. Text size is usually fixed. Normally you only change it in adding headings. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. In re: ==See also== Is there a comparable approach or is it "hunt and peck."Pat Kelso (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

sorry, slow on my Wiki this wekk. "See also" are listed by hand, normally you don't need that many if the article covers the topic well. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for heads-up on deletion of my three descriptive Wikipedia posts. I am the originator of the solutions posted. They were published by the Engineering Design Graphics Journal umpteen years ago and I am unaware if it was copywrited. Pat Kelso (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Fouintains ... I would like to post stuff from this site, http://www.webexhibits.org/about/legal.html, but cannot find copywrite bug requested by Upload Wizard. but site does say this: "Links & copies We invite you to link to any page. You can also copy or display this exhibit for noncommercial purposes, if you clearly credit Christopher Tyler, Michael Kubovy and WebExhibits. Legal details."

LEGAL NOTES: YOUR RIGHTS

Creative Commons License

You are free...

...To share, copy, distribute and transmit the exhibits.

Under the following conditions

Attribution. You must give WebExhibits credit. Thanks. Pat Kelso (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I can figure out "noncommercial-use-only images are not permitted on Wikipedia." per Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Free licenses. So you probably can't use those images. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Fountain

Have I fallen out with you?

Anyway, I went to what I thought was my Sandbox site and did I'm not sure what. But I noticed too late that my Sandbox site had some how taken me to a Perspective Projection site instead. I may well have done damage to that site. I want to give you a heads-up and trust you are able to undo what I may have done. My regrets.Pat Kelso (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, busy time. I see no problems, looks ok to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have gone mad! Please detail to me how to upload an article into my Sandbox. Thanks.Patkelso (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Guglielmo Marconi

Hey listen if your going to remove something that is WP:TRIVIA on Guglielmo Marconi then you might as well remove the whole Tribute section because the whole thing is probably all trivial. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

An entry that describes itself as a "mention" is by Wikipedia definition "trivia" or a pop-culture reference. The standard is "what ever did it mean to Guglielmo Marconi? Did he comment on it?" (see WP:IPC). It falls way below the other entries. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just an F.Y.I. I didn't add that text I was just correcting it that's all. Honestly I could care less if it stays or goes. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI noted before I edited it. It was the content that counted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Wireless power

There have been some edits to your recent work on Wireless power that seem WP:POV to me. I don't know much about the subject so I haven't reverted them. Just thought you ought to know. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

TY, I think I just reverted them. Noticed the changes going on but was slow to edit while other edits were going on. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wireless power draft

Here's a proposed rough draft of a rewrite of the "Electrical Conduction" section of Wireless power. What do you think? The problem as I see it is that the article has to make a distinction which is not made in many sources, between (1) Tesla's short-range power transmission experiments, which are historic and have to be included in the article, and (2) his long-range World Wireless experiments, which probably didn't happen or were not successful. Making this distinction raises WP:SYNTH issues. Notes on the sources for these positions:

• Tesla's short range experiments: Engineering papers widely credit Tesla with doing the first experiments in wireless power transmission and specifically inventing resonant inductive power transfer, (Shinohara, p.2, Lee, Leyh), which is a very active field of research now. Sources clearly classify this as a "near field" technique; the energy transmitted falls as the fifth power (~1/R⁵) of the distance R between transmitter and receiver (Sun, Sazonov, p.253, Lee). At distances beyond a few times the diameter of the transmitting device the power transferred drops to negligible, so there is no way it could have been used for long-range transmission.
• Tesla's World Wireless ideas: I was hoping to find a WP:RS that would evaluate Tesla's long-range power ideas, or at least say clearly that he never demonstrated it. No luck. Most engineering sources that mention Tesla simply ignore his long-range power ideas; they follow the usual sensible policy of crediting a historical scientist's recognized achievements and ignoring his unconfirmed, controversial ones. Many of the biographies (Cheney, p.105) don't really say clearly that there is no evidence he transmitted power long-distance. Carlson's book sounds good, but I don't have a hard copy, and the Google Books version blanks out most of the relevant chapters. Other sources that say he didn't (Dunning) are not really WP:RSs. It's hard to prove a negative, maybe the best that we can do is say that there is no evidence he did do it. The few sources that speculate on the World Wireless system say it would have worked either by the UV atmospheric ionization method you mentioned on the Talk page (Cheney, p.106) or by exciting the Schumann resonances, (the resonant frequencies of the spherical cavity formed by the Earth's surface and the ionosphere) by radio waves. Tesla is said to have discovered these resonances, detecting the "ringing" of the Earth due to lightning bolts using a radio receiver.(Cheney, p.106). Supposedly Tesla's patent supports both mechanisms. But none of the sources that go into detail about this stuff is really a WP:RS, the closest is Van Voorhies, p. 147, which says it is "adapted" from Proc. of the IECEC.

I know the section I propose in the draft would be a lightning rod (pun intended) for the Tesla cult and they would continually try to add their pseudoscientific speculations to it. On the other hand, maybe then they would leave the rest of the article alone.

Another option would be to simply not mention Tesla's World Wireless ideas in this article, perhaps deleting this section entirely and moving the sourced Tesla material into the Electromagnetic method section. That would avoid the WP:SYNTH issue but I think it might be WP:POV; considering the title of this article, the World Wireless system at least deserves a historical note. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, slow to get back to things "Wiki". That section looks good to me. I think its a much better version based on secondary sources. The only problem with a Tesla section in any form is this is a description of a historical idea. As such it belongs in a "History" section, currently a very long bullet list called "Timeline of wireless power". There used to be a History section but it was vandalized out and then replaced by the bullet list. I would propose restoring the History section in some form, inserting your "Tesla" paragraphs into it in their current form, and remove the bullet list. The Bullet list seems to contain allot of WP:OR, bullet items referenced to primary sourced papers. Putting these in sequence implying these are developmental steps in wireless power is WP:SYNTH. Reference to papers can go in a further reading section. We should not be making any claims based on primary sources but readers can always read them and decide for themselves. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't like the timeline either; I was going to suggest drastically pruning it, but eliminating it in favor of a conventional "History" section would be better. In addition to overemphasizing all things Tesla, it also contains a great deal of trivial and/or spam entries, and misses the most important advance in WPT in the last 20 years: Soljačić et al's 2007 development of efficient resonant transmission at MIT.

I've been reading about wireless power and have a list of sources. I'll start converting my draft into a draft History section - unless you'd like to write it? Do you want to announce our intentions on the Talk page, or should I? --Chetvorno^TALK 00:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free merge the two sections into a rewritten history section and be WP:BOLD. There are no counter responses or citation of counter RS being presented. Lack of response on the talk page is considered consensus. Material that has no reliable secondary sources can be deleted at any time. I'll let you take a whack at it unless you are tied up, let me know. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Will do. It will take a few days to write the History section. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to update you, I have been distracted but not idle. I've almost finished the History section which includes 11 or 12 modern WP:RSs that say Tesla was mistaken, never transmitted power long distance, and his World Wireless System would not have worked. These should also be useful on World Wireless System, Tesla coil, Magnifying transmitter, and whatever other articles the erroneous Tesla-philic material has popped up on. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Sorry, I have been idle other than participating in a little talk page stuff. On thing I was contemplating was should World Wireless System be moved off to a Wiki sister in its present form? (still no sure which one takes original research). With cleanup its liable to be just Tesla's writings fleshed out, making it a copy of publicly available material WP:NOTMIRROR. Just a thought, maybe there is enough for it to stay at its topic point. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a thought. I think Wikibooks takes OR. I'm not clear on your purpose - do you just want to get the present article out of the way quickly, or do you actually think there's value in it, written as it is, and it should be preserved? Do you still favor merging World Wireless System into Wardenclyffe tower? --Chetvorno^TALK 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I see merit in putting up an article of Tesla's writings on World Wireless System with some writing in between explaining it and I wish GLPeterson would take that tack. But yeah, the stuff at World Wireless System may be to confused to adapt to Wikibooks. If the author is un-interested then its should probably be left for now. I see people are trying to clean up what's at World Wireless System so that topic should probably be left where it is without merger for now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to tackle World Wireless System. But I don't know as much about Tesla's work as you or some of the other editors. I was hoping to find someone to collaborate with, or at least consult. Would you be interested? --Chetvorno^TALK 01:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, always glad to help. Mine is more of a historical overview, I think I have a grasp of Tesla's world and what motivated him. World Wireless System gets kinda hard to grasp, at least from my limited view, because Tesla was using electrical and EM theory that as on its way in and the 19th century physics he was taught that was on its way out. The two combined sounds like gibberish but it can probably be unraveled. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Inventions by Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla's flat inductive bifilar coil.

Hi, please don't remove this category from some articles, like Bifilar coil (see image). I know that this thing isn't entirely invented, however Tesla was involved in its development. Same like in Electric motor and so on. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 20:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe a new category – Category:Coinventions by Nikola Tesla – would be more appriopraite. Such cases can be safely called a coinvention. What do you think? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 20:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no reference about Tesla "inventing" the Bifilar coil and they seem to have been around well before he started working with them. Its inaccurate to call it his invention or even "coinvention" (unless you have reference showing otherwise). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

He had a big involvement in these inventions, so what do you propose instead? Besides maybe he didn't invented the Bifilar coil itself, but this article contains a his inventions like flat inductive bifilar coil, so it's enough, just read the entire article. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 10:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You know what I mean – part of this article is a Tesla's invention. It's enough to be n this category. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 12:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Category:Inventions involving Nikola Tesla would be best. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 12:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose basic WP:V. There have to be reliable detailed sources that Tesla invented something, and Wikipedia is not one of them BTW so I can't just "read the entire article". I would recommend not pushing a POV that Tesla is important to something just because he worked with it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Perspective (graphical)

Thank you for deleting the section of procedures to draw a perspective through the "basic drawing process". I understood inmediatly the WP:NOTHOWTO policy. I think in the other editions I made there are important asseverations. For example, I even uploaded an image thet doesn´t include any guidance on "how to..." but is self explicit in the fact that the use of vanishig points is not needed in an indispenssable way to draw any perspective. Where should I discuss them, here or in the Perspective (Graphical) page?

I have a user page: Juan Kis Solt. I see you are experienced in this. After discussing the subjects, how long should I wait before I proceed to edit the page? Should I have some kind of agreement or permission from you or somebody else who owns the page? Wikipedia encourages to be "bold" in editing, but I don´t want to make mistakes.

--Juan Kis Solt (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I would recommend bringing up suggested changes or problems you have with the existing article on it's talk page (talk already started). You seem to be adding information on a "graphical construction method". You could probably add that to the article in some form without discussion, you simply need to add citations to basic text book level text explaining this method and word it in an encyclopedic form of explanation, not instruction.

I would say "graphical construction" goes in the section "Methods of construction". Its already listed there as "Graphically constructing (once common in architecture)" and all five methods listed there should be explained. The section "Example" should be made a sub-section of "Methods of construction", and all the text in "Example" should be cleaned up/truncated since it also reads as a "how-to" covering just one of the five methods listed. Its allot to do and you don't need to clean all that up just to add your additions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW you don't need permission to edit Wikipedia and no one owns the page. I think what you did and I did falls under Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which you have done perfectly. If you are reverted you should bring it to a talk page (like you just did) for the "discuss" part of the cycle. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Aragoscope?

Have you ever heard of this? I learned about it today and since I'm not editing astronomy articles right now I thought to let you know, since you're probably the best astronomy article editor I know. Apparently Wikipedia has had an article about it New Worlds Mission which has been languishing for some time. Very recently there have been dozens of press releases about NASA's Aragoscope project. See UCB news release, Next Big Future news release, Fox News. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, fascinating, never head of it. Looks legit (although I am prone to fall for hoaxes ;)). I will look the article over. Thanks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. On the face of it, it's odd. But apparently, from what I've been reading it is legit. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia policy on original research (wireless power transfer)

Hi, and thanks for the comment. I'm afraid something is not clear to me. You noted on my (talk) page, "...its just that it would have to be covered in an article or book before it would be covered in Wikipedia." I don't understand as I am citing the article and book , the former which is peer reviewed and the second which is a hard-copy of a thesis resulting from viva-voce. What are you referring to by this statement? 05:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"book" does not mean "hit the print button on a website". "book" means someone else read (your?) work and wrote a book about it, or an article on this topic and made reference to the paper. In other words Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- meaning somebody else has to notice this paper and write about it - then it can be in Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Coney Island in popular culture

You don't really have too much proof that many of the edits in Coney Island in popular culture are bad edits. Why not sort them out before you decide to delete them simply because they're trivia? -------User:DanTD (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Proof" on Wikipedia goes the other way (please see: WP:BURDEN). Noticing a subject is mentioned in work "X" is considered pure trivia (and un-encyclopedic) because it is important to none of the subjects it connects. The cutoff I settled on is song track title/subject but it could be cut off at album title. The entire article could easily be the subject of deletion because articles dedicated to list of "In popular culture" items are also considered un-encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits on my entry of Stage Lighting

I have to admit that I disagree with you removing the link on my most recent edit to Stage Lighting. I added the link because it's relevant, and the website is industry-recognized as a useful source of information for Stage Lighting. You also made a comment about not having blog links on the post, but if you are familiar with the industry, you'd have made note that three other links there are blog links. I'm adding the link back in, I humbly disagree with your edit. It's read in 190 countries, and well-received as a source of information on Light and the Lighting industries. We're in the DMOZ. I appreciate your diligence to editing, but this one is a judgement call. Lumenbuddha (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Usually just because other stuff exists is not a good reason to have more of it. Wikipedia usually does not accept user generated sources (see WP:USERGENERATED). If the blog does seem to be acceptable as authoritative and is used to back up a single fact not covered in other sources I sometimes use it but spamming (your?) blog over and over again in the EL section will almost always get you a revert. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's terrible that in order to contribute here on WIkipedia a person has to deal with inflated ego of "moderators." No wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumenbuddha (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David Edward Hughes

Thanks for your recent edits to the article. I respect Hughes' contributions to electrical technology, but his "microphone" seems to be about the same as the earlier telephone transmitter. Edison (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ty. I didn't put allot into making heads or tails of Hughes' microphone, noticed some cleanup by other editors moving it from an invention to an improvement. One source[1] seemed to place it as one of several developments (Edison's, Berliner's). Feel free to better flesh it out. I really knew squat about Hughes but, reading about him, he hit me as the same kind of character as my great uncle, tinkerer and inventor who would patent some things and just mess around with other things and send his ideas off to some magazine on the topic (like Hughes did with the microphone/Telegraph Journal and Electrical Review). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OK...I see my mistake.

The mount for the TMT is the simplified Alt-Az mount. My confusion was seeing the term written in some sources as "elevation azimuth" which I was not paying enough attention to and confused it with Equatorial mount. Since the sources I was looking at did not have anything on the mount and I was unable to get information from sources at the time to confirm the mount, I decided to make sure the information was exact to the claim, thinking the source might have been outdated. I have been able to get the misunderstanding cleared up with this page. As far as I know it is still the same mount propsed which is the same as altazimuth, which can also be called alt-azimuth mount and in some sources elevation-azimuth mount. My bad.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Actually I wasn't looking that closely, per wording it just looked like a broken link to me. Thanks for looking into it since there are some odd mounts out there such as altitude-altitude-azimuth mounts, double checking is always good. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Dooh! Well OK then...something else to keep in mind. I only remembered azimuth from my old high school science class and only because it always reminds me of a jewel. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, for all you do. 216.4.56.155 (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

how

Perchance do you know how to upload some images about notable physicians here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilopon (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This link may be useful. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Readable link

You wrote "looking at the one I can read". Were you unable to read what was on this webpage [2] for some reason? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, got lost in that sea of blue, ty for the link. Again not a source that could prove (anything?) because its anonymous without footnotes or references. That's definitely outside reliable sourcing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Fklatt adding promotional material

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread: User:Fklatt adding promotional material. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Gun politics

See Gun politics in the United States for starters. -- Callinus (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

discuss on Talk:Small Arms and Light Weapons -- Callinus (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

TY for the move to talk page, it belongs there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Carlson book?

You don't know of an unabridged online copy of the Bernard Carlson book on Tesla, do you? I was writing a history section for Tesla coil but the copy on Google Books has the sections I need blanked out. BTW, thanks for telling me about it, that's an excellent book. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't come across a full copy online. I did notice if you open a different brand of browser (Chrome, IE, Dolphin), maybe in incognito mode with he cache cleared, and search for part of the text you want to read that page will pop up. It looks to me like what you see is cookie based, google books will show you the pages if it thinks you haven't seen them before. May work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give that a try. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Idrees ul haq ?

Dear sir, you have proposed for the deletion of the Article namely Idrees ul haq, but the said person is renowned in the state of jammu and kashmir and is acting as a motivation for youth, I suggest to include him in the wikipedia, I have also added some links to his page, I wish you help in adding his name to wiki.... Regards Jkinnovators (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Jkinnovators

Regarding page Idrees ul haq ?

Sir, the said person has numerous innovations on his name & is not in any way closely associated with me. More ever the external links to some of those innovations is already present there under his Activities column. Also the said person has not only done one event , but the event mentioned as youth icon awards is first of its nature to be held in our state which is a conflict zone and militancy hit area and it proved as motivational event for the youth who are else crippled under draconian laws of AFSPA.

Wish this clarification is enough for him to get included in Wikipedia and please help in solving the issues.indeed i am his fan thus my username

Regards Jkinnovators (talk)Jkinnovators —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you are miss-understanding Wikipedia. Notability does not mean we can list someone's inventions or list some events the person in question was involved in. All of those things have to be noticed by someone else, not us (see WP:OR). And that "someone else" has to be a reliable authority on the subject (who saw it fit to put together a biography on the person). We are borderline here, some news articles see it fit to describe Idrees ul haq but "some" may bot meet Wikipedia's requirements. I personally will leave it for expansion right now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War of Currents, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbia College, Matthew Hale and Charles Coffin (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) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Do not revert unless you are not aware it. This is not "personal photographs". If I want to add, I can upload thousand to Commons. --AntanO 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Lizzie Halliday

Hi, I'm BeowulfBrower. Fountains of Bryn Mawr, thanks for creating Lizzie Halliday!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Some of the claims here are pretty fantastic, I think some additional citation might be a good addition.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. BeowulfBrower (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

TY, its pretty much a rip and read from sources. Added the one ref noted and many others. Noted source conflicts. Will take the ref tag down in a few days unless other problems are noted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lizzie Halliday, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antrim and Saloon (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) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

QI (Series E) - Electricity

I have checked out a few things. Firstly, the revision was undone. Secondly, the stuff about the carrots laced with potassium and the amount of volts and such, discussed on the show, can be found in the article about Topsy. Thirdly, I did not include any quotes by the panellists; I stick to the relevant things they discussed and what can be proven to be correct, only marking it as incorrect if there are sources to prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I checked and discovered the term "Westinghoused" was used, and found reference at this website [3].

Sorry but your editing premise is incorrect. Wikipedia is an outside the universe source, i.e it does not participate in the discussions within a show, it describes the show. Wikipedia also does not contain content forks. There are well developed articles on Topsy and the War of Currents and they do not reflect this content at all. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I made an editing change on this point here. Please tell me if this sounds better. Also, please don't include the quotes about what the panellist spoke about, as surely they could go in Wikiquote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lizzie Halliday

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fictitious spellings

I'm not sure what's going on with your edit to "Binoculars". I was not aware that Americans spell the word "disadvantage" "disavantage", or that their use of tenses is different from British:

• "prisms is" instead of "prisms are"
• "magnification and quality is" instead of "magnification and quality are"
• "a few binary star" instead of "a few binary stars"

or that they omit articles:

• "in prism" instead of "in a prism"
• "have range finding scale" instead of "have a range finding scale"

or that they omit verbs

• The sentence "The default if a mirror coating isn't mentioned" contains no verb

or that they think a "manufacture" can do something

• "binocular manufactures use" instead of "binocular manufacturers use"

or that they move an article away from its noun

• "the in 1890s" instead of "in the 1890s"

or that they use "in" to indicate both position and movement ("the light path is split in two paths" instead of "the light path is split into two paths") whereas everybody else uses "in" for position and "into" for movement

or that they capitalise a generic term as if it was a proprietary term

• "the Brand name" instead of "the brand name". 188.222.58.239 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)