This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr.
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.
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)[reply]
You get the Dutch Barnstar of the day. BLESS YOU my friend...may your Quill stay strong for the many...and the O
One. E. Plubrius Unun (from the Enumerator) Many Thanks! Publican Farmer (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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[reply]
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! – MrX15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi. The problem is I do own the copyright and the book is published BY ME through Sapphire Publications! So the edit should never have been "reverted" (IMHO). Sorry it took me years to see this. William Welker. Sadlylacking (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good coverage of the Foucault knife-edge test can be found in Amateur Telescope Making (volume one or two or three, probably one), ed. by Albert G. Ingalls, first published in the 1930s, now out of print after several reprints. I used the test, following the book, in the late fifties, using a large tin can, a small incandescent lamp, a pinholed piece of aluminum foil, and a razor blade (non-safety, Gillette). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. --ChetvornoTALK22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --ChetvornoTALK00:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --ChetvornoTALK01:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving! Thought you might be interested in this book: Cooper 2015 The Truth about Tesla. Not much visible on Google Books, maybe I'll try the library. Looks like Cooper, a lawyer, sort of debunks the myth of Tesla as the lone heroic inventor whose miraculous inventions were stolen away by big business. Here's a review. I don't know if I'd buy his argument that Tesla didn't invent the induction motor, but I have found plenty of WP:RSs that he was not the first to invent the Tesla coil; Henry Rowland and Elihu Thomson were building resonant transformer circuits by 1890.
Anyway, along with Bernard Carlson it might be useful as a source on Nikola Tesla. I think someday that article could use a minor rewrite to add some of the less flattering aspects of his life. --ChetvornoTALK10:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TY and Happy Thanksgiving! Thinks for the info. I think we could write that book 20 times over just based on the corrections so far in Wikipedia!!! It will be something to see Cooper's take. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Fell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dr. George Fell, a pioneer of life-saving mechanical respiration techniques in the 1880s, also had a role in designing the first electric chair used for an execution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Fell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, George Fell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr,
I've noticed you've been editing my changes. Yes, I've been adding links to a website, but only on relevant pages, and if you follow those links you would see that each one of them leads to a different and accurate page, pertinent to the information on wikipedia. You should take notice that the links are different each time and should not be considered as spam. Also I've changed some of the information (dates, area etc) using updated information that we have, and I didn't notice any critical changes to the template. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exposuniv (talk • contribs) 07:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed you reverted and then self reverted. Probably a good move at this point. Per (diff), the problem is you inserted changes to the info box (contrary to the referenced figures in the article), removed the ((convert|690|acre|ha|abbrev=off)) tag, and added (spammed?) a website link which seems to be the source of the wrong figures you are adding. Your user name also seems to point to a WP:COI edit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thanks for the tips and for letting me know. As you may have seen, I am pretty new to the process and as I am a fan of expos, I am looking at all these info, some of them being quite old. I have been adding the references to the BIE as the organization is supposed to be the most accurate source of information on that matter and did not realize I should not include it in the info box .
I am also adding other references that I found on the subject but it takes quite a lot of time. Hope to complete more this summer. I completed some information that were missing on the info box and also realized that sometimes they were huge discrepancies between some sources. For (diff) it is for example indicated that there were 95 participating countries, but other sources states 15 to max 22 Cf (here). Isn’t there confusion between the number of participants and the number of participating countries ? Please do not hesitate to share your comments with me . Cheers . Exposuniv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exposuniv (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Topsy Article
I was wondering about adding a mention of the Bob's Burgers episode "Topsy" to the aforementioned article, and since you were the last person to edit the page, I believe you'd be the best person to ask about this. Specifically, I want to know if I should add it, or if it would be better to leave it out. Sorry if I'm bothering you, by the way.
I second that. I was embarrassed every time I visited the old page by all the ridiculous unencyclopedic fanboy content. Thanks to all your work it now looks great. Kudos! --ChetvornoTALK08:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ty, I was surprised when Jclemens mentioned it was a vital article but I guess that makes sense. The GA looked a good time to go forward with the sync we had mentioned before. I tried to follow WP:COPYWITHIN so you and other editors who did all the donkey work of cleaning up the sub-articles got credit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, re-reading my edit summary here it sounds more pointy than I intended it to be. Sorry about that. FWIW while I disagree that the refs should be removed in this case, I get the general idea of "the refs are in the linked article" and don't mind it for uncontroversial lists (though usually as an argument against removal of list items without references rather than an argument to remove references themselves). No response needed. Just wanted to follow up on the edit summary. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe not pointed enough. The revert showed a lack of understanding of core policy, or of what consensus is. I was shocked. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I finished my rewrite of the History section of Tesla coil. I noticed that you last did a rewrite on this section with an excellent account of his invention of the Tesla transformer and I thought we could combine them. I was wondering when you have time (if you're not too tired of Tesla yet!) if you could look over my work and tell me anything you disagree with. It is huge and bloated, but people seem to love all things Tesla, and I thought including a lot of accurate history would forestall people from adding inaccurate history. I'd be grateful for any criticism of any part of it, but if you don't want to read the whole thing I'm particularly interested in your opinions of the Wardenclyffe tower and Use in radio sections, which contain the controversial stuff.
Looks good to me and more detail is a good idea, its way better than a series of claims. I chased down a cite for some of the current material I poorly cited re: why Tesla started building high frequency alternators and its covered by Carlson here (page 119-120) - Tesla thought high frequency was an unexplored field that could lead to some new patent-able inventions. Deleting Tesla coil#Wireless power looks like a good idea. FYI hunting down Tesla sources I cam across full online versions of Cheney and Carlson here and here. Not sure if that is readable by everyone or if its just some subscription/cookie I don't know about at my end, have a look. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the links to the online books; I was able to download them (don't know how archive.org can get away with posting books still under copyright!). I had about decided to buy the Carlson book. I see why you refer to it a lot - it has a lot of great info and insights not available elsewhere.
That cite on why Tesla started researching high frequencies is great - he deliberately chose the field over high current and high voltages. I'll put it in the History section. --ChetvornoTALK02:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Microscope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lens. 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.
I have made well referenced edits in regards to Cornelis Drebble and Zacharias Janssen on the microscope article which you have repeatedly reverted.
All three of the references that I cited referred to Zacharias Janssen and his father as the likely inventors, and the reference that you keep using to reinstate Cornelis Drebbel does not actually say that he is a likely inventor, leaving such a claim reference-less.
I have no desire to be involved in an edit war with you, so please stop ignoring the references in Janssen's favour as a likely inventor and cite a valid source for the Cornelis Drebble claims or stop re-adding him unevidenced to the list of possible inventors.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Optical microscope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lens. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of microscope technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lens. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Microscope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek. 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.
I didn't think that including an image on the four most relevant pages would be classed as adding "indiscriminately," but I get your point now that they might not be encyclopedic. There's no need to comment on my page or accuse me of spamming in the edit descriptions. I will learn by seeing what stays and reading the reasons for their removal (such as your comment "Undid revision 787447457 by DanielReardon (talk) out of context", which you ruined by then taking aim at me). You removing it is lesson enough and I'm not petty so I'm not going to try to replace it elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielReardon (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image inclusions looked fine to me. It makes sense to include pictures of radio telescopes in the radio astronomy article - it's definitely not out of context. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section", a 1961 telescope did not belong in a pre-WWII history section. It also seemed to fall into MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, pretty picture of a night sky and trees but not a very good image of the radio telescope half hidden behind the trees. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I accept I may have made a mistake on the section in that case (but I feel like the other radio telescope images are also a bit out of context too), but again, I'm new and I'll learn by seeing what stays. I also accept your other changes. Seriously no need for the arguments. Just make edits without the lectures in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielReardon (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The message on your talk page was a courtesy (thought I should explain why I made the changes) and it was on your talk page because that is where suggestions to an editor belong (comment lines and Article talk pages should be about content). Sorry if it came off as WP:BITE. I do think its a good image and followed your lead as far as needed image cleanup at Parkes Observatory. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Galileo
One expects dishonesty from supporters of Galileo. On 17/7/2017, Fountains uses non-existent, unspecified "most RS" and meaningless "huh". Also, one gets self-contradiction from Fountains. He or she restores the 1888 Encyclopedia Britanica and then deletes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.67.3 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Your reversion of my revision 793742198, citing "unreliable sources, unable to acertain if this is even notable."
Paul Cravath is an extremely important lawyer in history, whose law firm, after nearly 200 years, is widely considered one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.
Cravath developed and instituted the "Cravath System", which combines a distinctive way of approaching the hiring, training and compensation of lawyers. It is the model by which most law firms now operate.
Cravath's involvement in the trials of Westinghouse and Edison are a matter of history. The author of the cited reference, Graham Moore, described in the book the actual facts upon which his novel was based. These facts solidify the importance of Cravath, both in the "war," as well as in the legal foundation of patent disagreements.
Further references can be supplied to support the importance of Cravath:
RE: Your comments on my Talk page. Fair enough -- in part, but more specifically: (1) Cravath had a key role in the Edison v Westinghouse litigations, a fact which is duly noted in the postscript of Moore's book, where he delineates the fictional vs actual facts as he presents them. This makes him an independent (and not unreliable) source, so recommend removing this tag from Paul Drennan Cravath article. (2) RE: War of Currents, as pointed out, Cravath was part of this story, per Moore, and again, this provides a useful reference. "Trial of the century" was quote taken from deleted reference; suggest re-inserting original text, modifying "trial of" quote to read "so-called" or similar. algocu (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further response, disagreeing with your assessment: a simple synopsis does not reveal the factual basis of both the novel and my argument: author Moore devotes a heavily-referenced appendix in his book to delineate fact from fiction. My claims stand: the statements in my entry are documented facts, not fiction. algocu (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Objective diameter influence on brightness.
Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr,
I apologize for my last intervention, when I abruptly erased your last contribution. In my last one, I conserved your example on the 8x40 and 8x25 but I added an important note: to be the 8x40 better for brightness vs. 8x25, the eye pupil must be large enough to collect all the additional light gathered on the retina by the 8x40, otherwise the diameter increase is not useful (for example, if the eye entrance pupil (= eye pupil) is 3.125 mm, the increase from 25 mm to 40 mm is not useful.
I added also a brief discussion on the influence of the objective diameter on the "relative brightness", i.e. the image brigthness respect to the brightness felt by the nuke eye when seeing directly the object: if the exit pupil of the binoculars is less than the eye pupil, the brightness of the image is less than the nuke eye brightness, otherwise it is (in the ideal case of no losses) the same, so the additional increase to the objective diameter brings to an increase in magnification but not to brighter images.
I didn't cite any reference, because I believe that these are basic concepts. In any case I put here two classical Optics books that say what I explained above and in my Wikipedia contribution:
Thank you for pointing out that discussion. I did not see it, as it was buried in the talk archives. While I strongly disagree with the consensus, I will not go against it, and I appreciate the revert. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ17:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jean Texereau 1957 1st ed., 1984 2nd ed. How to make a telescope
It appears that an expert telescope maker's work currently has no place in the encyclopedia, not even a link?. His methods for grinding and evaluating the quality of one's mirrors are notable. Might you suggest a place for me to mention him. His methods are reproducible, but a link would not be a HowTo because no content is disclosed. It makes a perfect high school project because he was aware of the history of the newtonian reflector, the book lists the pitfalls, and it illuminates what would be a black art without this kind of information, AFAIK. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)17:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)11:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Per Abdus Salam article, "shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics with Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg for his contribution to the electroweak unification theory". So we are talking about notable, but not really a "Famous physicists" per the list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion (correct me if I'm wrong) that goodfaith redlinks in Lists such as List of Australian artists (as distinct from lists of persons by surname, for which the rules are clear) are to be encouraged rather than deprecated, as they act as a gap indicator and task reminder to create such an article. Lists of women engaged in various activities is a prime example.
Russell W. Phillips was one such. He was an Archibald finalist and several of his paintings are held by the Art Gallery of New South Wales.
The little research I did on the chap was enough to dissuade me from pursuing the matter further. His subjects were not notable, and the same works (self-portrait, Mrs. R.W.P.) were entered multiple times, but I was happy to leave it there for someone else to develop.Doug butler (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The list gets 40 redlinks a year, so the problem is, who do we leave? Whats the criteria for leaving a redlink? Requiring articles is one approach at WP:LISTPEOPLE and I think following WP:WTAF is a good approach. We could list the redlinks on the talk page and see if anyone wants to take a whack at putting up stubs or articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. 40 is a big number, though I bet most are vandalism or self promos which is more or less the same thing (in such cases I like to delete it with a little joke like "assertion of notability premature at best"). But some I've turned into stubs or rather weak Starts, which I think is a useful approach. A couple have been further developed by their (then unregistered) progenitors. If I'd just deleted Jan Hendrik Scheltema for instance, WP would be one article and one user the poorer. It's not great writing but I suspect the author will end up doing some useful stuff on Dutch influence in Australia. But I wouldn't move the entry to the talk page, only to be buried in intemperate rubbish. I for one steer clear of talk pages unless I'm personally involved. Doug butler (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne Strickland, could have been left too. Magnificent paintings of horses in lurid colours is not my plate of fish, but Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame, R. M. Williams's Outback Museum, and National Gallery of Victoria own or have shown his works Doug butler (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. “Salt” and Mr. “Fountains”: I tell you what, go ahead and delete all my contributions. I am not going to waste any more time in such an amateurish place (that is obviously controlled by biased individuals like you). There are more serious venues out there where scientific work is accepted and respected. - Ed 850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit at 2001
Thanks for your edit at 2001 correcting User:Running there. I recently created a page for 2001 in popular culture and I'm not sure that User:Running has understood your previous message about blogs to him. He now states that he is blog-free here: [5]. Could you look at his edits. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Townsend Brown's capacitor experiments and their results are clearly documented. The conclusions were at the time controversial. I will update the article again without reference to original or modern conclusions. Bengt Nyman (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to delete and hide some of the well known parts of Thomas Townsend Brown's work. I will again update the article to include these parts of his activities. If you are not aware of them ask for sources, but do not arbitrarily compromise his history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengt Nyman (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you to cite verifiable and reliable sources when adding material to Wikipedia. You failed to do that here. You have been editing Wikipedia for a long time so I assume you understand this basic tenet. Fringe claims in a WP:FRINGE article such as "The fact that the effect still remained when Brown put his device inside a vacuum chamber, or in a bath of ion-free transformer oil remains unexplained by mainstream physics" must be so cited and attributed to a source in text, see WP:EVALFRINGE specifically. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you do not claim to enforce any legal restriction of the publication of the works of Thomas Townsend Brown I suggest that you familiarize yourself with already existing and published records of his work before you arbitrarily resort to your own limited knowledge and understanding of his work. I will continue to correct and supplement the en.wiki page about Thomas Townsend Brown until it realistically reflects his work. Bengt Nyman (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia
You've reverted this editor.[6] They are continuing to add trivia from the same Japanese game to articles, sometimes while logged out. I'm not sure what to do but perhaps a warning from you? Doug Wellertalk12:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Edits
Your removal of my edits to the Thomas Jefferson Hotel page was over reaching. If you believed some of them were advertising in nature, you should have only removed those portions. The information was accurate as to the current purpose of the building and the external links supported the edits. If you're going to remove edits, removing them in their entirety is bad form. SPMedit (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as promotional links, if you're speaking about tjtower.com, that is the actual website for the building. When the content asks for a website link, that is the only authorized link for that entity. My main issue stems from the fact that I don't understand why every edit I made was removed. Many of my edits were updating the history of the building, including updated information regarding items of interest that are currently active but were listed in future tense, such as the installation of the new signage and mooring mast. I have no issues with removing certain language if it is deemed to be "advertising in nature," but to remove every bit of additional relevant info seems to be beyond the scope of editing content. Perhaps that's the only way it works, to remove the entire portion? (I am unsure.) To suggest I just repeat my efforts at revising the article means I'd just have to speculate on if hours of work would again be removed due to an arbitrary interpretation of language. I'm not trying to discredit your editing work or be rude, I just truly don't understand the methodology employed here. I am very new at this. I'd appreciate if you would review the materials that were deleted. Thank you, SPMedit (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Fixing the edit was allot of work and I though it better to let you know what the policy and guidelines were so you could make the changes. The problems I see are:
excessive promotional details - Currently, Thomas Jefferson Tower's community amenities are listed as a fitness center, pet wash station, bike work shop, Roots & Revelry and their pickup service "R&R Marketplace" furnished lobby with billiards, 24-hour valet parking, Valet Laundry Service through Vogue Cleaners, controlled residential entry, and on-site management and maintenance services. The recently renovated apartments at Thomas Jefferson Tower amenities list includes Stainless-Steel Appliances with Gas Range, European Gloss Kitchen Cabinets, Quartz Countertops & Island, Finished Concrete Floors, Pendant & Overhead Lighting,Ceiling Fans, New LG Washer/Dryer Combo Unit, High-Rise Views of Downtown Birmingham. Furnished apartments are also offered through CORT furnishings. etc.....
Thank you for your note on appropriate linking and for editing the Qing-Painting caption as an example.
Have a good day,
-Sunriseshore
Disambiguation link notification for August 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited X-ray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The Bryn Mawr College article has a sentence about its Fountain. I was imagining you’d named yourself after this fountain coz you’d met the love of your life there.
Hello! I’m unsure as to what content was deemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The article about Coopers color code is written by a man that has dedicated his life to the study of human behavior in a gun fight, the red dot sight article was written by a man that is nationally recognized as a firearms instructor for tactical teams, and the Colt single action edit was made reference to an article by a firearms historian. The references I have cited are from an online magazine publication for firearms users(both tactical application and otherwise). Could you advise what content was deemed inappropriate? Thanks! BadMoonArmory (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hi. Sorry you felt my links were not appropriate. I do attempt to promote useful information about amateur astronomy to counter the amount of clickbait out there, and work on the Council of the national Society for Popular Astronomy, as well as writing books at a popular level. I certainly do not wish to spam. My link to a guide to how to observe the Geminid meteor shower, for example, was intended to offer constructive advice, partly because the present links are out of date, being for previous years' displays of this major meteor shower.
Sorry to remove. You may want to review WP:SPAMMER for more information. Also Wikipedia is not a "How-To" (see WP:NOTHOWTO) so it does not normally contain links to How-To information. You can always follow the advice of proposing the links on the relative articles talk page for more input. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
Hello Fountains of Bryn Mawr, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Benjamin (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You recently reverted my edit on List of common misconceptions. You cited criteria 2 and 3 on the page, specifically in reference to the misconception being a common misconception. However, I must disagree. The article in question specifically references this tweet from the official Curiosity Rover Twitter account that clears up that very misconception, saying "The reports of my singing are greatly exaggerated" (implying that a misconception about Curiosity singing exists and is widespread, especially considering that the official account is addressing it) and "I only hummed 'Happy Birthday' to myself once, back in 2013" (implying that this misconception is that the rover hums Happy Birthday yearly). Now, I understand if you don't consider the implication of the misconception to be enough from a source, but a reversion was really unnecessary. Ideally, we could improve the article with an additional source (this one, perhaps?) instead of reverting. I refer you to WP:ROWN.
Did you miss an edit notice titled "READ THIS FIRST"? The Criteria for entries is pretty clearly stated there - four criteria and If you have a suggested item that does not fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please suggest it on the talk page. Your entry had minimal sourcing for #2 and did not fulfill #3 (and still doesn't). I have tagged that problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not miss that notice. I read it clearly, which is why I used that Atlantic source, which references the NASA Curiosity tweet that cleared up the misconception. As I explained above, it was my understanding that it fulfills both of those conditions. If you disagree, that's fine. Feel free to add more sources. It makes it a better encyclopedia if you do. --ϟᴇɴsᴏʀꜰɪʀᴇ (✎|‽) 21:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Wanna see something scary? [7]
Considering the amount of false info on WP this gives me the shivers. Back when Wireless power was largely pseudoscience I remember coming across bogus sentences about Tesla's work lifted straight from the article in published papers. --ChetvornoTALK22:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hi!
What is your problem with the invention of lamination of electromagnetic cores? It decreased the eddy currents. And what is the problem with the source from 1896 ?
Thank you for your (rational) reply!--Liltender (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Liltender: The benefits of "dividing" the iron core in reducing eddy currents were known long before ZBD. G. H. Bachhoffer and William Sturgeon [8][9] discovered in 1837 that a "divided" iron core made of iron wires insulated by shellac would enable induction coils to produce higher power, and by the 1880s was a standard well-understood construction technique for reducing eddy current. --ChetvornoTALK17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"reducing eddy currents were known long before ZBD" So why can't you see any laminating in the patents pictures of earlier pre-ZBD transformer developers? It is a very important question.--Liltender (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For academic historians and scientists primary sources (in this case patents first publications) are the determinant factors.--Liltender (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HI! Just see:User:Chetvorno give epmpty urls without proofs/ direct content to support his claims, maybe it is just his fantasy.--Liltender (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the thing: you can try to make a claim in Wikipedia because some secondary source makes that claim (hmm... which you actually didn't do)...., but you can also disprove that claim with a single primary source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still asking you, where are your proofs for these relevations? None of your links can show your statements. Divided iron wires are not equal with laminated iron plates (the real lamination). Only plate form is very effective, iron wires can reduce eddy current only slightly. So the real laminated iron plates (which were effective) were invented by the ZBD team.--Liltender (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm still can't believe that British or American researcher could really understand electromaginetism in theoretical like the ZBD team understand it. ZBDteam still sold dosens of basic mathematical formulas related to electricity for American or British companies, because the lack of theoretical understanding electrotechnology, thus Americans and British were unable to produce effective electronics products without buying math. formulas in their factories.--Liltender (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bryan Mawr, please note Abu Rayhan Biruni was a Persian scholar, there is no Al in Farsi being added to his name. When you are editing something like this, isn't it important to keep it the correct way as the original as possible? as you know everybody reading this and should be true. The second thing why don't you try to use a picture that would come from Iran, not from Russia? When you are editing something like this you should pay attention to keep it to the original as possible. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.220.77 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr. You are off base here. "Jargon" does not apply to simply copying the intro to the lead of Tesla Coil into his biography. There is nothing "non-layman" about it. There is one link to something that is not common knowledge; that is the significance of the coil. And "Good Article" does not mean it cannot be improved, per the above. Please stop, as you are heaeded down the path to You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nikola Tesla; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
"work towards a version that represents consensus among editors". Please read templates instead of just adding them. Its a GA article, you need to take this to its talk page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hydrometer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Nicholson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The Ratheman or Rathenan Gold Metal awarded to T.A.Edison 1913 by the American Museum of Safety (NYC) for Edison's Electric Miners' Safety Lamp. See Wiki's article of Miners' Safety lamps and Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). The Electrical Review Vol.72 No 1,840 2/28/1913 p.363. I am the President of the Knights of Edison Anthony LaSala MD Conn. Thank you.32.213.246.45 (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
please be kinder in your reviews/edits, in respect of a recently passed young person
“Notable amateur astronomers: rm, an actor buying a telescope does not rank as "Notable amateur astronomer"”
This could have been edited for “puffery” too...one could just delete & keep it simple. Please have some respect for a youth that just passed & wasn’t “just” an actor - he was much beyond that was the point, his telescope was not a toy & rather proved his vast interest and love for all things related to astronomy and the skies. Justiceforssr (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to first note that the citation is merely supporting, text is not based off the citation, it merely serves to support the work of a previous editor and the definition of a less notable source (Dictionary.com). So it should be treated accordingly.
Second I would like to explicitly reject the proposed policy and present an opposite one: as ceteri paribus and as long as the source is not primary, an older source is better.
Third, some terms and topics gain rapid notoriety during a short timespan, and the interest passes, wikipedia, by its very nature is centered around words, so we should pay close attention to the earliest sources we can find which use the word of the article title. Sources from all stages of the fad are important to establish notability; prophetic or foundational sources that precede the rise in popularity, mid-fad sources which are easier to find due to their abundance , and post-mortem sources that dissect the history of a term. In this case, Alan Kay's essay is a prophetic, foundational sources in that it both predicts and establishes the phenomenon. See the following term frequency graph https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?smoothing=3&corpus=26&year_start=1800&content=personal+computer&year_end=2019&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cpersonal%20computer%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cpersonal%20computer%3B%2Cc0 note that in 1972 the term was barely used.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, Alan Kay is a secondary source, covering the phenomenon of personal computing. If you are looking for a source that analyzes Alan Kay from the present, you are looking for a tertiary source, this is Wikipedia's job, to gather secondary sources.
Lastly, we should recognize that reliability is non-binary and explore how the Alan Kay citation compares to the Dictionary.com citation. I tend to be very weary of web citations in general, more so one's whose main asset is their domain name (see dot com bubblepets.com ) establish that. I hope that you will find it undeniable that a citation from 1972 by a renowned computer scientist, published in a peer reviewed journal, found and linked by an editor who organically stumbled upon the content through a personal learning journey, is more reliable than an online only dictionary, established as late as 1999, without a date of publication for the quoted piece, likely found by an editor doing a quick google search.
A source from 1972 to determine the first usage of a word around then is A) useless, its not a reliable historical review, B), original research... its you noting this is the first use, and C), a primary source from that period using a word (not a historical secondary source citing when the word was used first).. Also see WP:AGE MATTERS, we do not use the oldest sources in this instance by editor consensus. ngrams are also original research. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policies should apply to claims that are included in an article. I have not included any content in the article, you are citing policies regarding comments on your talk page, if you require that comments follow the same standard as article material, then this is the end of our conversation.--TZubiri (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These talk pages are for developing Wikipedia content, or commenting on editors. If you are talking about content development we talk policy and guidelines. If you are talking about editorial content you lost me there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain me what do you mean by "nationalist edits" here? What's wrong? My edits are pure facts, e.g. Nikola Tesla was born in Smiljan, a village in Croatia. Isn't that true? And there is a museum in Smiljan, isn't it? According to your talk page, it seems that you've got a problem not only with me, but with many other editors, because you like reverting, removing etc. --Silverije20:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first practical AC transformer was iinvented by the ZBD team, and they built the first public Power Stations too. That's why you can not name a single public AC power station before Rome.--Free Royal City (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A very first operative AC line was put into service in 1885 in via dei Cerchi, Rome, Italy, for public lighting." 1year older than the first American power station. Source:
A very first operative AC line was put into service in 1885 in via dei Cerchi, Rome, Italy, for public lighting.
References? 2nd source on the topic contradicts you re: "in the spring of 1886 commenced operations for the supply from the gas works of the electric current by the Ganz alternating system". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Free Royal City had right. Ganz invented the Transformer, so it is no wonder that he applied it first and created the first AC POWER STATION:
Hello, I see you reverted my edit due to "unexplained deletion". I did explain in the edit summary that the things I removed were not actually firearms, either that or they had since been redirected and were no longer articles. Hopefully that is sufficient to explain it.ZXCVBNM (TALK)01:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bryn Mawr! Thank you for reviewing my edits. However, I would like to question why you reverted many of them. I had inserted references from a research project that captured these women's contribution to history. These references added to the creditability of some of the statements made on their Wikipedia pages. This project has been widely published through many reputable media sources online and should be seen an honor/legacy contribution. Furthermore, some of your revisions deleted contributions made by other users many months ago that I had simply copy edited. Please explain further why these edits were removed or help me reinstate the additions and edits. Thanks again, Bababibap (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Wikipedia content guideline on Citation spam re:repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Blogs (copying further self generated material?) are also not considered reliable sources, see WP:RS. Also citations are not normally added to the lead. Added content was also self referenced, material needs to have significant third party coverage. The anonymous IPs seem to be adding similar problematic edits.
Noted about the referencing, and the marking of the edits as "minor." Will resubmit the honor/legacy contributions as these received coverage from many separate and significant sources. Thank you, Bababibap (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted the List
Hello Bryn Mawr, Thank you for your intrest on my edits. Could you please explain why you reverted the list of Laureates from the article Nobel Peace Prize ? I don't know what the problem is because I brought it from the same article in Wikipedia French. Thanks, Alex-h (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I wanted to let you know I reverted your latest reversion on Bea Benaderet. If you check the article history, you'll see that "Turkish" was the long-standing adjective and is supported by the sources. User:TIggI140 made an unsuccessful attempt to change it to "Armenian" (they have made similar unsupported changes of "Turkish" to "Armenian" on several other articles); then an IP (also TIggI140?) changed it to "Armenian" and then TIggI140 changed it back to Turkish. I guess this was an attempt to trick someone else into making the change to "Armenian" on their behalf. In any case, I've checked several sources and they all say "Turkish". CodeTalker (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of Pioneers in Computer Science - Farnsworth addition
Hey, sorry for jumping the gun on trying to add Farnsworth to the list. I realize now that the list has a long history of debate on inclusion, criteria and focus away from male/American domination. I'm not here to debate Farnsworth's merits, instead I will take that to the talk pages. I feel I was wrongly edited, or rather I do not understand your points for reverting my contributions. You cited OR and lack of references despite linking to his article which lay out, I think, sufficient evidence for inclusion to the list. If you challenged me that those achievements do not warrant inclusion on a strictly Computer Science article I could understand but I used the original article as reference the first time then the article's references the second time. Especially since the latest entries are just links to their individual pages.
I see now that the list is struggling a fair bit and it wont be improved by me dog piling "my guy" on top. Perhaps, if one were to put the time in to rework the list, the list could be much more inclusive of not only the notable male American's everyone knows but also the non-american females (and all others) that could use the acknowledgment? I dunno maybe lost cause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StinkPickle4000 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Farnsworth: You may want to read WP:V as well as WP:OR. You inserted two secondary sources and a primary source, none of which mention computers. You then interpreted those sources and came up with a statement "Philo T. Farnsworth was a pioneer in computer science". You actually have to cite someone else (a secondary source) saying "Philo T. Farnsworth was a pioneer in computer science". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second sentence, the title of the book was "meant to satirise the popular notion of a Golden Age", but the book did not describe the era since it was written before the era. We can not make a claim that the historians who appropriated the name 50 years later did it because of a "popular notion of a Golden Age". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
physicist
About the term "physicist", I do not think your inverting is reasonable. I think maybe you could check more information about physicists. Jackie zefan08:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I put back two of the images that you removed from the gallery section of the M63 article. While I think you have been doing a great service cleaning out the image sections of the Messier object articles, I think it is appropriate to allow images in the Gallery section if they show something not seen in any other image in the article. In the case of the two images I put back in, they show the galaxy in ultraviolet and infrared light. I think it is appropriate to allow such nonredundant images, but I'd be happy to discuss that with you if you disagree.PopePompus (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IG is pretty clear on this: galleries should not be indiscriminate. Just showing what an ultraviolet or infrared image looks like conveys no meaning, they might as well be on the Commons (where they are now). Galleries should have reason to exist (or theme) and each image should be clearly captioned to explain what they mean and why are in that gallery. Feel free to make improvements, otherwise I will simply delete the gallery again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still disagree with you. These are not indescriminate images, they show the galaxy in a different light (literally) than the visible-light images that are on the page. They provide additional, non-redundant information. I don't think we are apt to convince each other on this issue. Shall we take this discussion to the Astronomy Talk Page to get input from other interested parties?PopePompus (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't explain to the reader what the "different light" means, then the article is simply hosting the image. Wikipedia is not an image host, there has to be description within the article to go with the image. This has already been discussed to the point of it being Wikipedia policy at WP:IG, and again, it is very clear. I do not see what further discussion of policy is going to accomplish, unless you plan to dispute WP:IG at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
I noticed your reversion of my truncation of the caption in the time lapse movie in Astrophotography. I thought about the info in the commons page; I decided on a truncation because the original did not describe the camera motions. The term 'random' does not apply at all. The camera moved in a controlled tilt-up at the beginning of the movie, then was stationary for the rest. I believe the problem may be in translation of the original Chinese. It is the type of err that might be the result of a too-literal, possibly machine, translation. Since the description on commons is the only direction we have, I decided to truncate rather than rewrite. If you wish we can continue the discussion on the article talk page. You or I can go there tomorrow.
I have never run into a situation like this before in which an image description is in error. I believe simple truncation is proper—removing non-useful material maintains the useful part while deleting the on-the-face of it non-useful material.
Not to get too much into the weeds, but the photographer seems to have used the telescope mount to make the vertical tilt in a controlled fashion at the beginning, followed by no movement. I suppose the original meaning in Chinese might have been 'arbitrary' in place of 'random'. That might be a possible replacement, but I don't think that makes a very useful description. Better to just truncate rather that lengthen the already long caption with conjectured, but more accurate description of the time-lapse movie.
There are two videos. The first tracks up in altitude for 21 out of 29 seconds (90 degree angle to RA). The second tracks almost horizontally at an angle to RA. "random direction off the normal equatorial axis" seems to describe the movement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am comfortable with your newest edit. It helps explain the time-lapse movie without getting into what we might think is true but that is not explicit in the commons description. ThumbIn the second segment I think the camera is stationary since the foreground does not move.
In that beautiful movie, the motion of the Milky Way is similar to what I have seen in other time-lapse movies of the same subject. The rule of thumb for avoiding star trails with similar camera/lens combo is to divide 500 by the lens focal length, giving the exposure time limit in seconds—14 mm fl lens gives 35.7 seconds. I'm in the process of pouring concrete to finish the concrete pier for my backyard telescope (see right), a Schmidt-Cassegrain 12" from Meade, an LX200 ACF—much too heavy for me to cart around, but a dslr is much better for the Milky Way. It only takes a tripod, a wide-lens, and digital slr from the last ten years (and work) to photograph the milky way.
I won't revert, but your argument "article is about print making, not people who make prints" is nonsense. Printmaking is an activity, indeed an industry, done by people. The sites you removed were not at all off topic, though there were probably too many. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Printmaking organizations are notable in some way, they should be in the article with a reliable source saying, well, they are notable in some way. The article topic is Printmaking, defined in the lead, a randomly generated tangential linkfarm at the end of the article is just not encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how External links work, and those links have in fact been watched, trimmed & curated for several years. I think I will restore some after all. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FOBM for pointing out WP:Artist, which has come as a revelation to me. In my zeal to improve coverage of Australian artists on Wikipedia, I have naively added content (some 50–100 painters) when I find a subject mentioned in the media and having an entry in several respectable reference books (Max Germaine, Joan Kerr/DAAO, Alan McCulloch). I have removed John Sheddon Adam, as a recent addition with no encumbrances. I will have to find a reason to keep Jeremy Boot — he may have played cricket for Norwood. Doug butler (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Battle Rap League Entry
Howdy, the entry for Battle Rap League, Sho-Time battle rap league (PPressed) movie (I have great links, more than 1 that can accompany) Can I add more than one to support? Can I re-submit Thank You Curtmarsalis Curtmarsalis (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what i wrote for you:
Undid revision 1088547394 by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) Why you deleted my internal link? it was useful and necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.234.38.183 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, saw you corrected a guy who added Samuel Frost to the list, tho he reverted your changes. Not only him, but also Edme Castaing, Elizabeth Van Valkenburgh, Pierre François Lacenaire, Jesse Pomeroy, Frances Knorr and Theodore Durrant are all people who only have 2 victims.
In fact, their articles classify them as murderers instead of serial killers, pretty sure they're not supposed to be on that list, is there somewhere else I can ask about this?
I have modded the lead def to follow the consensus def at Serial killer. The definition is two, three, or four. Now the thing to check is, is there a reliable source that defines that person as a serial killer? We can't just count the bodies and draw that conclusion, so feel free to remove anyone who does not have that reliably sourced claim at their bio article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that most definitions set a minimun of three, unrelated victims on at least two different periods of time (that being the "cooldown"), including the FBI, but ok. Hate to repeat myself, but my first request was mainly inspired due to the fact that the guys mentioned before are not classified as serial killers in their respective articles:
Ex: Jesse Harding Pomeroy (November 29, 1859 – September 29, 1932) was a convicted American murderer [...]
Each of them have sources that state they were murderers, but not serial killers, but since you changed the definition I guess they qualify now (?
Hello! Your submission of George Fell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mouth to mouth resuscitation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Daily Mail. Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nikola Tesla; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
