User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr

This is a Wikipedia user 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

Award

		The Photo Barnstar
		For expanding and improving the astrophotography article. serioushat 00:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

Depth of Field (Binoculars)

I'm puzzled by your "You may want to inline tag the parts that seem incorrect". I was suggesting adding to the article. Thanks for responding, though ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to talk started "People comparing different brands" and talked about "spin" which I assumed meant it was something about what other editors added (talk pages are about edits). If you are talking about "life in general" I can see that. If you want to suggest a modification you can always cite the sources that follow what you think should be added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retiflector sight

I am an unskilled user and am not sure how to use Wikipedia. I'd love to converse with you directly, since I have a fourth figure to illustrate the retiflector sight but don't know how to add it.

If you don't mind discussing it, please e-mail me at rwhistler25@hotmail.com.

Regards,

Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswhis (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my list of references to the retiflector configuration:

Sight Reference

Chrétien Fundamentals of optical engineering, by D.H. Jacobs McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc., 1943 OPL Notice Provisoire sur le Collimateur R.X.39, Société Optique et Précision de Levallois, Paris, Juin 1940 N-8 Handbook of Instructions with Parts Catalog for the Retiflector Gun Sight Types N-8 and N-8A, Tech.Order 11-35-9, USAAF, April 20, 1944

X-1 Bombsights - Type X-1 Reflex Sight, Tech. Order 11-30-74, USAAF, December, 1944 CAI Bourns/CAI product information, Optical Reflex Gunsights, Typical Optical Reflex Gunsights, data sheet CAI Product Information, Norsight Optical Gunsight Bowen Optical Instruments, Summary Technical Report of Division 16, NDRC, Washington, D.C., 1946, 494 - 498

NIFE A New Type of Reflecting Sight, J. Vogl and S. Täcklind, JOSA, Vol. 37, No. 12, 975-978, December, 1947

B-29 ... central station fire control system ..., Tech. Orders 11-70A-1 and -2, USAAF, 1945

As I said, I am not proficient with Wikipedia, and would much prefer that you edit the Reflector Sights article using whatever you wish from my input. I have a Fig. 4, illustrating the retiflector configuration. It is a subclass of reflector sights. I can e-mail this figure to you if I have your e-mail address. I can see no way to attach it to this message.

The interposed reflector plate does not provide any offset deflections to the line of sight. The retiflector is simply a reconfiguration of the components of a "normal" reflector sight that provides a more compact package.

Regards, Rosswhis (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if the diagram is yours you can upload it to Wikipedia---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload. If it is from any of those post mid-1940s sources you could give it some "fair use" license, it would not suitable under a free use on Wikipedia since the cutoff is 1923 or older. You could put it up at a free Google website or Google Docs or some message board and let me know where it is. I will be glad to look through the material and take a stab at adding it Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your various suggested methods of transmission, and, at 85, they are too complicated for me. As a alternative, I have set up a hotmail account FofBM@hotmail with a password of Retiflector1 and attached the text, diagram and references. Please feel free to do with them what you want.

Ross

Hi, got the document at the account. Thanks for going to the trouble to set it up. One problem... its an RTF file with no image inserted, just text. I think RTF only supports text. If there was an image you can probably get it to work by going SAVE AS....--->.DOC format, if this is Word, and re-sending the .DOC file. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried again, and I hope with success. I'm glad for the delay. With red face I must confess that I had a reference wrong. What I remembered as a Chretien design was actually Michelin.

The refernce should be

Michelin Fundamentals of optical engineering, by D.H. Jacobs McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc., 1943 page 242]and Michelin should replace Chretien in the text.

I'm sorry to have been so hamhanded in all this, but I think it's done now.

Ross Rosswhis (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got the document and it looks fine. Image is attached. Think you did fine sending this and the Hotmail is a stroke of genius.

One of the challenges of an encyclopedia is categorizing things. Encyclopedias describe "things" and have to be broken down into logical articles and sections. Is something part of one article, is it part of another, is it the "same thing" or a "different thing". And sometimes someone comes up with an addition that says, "hey, you missed this part".

So looking at the drawing you supplied makes it all much clearer and shows what needs expanding. From what I can see the Retiflector sight depiction shows it is not a new basic type, it is a collimated image turned 90 degrees off a 45 degree beam splitter. Same thing used in the first 1900 sight all the way up to modern HUDs. The optical path to get to that final arrangement may take a few twists and turns but it is the same end resault.

The "part missed" is an explanation that mirrors can be used as well as lenses to create a collimator.

"Retiflector sight" itself could be a stand alone article in Wikipedia... I will do that (with you permission to use the diagram)... and put it up some time soon. That article can then be linked to the related articles on the topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[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! – MrX 15:34, 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I don't know

I don't know any references, I'm just trying to get a non-featured article in line with a featured article. I'll just leave it then. But I will add that either way, "our" is still supposedly wrong because there's meant to be a third-person view on humanity, see Human and its talk page FAQ, so it should still be at least "the Earth's Solar System" or "the Solar System of the Earth" or "Humanity's Solar System" or whatever.--occono (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sparks

As the page on sources notes, one should only use as evidence sites which have a reputation for accuracy and reliability, not sites which may theoretically have altered or forged any given document they host. A bare reference to the relevant source is better than a link to a site belonging to someone with a reputation as a crank and a liar. The section on Montague bikes I removed because other than the link to combatreform it's had no citations since 2009, which is a long time for an unreferenced section to be hanging around. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just "my opinion," it is the opinion of everyone who has ever had any contact with Mike Sparks. He is a lunatic. Hell, read this.

"It's possibly because Hitler was secretly a British agent for Germany's destruction and he needed a neutral country to flee to when the war ended... Moreover, if the Germans escaped in good order, taking high technologies like Anti-Gravity Craft (AGC)...this possibility lead me to Jane's aerospace writer, Nick Cook's book, The Hunt for Zero Point. As I was reading it, a passage hit me over the head. He stated that one group who would know the full extent of Nazi flying saucer technologies, as well as their escape, was Ian Fleming's 30 Assault Unit commandos who captured all their records at war's end."

This is not the sort of person you turn to for data on anything but what insane people think of an issue. I don't know why you think linking to an online copy is in any way necessary anyway, all you need to do is name the reference material that is being cited, which the article does in its current form. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just need for them to be able to look it up in a reference library or similar. There are plenty of articles even at FA standard that don't link to online copies of sources. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Mapping the Global Economy

Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. Here is the project page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion

here [1] to discuss religion at the Colombian Expo - better than getting the Admins involved. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3d printing

Saw your tag. Don't have a horse in this race, but : The citation is only backing that the guy got a patent in 1984. The patent itself is surely a reliable source for that fact? (The "first" part, maybe we should remove, as the patent does not say anything towards that). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are primary sources. Any claim of invention, or even supporting whether the mention of the patent is notable, needs a reliable independent or third-party source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fight Forgery"

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit#03 November 2013. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "United States". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 02:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Tesla Information

I am not sure why you are removing references and relevant information concerning Nikola Tesla. But it is a problem. --J. D. Redding 13:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of lighting technology 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

"[[s:On Light and Other High Frequency Phenomena|On Light and Other High Frequency Phenomena]]", (Journal of the Franklin Institute, Volume 136 By Persifor Frazer, Franklin Institute (Philadelphia,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 16 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Timeline of lighting technology page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla

Hi, I just undid your edit to the Tesla dab. There has been some edit warring over this in the past, so let's keep it the way it was. I have removed the word "controversial" from the html-comment. Hope you don't mind. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013

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

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

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)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Impressionism 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Image:Claude Monet - Jardin à Sainte-Adresse.jpg|thumb|right|''Jardin à Sainte-Adresse,'' 1867, [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Antenna (radio) 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(two dipole antennas aligned at right angles) for a VHF low band television broadcasting station.)]]
* "Support > Knowledgebase > RF Basics > Antennas / Cables > [http://www.maxstream.net/helpdesk/article-27 dBi vs. dBd detail]". MaxStream, Inc., 2005. (ed.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Hello. I see you restored a tag to the small arms article today. Just wanted you to know, I did maybe a half-dozen edits on that page today, but I don't think any of them removed that tag. I'll double check - but I'm pretty sure. Lightbreather (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Question of Napoleon

Dear Fountains of Bryn Mawr,

I paste here the text I just wrote on the general discussion page.

Hi everyone,

I have been reading ancient discussions and several statements regarding Napoleon nationality/ethnicity/citizenship/origin and whatever. I seriously don't see why it's so hard to understand some provable facts. Napoleon was born in Corsica, an island off of Italy. At the time subject to the King of France but cultural, linguistic and ethnically belonging to the Italian nation. Furthermore, Italy as we know it geographically, does not comprehend only the Italian peninsula, but also its adjacent islands, therefore Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Italy)

Italian is not just a citizenship but also an ethnicity, which predates the founding of the modern country of Italy. Certainly an ethnic group (such as the Kurds in present-day) can exist without having a country to call its own.

Napoleone Buonaparte, his original name, was ethnically Italian even though he had French citizenship. The same can be said to Catarina de' Medici, Giovanni Battista Lulli and many others young Italians emigrated to France.

If the latters are included (rightly so) as Italians, I don't see why Napoleon is not.

In Ratio Veritas (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this was replied to at the article talk page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vincenzo Tiberio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Well (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) 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Personal Problem

Dear Fountains of Bryn Mawr,

Straight to the point: what is your problem? I have been trying to do my honest job so far, adding new informations, enriching Italian articles as long as I can. Therefore, It seems to me you have been working hard to disencourage my participation, portraying me as a nationalistic troll with "promotional" intent. After one week off I find a great part of my efforts deleted without a single word stressed. Honestly, why is that? If it is or not a false claim, it must be discussed in a civilian way with arguments rightly exposed. When I make any edit I always try to provide it with reliable sources. Usually academic and scientific papers an encyclopedic articles. Some claims may not have universal acceptance, but it doesn't mean is incorrect or innacurate. And if it really is, again, it must be discussed, as a sign of respect for people's efforts and time. I have a short history here in WP but I have already added almost 50/60 new Italians, almost 40 new entries in Italian inventions. I believe I must be treated in a kinder way. Best regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to come off as a WP:BITE and forgive me if it seems that way. I would suggest you read through Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Those guidelines and policies are not mine, they come from consensus. Some pointers per guidelines and policies:

"When I make any edit I always try to provide it with reliable sources." Actually your sources are not "reliable sources" (I suggest you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources)
"Some claims may not have universal acceptance, but it doesn't mean is incorrect or innacurate." ....true, but it also means they are not encyclopedic. Such claims either should not appear in Wikipedia at all or should be presented as either opinion (citing it in text to the author) or as part of a two sided claim (presenting the opposing point of view). They should never be presented in Wikipedia as "fact" in the voice of Wikipedia (such as listing them in an article like List of Italian inventions).

If you find what I say questionable or simply do not understand I suggest you take it up with other editors for further advice, this Wikipedia Administrator is aware of the situation and may be of some assistance. I have supplied many thousands of words over these edits with what I think is guidance. If you think I am wrong feel free to fill out an ANI on me.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. I really appreciate it. Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Nikola Tesla

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Removing historic information from over 100 years ago because the source is over 100 years old isn't a valid reason. The language used in the previous version adds context to help the reader understand what they understood about the technology at that time. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! C1776M ^Talk 17:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right! I apologize. I have no idea how I misread that. Sorry for the un-needed revert. C1776M ^Talk 20:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]