User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr
|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
Start a new talk topic.
- 1 Award
- 2 Barnstar
- 3 Good Article promotion
- 4 List of telescope parts and construction
- 5 Depth of Field (Binoculars)
- 6 Retiflector sight
- 7 A barnstar for you!
- 8 The Space Barnstar
- 9 The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
- 10 A barnstar for you!
- 11 I don't know
- 12 Mike Sparks
- 13 Firearm-Gun-.et.al. cleanup Project sub-page
- 14 Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, enlisting your support
- 15 Mapping the Global Economy
- 16 I have started a discussion
- 17 3d printing
- 18 "Fight Forgery"
- 19 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 20 Removal of Tesla Information
|The Photo Barnstar|
|For expanding and improving the astrophotography article. serioushat 00:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)|
|The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar|
|This Barnstar is awarded to User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr for their tireless efforts to improve numerous astronomy - related articles.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)|
Yes, someone pays attention. I've been impressed with your work on lots of these articles, especially the small efforts which take a lot of thought but aren't noticeable to the casual reader. (If you decide to move this barnstar to your user page you can modify the gender of the award if desired, with information on the Template:The Working Man's Barnstar page. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
|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)
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 ! --126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Here is my list of references to the retiflector configuration:
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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
A barnstar for you!
|The Teamwork Barnstar|
|I just wanted to let you know that your work on the Nikola Tesla article is appreciated. You have been very forthcoming in discussing changes with other editors, and you consistently balance the teamwork approach with a bold editing philosophy. Well done! – MrX 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)|
- Thanks for the compliment. The article in question seems to be getting overall good faith editing, although whats added sometimes seems to need a "flip" end to end to bring it in line with tone. I hope I don't make people airsick with the flips ;) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar
|The Space Barnstar|
|For defending, improving, and creating content related to telescopes and astronomy - Congratulations. Fotaun (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
|For great contributions over many years in many areas! Fotaun (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)|
A barnstar for you!
|The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|
|Thanks for your diligent efforts promoting sane editing and compliance with WP policies. Keep up the good work! Noleander (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)|
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)
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)
- 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)
Firearm-Gun-.et.al. cleanup Project sub-page
Hi Bryn, With each link I click, its revealed more and more to me just how much of an unmitigated mess that ALL of the gun and firearm (and often their useless derivative articles) are. What do you think of the creation of a sub-page off of the main Project page so that we can organize the effort. Starting with a master list of articles to fix, clean up, delete, merge, etc. and then we categorize appropriately from there. There are just too many to keep track of across multiple Talk pages. Better yet, I'm pretty sure that I can bring in several other firearm informed (but neutral) editors to assist with the efforts. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- A sub-page sounds good. I can add some input as I see it where I can. Most of what I noticed is the problem with any article on a topic with a vast number of "aficionados", people singularly or in a small sub-group base an article on their personal knowledge instead of WP:V. Articles like Small arm and Personal weapon, even though one sub-group claims it as an exact definition, are a slam-dunk redirects to Firearm as far as WP:CCPOL goes. We only have one article per description, any sub description should be in that article. I guess another approach would be to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms talk page (which you already started), list the redundant articles, and ask for views on why we should not follow WP:CCPOL. Redirecting redundant articles is covered by consensus so you don't need further consensus to do it per: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Merge tags redirected to that discussion could be used as well. My two cents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
I have started a discussion
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)
- 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)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit#03 November 2013. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)