User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Working Man's Barnstar.png 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[edit]

Integrated Helmet Display Sight System.jpg 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[edit]

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

Depth of Field (Binoculars)[edit]

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 ! -- (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)

Retiflector sight[edit]

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


Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswhis (talkcontribs) 20:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

Hi, if the diagram is yours you can upload it to Wikipedia---> 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.
Ross Rosswhis (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

Space-Barnstar-1j.png 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[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif 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![edit]

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

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

I don't know[edit]

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)

Mike Sparks[edit]

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)
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) cleanup Project sub-page[edit]

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

A sub-page sounds good. I can add some input as I see it where I can. Most of what I noticed is the problem with any article on a topic with a vast number of "aficionados", people singularly or in a small sub-group base an article on their personal knowledge instead of WP:V. Articles like Small arm and Personal weapon, even though one sub-group claims it as an exact definition, are a slam-dunk redirects to Firearm as far as WP:CCPOL goes. We only have one article per description, any sub description should be in that article. I guess another approach would be to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms talk page (which you already started), list the redundant articles, and ask for views on why we should not follow WP:CCPOL. Redirecting redundant articles is covered by consensus so you don't need further consensus to do it per: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Merge tags redirected to that discussion could be used as well. My two cents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC). No strods to be found here.
Before I go off "half cocked" (sorry, woke up early and I'm punchy), I left a message on the Firearm Project coordinator's (User:Mike Searson) talk page asking for input and guidance. The last thing we need is opposition from the "powers on high". Its always better to work with the system than outside of or against it... :) Anyway, once we get Mike's (assuming we get any) input, we can proceed from there. Seem reasonable? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, enlisting your support[edit]

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[edit]

Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries. The goal of this project is to map out the global economy. Here is the project page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talkcontribs) 03:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion[edit]

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)

3d printing[edit]

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 for toilet role 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)

"Fight Forgery"[edit]

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.[edit]


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[edit]

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)

December 2013[edit]

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)

Reference Errors on 16 December[edit]

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

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)


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)


WikiProject Barnstar Hires.png The WikiProject Barnstar
For contributions to various projects and articles, especially optics. Fotaun (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Fountains of Bryn Mawr![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
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)

Peace sign.svg

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

January 2014[edit]

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)

February 2014[edit]

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 > [ dBi vs. dBd detail]". MaxStream, Inc., 2005. (ed.

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


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)

The Question of Napoleon[edit]

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:

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)

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]

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)

Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering[edit]

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)

Personal Problem[edit]

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)

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

Recent edit to Nikola Tesla[edit]

Information.svg 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! C1776MTalk 17:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right! I apologize. I have no idea how I misread that. Sorry for the un-needed revert. C1776MTalk 20:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I see how it happened now, I was using STiki and your edit summary was truncated to only read "uses out modded wording/sources (over 100 years old)" and I saw a bunch of sourced information deleted. I got lazy and didn't go to the article and investigate further. Please accept my apologies. C1776MTalk 20:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Accepted at your talk. ty Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Influences, influenced[edit]

Hmm. I've not seen that guideline before. I agree the lists can get ludicrously long, but I'm not sure I agree with limiting the list to personal contact only for earlier thinkers. When progress is over centuries rather than decades, very few people have personal contact. Taken literally the guideline means that Wikipedia would record almost no links between medieval thinkers, which is surely incorrect. Alhazen was heavily influenced by Ptolemy's theories of optics, and Alhazen in turn heavily influenced Roger Bacon. --Merlinme (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the problem because I have seen the template abused in other articles and knew its basic parameters. The problem (from what I can glean from the template talk pages) is it becomes a matter of opinion and edit waring real fast. That may be why they limited it. You can always bring your thoughts up at the template talk page. If what was deleted in the template is notable then it should be added to the article in section form, (if its not there already) following WP:YESPOV guidelines of course. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The Isaac Newton article doesn't seem to follow the guidelines, as Kepler is listed, who died before Newton was born. The Newton article does look like it could do with a bit of a cleanup, to be honest, but taken literally the guidelines means Henry More has a stronger claim to be in the Influences section than Kepler, which would be odd. Newton built directly on the work of Kepler, Henry More was someone he discussed the Book of Revelation with. Admittedly Newton spent a lot of time writing about and trying to understand the Book of Revelation, but in terms of his scientific influences More is surely irrelevant compared to Kepler, whose work is central to Newton's application of his theories to the solar system.
I note that "influences" and "influenced" have been deleted from the general people info box anyway, and to be honest it is a pain to keep it to a manageable length from all the POV people who want to show their favourite thinker influenced everyone. I'm not sure I have the energy to argue for changing the infobox "influenced" guidelines. But if we are to have those categories in the scientist info box, then I think it makes sense to say Kepler directly influenced Newton; and Ptolemy directly influenced Alhazen, who directly influenced Roger Bacon. --Merlinme (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

no your quite wrong[edit]

you deleted a short article which might prevent blindness please put it back

Hi, please note: Wikipedia articles do not contain advice, good, bad, or otherwise (see: WP:NOTGUIDE). It is possible to turn such advice into statements (such as my cleanup here). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WHY: wiki in various articles including the mentioned does give advice that the sun filter is shaded glass, and this is TERRIBLY WRONG advice, and totally incorrect

either edit all wiki to remove such advice or put back the warning

why there? your right advice cannot be scattered in all wiki but it can be in a few for those who bother to look, the will see (cand continue to see)

thank you for your junk filter concern but your wrong about "who had been emitting advice", by fact and theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Perspective projection distortion[edit]

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

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 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:
  • and receiver. With these improvements the system was capable of transmitting signals up to ({{Convert|2|mi}} and over hills<ref>Sungook Hong, Wireless: From Marconi's Black-box to the Audion,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Electrohydrodynamics may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • he seems to have miss-identified it as an electric field acting on gravity.<ref name="Wired">{{Cite news

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ionocraft may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • . Brown spent most of his life trying to develop what he thought was an [[anti-gravity]] effect]] which he named the [[Biefeld–Brown effect]]. Since Brown's devices produce thrust along their

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Could you kindly explain the reason why you removed my addition to the social seating page? If I was an airline manager, I would find that content very useful. Thank you. Sergiofly (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Perspective projection distortion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, took a look at it. I reverted it because the linked page says "(Reproduced with Permission)". There is a Wikipedia policy that says "don't link pirated materiel" (forget the link for it right now :() but I saw no evidence of that. I don't think linking an Amazon sales page is kosher and the editor would have to prove who they are to an admin. That's my quick take on it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. I saw the disclaimer on the originally linked page. I'm sure there must be a policy about this somewhere but I'm only looking at Wikipedia a short amount of time so I try to avoid trouble. Trilobitealive (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Perspective projection distortion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Creative Commons License

You are free...

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

Under the following conditions

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

From what I can figure out "noncommercial-use-only images are not permitted on Wikipedia." per Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Free licenses. So you probably can't use those images. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Fountain
Have I fallen out with you?
Anyway, I went to what I thought was my Sandbox site and did I'm not sure what. But I noticed too late that my Sandbox site had some how taken me to a Perspective Projection site instead. I may well have done damage to that site. I want to give you a heads-up and trust you are able to undo what I may have done. My regrets.Pat Kelso (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, busy time. I see no problems, looks ok to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nikola Tesla may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • in his pocket, a letter of recommendation, a few poems, and the remainder of his belongings.<ref>{{James O'Neill, Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla, Book Tree - 2007, pages 57-60</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Guglielmo Marconi[edit]

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

An entry that describes itself as a "mention" is by Wikipedia definition "trivia" or a pop-culture reference. The standard is "what ever did it mean to Guglielmo Marconi? Did he comment on it?" (see WP:IPC). It falls way below the other entries. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Just an F.Y.I. I didn't add that text I was just correcting it that's all. Honestly I could care less if it stays or goes. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI noted before I edited it. It was the content that counted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not Cool[edit]

It's not cool to revert my edits while leaving MrX's intact. I'll fix any factual errors, but that was a lot of work and the previous lead was in pretty bad shape.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not "not cool"... but WP:BRD. Please read the talk page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I just want to make sure you're not WP:BITE-ing me because I'm new to the article. I'm asking you to collaborate, not to have my way 100%--Atlantictire (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The article has a long talk history, please read it. I am sorry but your facts were so wrong they were un-savable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. It's easy make "sold" "licensed," and we can get the sequence of events down because of course it was Westinghouse's use of Tesla's invention that set the War of Currents in motion.
Look at the Thomas Edison article. Totally possible to write about this stuff for a general audience. Collaborate, rather than being reflexively WP:OWNY. MrX thought my version what "an improvement." I only started copy editing after he did.
I understand the article has a contentious history, but that doesn't mean no one should clean up the copy.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but you are taking a pop-culture bent on things. Have a look at the War of Currents article and you will see Tesla's inventions did not set it in motion (he gets a small mention). During the War of Currents Tesla was deep into his Hi-Freq stuff, he may have made a few comments but he had no pivotal roll. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I'll get some sources and you'll get some sources and we'll see about this. You ready to clean up the copy yet?--Atlantictire (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You should take it all to the article talk page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No, because right now it's just you being stubborn and reverting my edits. MrX was cool with them.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope, you need to follow Wikipedia guidelines and not split off into my talk page because you want to be a bit un-civil. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You know what, my goal here is not to use wikipedia policy to try to get my way. I didn't want to embarrass you, frankly, because you had made some assumptions about the War of Currents that were not correct. I think you'll find that if you present me with quality sources I will definitely respect them. I'd like the same from you.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Despite how desperate I am to improve that lead, I would not set you up for a 3RR. This is the part where you notice that I am not a massive jerk.

We should try to figure what the state of the literature is on Tesla's relationship with Westinghouse and why all the contradictory dates. Also, why does the Westinghouse section read like people were edit warring about Galileo Ferraris?

I would very very much appreciate if you simply told me when you think something is unsubstantiated or incorrect instead of reverting. I do in fact respond really well when editors do that. I know working on Tesla means you edit with a lot of intransigent POV warriors, but I assure you that is not me. I have a sense of humor, and do not require ninja reverts or lectures on policy!

I mainly edit articles about sound recording with a lot of engineers, and sometimes they forget that they're not writing for people who already know everything about their area of expertise. Yes, they can be very proprietary and I've heard every excuse in the book for resisting copy edits and writing for laymen. But if they can do it, I'm pretty sure the Tesla bio folks can too!--Atlantictire (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

From the page in Carlson you cited[edit]

Over the years there has been ample debate over whether Tesla or Ferraris should be recognized as the inventor of the AC induction motor. To some extent, the confusion was created early on by the fact that the first reports in English of Ferrariss’s 1888 paper left out his analysis of the waste heat produced an thus created the impression that a practical motor would follow from his investigations. But as we have seen, Ferraris drew exactly the opposite conclusion in his paper: he did not think that a practical motor could be developed using a rotating magnetic field. Instead, Ferraris should be credited with being the first to investigate how AC can create a rotating magnetic field. Even more important, Ferraris should be given credit for introducing the notion of phase in discussing alternating current phenomena. Thanks to Ferraris’s mathematical analysis, electrical engineers were able to quickly grasp the ideas behind the AC and polyphase currents. Nevertheless, it was Tesla who built the first practical induction motor.

We'll sort this out another day. I'm so glad you're not just reflexively anti-Tesla. ;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am not "reflexively anti-Tesla", I am pro-WP:V. There is a difference. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
oh, so it's Bernard Carlson who's the hack. Thanks Fountains of Bryn Mawr. I was confused for a second there.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard[edit]

I have asked for mediation at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Nikola Tesla.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's start over[edit]

It's true, I am known for voicing my outrage and contempt for horrifically offensive content. What I don't seem to have is a reputation for refusing to collaborate with other editors. I'm not going to speculate as to which is better or worse.:-)

I assure you, an effort on your part to show you are attempting to work collaboratively and with respect for the opinions and efforts of others will be met with tremendous gratitude. I've seen you compromise and show consideration for MrX, so I know you can! If you're unsure as to what you could do differently, it might not hurt to just ask! Best.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are saying you will keep following Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL that is always appreciated. You seem to be still expressing a misconception about Wikipedia in that you seem to think it is a work of opinion, and therefore if I or another editor reverts something you add and don't revert something another editor adds we are therefore "disrespecting" your opinion or failing to collaborate. Content on Wikipedia for the most part is not a matter of opinion (per its basic policy, WP:V). Its an important point because it will lead you to assume I and other editors are failing to "collaborate" further when it comes up again. Its a place where you can look into "differently". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

removal of appropriate links[edit]

Dear Bryn Mawr! Thanks for your message. You removed two of my external links, but I think that this was a mistake. The topic on the target pages is a very important topic for 3D printing and laser sintering (which is just one major technology of 3D printing). I really think that these links are appropriate for an encyclopedia, as they are not spam, but content with good quality content for this topic.

Therefore I would like to ask you to undo the removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindblaster6 (talkcontribs) 17:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Lord Kelvin / JJ Thompson[edit]

Hi there. I see you've reverted my addition of {{distinguish}} templates to Lord Kelvin and J J Thompson, citing WP:NAMB. The template isn't a disambiguation template, it's to distinguish between articles where there's a likelihood of confusion, and I would argue that such a risk does exist for these articles - see, for example, Hendrik Lorentz and Ludvig Lorenz. I'd be happy to continue this discussion on either article talk page. Tevildo (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NAMB is a hatnote guidline, such as {{distinguish}}, and the template is for use in clearing up ambiguity, see template notes. If one person is called "William" and the other is called "J J" there is no obvious need for such a hat, unless I am missing something. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The relevant part of the instructions is "ambiguity that is not necessarily literal, but one that can be reasonably assumed to exist for a portion of the readership". Both gentlemen are prominent physicists with very similar surnames, so I think the assumption is reasonable (obviously). I've started an appropriate section on the Lord Kelvin talk page. Tevildo (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice RE:Retrospective diagnoses of autism and WikiProject tags[edit]

This is a notification to inform you that a discussion has been added to the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute you may be involved in. Muffinator (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 August[edit]

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

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) 00:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new[edit]

Modernist is a notorious edit slob and Coldcreation his little minion. Good luck with that. Nonc01 (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Topsy (elephant) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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:
  • Samuel Hawley, TOPSY THE CIRCUS ELEPHANT, (research collected for the novel "Bad Elephant Far Stream"]</ref> Topsy was on display moving
  • Samuel Hawley, TOPSY THE CIRCUS ELEPHANT, (research collected for the novel "Bad Elephant Far Stream"]</ref> Frederick Thompson and Elmer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

3D Printing - Class Edits[edit]

Hi, I'm part of the group that's editing the 3D printing article for a class. We wanted to say thanks for the tip about the list of manufacturers and were wondering if you had any other advice or ideas on what we should/shouldn't add to the article. Thanks! Lgao33 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You gave us some suggestions on the 3D printing talk page in regards to some of our proposed edits to the 3D printing article. Now that we have made these changes, we were wondering if you could take a look and give us some final feedback. Thanks so much! --Cw585 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Topsy (elephant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Float. 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) 09:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Wireless power[edit]

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

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

Wireless power draft[edit]

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. --ChetvornoTALK 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, slow to get back to things "Wiki". That section looks good to me. I think its a much better version based on secondary sources. The only problem with a Tesla section in any form is this is a description of a historical idea. As such it belongs in a "History" section, currently a very long bullet list called "Timeline of wireless power". There used to be a History section but it was vandalized out and then replaced by the bullet list. I would propose restoring the History section in some form, inserting your "Tesla" paragraphs into it in their current form, and remove the bullet list. The Bullet list seems to contain allot of WP:OR, bullet items referenced to primary sourced papers. Putting these in sequence implying these are developmental steps in wireless power is WP:SYNTH. Reference to papers can go in a further reading section. We should not be making any claims based on primary sources but readers can always read them and decide for themselves. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't like the timeline either; I was going to suggest drastically pruning it, but eliminating it in favor of a conventional "History" section would be better. In addition to overemphasizing all things Tesla, it also contains a great deal of trivial and/or spam entries, and misses the most important advance in WPT in the last 20 years: Soljačić et al's 2007 development of efficient resonant transmission at MIT.
I've been reading about wireless power and have a list of sources. I'll start converting my draft into a draft History section - unless you'd like to write it? Do you want to announce our intentions on the Talk page, or should I? --ChetvornoTALK 00:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Feel free merge the two sections into a rewritten history section and be WP:BOLD. There are no counter responses or citation of counter RS being presented. Lack of response on the talk page is considered consensus. Material that has no reliable secondary sources can be deleted at any time. I'll let you take a whack at it unless you are tied up, let me know. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Will do. It will take a few days to write the History section. --ChetvornoTALK 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to update you, I have been distracted but not idle. I've almost finished the History section which includes 11 or 12 modern WP:RSs that say Tesla was mistaken, never transmitted power long distance, and his World Wireless System would not have worked. These should also be useful on World Wireless System, Tesla coil, Magnifying transmitter, and whatever other articles the erroneous Tesla-philic material has popped up on. --ChetvornoTALK 11:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Sorry, I have been idle other than participating in a little talk page stuff. On thing I was contemplating was should World Wireless System be moved off to a Wiki sister in its present form? (still no sure which one takes original research). With cleanup its liable to be just Tesla's writings fleshed out, making it a copy of publicly available material WP:NOTMIRROR. Just a thought, maybe there is enough for it to stay at its topic point. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a thought. I think Wikibooks takes OR. I'm not clear on your purpose - do you just want to get the present article out of the way quickly, or do you actually think there's value in it, written as it is, and it should be preserved? Do you still favor merging World Wireless System into Wardenclyffe tower? --ChetvornoTALK 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I see merit in putting up an article of Tesla's writings on World Wireless System with some writing in between explaining it and I wish GLPeterson would take that tack. But yeah, the stuff at World Wireless System may be to confused to adapt to Wikibooks. If the author is un-interested then its should probably be left for now. I see people are trying to clean up what's at World Wireless System so that topic should probably be left where it is without merger for now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Topsy (elephant) 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:
  • Studios|Edison film company]], possibly shot by [[Edwin S. Porter]] or Jacob Blair Smith,<ref>[, Electrocuting

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Topsy (elephant) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • Illuminating Company of Brooklyn, under the supervision of chief electrician P. D. Sharkey,<ref>[
  • an Elephant, Executed at Coney Island, New York Herald, January 5, 1903 (at</ref> who spent the night before<ref>[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


I just brought an ANI edit warring complaint against GLPeterson, if you would like to comment. --ChetvornoTALK 20:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the reverts I missed and noting his borderline 3RR. Also wanted to say I thought your discussion with him at Talk:Wireless power#Electrical Conduction was excellent; you gave him a chance to give proper sourcing. I kind of lost my temper at him so I dropped out of the conversation. --ChetvornoTALK 12:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
When there are that amount of reverts being fired off it sure is confusing. I was trying to make calculations of the timing between the reverts but I always have to take into account the fact that I suck at math (and I note somebody else spotted another 4RV run I missed). I really wish the editor in question would communicate, especially since we could all use help figuring out Mr. Tesla's stuff. A block is the least favorable outcome but its what you get if you push. I see we also have the option per WP:DISRUPT of "However, one tendentious editor cannot maintain problematic content in the face of multiple other editors reverting his/her edits.". We seem to be doing that as well and I can always help with a revert down that line if I spot it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, he could be a great resource on Tesla's ideas if he could be persuaded to follow WP:VERIFIABILITY rules. Commit to them, not just pretend in order to get his stuff in. I'm going to reach out to him on his Talk page when this blows over (if it does), try to persuade him to work together on the Tesla pages. With his 10 year record I'm not too hopeful, but who knows? --ChetvornoTALK 18:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, I got a message] on my Talk page from a CW Van Neste that sounds an awful lot like a sockpuppet of GLPeterson. He claims to be a researcher (there is a real Charles W. Van Neste at Oak Ridge National Lab) writing to me to support GLPeterson's stuff and asking me please to put it back in the article. His account has no edit history and was just established. I'm going to check around and see if a sockpuppet investigation would be appropriate. --ChetvornoTALK 21:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Ty for the heads up. I guess its something we can WP:AGF for now, unless suspicious edits start showing up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, you were right. I emailed Charles Van Neste at U Alberta and he did send the message. --ChetvornoTALK 18:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I left a note on Bbb23's Talk page (the administrator who handled the above edit-warring complaint) about GLPeterson's latest edits. It seems to me this is close enough to his original behavior that it should be handled under that sanction. --ChetvornoTALK 23:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 says he does not have time to look at the issue, and to initiate another complaint on ANI if the issue is serious enough. --ChetvornoTALK 10:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy New year!, Wish it was a quiet one. Wholesale reverting without a word on the talk page after a block for the same behavior means we have reached the end of the WP:DDE flow chart. A WP:ANI should be filed pointing out the problem (you or me? ;)). Lets see if another revert shows. This may have to go the WP:ARBCOM route recommended at the bottom of WP:DDE but maybe the ANI admins can suggest that if we file an ANI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I did the last one; maybe you could do this one to indicate that this is not just a vendetta against him by one editor. Plus, I may have inadvertently violated the new stricter WP:3RR myself in the last few days; it prohibits any 3 consecutive reverts to the same article. --ChetvornoTALK 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
ok, I'll monitor and handle it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I left a polite note on GLPeterson's Talk page asking him to discuss his edits on the article Talk page. --ChetvornoTALK 03:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me enough history has accumulated for another ANI. Here's a list of diffs of his edit-warring on the article since he was blocked, w/dates & notes, all ready for the ANI page. It contains 7 reversions and 2 complete rewrites of the article, in which he reinserted old material going back to his "Electrical conduction" section. In addition, he has a complete alternative "Wireless power" article‎ in his personal pages containing his unsourced material, so he can conveniently paste it into the article. This is certainly evidence of intent to continue reverting. I think the above reverts, added to his revert history from the previous ANI complaint, is enough. --ChetvornoTALK 09:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Filed [2]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Inventions by Nikola Tesla[edit]

Nikola Tesla's flat inductive bifilar coil.

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

Or maybe a new category – Category:Coinventions by Nikola Tesla – would be more appriopraite. Such cases can be safely called a coinvention. What do you think? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 20:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no reference about Tesla "inventing" the Bifilar coil and they seem to have been around well before he started working with them. Its inaccurate to call it his invention or even "coinvention" (unless you have reference showing otherwise). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
He had a big involvement in these inventions, so what do you propose instead? Besides maybe he didn't invented the Bifilar coil itself, but this article contains a his inventions like flat inductive bifilar coil, so it's enough, just read the entire article. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 10:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You know what I mean – part of this article is a Tesla's invention. It's enough to be n this category. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 12:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Category:Inventions involving Nikola Tesla would be best. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 12:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose basic WP:V. There have to be reliable detailed sources that Tesla invented something, and Wikipedia is not one of them BTW so I can't just "read the entire article". I would recommend not pushing a POV that Tesla is important to something just because he worked with it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


At what point do we report this user for sockpuppetry? I found one IP sock, but it looks like you found one more IP and a variant user name as well. He is relatively new to WP, and I was planning to give him a chance to abandon his socks, but he made need guidance as to how to do this. HGilbert (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoops -- he was already warned on his talk page more than a month ago. Any more violations and it's time to go to administrative remedies. HGilbert (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Its hard to know if the user is trying to WP:SOCK or simple un-knowledgeable in that area as well. I guess disruptive is handled by sanctions no matter what the cause. I see Morcohen2 3RR'ed so it may lead to an edit waring sanction. I left more invitations for the editor to participate on talk pages - I will probably launch WP:AN/3RR if he/she simply reverts again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
He has a systematic use of socks going way back, with warnings. I've opened Sockpuppet investigations/Morcohen2. HGilbert (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Perspective (graphical)[edit]

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

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

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

Hi, I would recommend bringing up suggested changes or problems you have with the existing article on it's talk page (talk already started). You seem to be adding information on a "graphical construction method". You could probably add that to the article in some form without discussion, you simply need to add citations to basic text book level text explaining this method and word it in an encyclopedic form of explanation, not instruction.
I would say "graphical construction" goes in the section "Methods of construction". Its already listed there as "Graphically constructing (once common in architecture)" and all five methods listed there should be explained. The section "Example" should be made a sub-section of "Methods of construction", and all the text in "Example" should be cleaned up/truncated since it also reads as a "how-to" covering just one of the five methods listed. Its allot to do and you don't need to clean all that up just to add your additions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW you don't need permission to edit Wikipedia and no one owns the page. I think what you did and I did falls under Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which you have done perfectly. If you are reverted you should bring it to a talk page (like you just did) for the "discuss" part of the cycle. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wardenclyffe Tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Joseph O'Neill (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) 09:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


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

Wow, fascinating, never head of it. Looks legit (although I am prone to fall for hoaxes ;)). I will look the article over. Thanks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. On the face of it, it's odd. But apparently, from what I've been reading it is legit. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Shabby Chic Reference[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the comment.

To respond, while I agree that my language edits to British English were made in error, your suggestion that I was implementing citation spam by referencing 2 separate sources of information on modifying furniture to a shabby chic style are incorrect. Not only were these additions relevant, the references were reliable sources of information from sites that clearly have experience and knowledge in the topic.

In the words of the article on Citation Spam from Wiki: "Citation spamming...typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor."

This is clearly not what I engaged in, and removing my edits because of this, I believe, are unjustified.

However, like I said, I accept that my spelling edits were a mistake. Tehben1 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if it came off as calling you a spammer, BUT, your short edit history combined with your penchant for linking commercial product pages and product related blogs does come off as citation spam. Please accept my apology if that is not your intent. Linking commercial websites (as you did here) is not acceptable since Wikipedia is not a product guide and sites selling a product are not an independent 3rd party source -- they are, in fact, pushing a product (please read WP:RS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Whether or not linking/citing commercial websites in Wikipedia is acceptable can be a difference of opinion but the general consensus guidelines go against it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

My "short edit history" began in May 2013. Before that, in fact, though I was not registered so is therefore unverifiable. Your suggestion that I have a "penchant for linking commercial product pages" I consider a little offensive and confrontational.

You removed my reference to a blog post because it was posted on a site which sells products, however left a citation remaining that is a blog post located on an e-commerce site.

If a citation on the methods of distressing furniture written by a group of people who are clearly knowledgeable experts in their field, which contains no promotional content, should be acceptable as a reliable source.

The question of the commercial intent of a particular source could be suggested in a large proportion of the sites referenced on Wikipedia.

I don't disagree that the site that I cited was an e-commerce store, I just don't believe that just because it is, it should be considered unreliable in this instance. In fact, I would suggest that these rules are continuously implemented as per the interpretation of responsible individuals, which should mean that to allow certain sources based on their reliability and in consideration of the subject and the limited sources available for references, should be acceptable.Tehben1 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the consensus on Wikipedia is sources should be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". A commercial website's description of a product is none of those. As for blogs, they are borderline re: WP:USERGENERATED, probably not acceptable, but I didn't go as far as deleting all of them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The citation you removed wasn't a product page or a 'description of a product', it was a link to a blog post on interior design; a subject that is very much reliant, in terms of development and evolution, on the opinions and actions of practitioners. In my opinion, that source was reliable, contained factual information and was accurate. From what I can see, the only reason you removed the citation was because you believed that I was spamming the article with a link to that website, which is untrue.

I'm not hugely annoyed about that particular action; it is the principle that disturbs me. I felt that you were very quick to judge my actions as spam, and are giving no opportunities for the discussion of the legality of particular pages as references.

Nobody is disputing Wiki's guidelines. What you are suggesting is that any commercial website is automatically unreliable, which would discount a huge proportion of citations of Wikipedia. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, this is not what Wiki's guidelines state. Tehben1 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well per the last thing - other existing on Wikipedia is not a good rational for adding more of it. Whats looked for in a source is spelled out quite clearly above and a commercial website normally does not meet any of those requirements. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are choosing not to address the concerns I have raised. For example, you are suggesting that all blogs are "probably not" reliable sources for citations, and that all commercial sites are also unreliable. These 'rules' are not clearly stated in Wikipedia's guidelines and thus are open to interpretation. My interpretation against, what is turning out to be, your interpretation. By not allowing discussion of this/these interpretation(s) I feel as though you are attempting to force your will to meet your own agenda.Tehben1 (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The answer is "yes" and "yes" and its not just my opinion. Please read:
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
While I am aware of these guidelines (and am unable to find references to 'commercial pages' in your citation), I still disagree that this is the best way to treat this particular topic. Being one based on the evolution of ideas and opinions of individual designers, I believe that 'certain' reliable blogs should be acceptable in offering information based on the interpretation of the design concept. However, I can see this is going nowhere :) Thanks for the discussion (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia policy on original research (wireless power transfer)[edit]

Hi, and thanks for the comment. I'm afraid something is not clear to me. You noted on my (talk) page, "...its just that it would have to be covered in an article or book before it would be covered in Wikipedia." I don't understand as I am citing the article [1] and book [2], the former which is peer reviewed and the second which is a hard-copy of a thesis resulting from viva-voce. What are you referring to by this statement? 05:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Tucker, Christopher A.; Warwick, Kevin; Holderbaum, William (May 2013). "A contribution to the wireless transmission of power". International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems (Elsevier) 47: 235–242. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.10.066. Retrieved January 30, 2015. 
  2. ^ Tucker, Christopher A. (2014). Wireless Power by Magnetic Resonance (in English). Saarbrücken, Germany: OmniScriptum GmbH & Co. KG. p. 256. ISBN 978-3-639-66868-1. 
"book" does not mean "hit the print button on a website". "book" means someone else read (your?) work and wrote a book about it, or an article on this topic and made reference to the paper. In other words Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- meaning somebody else has to notice this paper and write about it - then it can be in Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think...[edit]

...that we might have a sockpuppet on our hands, or just a meatpuppet?- MrX 20:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am always willing to WP:AGF. Not sure of the full history of these types of articles as to if people showing up with their own work is common. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I guess I should assume good faith also.- MrX 21:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Coney Island in popular culture[edit]

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

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

Your edits on my entry of Stage Lighting[edit]

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

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


I have opened a dispute resolution here Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Sorry - missed you out at first. Myrvin (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


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


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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)