User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Archives

Please view page history for old archive messages.

---

NowCommons: File:Telescope on street corner sidewalk new york.png

File:Telescope on street corner sidewalk new york.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Telescope on street corner sidewalk new york.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Telescope on street corner sidewalk new york.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Amateur Telescope Making

I think you need to slow down and think this one through. The appropriate policy is "Minor Spelling Variations" and there is a clear and established precedent for doing what I did: the book title is spelled with capitals, the hobby is not. See for instance Red Dwarf vs. Red dwarf. Also: on what grounds would you call Amateur telescope making the "primary topic"? Not where I come from! The books were around a loooong time before the hobby began to use that name -- indeed it is likely that the name for the hobby was derived from the books -- though perhaps this all happened before you were born.

It's pretty unpleasant to work hard on a substantial article (and Amateur Telescope Making is a much more substantial article than Amateur telescope making) -- then to have someone jump in, within minutes, and rename it. Please show a little respect for the work that i did here.GHJmover (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to "slow down" and show a little WP:GOODFAITH. A parenthetical (bracketed) disambiguator is one of three ways (and probably a better way) to fix this. It is better to try to avoid confusion right off the bat than to name an article with the exact same name and run the risk of confusion (note: this obtuse naming has already lead to a mistake on your part re:[1]... you may want to fix that). as to "primary topic"?.... a hobby with hundreds of thousands of practitioners around the world would be primary over one book title out of hundreds, Ingalls was describing hobby in his articles and the books BTW. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: TMP paraphrasing

Unfortunately I don't have access to The Making of Star Trek any more, and can't check for any more issues. Could you list out any further issues you see when you have the chance? You can just email them to me and I'll do my best to address them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunagor Article

Hi, you seem to be very good at deleting articles and leaving guidelines at the top. However, what you are not so good at is offering constructive advice on how to alter the article. It can not be left in its current form and needs editing. However, how can i edit an article if you simply come afterwards and delete my changes? Please give some constructive advice on how to alter it.....Looks like i am not the only one who believes this (re:GHJmover) above. (Fcamrass (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

The advice I can give you is read Wikipedia policy and guidlines. Also think about the project you are participating in. Your edit history shows you may simply be interested in promotional edits. If that is the case you are going to hit a brick wall since Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. It is possible to write about a subject near and dear to you and edit from a neutral point of view, but you have to have that goal in mind. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

I just had to stop by to congratulate you on your rather amusing username! Unfortunately, its wittiness will be missed by anyone who hasn't spent much time on the Main Line.... Congrats! — MusicMaker5376 23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy new year man! Here is to a good year of telescopes in 2010! There are a lot of amazing telescopes being worked on this decade, and lets hope they are all a big success (plenty to write about!). Have a great 2010! Fotaun (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Monocentric on Commons

Dear Fountain, may I request that you place a version of your monocenric eyepiece file in Commons? I would like to include it in de:WP Article on eye pieces where in illustration of the monocentric is utterly missing. I would have simply done it but it has an ugly "license must be checked" tag on it. Best regards, jan --84.132.192.24 (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC) --Trinitrix (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, will do. Commons uploading has always barfed when ever I try to do it but maybe I will be lucky this time ;). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

Dear Fountain on to :[2]

Please say that the picture is not correct? And me wrong time to time.--Tamasflex (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Dear Fontain,

• Maksutov-Cassegrains have a nearly concentric corrector, not the strong negative shown.

[3] As you can see that r2 is less than R1 needs to see the drawing. When one looks at the design should notice that there is a difference of curvature. The difference is small but well and to see. See: [[4]] There are other examples on the Internet, search to find. As a matter of fact I did a calculation for a Mac correction. Curve of the difference is small, but if not scale drawings to see any difference curve. See: [[5]] The difference is ~ 7 mm. If the drawing scale not see it. I appreciate your comments, but not so ...........

• • Per [6] With the two radius being almost equal Maksutov correctors are weak negative meniscus lenses, not the exaggerated strong form shown in your graphic.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondary on most types is a silvered spot, not the mounted secondary shown.

It depends how the system is calculated.

• • You are depicting an amateur version of the telescope in an article about an overall design, and not even the most common amateur form. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Schmidt-Cassegrains and Maksutovs do not normally use rack and pinion focusers - they focus by moving the primary mirror.

Yes, by moving primary mirror to achieve more radical change of focal plane position to make a digonala and various cameras or eyes. That does not mean you can not use a focuser classic. See: [[7]] [[8]]

• • Again you are depicting an amateur version of the telescope in an article about an overall design, and not even the most common amateur form. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• The dobsonian, graphic does not show any of the features of a dobsonian telescope.

If design is good for large companies is not good to you?[9] I tried to look inside. See: [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]]

• • • Yes, "large companies" buid their own telescopes that they chose to call "Dobsonian". But they have little in common with John Dobson's original design (see Dobsonian telescope#Origin and design). You can't illustrate generic commercial adaptation and call that the original design. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• The detail and shading in all the images adds extra complexity to the image, hard to tell what is a lens/mirror, whats a strut, whats a dew cap or barrel part. These are not improvements over the simple optical path diagrams they are replacing.

Depends on how things look. I drawes more complicated. You're the first to comment on my drawings on the Internet! That are too commercial or not in accordance ..... etc.. German, French, Italian and other not comment on my paintings but you add personal commentary. The problem is that not dominate English using a translator. For this i drawings many details. What is your problem?

• • Problems have been enumerated, and all wikipedia projects are different (see below). Also see WP:COI per - is it a good idea to personally spread your images across Wikipedia? You may want to just leave them at the Commons and let other editors decide if they work in an article. Other editors (such as myself) will use them where appropriate. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Image details are to small to be read at thumbnail scale.

Klick on the picture and see more detail.

• • Guidelines for images are at Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement re: images that "reveal relevant details" at thumb., and "subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia in general prefers vector images over BMP images.

Wikipedia allows: PNG, GIF, JPG, JPEG, XCF, mid, ogg, ogv, SVG, DjVu, tif, tiff, oga.

• • Please see WP:PIFU for guidance on formats for images, Vector over bitmap preferred.

I understand why you linked format pictures? And your drawings are in the form JPG - PNG See: [[14]]

• • It has nothing to do with my putting up BMPs where none existed. It has to do with replacing vector with bitmap images. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On the binocular, change my picture the comment you made was again not a good move. [[15]]

• • Please see WP:PIFU. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Picture is good but old fashioned. [[16]]

Yesterday I studied what you have done until now on Wiki. You are not familiar with optical instruments. --Tamasflex (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Please see the - [17] Drawing is not out in accordance with text. It is a Galilean afocal system (L1 positive - L2 negative lens).

d = F1 + (-f2)

For d = f1 + f2 - is good for the Keplerian system.

M = f L1 / f L2 (for Galilean and Keplerian)

M = -f2 / f1 = reciprocal value of the magnification - we are not interested. --Tamasflex (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Afocal system is a stub on a topic. The image and most of the text is not my own. If you see problems note them on the talk page or feel free to make changes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Their are very clear guidelines on image pertinence and encyclopedic nature at WP:IMAGE. In a nutshell images are not decoration, they should have complimentary content. I don't know how this will translate (I understand you speak another language) but the images your are inserting are nether "fish nor fowl", they show no increased content over the vector images, are not a preferred format, and replace an overall design diagram with a very specifically rendered variation of telescopes that don't exist for the most part, or are a minor variant subtype. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Award

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

Giclee History & John Doe

Good day. I noticed that you had questioned the contributions of John & Maryann Doe with regards to the history of Giclee & IRIS printers. I'd like to provide some information which may provide clarification. John Doe (real name) was working for Scitex and sold the very first IRIS printer to Graham Nash to be used in Giclee print making. The second IRIS installed was at Harvest Productions, the company founded by John & Maryann Doe. Graham Nash focused primarily on photographic prints on paper while Harvest Productions focused on watercolor reproduction. It was important that the term Giclee was adopted and championed at that time, as there was no industry standard for fine art reproduction. It was gallery evangelism by those earliest founders of the digital print world that validated the term Giclee and helped create standardization in the industry, as was further evidenced with their direct involvement in the IAFADP and the subsequent creation of the GPA (Giclee Printer's Association). This information is verifiable in Harald Johnson's Mastering Digital Printing (Second Edition). I hope this information proves helpful.

Sincerely,

Jay 06.29.2010

GicleeExpert (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What is going on with edit reverts?

Hello, I'm following 2 articles, List of telescope parts and construction and PLate OPtimizer in which you've made recent edits. In both articles an anonymous user, User:12.230.218.121 reverted your edits. Since your edits appeared to be more constructive than theirs I reverted to your version. Looking at their edit log it looks like they are targeting you for some reason. What is up? Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is something I've not encountered before but on the surface it would appear to be violating WP:NPA unless it is the highly improbable possibility that you are correcting your own edits from an anonymous account. I would wonder if you ought to request they ban the IP account for disruption? Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, the sock puppetry information and the link to WP:ANI, which I will keep for future reference. I will follow along on your talk page for news of new developments. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

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

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

Opticians?

Hi all, sorry for a bit of a spam message to the editors who deal with these topics but I think I see something that needs changing across the board. If a reader follows the "Optician" link (or category link) in articles about optical designers they are told the subject was "a health care practitioner". That definition of Optician seems to follow reference, although there are some refs that seem to to imply that "Optician" was formally a name given to optical designers and doesn't mean that anymore, it now pretty much refers to the health care practitioner. I think we mean the people who design telescopes and other optical devices are optical engineers, not opticians. It looks to me like we need to change some links, defs, add some hatnotes, delete them out of Category:Opticians, and rewrite that cat def. Looking for input before I start that job. I left a note about this here if we want to generate a comment trail. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the term optician was the appropriate term historically for a telescope lens maker (or sometimes "telescope optician" for clarity). "Optical engineer" sounds like a recent innovation.—RJH (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I take that back. There are references to "optical engineer"s going back to 1845. Most of early telescopes were made by opticians, so there is undoubtedly some confusion on the topic.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)