User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr

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

Contents

Barnstar[edit]

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)

You get the Dutch Barnstar of the day. BLESS YOU my friend...may your Quill stay strong for the many...and the O One. E. Plubrius Unun (from the Enumerator) Many Thanks! Publican Farmer (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

Firearm-Gun-.et.al. 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)

2013[edit]

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.

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)

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., http://www.scribd.com/robert_kelso_2, 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

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, http://www.webexhibits.org/about/legal.html, 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."


LEGAL NOTES: YOUR RIGHTS


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Aragoscope?[edit]

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)


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. 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)

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)

It's terrible that in order to contribute here on WIkipedia a person has to deal with inflated ego of "moderators." No wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumenbuddha (talkcontribs) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David Edward Hughes[edit]

Thanks for your recent edits to the article. I respect Hughes' contributions to electrical technology, but his "microphone" seems to be about the same as the earlier telephone transmitter. Edison (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ty. I didn't put allot into making heads or tails of Hughes' microphone, noticed some cleanup by other editors moving it from an invention to an improvement. One source[1] seemed to place it as one of several developments (Edison's, Berliner's). Feel free to better flesh it out. I really knew squat about Hughes but, reading about him, he hit me as the same kind of character as my great uncle, tinkerer and inventor who would patent some things and just mess around with other things and send his ideas off to some magazine on the topic (like Hughes did with the microphone/Telegraph Journal and Electrical Review). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OK...I see my mistake.[edit]

The mount for the TMT is the simplified Alt-Az mount. My confusion was seeing the term written in some sources as "elevation azimuth" which I was not paying enough attention to and confused it with Equatorial mount. Since the sources I was looking at did not have anything on the mount and I was unable to get information from sources at the time to confirm the mount, I decided to make sure the information was exact to the claim, thinking the source might have been outdated. I have been able to get the misunderstanding cleared up with this page. As far as I know it is still the same mount propsed which is the same as altazimuth, which can also be called alt-azimuth mount and in some sources elevation-azimuth mount. My bad.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Actually I wasn't looking that closely, per wording it just looked like a broken link to me. Thanks for looking into it since there are some odd mounts out there such as altitude-altitude-azimuth mounts, double checking is always good. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Dooh! Well OK then...something else to keep in mind. I only remembered azimuth from my old high school science class and only because it always reminds me of a jewel. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thank you, for all you do. 216.4.56.155 (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

how[edit]

Perchance do you know how to upload some images about notable physicians here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilopon (talkcontribs) 19:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This link may be useful. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Readable link[edit]

You wrote "looking at the one I can read". Were you unable to read what was on this webpage [2] for some reason? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, got lost in that sea of blue, ty for the link. Again not a source that could prove (anything?) because its anonymous without footnotes or references. That's definitely outside reliable sourcing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Fklatt adding promotional material[edit]

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread: User:Fklatt adding promotional material. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Gun politics[edit]

See Gun politics in the United States for starters. -- Callinus (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

discuss on Talk:Small Arms and Light Weapons -- Callinus (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
TY for the move to talk page, it belongs there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Carlson book?[edit]

You don't know of an unabridged online copy of the Bernard Carlson book on Tesla, do you? I was writing a history section for Tesla coil but the copy on Google Books has the sections I need blanked out. BTW, thanks for telling me about it, that's an excellent book. --ChetvornoTALK 01:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't come across a full copy online. I did notice if you open a different brand of browser (Chrome, IE, Dolphin), maybe in incognito mode with he cache cleared, and search for part of the text you want to read that page will pop up. It looks to me like what you see is cookie based, google books will show you the pages if it thinks you haven't seen them before. May work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give that a try. --ChetvornoTALK 16:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Idrees ul haq ?[edit]

Dear sir, you have proposed for the deletion of the Article namely Idrees ul haq, but the said person is renowned in the state of jammu and kashmir and is acting as a motivation for youth, I suggest to include him in the wikipedia, I have also added some links to his page, I wish you help in adding his name to wiki.... Regards Jkinnovators (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Jkinnovators

Regarding page Idrees ul haq ?[edit]

Sir, the said person has numerous innovations on his name & is not in any way closely associated with me. More ever the external links to some of those innovations is already present there under his Activities column. Also the said person has not only done one event , but the event mentioned as youth icon awards is first of its nature to be held in our state which is a conflict zone and militancy hit area and it proved as motivational event for the youth who are else crippled under draconian laws of AFSPA.

Wish this clarification is enough for him to get included in Wikipedia and please help in solving the issues.indeed i am his fan thus my username

Regards Jkinnovators (talk)Jkinnovators —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you are miss-understanding Wikipedia. Notability does not mean we can list someone's inventions or list some events the person in question was involved in. All of those things have to be noticed by someone else, not us (see WP:OR). And that "someone else" has to be a reliable authority on the subject (who saw it fit to put together a biography on the person). We are borderline here, some news articles see it fit to describe Idrees ul haq but "some" may bot meet Wikipedia's requirements. I personally will leave it for expansion right now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War of Currents, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbia College, Matthew Hale and Charles Coffin (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) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Do not revert unless you are not aware it. This is not "personal photographs". If I want to add, I can upload thousand to Commons. --AntanO 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Lizzie Halliday[edit]

Hi, I'm BeowulfBrower. Fountains of Bryn Mawr, thanks for creating Lizzie Halliday!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Some of the claims here are pretty fantastic, I think some additional citation might be a good addition.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. BeowulfBrower (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

TY, its pretty much a rip and read from sources. Added the one ref noted and many others. Noted source conflicts. Will take the ref tag down in a few days unless other problems are noted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lizzie Halliday, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antrim and Saloon (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) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

QI (Series E) - Electricity[edit]

I have checked out a few things. Firstly, the revision was undone. Secondly, the stuff about the carrots laced with potassium and the amount of volts and such, discussed on the show, can be found in the article about Topsy. Thirdly, I did not include any quotes by the panellists; I stick to the relevant things they discussed and what can be proven to be correct, only marking it as incorrect if there are sources to prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talkcontribs) 11:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I checked and discovered the term "Westinghoused" was used, and found reference at this website [3].

Sorry but your editing premise is incorrect. Wikipedia is an outside the universe source, i.e it does not participate in the discussions within a show, it describes the show. Wikipedia also does not contain content forks. There are well developed articles on Topsy and the War of Currents and they do not reflect this content at all. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I made an editing change on this point here. Please tell me if this sounds better. Also, please don't include the quotes about what the panellist spoke about, as surely they could go in Wikiquote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talkcontribs) 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lizzie Halliday[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fictitious spellings[edit]

I'm not sure what's going on with your edit to "Binoculars". I was not aware that Americans spell the word "disadvantage" "disavantage", or that their use of tenses is different from British:

  • "prisms is" instead of "prisms are"
  • "magnification and quality is" instead of "magnification and quality are"
  • "a few binary star" instead of "a few binary stars"

or that they omit articles:

  • "in prism" instead of "in a prism"
  • "have range finding scale" instead of "have a range finding scale"

or that they omit verbs

  • The sentence "The default if a mirror coating isn't mentioned" contains no verb

or that they think a "manufacture" can do something

  • "binocular manufactures use" instead of "binocular manufacturers use"

or that they move an article away from its noun

  • "the in 1890s" instead of "in the 1890s"

or that they use "in" to indicate both position and movement ("the light path is split in two paths" instead of "the light path is split into two paths") whereas everybody else uses "in" for position and "into" for movement

or that they capitalise a generic term as if it was a proprietary term

  • "the Brand name" instead of "the brand name"

or that they duplicate words

  • "manufacturer manufacturer with factories" instead of "manufacturer with factories"

188.222.58.239 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It was actually a partial revert (should have noted that, my bad). Your grammar and tense edits were retained[4], to the best of my editing, if I missed any, please restore them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

X Rays[edit]

Good morning, sir May we ask You why did you decide to erase our contribution about historical details on the discovery and the publications on and of X-rays? We understand that this would appear like meaningless to some, but journalistically, scientifically, ethically and historically speaking, details like these are indeed of great importance, for the understanding of a fact, of a scientific discovery and of science progress in toto. May we ask to speak with You about opening or not opening another section? Perhaps we can include our contributions in another part of the article? We thought, in reality, that after our addition a bit more of clarity was achieved in the historical side of such an important wikipedia page. Beeing from Italy we noticed that the italianX-rays article contains much more historical information about the years in wich Science Comunity discovered X-Rays radiation/photons, than how the enlgish one does. This can be due to many factors but we think, even with less words, that such a part of the controversial discovery and the next publications about x-rays has to be integrated, especially in the english page!

sincerely and truly,

Vesprolatuna 04:13 (UTC)

The article in question already has a well referenced history section[5]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

cosmic Rays[edit]

Good evening again, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, with the same spirit of the other article we ask for a discussion about this topic. Eventhough may be that such a detailed descriptions of the biographical motivation that brought the astrophisicist to consider those cosmic rays from a different perspective than the studies conducted in Europe and in America, we defenetely think, also according to the interest that Kozyrev studies are stimulating all around the world in many Institutes and by many scientists, that his lifework (different from simple "some researches") has a great value, at least in the history of cosmic rays studies and observation. References are many and we can present more, being active in this specific aspect of physics researches history for quite some time. We are indeed not speaking about the modern point of advancement in the discipline of cosmic rays studies, but of the documentation and the divulgation of historical facts with a certain specific amount of echos and conseguences in many areas. The importance of such notion is therefore beyond any doubt, as well as others quoted in the article itself.

hoping to meet the same interest on the correct divulgation of facts,

vespro latuna 30 novembre 03:29 (UTC)

My edit was not about Kozyrev, it was a removal of a claim about Nikola Tesla[6]. Exceptional claims (Nikola Tesla formulate a first base theory of cosmic rays) require exceptional sources WP:REDFLAG. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


We ask sorry for the mistake, we didn't notice the different actions between you and another user. Thanks for the help and the contribution. Vespro Latuna 18:45 3 Dicembre 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespro Latuna (talkcontribs)

Cooper book about Tesla[edit]

Happy Thanksgiving! Thought you might be interested in this book: Cooper 2015 The Truth about Tesla. Not much visible on Google Books, maybe I'll try the library. Looks like Cooper, a lawyer, sort of debunks the myth of Tesla as the lone heroic inventor whose miraculous inventions were stolen away by big business. Here's a review. I don't know if I'd buy his argument that Tesla didn't invent the induction motor, but I have found plenty of WP:RSs that he was not the first to invent the Tesla coil; Henry Rowland and Elihu Thomson were building resonant transformer circuits by 1890.

Anyway, along with Bernard Carlson it might be useful as a source on Nikola Tesla. I think someday that article could use a minor rewrite to add some of the less flattering aspects of his life. --ChetvornoTALK 10:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

TY and Happy Thanksgiving! Thinks for the info. I think we could write that book 20 times over just based on the corrections so far in Wikipedia!!! It will be something to see Cooper's take. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my "good faith" edit introducing the term "Conyne Eylandt" to the article Coney Island[edit]

Could you point out where in the article was the term "Conyne Eylandt" mentioned before I added it? You say my edit is redundant, but I have a hard time figuring out how.

Also, if it's hard to figure out how, maybe it wasn't revert-worthy?

I don't want to add it again and give you a fit.--Makkachin (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The Dutch naming of Coney Island is covered two sentences after your edit, your edit does not appear to be covered by the reference you added, and the "American Experience" reference at the end of the paragraph contradicts the claim the Dutch simply named it "Conyne Eylandt". Hence the revert. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution and diligent fact checking. I don't know how the reference not including the spelling issue arose, i admit I copy-and-pasted the reference from elsewhere. However, A. " reference doesn't support statement " would have been a clearer edit summary than "redundant" B. There are other articles that introduce this spelling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Conyne+eylandt C. The spelling I introduced was not redundant but new to the article.--Makkachin (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Radar[edit]

Hi:

I have seen that you have reverted the input by HHubi. I totally agree with you, that guy thinks that Wikipedia is an ITU manual. However, I was thinking that his entry of ITU quotes could be added in a "Regulations" section (as I did in Radiosonde) which would stop further reverting. What do you think about that.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea, I was following more WP:LEAD than looking at the content (it was wrong for a lead). If its good content it should go in the body somewhere. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I will put it toward the end. Pierre cb (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

doubly-fed electric machines[edit]

As an expert, I am trying to talk intelligently about doubly-fed electric machines. As its name implies, Doubly fed machines have two armatures, both contribute to power production, which is an important distinction from singly fed electric machines, such as permanent magnet electric machines. A doubly fed electric machine does not have a DC field winding, which participates in the electromechanical conversion but cannot participate in the power production. After all, we are replacing field windings with permanent magnets, which obviously cannot produce power but do participate (passively) in the process. Would anybody call a permanent magnet (synchronous) machine a doubly-fed electric machine? If not, then why call a DC field wound (synchronous) electric machine a doubly fed electric machine? I am getting frustrated with reversions back to the incorrect definition of doubly-fed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fklatt (talkcontribs)

Since this is Wikipedia you prove such things by citing authoritative sources on such subjects, not arguing that your opinion is right because you are an "expert". I would suggest doing that on the article talk page. My revert is from the standpoint of a layman on the subject and as an editor. Once you remove the non-WP:LEAD material the two versions only seem to differ in a claim of "both the field magnet windings and armature windings" vs "have two armature windings". Referenced cleanup could start there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I see what's going on now. See my discussion at Talk:Doubly-fed electric machine#Field.2C_armature.2C_and_all_that. The newest doubly-fed electrical machines, with their big solid-state AC-DC-AC converters and complex electronic controls, don't have the traditional field/armature distinction that's in the usual textbooks. Wikipedia generally follows mainstream textbooks, but this new technology doesn't fit the traditional nomenclature. I've suggested a solution to that problem based on a paper from MIT, which doesn't mention field windings and armature windings at all, just "windings". Comments? John Nagle (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Following MIT sounds good to me. If MIT/Fklatt contributions can be boiled down to what a layman can follow its a good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Music History 101[edit]

Obviously the message board/forum site is a key citation because that is how these battle rap leagues were started and helped grow the genre/culture to what it is today. You aren't gonna find a ton of articles on the pioneers of battle rap leagues because it's a small genre of music, however it has grown into millions of fans due what these people started. You have to go through the forums and read them to see the rich history of the sport and beginnings of battle rap. Unless you are a music historian you probably will not do that. However, it doesn't mean that the message board isn't a good source because that is how the genre started. Please do better research on (American) Hip Hop music if you aren't an American or not a follower of the music. It makes no sense to edit articles that you do not understand, especially if they require research that isn't easy or outside your realm of musical expertise. For instance I would not edit an article on quantum physics or Jesus Christ because I have no knowledge of the subject and even if I did read a couple articles that were properly sourced it still wouldn't be enough for me to understand them and make logically sound edits to something that complex. MusicHistory101

Since you copy/posted this at Talk:Axe (battle rapper) I will respond there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
You obviously aren't capable of making decisions that require independent judgment and common sense. Seen this many times around the office. You're the guy who follows ever single letter of the law/rules to the extent that the company can't function or produce results that matter. As I have already described that this article involves a person who created a subgenre of music through message boards, so no matter what the Wiki style manual says about citations the citing of a message board as a source is the proper way to go about it citing this person. He is also listed on Rap Radar and Verse Tracker, two sites that are the Wikipedia of battle rap. Please note there are always exceptions to every rule and there are millions of articles about people with far less references to them. As I mentioned previously there are articles about people such as Jesus Christ where there is no proof they even exist but because there is a large amount of public discussion the article stays without being messed with. Clearly this is a real person with numerous references to their work and as a librarian and music historian I can tell you for a fact that the article is correct. It seems you are hell bent on destroying this article for personal reasons. I would bet a weeks pay you are a person who hates Hip-Hop music and simply attacking this article not to be a good editor but because you are some sort of racist who goes around messing with Hip-Hop articles for the fun of it. Please note if you continue in this manner your account could be deleted for racism and acting maliciously with intent to discredit a person and destroy valid articles. MusicHistory101
Using verifiable sources and not using your own research are two of Wikipedia's core content policies, meaning they are not optional. Name calling on Wikipedia has sanctions so I would really recommend reading some Wikipedia policy if you are going to continue editing here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Vandalizing an article about a battle rapper probably isn't the smartest idea if you do not like people calling you out. Let that sink in for a moment. I mean I wouldn't go around messing with articles about John Gotti and not expect people to have an adverse reaction. It seems you are fixated on ruining this mans article as you have made numerous attempts to discredit him and the contributions he and others like him have made to the culture of hip hop simply because you don't like the way his article is referenced or because you are anti-hip hop. You also seem to fail to realize that he has made other contributions to society as he has helped thousands of people through his veterans charity organization. I would suggest you stop making threats and leave this mans article alone before you get reported. This is your last warning. - MusicHistory101
Feel free to report me, that's fine. I won't bother recommending reading Wikipedia policy and guidelines again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for your edit of Philadelphia Experiment.

Just wanted to clarify that actually I wanted to revert the edits by an IP but so how your edit got reverted accidentally. Good that your effort restored what I wanted to do.

Anyway, have a nice day. --Muzammil (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of inventors 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:
  • *[[Ron Hickman|Ronald Price Hickman]] (1932–2011, USA - designed the original [[Lotus_Elan#1960s_Elan|Lotus Elan]], the [[Lotus_Elan#1960s_

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marconi edits[edit]

I still believe tesla should be in the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erickzr (talkcontribs) 22:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Many people worked on radio technology, you would need some very reliable sources to single out one, no matter how popular he is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ames Hydroelectric Generating Plant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Miguel River (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) 11:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of George Fell[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of George Fell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I will be out of town, but with access to the Internet, this coming week. Don't forget to {{ping}} me to make sure I see your response. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mouth to mouth resuscitation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • heart or as part of [[cardiopulmonary resuscitation]] (CPR) to achieve the internal respiration).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for George Fell[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 16 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Fell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dr. George Fell, a pioneer of life-saving mechanical respiration techniques in the 1880s, also had a role in designing the first electric chair used for an execution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Fell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, George Fell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May[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) 00:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropist Additions[edit]

Hello, Fountains of Bryn Mawr.

I’m writing to you because you deleted content that I had added about several philanthropists. I believe that the information I included is proper in the context of the article. Some of these philanthropists aren’t known very widely but have contributed a great amount to American Society. Making a hall of fame is a great honor. I only want to give recognition to these individuals and inform readers of their contributions.

What do you suggest that I do? Livy17 (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, in further explanation: Wikipedia requires citation to reliable, third-party, published sources for its content (see WP:SOURCES). So the fact that "X is included in the Philanthropy Hall of Fame" (referenced to that organization's publication) does not meet that requirement (not a third party source) and is also not reliable, the source in question is an organization described as "network of charitable donors", not a reliable historical publication. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information so unrelated information like this is normally not included in an article. You also repeatedly linked www.philanthropyroundtable.org in a large series of edits. This is considered link spamming per Wikipedia content guidelines and should be avoided. You should think about your goals re: these edits. If it is to promote this organization, that is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. If you can add something describing the subject(s) in question and their philanthropic activities (referenced to reliable sources), please do. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Fountains, you say that this source isn't reliable or a historical publication. However, Booklist, a reputable review site by the American Library Association to recommend books to librarians, stated that "This comprehensive, current, accurate, and well-organized reference on private giving in the U.S. contains sections on our greatest givers, past and present, and major achievements... from 1636 to 2015. ... Recommended for most public, academic, and specialty libraries." Wikipedia should not be second-guessing this major assessment service. Booklist tells librarians which books are reliable historical references. They say the Almanac should be used by libraries as an historical reference, and Wikipedia should do the same. It is unreasonable to argue that this book is not a reliable source of information on philanthropy, when industry users have decided it is authoritative.

Booklist review: http://www.booklistonline.com/The-Almanac-of-American-Philanthropy-A-Lively-Compendium-of-Great-Donors-Major-Achievements-Essential-Books-Quotations-Vital-Statistics-Polls-History-Timeline-and-More-Karl-Zinsmeister/pid=8008900 Livy17 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not using the book as a source, the problem is spamming the book across multiple articles. Used as a source it could be reliable to show someone was a philanthropist in some way - used in this fashion "Paul Getty donated over £140m to various artistic and cultural causes" (ref = Zinsmeister, Karl, The Almanac of American Philanthropy, Philanthropy Roundtable - 2015, page 345). But the fact that some person is included in some specific publication and that that accolade is in some way significant has to have been noted by someone else. The statement "X is included in the Philanthropy Hall of Fame" has to be referenced to a reliable third party source, not to itself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and clarifications! I'll be sure to do exactly as you said. Best of luck with your Wikipdeidia ventures! Livy17 (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The book you cite does not have the year 1645 https://books.google.com/books?id=c5hky9f5PgoC&lpg=PA106&vq=gun%20kettle&pg=PA106#v=snippet&q=gun%20kettle&f=false Bidofthis (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

World expos edits[edit]

Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I've noticed you've been editing my changes. Yes, I've been adding links to a website, but only on relevant pages, and if you follow those links you would see that each one of them leads to a different and accurate page, pertinent to the information on wikipedia. You should take notice that the links are different each time and should not be considered as spam. Also I've changed some of the information (dates, area etc) using updated information that we have, and I didn't notice any critical changes to the template. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exposuniv (talkcontribs) 07:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed you reverted and then self reverted. Probably a good move at this point. Per (diff), the problem is you inserted changes to the info box (contrary to the referenced figures in the article), removed the ((convert|690|acre|ha|abbrev=off)) tag, and added (spammed?) a website link which seems to be the source of the wrong figures you are adding. Your user name also seems to point to a WP:COI edit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the tips and for letting me know. As you may have seen, I am pretty new to the process and as I am a fan of expos, I am looking at all these info, some of them being quite old. I have been adding the references to the BIE as the organization is supposed to be the most accurate source of information on that matter and did not realize I should not include it in the info box . I am also adding other references that I found on the subject but it takes quite a lot of time. Hope to complete more this summer. I completed some information that were missing on the info box and also realized that sometimes they were huge discrepancies between some sources. For (diff) it is for example indicated that there were 95 participating countries, but other sources states 15 to max 22 Cf (here). Isn’t there confusion between the number of participants and the number of participating countries ? Please do not hesitate to share your comments with me . Cheers . Exposuniv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exposuniv (talkcontribs) 14:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Assault Rifle rfc[edit]

Did you have a chance to glance at the 9 references I posted in response to your comment?TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

UR[edit]

You wrote (Undid revision 731215817 by Robotics1 (talk) please don't insert opinion or further advert language just because its already there). Of course you are right but surely this entire article should be reverted. How did it ever get here in the first place? It should have been speedy deleted 3 years ago. Trouble is the request to clean it up is too much. There is too much to do and no-one is interested.

I've been a Wiki contributor since 2005 (that's 11 years) and I've seen some muddles but never such bare faced advertising. Don't worry I would NEVER do this to a proper article, I just got incensed.

Robotics1 21:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talkcontribs)

Radio[edit]

Hello, I thought that all contributors to an invention may be added to the categories. Please let me know why Tesla does not belong. Thanks

Electivo000 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Why was the information I added on radio tuner inappropriate to you? Electivo000 (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, answer was given in edit summary. Also does not seem to fit article topic. Also may be simply untrue. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Superzoom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wide angle (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) 09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


War of Currents, constant voltage generator[edit]

Constant voltage generator was important step in the AC technology, because it is the ancestor of modern alternators in power stations, because all alternators are constant voltage generator in modern electrical power stations util this day. It is true, that I copied my earlier writing from an other article, and the rewriting will be a necessity due to the Wikipedia rules.Enginerfactories (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Enginerfactories. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to be offensive, but you must understand that:

It is obvious that the opinion of the American Society for Engineering Education (Book title 1995. Proceedings, Part 2) , the opinion of Robert L. Libbey (member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers scientific society) and Scott McPartland more important and reliable source than the private opinion of a Wikipedia editor like you. Have a nice day!Enginerfactories (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, there[edit]

"if they are in Wikipedia they are notable, so need some other rational [rationale]" -- not exactly. There are varying degrees of notability and in line with the globalism/systemic bias project, of which you are likely not familiar, we are trimming DOTY pages (see here, and here). I am only bringing it up because you are likely to come across similar editing, so we can avoid unnecessary reverts, etc. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted it because no reasonable rational was given for the edit (let alone a guideline or policy - which you really need to show at this point). Topsy's death (Topsy/Edison) gets about 150,000 hits on google [7] including News sources, university articles, a whole book on the topic, etc. Actually more hits than the other included item. "New Apostolic Church", Hamburg, Germany - about 43,300 hits [8]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Please note: I am well aware of the trimming of DOTY pages/globalism/systemic bias (note may participation in those discussions). You seem to be trying to push forward your views on this without getting consensus, and also making arbitrary edits without rational. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
"(let alone a guideline or policy - which you really need to show at this point)": @Fountains of Bryn Mawr -- I have cited to you the SYSTEMICBIAS project. I don't care about the particular instance you are citing in this case. You may well be right and the incidents merit keeping. I just want you to understand that every one of the 365 days -- from January 1 through December 31 -- has been gone through and edited similarly. You need to know this so we don't end up in edit wars and, as I mentioned, unnecessary reverts. And as far as "You seem to be trying to push forward your views on this without getting consensus, and also making arbitrary edits without rational." -- this is untrue as no one has maintained a contradictory position on either thread (see here, and here). If you have something to say then express your opinions at the SYSTEMICBIAS workpage or the above-referenced threads or with @Deb or at any other juncture or forum you like. This project has been going on for many months and so no one is stopping you from expressing your opinions, so why the radio silence? Yours, Quis separabit? 20:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but you really need to read WP:CON, the talk cited shows obvious opposition that is not addressed and (filibustering?) your position is not consensus. Marking edits with an obscure "insufficiently universally notable entries" (diff) without supplying a rational, an link to an agreed guideline, link to a talk page that ended in consensus, an RfC.... something..... strays into WP:DISRUPT. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete link??[edit]

External links have been placed on the page "physicist", why did you simply remove THEM ALL??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.104.97 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Physicist. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Light bulb[edit]

There is no seriously contested assertion involved: Swan patented and demonstrated his electric light bulb before Edison (Jan & Feb of 1879 for Swan, as opposed to later in the year for Edison). As you rightly suggested in your re-edit, Edison improved the design greatly. But he didn't invent it. It had already been invented.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Per the sources cited Swan did not "invent it" and Edison did not "improve" Swans. In fact most sources give the invention to Edison since Swans was just one in a long line of impractical light bulbs (low resistance so impossible to use in an electrical grid). Presented the facts and left the conclusion up to the reader. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yet Edison himself was afraid of a successful lawsuit, which is why they 'merged' companies. Edison's bulb was similar enough to Swan's that it would have been difficult to prove that it was an independent invention. Even if it had been, Swan demonstrated and patented it first. Also, Swan's lightbulb was practical in a series circuit and was created when electrical grid technology was still in its infancy. The principles of the bulbs were the same, except that Edison used a different substance as a filament.
Edison's patent was ruled invalid, as it was based on the earlier theory of someone else. But his improvement of the "filament of carbon of high resistance" was later accepted as valid.
Meanwhile, Swan had successfully improved his own commercially viable design and his own house was the first to be lit by an incandescent electric light bulb. By 1881, the first public building in the world to be lit entirely by electric light achieved this using Swan's lightbulbs.
I honestly don't see where the conflict lies, when it seems to have been proven that Swan invented the bulb first, demonstrated it first and patented it first. Edison's excellent skill at commercial development certainly took advantage of, and improved, the technology. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Well... we do not write articles from our own opinion or cite patents (re: two very big Wikipedia policies that I will not quote again). Swan did not invent the light-bulb, look up the 22 inventors before him, many of which invented light-bulbs. Having a priority patent does not mean you have anything workable or even feasible, it just means you can make big trouble in the courts for someone else. Edison, Marconi, etc found it more economic to buy the other guy out - that always happens in patent cases. Swan's bulb was just an incremental improvement over what came before. It could light a building (providing you were rich enough to pay for a generator, steam engine, custom wiring). Edison's bulb could light a city and was cheap as gas lighting. That is a huge leap and the reason why you will see Edison listed as the inventor of the first feasible light bulb and the inventor of electric-lighting. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How to[edit]

Simply changes the wording to deal with the issues at 3D printer. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 November[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) 00:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)