This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr. |
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
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)
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) |
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
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) |
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 | ||
For great contributions over many years in many areas! Fotaun ( talk) 21:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
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)
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
For contributions to various projects and articles, especially optics. Fotaun ( talk) 02:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun ( talk) 02:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, so I'm confused as to why my contributions are not being deemed relevant. When they're on topic and are backed by sources.
Sadcharity ( talk) 21:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I won't revert, but your argument "article is about print making, not people who make prints" is nonsense. Printmaking is an activity, indeed an industry, done by people. The sites you removed were not at all off topic, though there were probably too many. Johnbod ( talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you FOBM for pointing out WP:Artist, which has come as a revelation to me. In my zeal to improve coverage of Australian artists on Wikipedia, I have naively added content (some 50–100 painters) when I find a subject mentioned in the media and having an entry in several respectable reference books ( Max Germaine, Joan Kerr/ DAAO, Alan McCulloch). I have removed John Sheddon Adam, as a recent addition with no encumbrances. I will have to find a reason to keep Jeremy Boot — he may have played cricket for Norwood. Doug butler ( talk) 21:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Howdy, the entry for Battle Rap League, Sho-Time battle rap league (PPressed) movie (I have great links, more than 1 that can accompany) Can I add more than one to support? Can I re-submit Thank You Curtmarsalis Curtmarsalis ( talk) 22:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Perspective_(graphical)&oldid=1088551718
what i wrote for you: Undid revision 1088547394 by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) Why you deleted my internal link? it was useful and necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.234.38.183 ( talk) 18:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey man, saw you corrected a guy who added Samuel Frost to the list, tho he reverted your changes. Not only him, but also Edme Castaing, Elizabeth Van Valkenburgh, Pierre François Lacenaire, Jesse Pomeroy, Frances Knorr and Theodore Durrant are all people who only have 2 victims. In fact, their articles classify them as murderers instead of serial killers, pretty sure they're not supposed to be on that list, is there somewhere else I can ask about this?
Thx in advance. 181.24.41.219 ( talk) 05:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr. I noticed that you used thefamouspeople.com as a reference in Heinrich Hertz [1]. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.-- Hipal ( talk) 16:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Please cease violating Wikipedia by adding or restoring uncited material to articles, as you did with these edits to the Radio article. While I appreciate that you added some citations here, adding or restoring uncited material that derived solely from your personal knowledge is strictly prohibited by WP:NOR, nor can one Wikipedia article be cited as a source in another, per WP:CIRCULAR, as I stated repeatedly in the article's talk page discussion. A number of arguments predicated on fallacies were offered to justify violating policy, and after I responded to each one to explained why the were wrong or unsound, none of those participants could respond to refute my counterarguments. When one of them attempted to report me at ANI, ANI judged my talk page moves and reverts to be "no violation". I have already alerted administrators to that editor's continued policy violations and to yours. Nightscream ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
"(Undid revision 1111162056 by Eteled286 (talk) no DAB needed)"
this doesn't need to be undone, it's necessary to prevent confusion with Windows and "PC"
UPDATE: You also did this for the Windows page?
Eteled286 ( talk) 23:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
For the quantum communication section you undid what we added. You can check the reference we added as well as the articles already cited there and see the reference we added is the original source of the idea. The other reference already there both credit the reference we added. This is simply providing the correct factual history of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantfl ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The quotes that I had taken from The Star Wars Archives were said in a 1981 story conference between Lucas, Marquand, Kasdan, and Kazanjian. These were direct quotes from the conferences so I don't understand why the source wouldn't be reliable or credible in that case. I said Kaminski 'claimed' because that's what he's doing. He has no firsthand knowledge of went behind the scenes, and at times can only guess or infer at what went on behind the scenes. There's counter evidence against the idea that Han Solo was kept alive because of merchandising sales, and I think that should be properly shown in this article. I can understand questioning The Star Wars Archives, but you're also questioning an official conference that took place because that's where the quotes come from. So, I ask you to allow me to restore my changes so that there can be a fairer perpective on both sides, thank you! Mobfighter63 ( talk) 20:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
On List of wealthiest historical figures, the content I removed was added by 103.249.239.45 and 103.249.239.51. Both are blocked.
If you want to restore any particular names then do it but don't restore disruptive edits. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 12:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Since we have a disagreement at Milky Way I'd like to assure that there are no hard feelings between us, not enough Wikipedians to have those in my opinion. It just seems a disagreement that neither of us will give up on, so maybe an RfC with the two options (both should be uppercased), as proposed, will have to occur, which puts us into the New Year and a good excuse to say "Happy New Year" and wishes for the best year yet! Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Fountains of Bryn Mawr,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk) 12:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe ( talk) 12:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
That was also spam. All the editor’s edits have been that personal website. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. The catadioptric lighthouse lenses invented by Fresnel are discussed on the page Fresnel lens. They aren't the *only* topic of that page, and it might be nice to have a more precise section to link to. I think you shouldn't have reverted my edit, though, as it was informative and genuinely linked to a page where Fresnel's catadioptric lenses were discussed. Theoh ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
What if I linked Fresnel_lens#Illumination instead? If you read that section you will see that the catadioptric elements (involving total internal reflection) are discussed. Now, it may be that Fresnel never proposed reflecting prisms (the catoptric elements of his lenses were, at least at first, conventional mirrors). I can't find any discussion of this point. Theoh ( talk) 15:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Here is the description of the reasoning:
As it is well known in Lifter commmunity, equation of the Lifter force based on ionic drift has been developed and published by me in Naudins forum in 2002 and has been published on his and my website ever since. It attribution is well documented in early citations such as Army Research Labaratory, Badher and Fazi, https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf as well as lots of other early citations. Correct attribution of this equation is:
E. Barsoukov, “Lifter Theory Explained,” JLN Labs, Apr 30, 2002, Available:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lftheory.htm
Paper is still available on either Naudin or my web-site, and on research gate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333005142_Lifter_Theory_Explained
Евгений Барсуков (
talk) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I add here is the proposed Edit:
A generalized one-dimensional treatment gives the equation, that has been published by E.Barsoukov in 2002 [20]:
In references we would add: E. Barsoukov, “Lifter Theory Explained,” JLN Labs, Apr 30, 2002, Available: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lftheory.htm
Евгений Барсуков ( talk) 17:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your cleanup here. For my edification, how did you know that the link runs a malware script? I check a lot of URLs that are put on-wiki, and always want to remain safe from malware myself. I'm afraid of drive-by downloads. — void xor 00:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
can i add that recent edit to the section of pollution or you can add it Ppppphgtygd ( talk) 05:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a notification that I have requested a WP:third opinion for Talk:Culture of the United States#Summary of Philosophy. إيان ( talk) 03:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Per this: I expanded the section a little bit afterwards. It is still in rather pitiful shape -- do you think it should be expanded further for this to be mentioned, or what? jp× g 23:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
In History of personal computers I replaced the IBM 610 with LGP-30. You reverted. In Edit History I stated my reason: "Deleted IBM 610 as redundant. The LGP-30 is similar, was shipped first, cost less, and was made in greater quantity." I could have gone-on with more reasons: The LGP-30 was manufactured for more years, was fully programmable and did not use paper tape when running a program. LGP-30 also a drum memory about 12x the capacity. The IBM 610 was obsolete when it was introduced...a year after the LGP-30. Can we agree that my edit is justifiable and not get into an editing war? RastaKins ( talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
It looks like User_talk:Laensom is back as User_talk:Laensomor. Same behavior as before. - Parejkoj ( talk) 16:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that "Fountains of Bryn Mawr" doesn't like the mentioning of non-English origin inventors, or inventions from not English speaking countries. The UK did not play so important role in the develepment (rather a mediocre role) of electronics and electricity as you try to promote in the " Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering ". Pharaph ( talk) 16:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Now, I understand you: the "reliable sources" mean only such sources, which comfort your own views. In this case you can commit the "not true scotsman" fallacy. Learn about it here: /info/en/?search=No_true_Scotsman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Ganz Works built at least 100 AC power systems since 1878, when the Westinghouse Electric was not even established. Learn: https://edisontechcenter.org/GreatBarrington.html The city of Great Barrinton was not electrified , it was just a short-lived test on the main street "with 36 incandescent bulbs total in all the shops that were lit by the system. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
And also read this book too: https://www.google.hu/books/edition/Networks_of_Power/g07Q9M4agp4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ganz+transformer+1885&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
You need to read Wikipedia policy on using sources, I am not going to debate it here. Re: the Electrical Journal article, that's a warning that a coil can hold a charge, nothing to do with War of the Currents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 19:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Again: Ganz had many bigger instalation even in 1885 a year before your "Great Barrington" Learn about it here (Pages 2 and 3): https://www.google.hu/books/edition/Continental_Electric_Light_Central_Stati/xxDOAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22ganz+transformer+1885+installation&pg=PA3&printsec=frontcover
-- Pharaph ( talk) 18:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
If it is not enough good English for you, than you can rephrase it instead of simple deleting, because my content contained much more details and info than the previos text.
"On March 20, 1886, Stanley conducted a demostrative experiment in Great Barrington: A Siemens generator's voltage of 500 volts was converted into 3000 volts, and then the voltage was stepped down to 500 volts by six Westinghouse transformers. With this setup, the Westinghouse company successfully powered thirty 100-volt incandescent bulbs in twenty shops along the main street of Great Barrington." -- Pharaph ( talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Agin, I already proved my points with secondary sources, you can't lose the debate. great barrington was not the "World's first" demostrative installment. Westinghouse at Great Barrington was able to supply 30 light bulbs with 6 transformers in 1886, however the demonstrations of Ganz were several magnitude bigger. In may 1885 Ganz supplied 1067 incandescent lightbulbs with 75 transformers a year before your Great Barrington. See:
I wonder what will be your reaction. Maybe you come up with Not true Scotsman fallacy again? --
Pharaph (
talk) 09:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The reference speaks about installment, a 1 year long working experiment. In contrast: Great Barrington lasted only 2 weeks with 30 lamps Italic text:)))))
Other references