archive |
No edit summary |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
:No problem - It's all GFDL'd code anyhow. Mine is actually something I started using on a different wiki, which I modified from someone else's version, who had modified what they had copied from [[User talk:Angela]] (of which, it appears that Angela has modified her version from how it used to look). |
:No problem - It's all GFDL'd code anyhow. Mine is actually something I started using on a different wiki, which I modified from someone else's version, who had modified what they had copied from [[User talk:Angela]] (of which, it appears that Angela has modified her version from how it used to look). |
||
:Well, you get the idea. The code has been passed around and tweaked for a while. Feel free to copy it and adjust it further if you wish. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
:Well, you get the idea. The code has been passed around and tweaked for a while. Feel free to copy it and adjust it further if you wish. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Spamstar of Glory == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Spamstar1.jpg|110px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Spamstar of Glory''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To [[User:Barek|Barek]] Many thanks for your help clearing the cafepress [[WP:SPAM|Linkspam]] on Wikipedia! --[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 16:36, 26 April 2008
My talk page archives | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Barek: Please take a look at the talk page. There are several ambiguation problems that I know you know how to fix. Thank ou in advance. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
I would like to insert an image from a United States patent application which shows the McCoy oiler. I found it online by Googling Elijah McCoy picture. Since it is part of government documents, I don't see any copyright issues. This article would also benefit from a picture of McCoy himself, but finding one that we can use seems problematical. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- Images for both he and the oiler were already available at the Wikimedia Commons, so I added those to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That really sets off the article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- The funny thing is that they were both in the article in the past. It appears that a vandal account which only ever made one edit on Wikipedia used that edit to remove both images on March 30, 2008. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- The vandals took the handles. -- Bob Dylan Watching the whole vandalism-thing appear on pages on my watch list is frankly appalling. Apparently wiki is well known enough (and of course open enough) to attract some very unsavory (and unfathomable) attacks from some creepy "contributors." BTW, the Ludington Light and the Manistee Light could maybe benefit from Cosat Guard pictures (as a second picture). The links are in the articles, if you feel motivated. I'll try to get to your Lewis Lamp question -- I haven't forgotten about it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- The funny thing is that they were both in the article in the past. It appears that a vandal account which only ever made one edit on Wikipedia used that edit to remove both images on March 30, 2008. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That really sets off the article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
I think the article needs to be renamed for reasons I've put in the talk page. This is seriously wrong. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- In Lighthouses in the United States I left in Manistee Light (presumably that would be the main light), and added in Manistee Pierhead lights. I also changed the reference in Manistee, Michigan, but that would probably have the [[Manistee Light, too. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
New article, more or less finished. Please edit it in your usual fashion. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- Thank you. {:)> )self portrait 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- I put in a reference, and it somehow is getting intertwined with the "Magic box." HELP! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- Should the location in the info box have a street address? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- I'm not sure what you mean by the "Magic box" being intertwined with a reference - was that already resolved?
- I'm not very familiar with the Template:Infobox Museum; but the summary instructions on it seem to indicate that the location field shouldn't have any more detail than city - or in the case of larger cities the neighborhood within the city. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Should the location in the info box have a street address? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- I put in a reference, and it somehow is getting intertwined with the "Magic box." HELP! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
The magic box (not the info box) is that big blue area with all the magic citations at the bottom. If you click on the last reference I inserted, you will not that the references/footnotes seem to appear in the magic box, and that you can't access the reference at all. If you take a look at the magic box, you will note that it has a group of letters (footnotes) in its upper left hand corner, which obviously don't belong there. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- Hmmm ... it's looking correct to me, and all the reference links seem to be working. Which web browser are you using? Do you know which version of the browser? I can see if I get the same result with that (I'm using FireFox v2.0 here). I do see three letters in the upper left of the navigation box, but they're the three that belong there (v-d-e) and are part of the template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right. They all work. I must have clicked on something in error. Err, 'Excuse the ring, please.' 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
I just made some changes to this page and noticed you have edited my text, including removing some of it. Some of your changes cleaned up mine, but I'm wondering why you deleted some of my text, especially discussion about rider's views of removal of the ferries, which is accurate. Do you work for WSF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.7.19 (talk • contribs) 13:51, April 20, 2008
- No, I do not work for the ferry system, the state, nor within the maritime industry. Please see Talk:Steel Electric class ferry for my reasons, I posted them on the article's talk page. If you can find a reliable source for that paragraph, and reworded it to remove the weasel words, then it would be appropriate to mention it in the article. However, such negative speculative comments without a source appears to be pushing a specific point of view. Please remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If the spculative comments cannot be supported with a reliable source, then they have no place in an encyclopedia article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Barak, thanks for clarifying these points. I'm new to this. Though I understand your point, and will abide by your knowledge of the wikipedia standards, I have to say that the source would be myself and conversations I've heard from other passengers and crew on this run. My point was not to add weasel words, but I feel that these questions and comments from ferry passengers raise important issues about the removal of these ferries from service. David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.7.19 (talk • contribs) 18:26, April 20, 2008
- If there are discussions by passengers, and a newspaper has picked it up (as an article, not in an editorial or readers letters section), then that would be an excellent source. Unfortunately, original research, which includes writing about your first-hand experience, does not count in Wikipedia as a reliable source so should not be used as a basis for content.
- But, if there is talking and questions being raised, then it wouldn't surprise me to find a news story on it eventually if one hasn't been written already. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Barek: I'm sure you looked at Terry Pepper's explanation, which is lucid, but not as detailed as the following that I found on line atNew England Lighthouse Wallpager Guide to Lewis Patent Lamps and Spherical Reflectors:
Lewis Patent Lamps and Spherical Reflectors
Winslow Lewis, a former ship captain from Wellfleet, Cape Cod, patented his version of the Argand Lamp on June 8, 1810 and sold his “reflecting and magnifying lantern” patent to United States Government just prior to the War of 1812.
Although the Lewis Patent Lamp required only half of the oil used by Spider Lamps, the intensity of his lamp was 400 times less that of the Argand Lamp used in Europe. Lewis promoted his device as a “magnifying and reflector lantern” claiming the system was a combined Lamp and magnifier with reflectors. In a effort to increase the lamp’s intensity, Lewis placed a lens, a “magnifier” made from a 4-inch diameter green bottle glass, in front of the flame to focus the straying beams of light. His “magnifier” accumulated soot immediately further dimming the Light and was later removed. Lewis lamps required constant adjustment and cleaning due to the inadequate draft and defective brass gears.
The design of his silvered plated copper reflectors was another reason why his Lewis Patent Lamp was less effective than the Argand Lamp. The reflector’s silver finish was too thin to withstand abrasive cleaning and the thin copper could not hold its original parabolic shape when exposed to the heat of illumination. As a result, Lewis reflectors were altered into a spherical shape and the worn down reflective silver finish scarcely reflected the Lamp’s light. The spherical reflectors were inferior to the parabolic reflectors used behind Argand Lamps.
The Lewis Patent Lamp was basically a poorly modified version of the Argand Lamp and parabolic reflectors. As one inspector noted the “magnifier” “made a bad light worse,” yet Lewis did not argue with his critics. He used the economy of the Lamp emphasizing the 50% oil savings over the Argand Lamps.
In 1812, Congress approved the first contract for the maintenance of Lighthouses authorizing Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, to purchase Winslow Lewis’ patent Lamps with Winslow Lewis refitting all Lighthouses in the United States with Lewis patent Lamps and to keep the new lantern system repaired.
There are different accounts* of how Winslow Lewis was able to install a inferior Lamp system in American Lighthouses. According to Federal Law, contracts were awarded to the Contractor with the lowest offer as noted by Stephen Pleasonton, Fifth Auditor of the Treasury Department and federal administrator of U.S. Lighthouses.
Winslow Lewis strongly promoted his own system of lighting and was frequently awarded contracts due to his low bids. In 1817, Winslow Lewis listed and described all American Lighthouses and noted his method of Lighting consumed 24,731 gallons of oil annually whereas the annual consumption of the prior oil Lamps was 52,000 gallons. A 52% fuel savings was most likely the major reason why a new developing nation approved the Lewis’ Lighting contract.
- There are sources that allege collusion between Winslow Lewis and the Fifth Auditor, Stephen Pleasonton yet these allegations were made 30 years after Winslow Lewis was awarded the Lamp contract. In 1842, his nephew, Isaiah William Penn Lewis (I.W.P. Lewis), claimed his uncle’s Lamp was copied from Europe and his reflectors were bad after Pleasonton refused to adjust contracts for I.W.P. Lewis bids. Winslow Lewis died on May 20, 1850, several years before the alleged relationship with Pleasonton was exposed to Congress.
Author’s Note: The law mandating the acceptance of the lowest offer was either a blessing or a curse. Many Lighthouses were built to stand the test of time with diverse Architectural styles using aesthetic functional structures. Unfortunately, many Lighthouses were first built using poor construction and poor engineering practices resulting in a constant state of disrepair. In addition, this law was a reasonable way for a recently formed government to be cost effective.
Winslow Lewis became the main Lighthouse Contractor for 30 years after rebuilding Frank’s Island Lighthouse (July 1818- March 1823) despite some questionable work done on the original structure by his sub-contractors, Benjamin Beal and Duncan Thaxter (1). After the dilemma of Franks Island Lighthouse, Winslow Lewis formed an alliance with Stephen Pleasonton, the Fifth Auditor of the Treasury and U.S. Lighthouse administrator (1820-1852) by winning contracts to build Conical Brick Lighthouses cheaply. Winslow Lewis consistently submitted the lowest bids and there was no “hard” evidence of illegal dealings between Lewis and Pleasonton (2). Winslow Lewis ignorance of engineering caused most of his Lighthouses to be replaced by taller structurally sound structures.
Although his nephews allegations were incriminating and Lewis Patent Lamps were poorly designed and manufactured, research has yet to find evidence that he violated federal law. Stephen Pleasonton was given an administrative task that was outside his accounting knowledge. With no engineering background, Pleasonton awarded contracts to the lowest bidder per the law yet he was unable to verify the contractor’s qualifications. Congress later corrected these problems by creating a Board with experts from every trade involved in constructing Lighthouses.
For 40 years**, American Lighting technology did not improve due in part to the cost of expensive European Lighting and whether existing Towers were built to structurally support the additional weight of the lens (a First-order Fresnel lens assembly can weigh up to 3-tons and was priced at $12,000 shipped in 1841). In addition, Winslow Lewis lobbied successfully to protect his Lighting System.
In 1851, Congress ordered a investigation of the nation’s aids to navigation after receiving numerous strong complaints about the poor quality of America’s lighthouses, specifically the lights. Interestingly, Congress authorized two Fresnel lenses for testing in 1838 and the Navesink Twin Lights were refitted with First-order Fresnel lenses in 1841. Nine more years elapsed before the second Lighthouse was fitted with a Fresnel lens. After the successful tests, the Fresnel lens was not installed in the remaining Lighthouses until Pleasonton was replaced by he U.S. Light-House Board. Pleasonton insisted most keepers could not operate the new complex system and additional testing was required.
On October 9, 1852, Congress established a nine member Lighthouse Board in response to the investigation that uncovered the poor condition of American Lighthouses. The Board included two Army Engineer Corps officers, two Navy officers, two Topographical Engineers officers, two scientists, and the Secretary of the Treasury who served as President of the Board. This team of specialists acted immediately in using new technology and all Lighthouses were refitted with Fresnel lenses by the time of the Civil War.
The new lens system was three times the cost of the Lewis Lamp system yet the efficiency of the Fresnel lens assembly reduced fuel costs by 75% on average since only one oil lamp was needed whereas the Lewis system required many oil lamps. The major advantage of Fresnel Lenses was a 400% increase in the intensity of the focused beam of light over the Lewis Lamp system (Catoptric light). Eighty-three percent of the light is lost at the top and and bottom of a Catoptric light whereas a Fresnel catadioptric system collects and redirects 83% of the light into a focused horizontal beam.
- For 11 years (1812 to 1823), Lewis Patent Lamps were used instead of the superior Argand Lamps with parabolic reflectors. In 1823, the first lenticular apparatus or Fresnel lens was installed the Cordouan Lighthouse at the mouth of the Gironde River near Royan, France. American Lighthouses continued to be illuminated by Lewis Patent Lamps for another 29 years (1823 to 1852). Prior to 1852, Fresnel Lenses were tested at three American Lighthouses; Navesink Twin Lights (1841 - New Jersey), Sankaty Head Light (1850 - Nantucket, Mass), and Brandywine Shoal Light (1850 - Delaware). From 1852 to 1859, all Lighthouses in America were refitted with Fresnel Lenses.
(1) Benjamin Latrobe’s Designs for a Lighthouse at the Mouth of the Mississippi River by Michael W. Fazio The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 232-247
(2) America’s Lighthouses: An Illustrated History by Francis Ross Holland, Jr. - Page 16
I would say that Pepper and this article basically agree.
Had you seen that? Does that help? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- I see that you had cited to the foregoing. I took a whack at new text, which I think synthesizes what I absorbed for Terry Pepper and the foregoing. I think that we might want to paraphrase the paragraph that says:
- The new lens system was three times the cost of the Lewis Lamp system yet the efficiency of the Fresnel lens assembly reduced fuel costs by 75% on average since only one oil lamp was needed whereas the Lewis system required many oil lamps. The major advantage of Fresnel Lenses was a 400% increase in the intensity of the focused beam of light over the Lewis Lamp system (Catoptric light). Eighty-three percent of the light is lost at the top and and bottom of a Catoptric light whereas a Fresnel catadioptric system collects and redirects 83% of the light into a focused horizontal beam.
- And of course put in a line citation.
- What do you think? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
I hope you don't mind...
I saw your date/time box on your page and thought it looked nice. I copied the code to one of my pages. I hope that's ok with you. JodyB talk 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - It's all GFDL'd code anyhow. Mine is actually something I started using on a different wiki, which I modified from someone else's version, who had modified what they had copied from User talk:Angela (of which, it appears that Angela has modified her version from how it used to look).
- Well, you get the idea. The code has been passed around and tweaked for a while. Feel free to copy it and adjust it further if you wish. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Spamstar of Glory
The Spamstar of Glory | ||
To Barek Many thanks for your help clearing the cafepress Linkspam on Wikipedia! --Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |