Tagremover (talk | contribs) |
Tagremover (talk | contribs) →Head-up display: new section |
||
Line 170:
:::::You are mixing up several problems. The reference above to WP:EL is to a SPA who added (and re-added[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpa11111]) linkspam to the same company across several articles. The revert[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisheye_lens&diff=480385919&oldid=480377497] at [[Fisheye lens]] is incorrect because it was wholesale, I cited many other problems (such as un-cited claims), not just commercial links. The reverting editor has had a bit of a problem with my edits (and is not the happiest camper[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFisheye_lens&diff=480415966&oldid=480413609]). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr#top|talk]]) 00:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Just stop vandalising Wikipedia. You are right: That does not make me happy. [[User:Tagremover|Tagremover]] ([[User talk:Tagremover|talk]]) 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
== Head-up display ==
{{3rr}}
|
Revision as of 01:34, 6 March 2012
NowCommons: File:Telescope on street corner sidewalk new york.png
File:Telescope on street corner sidewalk new york.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Telescope on street corner sidewalk new york.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Telescope on street corner sidewalk new york.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Award
The Photo Barnstar | ||
For expanding and improving the astrophotography article. serioushat 00:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
Barnstar
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
This Barnstar is awarded to User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr for their tireless efforts to improve numerous astronomy - related articles.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
Yes, someone pays attention. I've been impressed with your work on lots of these articles, especially the small efforts which take a lot of thought but aren't noticeable to the casual reader. (If you decide to move this barnstar to your user page you can modify the gender of the award if desired, with information on the Template:The Working Man's Barnstar page. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Barlow lens and other optics drawings
Mr. Fountains of Bryn Mawr,
I noticed that you have been in contact with Hungarian/Rumanian user Tamasflex some time ago. I now saw that more than a year ago, this guy inserted an image into Barlow lens#Microscope use at an non-logical position (it is not specific for microscopes), in a very unusual way (using a "gallery" construction for one single image), and unreadably small.
In order to not have to explain everything about this guy here, I would suggest that you read this page completely, and consider to (a) have this guy blocked from the English Wikipedia, and (b) support my request for a global block via here. Maybe this helps? If you are still doubting, then have a look here (takes a while to be built): The guy does not mind to mess around in languages he doesn't know. He even edits in Hebrew, Arab, Chinese, Japanese and even more exotic languages. But he even hardly knows any English; he "writes" through machine translation. I hope you agree that this man must be stopped one way or another. The only thing he achieves is a lot of trouble and irritation with other users on all Wikipedias.
Sincerely, HHahn (Talk) 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- A block request has been filed in the German Wikipedia, too. HHahn (Talk) 10:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Tamasflex again
Just for ypur info, I just undid an edit by Tamasflex, where he inserted a useless commercial link. HHahn (Talk) 10:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Link from Telescope to Solar telescope
Hi there, Agreed that Solar telescope is a type of Optical telescope. So I've (re)added the link at Telescope to Solar telescope but as a dot-point within the Optical telescope section. Apart from the general utility of cross-linking articles, I see a particular need for this: I have detected a wrong cross-reference at Solar tracker: "For solar telescope tracking...see heliostat". I want to redirect that to Telescope, hence the need for onward links from Telescope to Solar telescope and Telescope tracking systems. Is that OK? --anmclarke (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- The information in the edits seems fine, the problem is: what context does it belong in? - and is it needed at all? Solar telescopes, as best I can classify,[1] are "Telescopes classified by the task performed". They are not a wavelength classification or an optical classification. This makes them a subtype that may not need to be mentioned at Telescope - that article has links to lists of subtypes already, including Solar telescopes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Spotting Scope Page
Hi this is webelity. I am re adding the tactical spotting scope external link. It will add more depth to the article having more diverse information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webelity (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Solar eyepiece
Mr. Fountains I change the name of the picture. Come with a good idea.
The whole system (prism + eyepiece) is called Solar eyepiece.
At least in my language well understood better.
Ps.Now I see my friend Hhan here dealing with me. But since he does not expect an intelligent response. He proved to be a small man.
--Tamasflex (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
"Optical vandalism"
May I urgently draw your attention to this request? HHahn (Talk) 11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
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) |
assault rifle
Is the word "rifle" a technical term? Really, the whole first paragraph of that article could be rewritten to be much less awkward. User:71.97.108.243
- Feel free to re-write any part of it to make the article better and integrate the explanations better. The change was reverted because wikilinks should not be relied on to supply information. Articles should be written as if the average reader can not follow the links and only has that article to supply the relevant information. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: Milky Way
Hi. Since there is no support for your proposed change to the lead, I need to ask you to take a step back for now. If you're still interested in improving the article, there is a lot you can do, starting with restoring the GA status of the article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding an opinion[2]. Polling is not a substitute for discussion and there really needs to be at least one reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. I have supplied one and many related usage sources against no sources to support the counter claim. We have to go with WP:V over people wishing the world was different. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion on the subject resulted in consensus against your edits. There is a lot of work to be done to improve and restore the GA status of the article. If you feel that you cannot contribute to improving the article but must instead obsess on a closed discussion about your failed proposal, I may have to consider escalating this matter on the appropriate noticeboard. Be constructive in your approach, not disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page is over. We don't interpret dictionaries. Take your concerns to the project level or to a relevant noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- There was no proposal, I was simply posting my rational for cleaning up a mess of an INTRO (many edits)[3], including redundant statements and spoof definitions (un-referenced as well). Opinion was added re:"There is only one Solar System" (still waiting for a reference on that one). You came in after the fact and in one edit turned it into a proposal, supplied your own opinion, and declared it a closed discussion[4]. We can always take that to the appropriate noticeboard. If you have to characterise my 2 dozen or so edits to this article as non-constructive feel free to do so. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- The article has indeed deteriorated in quality over the last several years. However the definition of a Solar System has not changed during that time. Sol refers to a star known as the Sun at the center of our planetary system. When we discuss extrasolar systems, we usually refer to the name of the star. We do not call them Solar Systems. While it is true that many articles use the phrase "our" instead of "the", and even some official sources use it, there is currently no consensus to use it on the Milky Way article. I highly recommend continuing this discussion at the project level since this type of naming convention could impact multiple articles. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is a good project level discussion (although I don't see any implications for a FA articles like Solar System, it does not take any stand on definition of the term, and rightly so re:WP:NOTDICTIONARY). I did not change the wording from "the Solar System" to "our Solar System" because "definition of a Solar System (had) changed". I am coming into the Milky way article cold, comparing it to reference, and taking a BRD axe to it. All opinion, unreferenced statements, illogical statements, and material that did not match basic guidelines or policy got changed or got the axe. The note implying "solar system only refers to Sol our Sun and therefor only one solar system" seemed particularly egregious since it was (and still is) based on opinion (unreferenced). Looking at the mater cold, reliable sources (and sources put forward after the fact) did not agree with that statement (including IAU[5][6]) and Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary's entry on "solar system" was the clincher, its Merriam-Webster's job to track meaning and definition and they are far more authoritative than personal opinion, unless someone in the discussion is a closet lexicologist or a lexicographer (they can put their hand up;)). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- The article has indeed deteriorated in quality over the last several years. However the definition of a Solar System has not changed during that time. Sol refers to a star known as the Sun at the center of our planetary system. When we discuss extrasolar systems, we usually refer to the name of the star. We do not call them Solar Systems. While it is true that many articles use the phrase "our" instead of "the", and even some official sources use it, there is currently no consensus to use it on the Milky Way article. I highly recommend continuing this discussion at the project level since this type of naming convention could impact multiple articles. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
HUD design factors
Thanks for formatting the Design factors section. I am a neophyte with Wikipedia and don't have all the format concepts in hand, but it certainly looks better now. LarryB55 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- What you did looked good. I was noticing some other problems with that section while working on reflector sight articles. Tossed in some needed fixes on top of your expansion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
AN/FPS-24
The page title Avco AN/FPS-24 is in error. According to the radomes.org reference, as well as my admittedly faulty memory, the FPS-24 was manufactured by General Electric, not Avco. I changed this within the page, but changing the title is beyond my skill set (my pay grade?). Can I draw on your talents to make this change? Thanks for your help. LarryB55 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done, FYI, in the current wikipedia layout, next to the little star at the top of the page is a little down arrow hiding the word "Move". This lets you move a page to a new title. This always catches me to since it changes a bit over time. I deleted "Avco" from the name to match bold title, also matching other articles[7]. I think "Radar" may need to be "radar" (only first word cap in titles) but I will leave it for now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Chemical silvering
I saw your edit to Amateur telescope making, deleting "The chemical silvering process involves some seriously dangerous chemicals", and agree that you're right. I think the firt of the two main reasons they don't use it any more are that silver oxide is black but thin layers of aluminum oxide are nearly clear. Second is that silver and its oxide are very soft but aluminum oxide is very hard, a 9 on the Mohs scale. I can probably dig up a reference for this if anyone reverts your edit. Also as a bit of trivia I thought you might be interested in about the silver nitrate that was used in the relatively cheap and easy silvering process. This is the same chemical which was used in a dilute form to drop into newborn babies' eyes to kill germs. Cheers. Trilobitealive (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Reflector sight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Run time (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) 10:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
Cybercopyedit, Optics, Alhazen, etc.
Hi. About Cybercopyedit's changes to Optics: This isn't sockpuppetry. I complained that his previous username did not comply with policy and he handled it by creating a new one, which is one of the recommended ways to deal with that problem.
I think he may have a valid point about Alhazen's book. The article's previous statement that the book merely "documented the then-current understanding of vision" is too weak, based on the Sabra reference that was already cited in the article. I took a quick skim through the parts of it that are freely accessible earlier today, and it appeared to show that Alhazen's work significantly expanded on the previous understanding of the subject. Based on that one reference (not contributed by Cybercopyedit as far as I know), it appears that a stronger statement of Alhazen's contribution is warranted. I'll take a closer look when I have a chance.--Srleffler (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did adjust the wording. The Sabra reference is pretty explicit that Alhazen did more than merely document the then-current understanding. --Srleffler (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the cleanup... the main complaint I had with the additions was that it was a all puffery that imparted or summarize no verifiable information (in fact it did not even summarize, and constituted a content fork with, the main article: History of optics... not that both could be pretty wrong) I will probably add some more content along these lines.
- I would note that this user did not respond to your complaint or "comply with policy" "by creating a new (user name)". He/she is simply switching back in forth between pre-created user names as suits his/her purpose[8][9]. Sock puppetry/meat puppetry has been a hallmark of these Alhazen POV-PUSHes before but not this open or "ham fisted" right off the bat..... so I am willing to assume a little good faith in that this may be a whole new inexperienced editor spouting the same line that large scale reference to Alhazen et-al is "vital" and "fully referenced" (echoing "the great minds of these men should be recognized at all costs"[10]). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Schwarzschild radius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (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) 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Gyro gunsight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prism (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) 18:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Scott Pace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burbank (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) 10:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
fisheye lens edits
I made an edit to the camera lens topic, and it was removed because it contained a link to a web site. I believe the web site images of the astronomical images captured with a fisheye lens were relevant and informative to the topic article, and that is why it was added. In particular the images of the all sky imaging fisheye lens. This image could still be added, then a link for the image credit given, but part of the relevance is also that is shows an actual fisheye lens and other supporting information. Do you maintain that this link and content are not appropriate? If so, I disagree, as a contributor and reader. Pictures tell a thousand words... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpa11111 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The link is not appropriate per Wikipedia consensus... links to websites with reliable information are fine, links to commercial websites are not (please see WP:CITE, WP:EL, WP:SPAM). You can always re-add the information with a reliable source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Links to commercial web sites can be acceptable. There is nothing in WP:EL that would prohibit those links. The sources you removed from fisheye lens were linked to large, notable, well-established companies such as Nikon and Sigma that wouldn't benefit from having links on Wikipedia, unlike links to recently-created web sites and non-notable companies. Somebody else has reverted your edits. While I agree that not all of those links are necessary to include as citations, please be more judicious in your removal of such references. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Inline citations are covered by WP:RS, not WP:EL. Citations are to be to reliable, third-party, published sources (WP:RS). Commercial web sites do not meet the third-party requirement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- You don't need to respond on my talk page; you can respond here.
- You are the one who referenced WP:EL above. And your interpretation of WP:RS isn't quite correct either. Please look at it again. WP:RS doesn't prohibit primary sources; rather, it says to use extreme caution when referencing primary sources. When statement describing a product is sourced to the company data sheet or information page about that product, that's a reliable source in compliance with WP:RS. Secondary sources are required when sourcing any interpretive claims or analyses. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are mixing up several problems. The reference above to WP:EL is to a SPA who added (and re-added[11]) linkspam to the same company across several articles. The revert[12] at Fisheye lens is incorrect because it was wholesale, I cited many other problems (such as un-cited claims), not just commercial links. The reverting editor has had a bit of a problem with my edits (and is not the happiest camper[13]). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just stop vandalising Wikipedia. You are right: That does not make me happy. Tagremover (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are mixing up several problems. The reference above to WP:EL is to a SPA who added (and re-added[11]) linkspam to the same company across several articles. The revert[12] at Fisheye lens is incorrect because it was wholesale, I cited many other problems (such as un-cited claims), not just commercial links. The reverting editor has had a bit of a problem with my edits (and is not the happiest camper[13]). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Inline citations are covered by WP:RS, not WP:EL. Citations are to be to reliable, third-party, published sources (WP:RS). Commercial web sites do not meet the third-party requirement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Links to commercial web sites can be acceptable. There is nothing in WP:EL that would prohibit those links. The sources you removed from fisheye lens were linked to large, notable, well-established companies such as Nikon and Sigma that wouldn't benefit from having links on Wikipedia, unlike links to recently-created web sites and non-notable companies. Somebody else has reverted your edits. While I agree that not all of those links are necessary to include as citations, please be more judicious in your removal of such references. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Head-up display
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.