User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr

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)

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

	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

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!

	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

		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

		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!

	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)

2013

		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)

Inquiry

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)

Mere mentions are not considered encyclopedic, see MOS:CULTURALREFS. Also citing your own observations of what you found in lyrics is considered original research. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Printmaking

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)

If Printmaking organizations are notable in some way, they should be in the article with a reliable source saying, well, they are notable in some way. The article topic is Printmaking, defined in the lead, a randomly generated tangential linkfarm at the end of the article is just not encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not how External links work, and those links have in fact been watched, trimmed & curated for several years. I think I will restore some after all. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A check showed these were being put up by IPs or SPA accounts, dead links, blogs, no sign they were being curated in any way. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of them were there 6 years ago, with many spammy links being removed in the meantime. Who adds a link hardly matters. Take this conversation as curation in action. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Notability

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)

Battle Rap League Entry

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)

In general, battle rap leagues mentioned in that section need to be notable, i.e. have a Wikipedia article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

please explain why?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

List of serial killers before 1900

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)

I have modded the lead def to follow the consensus def at Serial killer. The definition is two, three, or four. Now the thing to check is, is there a reliable source that defines that person as a serial killer? We can't just count the bodies and draw that conclusion, so feel free to remove anyone who does not have that reliably sourced claim at their bio article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure that most definitions set a minimun of three, unrelated victims on at least two different periods of time (that being the "cooldown"), including the FBI, but ok. Hate to repeat myself, but my first request was mainly inspired due to the fact that the guys mentioned before are not classified as serial killers in their respective articles:

Ex: Jesse Harding Pomeroy (November 29, 1859 – September 29, 1932) was a convicted American murderer [...]

Each of them have sources that state they were murderers, but not serial killers, but since you changed the definition I guess they qualify now (?

Idk, anyways it was just a (maybe) mistake I had noticed, not really that important. Thx for your help either way. 181.24.61.149 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thefamouspeople as a reference

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)

Radio

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)

"continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors" is a problem. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Just visited the article about Radio. Got somewhat disappointed. There was not a single picture of a "radio" as in "a certain household object to listen to the news". Профессор кислых щей (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You [added one], so that helps. More could be added, maybe an AM radio? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, here's the plan. Let's try and make a cool gallery of those.

Also, a little criticism: most of the "Data communication" section feels like it's too far from "radio"; you should consider moving it into the article of Data communication; and make a shorter list for the "radio" article. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Phew! Tried my best to make some "pairs" of photos for people, who read Wikipedia via smartphones. I hope I didn't mess the article... Профессор кислых щей (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit?

"(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)

Per [2], the "distinguish" template is used to point out to readers the existence of one or more articles whose title(s) is, or are, similar to the page in question. No title similarity exists. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

? I made it say "Not to be confused with Y", different from '"X" redirects here. For Y see Z, For other uses, see X (disambiguation)' Eteled286 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

SETI revision why did you undo

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)

I have reverted it again. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Please see WP:PRIMARY. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability/Credibility of recent Return of the Jedi Sources.

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)

The problem is more about tone and editorializing than references. This has moved on to the respective talk page so you can take it up there but the whole paragraph should probably be rewritten and maybe broken up re: 'The Power of Myth' - so and so said X, so and so said Y --- following WP:YESPOV "Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

I think you see an editorial bias, propose the rewritten paragraph in talk. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

List of wealthiest people

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)

Edit reverted, the article has gone through a major refactoring (see talk and the 36 subsequent edits) since that disruptive editor's last edit. Do not revert an entire article to remove a few edits, just remove the edits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming most of the content in your subsequent edits.

Can you describe why do you want to keep Akbar named "Akbar The Great" on this list? Sources are fansites and unreliable sources and fail WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The list is WP:CSC /"verifiably a member of the group", so it uses those sources. Appears on another ref list so added that. You can always bring up sources in talk if you think they fall to short of being reliable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Happiest of holidays, etc.

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)

Thanks, we may finally get this resolved by stirring the mud. By the way, this has gotten me interested, what does your username mean if I may ask? I like it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fountains of Bryn Mawr!

Happy New Year!

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)

Carl Meredith Allen

That was also spam. All the editor’s edits have been that personal website. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Fresnel lens

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)

The main problem I cited was WP:EGG. I have restored your version without the hidden link. Feel free to expand on that if needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I found the following:

"Before his death in 1827 Fresnel devised his totally reflecting or catadioptric prisms to take the place of the silvered reflectors previously used above and below the lens elements" (at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:EB1911_-_Volume_16.djvu/654)

There may be scope for clarification of the page Fresnel lens on this point, since the catadioptric variations of Fresnel's invention are restricted to lighthouse use, AFAIK, and doesn't fall under the conventional technical understanding of the term. Theoh (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Attribution of Lifter equation needs a revision, which I proposed in the talk? Is Talk a right place to point it out, or should I just change the attribution in the text?

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)

I have moved part of this to Talk:Ion-propelled aircraft, thanks for the further explanation. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Checking contributed external links for spam while remaining safe from malware

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. — voidxor 00:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It was jacking the browser page immediately and launching come-ons for adware additions. As to how to check for malware (other than some dummy like me clicking on the page) I am not sure. Wiki may have some sort of malware checker. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Pollution

can i add that recent edit to the section of pollution or you can add it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Its borderline WP:NOTNEWS but should be ok for here. Feel free to add it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Notification of request for third opinion

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)

Shop vacs, etc

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)

Section looks better. The problem still exist with the last paragraph reading as a How-To. Reworded it with non-howto language but that brings the problem into focus, that more encyclopedic statement has to be proven true. Added template, needs to be some WP:PROVIT. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

History of Personal Computers

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)

You are listing your opinion on the two models. We have to go with content based on reliable sources in Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Laensom is back?

It looks like User_talk:Laensom is back as User_talk:Laensomor. Same behavior as before. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Anglo-centric word view

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)

If you think you see a POV its not ok to POVPUSH the other way. Claims in Wikipedia need to be supported by reliable sources that specifically make that claim. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:34, 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: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=No_true_Scotsman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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)

False statements about American AC usage

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)

Lots of companies were building "AC" systems early on, it was a great way to power arc lights. But we are talking about transformer systems, not arc lighting. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking about transformers and Ac generators. You forget that Ganz Works built closed core Transformers with parallel power distribution sheme since 1884, two years before the establishment of Westinghouse electric.--Pharaph (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to learn about that: Ganz already built a bigger system in 1885 than Great Barrington in 1886, with more lamps more power (KW) and more Transformer. https://www.google.hu/books/edition/Telegraphic_Journal_and_Monthly_Illustra/ufA2AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ganz+company+transformer&pg=PA534&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about deployment, not built, and reliable sources already establish that for us. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It is relaiable source like the other suorces. In this case, you commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It seems you can't lose debates, you are affraid to lose your face. You don't have to take this thing so seriously, you don't have to get bogged down. There are cases where one loses the argument. You have to bear this kind of things like a grown-up serious person.--Pharaph (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, the first known demonstration of Transformers even in America was made by Ganz Company Transformers in an exhibition organized ny Edison and Swan company in September 1885. The editor of electrician Electrician Page: 375: https://www.google.hu/books/edition/The_Electrical_Journal/_NpQAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ganz+transformer+incandescent&pg=PA375&printsec=frontcover

Page: 375: "On distribution of electricity by secondary Generator"

This is why Where American war of the Currents started in the American newspapers in 1885 September, long before T.A. Edison started its campaign against AC. This is the very first, the earliest case.--Pharaph (talk) 16:54, 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)

Nothing to do with it? That was the first case when an Edison employe started to blame AC in the press, because he considered it too dangerous. That idea/blame (exactly the very same idea) was later re-used against AC in the war of the currents, when Westinghouse AC appeared on the American market!--Pharaph (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You could always start with interpretation of primary source material. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:34, 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)

Again: read interpretation of primary source material, namely a book from 1892, and how it requires a reliable secondary source for any interpretation. such as that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove the contetnt in War of currents article?

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)

The edits were reverted because they were not an improvement. We have:

"Westinghouse became aware of the new European transformer based AC systems in 1885 when he read about them in the UK technical journal Engineering."'

We don't need a redundant:

"Building on the advancement of AC technology in Europe,"

"George Westinghouse founded the Westinghouse Electric in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on January 8, 1886"

does not come before:

"Westinghouse purchased the US patents rights to the Gaulard-Gibbs" (1885)

and:

"William Stanley used the Gaulard-Gibbs design and designs from the ZBD Transformer to develop the first practical transformer." (also 1885)

You also seem to be making the same WP:POVPUSH you have been making in other articles via removing "installed the first multiple-voltage AC power system"

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:10, 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:

https://www.google.hu/books/edition/Creating_the_Twentieth_Century/h78TDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ganz+installation+transformer+1885&pg=PA71&printsec=frontcover

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 source is not contradictory to other historical views. Author notes transformers went through "gradual improvements" and makes no direct statement on first practical usage. Other sources seem to think Great Barrington is that first practical usage re:efficiency vs price vs a practical deployable system. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:18, 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

https://www.google.hu/books/edition/Scientific_American/vobfAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=ganz+1885+%221067+incandescent%22&dq=ganz+1885+%221067+incandescent%22&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.hu/books/edition/The_Hungarian_Economy/l5GFAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=ganz+1067+bulbs&dq=ganz+1067+bulbs&printsec=frontcover

--Pharaph (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)