User talk:Barek/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Notice: This page is an archive of past discussions from User talk:Barek
Please do not edit the contents of this page.If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- My talk page archives - |
|
Archive 1 |
Edit Conflict re: Guild Wars Nightfall
lol u cut off my update lol.... had ta redo it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midnight08 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 July 2006.
Hi
Hi Barek,
It is great to see someone from guildwiki taking an active interest in one of the wikipedia pages. :)
You might be interested in participating in a discussion about the deletion of some of the Guild Wars wikipedia articles: Here. As a contributor to both sites, and quite a notable one at guildwiki, I believe your point of view could be valuable.
--Aspectacle 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me in that direction, I'll add it to my watch list. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Guild Wars character list
Hi. As you seem to be one of the sysops on GuildWiki, perhaps you would be interested in the merge project I have initiated: User:Kaustuv/List of Guild Wars characters. I know you voted to delete these pages, but I think the AfD is heading towards a merge consensus on the character pages at least, and there is some precedent for this sort of page per WP:FICT. Perhaps this can be an agreeable compromise. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
lol
You're on here too? and on the same screen name! Anyways, just here to say hi n_n Lightblade 08:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hello! Good to see another familiar name around here! :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
<<pokes head in.>> JediRogue 22:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rawr, hi Barek. --Lemming64 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
/congrats
Hey Barek, just learned about your wedding from your GWW user-page. Felicitations to you and your fiancée! Eric Sandholm 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! Still several month until the actual wedding, would be simpler (and less expensive) for the two of us to just run of to Las Vegas for a private ceremony! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ships Infobox
Yeah, I'm a bit puzzled about that. There is that depreciated tag at the top but turn to the talk page and you find that the first section is Deprecated (including the strike) and the second is NOT DEPRECATED (all caps). The reason given was WP:AUM but go there and you find "This proposal has been rejected by the community." In section two we read that the problem has been addressed and the template's talk page continues as a normal template talk page would without mention of depreciation. I've also noticed a number of quite recent tranclusions of the template. So is it really depreciated? I don't know. If it is, I suppose I'll go and add to the new version. --Jɪmp 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Colon prefix: thanks
Barek, thanks for your answer on Jimp’s talk page. The colon prefix for image links was something I didn’t know about and was precisely the little trick I’ve long needed. Greg L (my talk) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject Ships
Hello Barek, and welcome to WikiProject Ships!
Please see the navigation sidebar on our main project page for information about our project guidelines, resources, and pending tasks. You can post any questions at the project talk page. Thank you for joining - we look forward to working with you! Maralia (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
---|
WikiProject Ships Barnstar
WikiProject Ships Barnstar | ||
For your tireless, well-made, active and generally brilliant contributions to various commercial ship articles, as well as related material such as the ship infobox. Keep up the great work! -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
An invitation
Interested in helping me with an historical ocean liner project that will eventually encompass quite a few new articles? See User:Maralia/Collins headquarters for an idea of scope. User:Benea has kindly agreed to help me with my first focus, the User:Maralia/SS Arctic, but as you can see, there are a lot of related articles—only two of the articles in that template even exist outside of my userspace. Would you be interested in working on the shipyard, the architect (who is very famous, having also designed America (yacht)), or perhaps one of the other Collins ships? Maralia (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like a good mini-project; although it goes further back than my real area of interest. Still, I should have time to take a closer look later this week to figure out where I can help. BTW: if you haven't already, you may also want to contact Kjet. Take a look at Kjet's work on the Home Lines article for an example of his efforts in taking that article from a bare-bones stub up to being a fully referenced article. Granted, Homes Lines ran 1946-1988, so again not as far back as your current project; but still a good example of Kjet's abilities. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since I happen to have your userpage on my watchlist... First of all, thanks for the compliment on Home Lines (that was an extremely fun article to do, actually). I would definately be interested in helping out with this project, Collins Line is a fascinating part of the history of transatlantic trade. Also, I've got two or three books in my collection that have at least some information on Collis Line and their vessels that aren't mentioned in the current list of sources - I could look through them to see if there is anything actually worthwhile in those. So if my contributions are welcome, I'd be more than interested. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay Barek—just let me know if you see any parts of it you'd like to take on.
- RE Kjet: of course you are more than welcome to join in! You were one of the first people I considered, actually, as one of our few civilian ship folks, but I wasn't sure what era you were most interested in, and your listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Participants led me to believe you were a modern ships kind of a guy. (Then again, now that I look at my listing there, it still says 'Mainly focused on shipwrecks', so I guess I should know better than to rely on those.) I'm so pleased to be wrong :) Would you mind enabling your email long enough to send me a note? I'd like to coordinate a little real-time chat at some point soonish. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- FYI: With my available time, I'm working on updating, expanding, and rewriting several of the articles related to the Washington State Ferry system (I came accross them while working to update their infobox templates). So I won't be contributing much to User:Maralia/Collins headquarters until the WSF articles are completed - or at least improved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since I happen to have your userpage on my watchlist... First of all, thanks for the compliment on Home Lines (that was an extremely fun article to do, actually). I would definately be interested in helping out with this project, Collins Line is a fascinating part of the history of transatlantic trade. Also, I've got two or three books in my collection that have at least some information on Collis Line and their vessels that aren't mentioned in the current list of sources - I could look through them to see if there is anything actually worthwhile in those. So if my contributions are welcome, I'd be more than interested. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Barek, thanks for taking the time on No. 1 (yacht), i think the assesment template also goes for the Category:Hydrogen ships. Cheers.Mion (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Question, about that template, how is it ment to go, lets say, i make the article, so i can put the template as well, like a category putting it into the scope of the project, or does it work the other way around, do people from the project prefer to select the articles within the scope ? Mion (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm relatively new to the project, but I believe that anyone can add an appropriate article. You can check at WT:SHIPS if you want to verify. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, lets hear what they say Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment. Cheers Mion (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm relatively new to the project, but I believe that anyone can add an appropriate article. You can check at WT:SHIPS if you want to verify. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
M/V Walla Walla
Hey, thanks for jumping on that so fast! Murderbike (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - I had that one on my watch list, and have been intending to add ref tags to it for a while now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ship infobox
I stole the format from somebody else on the ship navbox, I think it was here: Moyie (sternwheeler). Someday I'm hoping to get the company flags or logos instead.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ferryboat Santa Rosa
Could you actually write something here? Basketball110 the pages I've messed up completely 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- In the process ... I have a couple paragraphs I'll be posting in a few minutes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
re:MV v M/V
Hello. Yes, I'm planning on moving the rest of the WSF fleet, but not tonight. It's a little after midnight here, and I'm getting rather tired. I'll likely start working through them in the morning. Yeah, I had noticed the problem when I created a pair of articles earlier today about a couple of M/Vs, and then stumbled upon the Rhododendron when I was looking through the unassessed importance backlog. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had noticed some of them had been moved. There's a handful of them left on the WSF template that still need to be moved; I'm in the process of finishing them. I've been taking care of redirects as I've been going as well. Before long, we'll have them all done. Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the articles related to the WSF have all been moved. If you're interested in fixing more of these articles, not just those affiliated with the WSF, there are quite a few of them, which you can see here, here, and here. I'll start working on them later today. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
More M/V
Thanks for letting me know about those others. I don't have much time to get to it now, but perhaps later on in the evening I'll start working through them. How far have you gotten through the list? I might just start at the end, and work my way forwards, and we'll meet in the middle I suppose. Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've tagged all the M/V articles as part of WP:SHIPS. I've barely touched the M/S articles, and need to stop for a real-world break for a while now.
- From the M/V articles, I noticed that M/V New Flame is flagged as a "GA" class article by multiple projects. So when that one is moved (or maybe even before it is done) a notice should be left on the article's talk page. Members of the other projects may want to discuss it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ship articles without infoboxes
I noticed that you are tagging some of these articles with {{newinfobox}}. The proper tag is {{Ship infobox request}}. There are two seperate categories that correspond to these templates: Category:Ship articles without infoboxes, and Category:Ship articles needing infobox conversion. -MBK004 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - I knew there was a better template, but I couldn't recall the correct one, so I went with the one I know. Sorry about the added work to correct it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Asia (band)
Thanks for your work on this -- I know it's frustrating. I just checked my watchlist and saw I'd missed your firefight.
I went ahead and blacklisted the new variant of the asiafanclub link --that may calm things down a bit, I hope:
This one has a lot of disruptive history:
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mondrago
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366
- Talk:Asia (band)
Thanks again, --A. B. (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
blacklist of asiafanclub.com
Can you please remove asiafanclub.com from the blacklist, no one has respponded to the reasons put forth why it should not be reinstated! Thank you so much! Asia Pres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.219 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a sysop on this wiki (I have been on other, lesser wikis, but not this one) - so I don't have the authority or access to remove blacklisted sites. I'm merely an additional voice of support for re-adding it. Per WP:SBL, the page can only be edited by admins, based on requests submitted to WP:SBL#Proposed_removals. There's an existing posting on in that space. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note, while I support re-adding the one link (I haven't looked at the others being discussed), I must say that past behavior will likely make it impossible. Between the violations of WP:3RR, WP:COI, the use of multiple IPs, and the use of WP:POINTy edits to try to bypass the block with alternate URLs, the issue has grown far beyond just the merits of the link itself. If that behavior makes it impossible to re-add the link directly, then the only options will be to ask the official site to link from them to the fan site; or to create a {{dmoz}} directory and link to that. However, at this point, even dmoz may be viewed by some as an attempt to undermine prior blocks.
- As I said when I first landed at that article, I have no strong opinions on it. I only edited originally to deal with the 3RR, COI, and lacking consensus issues. As a result, I likely won't be contributing further on the discussion - it's simply not an area where I wish to focus my editing efforts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Given your past involvement, you may be interested in contributing to the new discussion at Talk:Asia (band)#Proposal to re-insert certain external links. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just looked, and I don't see a discussion taking place - but what I do see appears to me to be a violation of WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Given your past involvement, you may be interested in contributing to the new discussion at Talk:Asia (band)#Proposal to re-insert certain external links. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
To Barek. Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam/COI and other nonsense Hu12 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
- Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
FreeLife at WP:COIN
Hello Barek. Thanks for your recent cleanup work on this article, to make it less promotional. Since one of the other editors was recently blocked for 3RR, I thought it was worth reopening the previous COI complaint; see WP:COIN#FreeLife. You are welcome to add your own thoughts to that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Murdo MacDonald-Bayne
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to add an opinion about the external links on this article's talk page. -- SiobhanHansa 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point
Your comment on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cschiffner is important. Thanks Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Commerical Postings Regarding ZAP (motor company)
Thank you for your guidance. I have posted a comment on the matter on Talk:Plug-in hybrid in response to input from you and others. Mea culpa. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, this anon editor now seems to be adding a Wikilink to the ZAP (motor company) site on many, many articles, some of which have nothing to do with ZAP. For instance, he/she posted a link to the ZAP page on in the Supercapacitors page, even though the ZAP (motor company) article mentions neither capacitors nor supercapacitors. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to heavy metal fashion. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
I am going to assume good faith on this one. I really don't understand why you made that edit. You voted delete on the AfD discussion and said the article was full of original research (which it is) and yet you went back to the article and removed the AfD template (when it is not yet resolved) and added back in to the article more original research. I have no idea what to make of it. I can only assume it was an accident because it makes no sense to me at all. You want the page deleted, yet you removed the AfD template and added in more bad information. I'm totally confused. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Replied at User_talk:Navnløs#Re:_my_edit_to_Heavy_metal_fashion (short summary: erroneous edit on my part). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for responding and explaining. It's all good, we all make mistakes. Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
video game addiction
Thank you, did not realize that there was an article on video game addiction!!!Mysteryquest (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Celebrity name changes
About this... not that I'd be doubt you, but my (admittedly quite cursory) search into this could not find any information that any Celebrity Cruises ship (apart from Infinity and Constellation) would have been renamed with a "Celebrity" prefix. I know their own website has a prefix for all ships, but that's not nescessarily a reliable source as company websites are known to use a prefix even if the registered name doesn't have one (Tallink for instance). So, yeah. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I realized after the changes that they may need changed back (I made them just before going to bed) - an anon had made a change on the Celebrity Cruises article. I did a quick search on the new names and came up with matches; but I admittedly didn't verify the quality of the sources, so the legal registered names may in fact remain without the prefixes, so my changes are quite possibly inaccurate. I need to leave for work in a few minutes; if you're available, could you verify and move them back where needed? Sorry about the extra effort to fix. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had some time to search on this, but I'm having difficulty sorting these out because of so much conflicting information - I can't be certain if the non-prefixed names are outdated material, or if the sources showing the prefix are just mirroring technically incorrect data from the cruise line. If you have some reliable sources that you recommend, I'll take a look at those too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the sites that I normally rely on have the same problem. I guess the only way to be absolutely certain would be to check the websites of the classification societies for each ship to see which name they're classified under. If the relevant classification societies offer the information for free. The Complete Guide to Cruising etc lists the classification society for each ship, so I can check those when I get home. Failing that, another potential source would be the visited ships -lists of various ports, which should also use the correct registered names. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seems that all Celebrity ships are registered at Lloyd's, which will do us no good as you have to pay to access their register. The visited ships list for at least the Port of Helsinki proved equally useless, as they referred to the Constellation without a prefix, and that's one two that have been renamed according to a reliable source. As it seems we can't think of a reliable source (and I'm at the end of my resources here) I guess the sensible approach would be to keep them under the prefixed names at least for the time being, as they are the names the company itself refers to them. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the sites that I normally rely on have the same problem. I guess the only way to be absolutely certain would be to check the websites of the classification societies for each ship to see which name they're classified under. If the relevant classification societies offer the information for free. The Complete Guide to Cruising etc lists the classification society for each ship, so I can check those when I get home. Failing that, another potential source would be the visited ships -lists of various ports, which should also use the correct registered names. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had some time to search on this, but I'm having difficulty sorting these out because of so much conflicting information - I can't be certain if the non-prefixed names are outdated material, or if the sources showing the prefix are just mirroring technically incorrect data from the cruise line. If you have some reliable sources that you recommend, I'll take a look at those too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Charity Island Light
Sorry. I did not mean to screw up the order on the article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
-
- I'm done. Have at it.
- I've gotten over my anger, although I still really do need to cut down on the editing. Although I'm now trapped at O'Hare Airport, and don't hqve much productive to do with my time.
- FWIW, I am not the enemy. And I wasn't by any stretch "spamming" anything.
- In any event, if you want to 'butt in' to editing lighthouse articles, be my guest. Most of the articles that exist are crap, and barely rate being a "stub". As a point of information, I do have a lot of knowledge about the on line sources, and typically try to put them in to the External Links. It is my hope that subsequent editors will look at those, and convert them (as you did, thank you) into text with references following them. Obviously, you and I share that goal.
- As a point of information, I've been working in this little corner of the world on a bunch of articles, most of which nobody cares about. The beauty of this is that I don't have have to deal with editing conflicts. While it isn't 'my garden' (I don't claim to own it, and recognize that others will come and edit (and hopefully improve) the articles, it is basically off the beaten path.
- Being tag-teamed, attacked and barred by you and HU12 was a real rude awakening. FWIW, I think you used a shotgun to kill a flea. And you did it without a rule, and without any sensitivity to the nuances of your positions, and the responsibilities that are attendant thereto.
- Now that I've gotten over my sulk, your constructive assistance is most welcome.
- Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
- FWIW, the Terry Pepper articleds are generally so exquisitely good, thawt burying him in a footnote instead of an external link might not be doing the readers a favor. Even though he has pretty much given up editing his website (he got related work, and has now help), the material he put goether was simply outstanding in its level of thoroughness and scholarship. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
-
-
-
- While I understand your position in the disagreement, and while I partially agree with you on some issues and disagree with you on many others in that incident, I would rather just move on at this point. The only additional comment I will make is that Hu12 does have a much more hardline stance on issues than I, which resulted in his addressing more articles than I was direclty concerned about when I reported it to the WikiProject he monitors. In fact, my first introduction to Hu12 was an issue where he had removed a large number of links added by someone else, where at the time I disagreed with their removal. He's not a bad guy and has done a lot of good for Wikipedia, he just tends to see issues in stark black-and-white with no shades of grey in between, which is both a benefit in some instances and a challenge in others, depending on the issue.
- On the Terry Pepper articles, I agree they are quite good. I was reviewing WP:GTL##Standard appendices and descriptions, and it explicitly states that the external links section is for "websites that you recommend for readers of the article that have not been used as sources", so adding it will likely eventually result in their removal at some point by others. The further reading section only says "generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article", so the word "generally" may allow more lee-way to add it to that section. I'll add it back to that section later, or feel free to add it to that section yourself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Charlevoix South Pier Light Station
I put in the links. Now you can write the article. :} 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
- Heh, cross edit ... you posted while I was posting on your talk page.
- It's not one of the lights that I was intending to edit, but I'll take a look either tonight or tomorrow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Greetings:
- I wasn't just blowing smoke up your ass. You've shown me some flare and ability to write, and your assistance would be appreciated by me. There is a huge hole to fill. Not trying to dictate to you, but puling together the information from the sources that I've provided would be a tremendous contribution. In any event, it is an invitation, not a draft notice.
- I was just kidding about the "Greetings." No doubt your too young to recognize the introductory word from a draft notice.
7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
Marquette Harbor Light
If there is already an article, I'd be happy to help. If not, please start up the article and I'll add ot it. I'm about to get on that long-awaited plane, so I won't be able to get to it till the morning light. If you go to terrypepper.com and then look up the lighthouse you want, you'll have a really good start. The Clark Historical Library (Central Michigan University) has the website (heh-heh, isn't this ironic -- sorry, but I couldn't resist) that includes the chronology, list of resources (including books, manuscripts, etc.) They may have specific stuff on the Marquette Harbor Light. That will get you started. You also have to decide whether to call it the Marquette Light, Marquette Lighthouse, Marquette Light Station, etc., since there doesn't appear to be a Marquette Harbor Light article. See the discussion at the List of U.S. lighthouses. Have fun Sweet dreams. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
In any event, you know where to fine the link to the CMU lighthouse article. See for example Charity Island Light.
Oh, alright, here it is again
Take a quick look at this, which expressly references the light:
http://clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhtime1.htm
Clarke Historical Library - Sources Regarding the Lighthouses of ... Marquette, MI: Northern Michigan University Press, 1979. Penrose, Laurie. A Traveler's Guide to Eastern Great Lakes Lighthouses. ... clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhsour1.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Clarke Historical Library - A Light House Keeper's Life Granite Island (11 miles north of Marquette) Light constructed. .... Big Bay Point (24 miles northwest of Marquette) Light constructed. Sault Ste. ... clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhtime1.htm - 56k - Cached - Similar pages
7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
- The list of US lighthouses labelled it the Marquette Harbor Light, as did Terry Pepper, so I went with that name.
- I need to take a break for the night, so I'll work on expanding it on Thursday. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Barek:
- Thanks for starting that article. Nice start. I've got business this morning, but will try to get to it later in the day. ::7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
-
-
- Asher196:
- As you have done in the past, please help with this new article, Marquette Harbor Light which Barek has started. i will put in some more material by the end of the day. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
-
-
-
-
- Barek: I think that's most everything. Now it just needs text and a picture.7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
-
-
Asher 196 put in the picture. I hope your happy with the article. It would be nice to find a picture that showed the promontory. Unfortunately, I don't have one. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
- It looks good to me. I agree that a better picture would be prefered. I looked at the few I have at home, and they're just not good angles or just have the light in the background. I'll search on-line for another image that would exist in the public domain (no copyright issues). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Having watched the struggles of some of our contributors with copyright issues, all I can say is "good luck." Even if it is in the public domain, trying to convince the Wikipolice can be problematical, at best. Next time I get up to Marquette, I'd be pleased to put this on my 'to do' list, but it's so far away that there is no way I'll make a special trip. I do have some guests who are coming by in July (I think) and would be passing through their on their way to Minnesota. I think that they are intending to go through Pictured Rocks, so it might be possible for me to recruit them. Of course, the best shots are in the magic hours (sunrise, sunset), and it's unlikely that they'll have their schedule organized around that. Anyway, I'll give it some thought. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
-
-
- Nice pic. It complements Asher196's really well. Good job! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
-
-
-
-
- There actually was some material on the light house at the Clarke Historical Library. Take a look at the links in the discussion page. You may have to do a search of the library using the correct verbiage. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stam
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I got lucky that the Wikimedia Commons had a good image that was in the public domain.
- I couldn't find a mention of if WP:LHOUSES had a preference for a close-up or a broader image in the infobox, so I placed the new one in the infobox. If you or someone else prefer the other, go ahead and change it. I like having both in the article, just no personal preference on which goes where. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
FYI: The link to the Clarke Historical Library is still in the Further reading section, just reformatted to match standard wiki formatting. Double check, if that's not the link you were talking about, I may have misunderstood. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are obviously more schooled on wiki-format than I. I put in some new text. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
-
- Will you do the honors on the lifesaving part? FWIW, Wiki needs (if it doesn't already have it) an article on the lifesaving service. There was a tendency to put these stations in some of the worst and most treacherous places (see Sturgeon Point Light Station for example, and they were out there really saving lives from floundering ships. In the 1870s (or thereabouts) there were like 220 lives lost in shipping accidents, and Congress put a big move on for lights on the Great Lakes and the life saving stations. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
-
-
- Barek:
- Zero to Start in 3 days. Not too shabby. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
-
Marquette County, Michigan
Barek: FYI, I put the specific page of the Clarke Historical Library for each county in each of the entries of the 83 Michigan counties. So you can certainly adjust away, but they're already there. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
- Yup, I found it already over there when I went to move it. All I ended up changing on that one was the section header. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Huron Lightship
They say the infobox on this page is substandard. I thought you might be the one to correct that. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- It looks like Asher got to it before me. I removed the outdated infobox notice from the talk page, since it's already updated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
Crisp Point Light
Needs an infobox. Needs more info on the light itself. Terry Pepper has it. ----Stan
Eagle Harbor Light and Cheboygan Crib Light
Needs a better infobox. Thanks if you can find the time. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
Round Island Light (Michigan)
Needs more info, better info box. Maybe you can beat Asher196 to it. Best. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
External Links
We are new to Wikipedia--and did not thoroughly study your external link guidelines--we will stop posting external links for now. I was led to post external links after seeing "Buck Owens" page which has had an external link to Rhino Entertainment (e.g. commercial site selling Buck Owens music product). How is Rhino Entertainment different than us? Why has their external link remained for weeks? We are not spammers--just ignorant of the rules. BestCamuco (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Camuco
- No problem. Thanks for pointing out the Rhino link, which I've removed from the Buck Owens article. These links aren't always found quickly - but they do get removed once verified to be commercial links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
A neutral non-COI WSEAS draft?
Hi Barek,
MER-C suggested I write a new WSEAS article, and I'm happy to give it a go, but I'd like access to the old versions (now nuked). Also, I am a newbie, this will be my second article, and I'd appreciate a hint on how you do this in userspace. Thanks,
StaySeven (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Access to deleted versions will require an admin to assist (sorry, I'm not an admin). I'm not sure the best place to request it, but you could try WP:AN.
- For creating a draft in your user space, you create a subpage to your userpage. For example: User:StaySeven/sandbox or User:StaySeven/draft, or anything you want after the "/" will be in your user space.
- Let me know if there's anything else that you need, and I'll try to help or at least try to point you to someone who can help. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Help with the ASIA situation
Barek,
- Can you please help out with the fanclub situation? No one is going to correct that even though they know the case I presented is right, evidence being I presented & case that the official my space link that was wrongly removed by the same IP address that removed my link should be reinstated, that was the right thing to do, did they run to do that after that case was presented after it was wrongly removed? No Shubopshadangalang re-added the official myspace link. We just touched on that over at the talk page. But he can't do so with mine because of the blacklist. Can you please get in touch with a few administrators and have them read the case I presented on Sunday so they can remove it from the blacklist, sir, I would really appreciate it. I'm inexperienced here at wiki and they'll ban me if I request something the wrong way, please help. Sincerely70.188.184.84 (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)AP
- I'm not an admin, and don't have many admin contacts. Besides which, going directly to the contacts I do have would be outside of wiki procedures.
- The official way to request removal from the blacklist can be reached from WP:BLACKLIST, follow the instructions and links for "proposed removals". That's really the only advice I know to offer on how to try getting it removed.
- When requesting, be sure to keep it simple and to the point - leave out complaints against the admins who listed it, only focus on the merits of the link and explain why under policy you feel it should be removed from the blacklist. Take a look at some of the other proposed removals to get a feel for how much information they provide. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just to let you know I requested that the club be removed from the blacklist as you stated and my request was deleted... see the history here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&action=history
My ip is 70.188.184.84, hu12 & AB was there in a heartbeat so no one can else can see it!70.188.184.84 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)AP Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asia_%28band%29"
- Can you help?70.188.184.84 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)AP
- I'm surprised and a little disappointed that they deleted it outright rather than replying. It's the first time you had made a formal request through the normal un-blacklisting procedure, so if they were going to refuse it, I would have expected that they at least marked it "declined" for the first time requested via the official process. However, further re-adding of the request to that page will simply serve to provide evidence to support the delete reason of "trolling".
- I'm honestly not sure what next steps are available. I would suggest taking a look at WP:dispute resolution, and see if it can provide suggestions for a next step, if any. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's the same two guys hu12 & AB, the same ones that were against me all along, they delete every request I make for a neutral opinion!70.188.184.84 (talk)AP —Preceding comment was added at 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- FYI: While I agree that they needed to respond to your official request rather than deleting it; the continually arguing of the issue after it was declined is meeting the definition of disruption. I urge you to let it drop at this point, as you're likely facing a potential additional ban. It's important to remember that external links are permitted by policy, but not required and there's certainly no promise on Wikipedia's part to list external links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Barek, in regard to the Asia Fan Club issue, that may be a lost cause at this point, but in a larger sense, I'm concerned about the precedent this issue sets, as it seems administrators involved can't separate the idea of "punishing" the user from arguments surrounding the value of the link itself. If we're really building an encyclopedia here, we all need to be objective, especially the administrators, and I fear that this could lead down a dangerous road. Would you mind to chime on this issue? Thanks! --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the link, and haven't analyzed the arguments closely on either side of it. From what I did see from my brief review of the discussions, there's mixed information out there about if APs site is even official or not. The only thing that will convince the admins at this stage that APs site is trully official is going to be for originalasia.com to post a list of official fansites.
- The issues about the user and the link are very closely related, and interpreting them that way isn't a change from past practice so no new precedent. As I mentioned above to AP, please remember that external links are permitted by policy, but not mandated or guaranteed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Warren, Michigan gangs
Barek: Please take a look at the talk page, discussion about gangs. The April 10 revert of the main article that I am concerned about is: XLinkBot (Talk | contribs) (16,570 bytes) (BOT--Reverting edits by 68.62.59.23 to revision 202239188 (\bmyspace\.com)) A strange entry indeed. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- I think the problem is that external links and refs to myspace are usually not permitted, unless it's an "official" page (such as an official fansite maintained by a celebrity or by someone appointed by the celebrity). Without the myspace link, the entry becomes unsourced and not-verifiable, so I agree with the bot that removed it. As "gangs" can be viewed as a defamatory item, it should only be included if a reliable source can be provided (such as a notable news organization or other similar quality source). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: even if a reliable source can be provided, I think it should go under a broader category of "crime" and not mention specific gangs by name, no need to help them advertise/recruit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Barek: I agree with you on everything you say. But it wasn't removed. It's there. It's ungrammatical. It's unreliable, and it has a stupid myspace source. The history of what is in that article and how it got there is kind of convoluted, so maybe I'm confused. But the offending text is there. At least it offends me. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
- Look again, I re-removed it after I posted my reply above, so it's gone now. ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right on! I thought it was the equivalent of spray paint on a wall. Bad business that. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
- Look again, I re-removed it after I posted my reply above, so it's gone now. ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Giddy Up a Ding Dong
Hi Barek. Thanks for cleaning up the references on the Giddy Up a Ding Dong page. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk:List of tall ships
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
Elijah McCoy
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
Manistee Light
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
American Museum of Magic
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
Steel Electric class ferry
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)
Lewis lamp
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) |
F3 Class
Left a msg for you on my talk page. --OneCyclone (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)