text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Howabout1 2

Howabout1
[ Vote here] Final vote (9/5/3) ended 18:01 July 22, 2005 Original ending 03:55 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I am eager for adminship and feel I have met the requirements said on my last RfA. I strongly suggest you read the above link. I have doubled my edits since last time (I have 1,300 see Here for specifics). I think I would be a very active admin and make wikipedia a better place. I actually do few article edits, so all the more reason to aid me in my use of wikipedia. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC) '''Due to opposition and the fact that I am indeed too eager to become an admin, I withdraw this self-nom. I still hope to become an admin, so by no means take this as me losing interest. Howabout1 Talk to me! 18:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)''' Support
 * 1) You have my vote -- Michael Dobrowski User:Mdob
 * 2) My interactions with Howabout1 have been wholly positive. He has a keen interest in admin duties, as exemplified by his answers below. I trust him. (For those opposed because this is his second self-nomination, I will only point out that he did wait the customary month.) -- Hadal 05:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 11:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support good job with RC patrol. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 14:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Sango  123  17:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Borderline Support. I was close to voting neutral on this one.  However, the friendliness shown to newcomers is a very good quality in an admin.  I believe that you will use the admin powers wisely.  -- JamesTeterenko 04:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support.  Grue   09:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I opposed last time due to lack of experience, but I see Howabout1 has continued making good contributions, and I feel that he will make a good administrator now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Now that my RfA is over, and I haven't seen any evidence of serial killer tendencies, I say, give him the mop. -- Essjay ·  Talk 15:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I apologize, but with an edit count less than 2000, only six months contributing, and the fact that I have never seen you before, I cannot really support you.  Denelson83  06:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I should probably oppose. You seem to be a well-intentioned, nice user, who's used the User talk namespace quite well, and has done a nice job welcoming the newcomers.  However, I noticed you reverted Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 7 times in a 24-minute period two days ago; WP:3RR says to not revert one article more than 3 times in a 24-hour period.  I think you have good potential for us, but you need to understand policies better in order to become an admin.  I'd suggest waiting a bit longer (sorry about that, I know this is your second nomination and everything...) for an existing admin to do the honors on nominating, rather than getting stressed with self-noms not turning out. --Idont Havaname 07:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see seven vandalism reverts in 24 minutes as a bad thing. --Carnildo 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See the comments section; I misunderstood 3RR and am switching my vote to neutral. --Idont Havaname 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, no. This is not particularly about your dispute with me over your proposal for disruptive users. I simply think you lack the maturity to be an admin. Grace Note 00:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) This editor is trying too hard to become an admin. Will support if not a self-nom.  Kelly Martin 12:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I'm going to vote neutral for the moment; I've definatley seen Howabout1  around doing good work, but I'd like to see what may come up in the course of voting. Provided he doesn't have a history of high crimes and misdemeanors, I'll change to support before the end of the week. -- Essjay ·   Talk 17:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I was opposed but will probably go with neutral now. I'd suggest using more substantial edit summaries; sorry for my comment about the 7 reverts; I didn't look at the diff and just assumed that "rv" as the entire edit summary meant a revert that the 3RR applies to - that's a case in point about edit summaries being confusing. :-)  As I said in my oppose vote, I'm generally against self-nomination anyway, particularly multiple ones.  I wouldn't mind having you be an admin in the future after you've used better edit summaries for a few months.  I'd prefer that you get a nomination from a different user in the future if this one doesn't go through, though, so that it doesn't seem like you're knocking on the door asking, "Can I be an admin now?". --Idont Havaname 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I am neutral becuase I think the user would be a good admin, but dont know him/her well enough and haven't seen all but one conflict resolution. I would prefer to wait and see after several major projects to the editors name and some cool resolutions to the most diffcult vandal-troll-sockpuppet users.  Other than that, I think the user is a great person.  Just not everyone can be an admin.  I, myself, would never dare try and do it. -Husnock 02:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I supported his previous RFA out of encouragement for his sheer enthousiasm, which I believe is a very important quality. However, I do think that two self-noms in so short a span of time make him a bit overeager. I believe Howabout should keep up his good work and wait for someone else to nominate him (as will undoubtedly happen) and I will certainly support then. Radiant_ >|< 12:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Responce to Idonthaveaname If you look at the diffs, that was all vandalism. Almost every revert was reverting a different IP. I put the test2 template on most of their talks. And the 3RR says "The three revert rule is not generally considered to apply to reversions of simple vandalism by users who are waiting for a sysop to block the IP, of course." So will that possibly change your vote? Howabout1 Talk to me! 14:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * For anyone interested, the diffs are:, , , , , , . I count six reverts of clear vandalism, plus one revert to fix a minor edit that violated the Manual of Style.  Looking at Howabout1's contributions, he also warned several anon IP's not to do it again by using the Test2 template.  I'd say there's no 3RR problem at all (3RR doesn't apply to fixing simple vandalism), and he was just doing sound RC patrolling.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
 * Ok, I stand corrected; I misunderstood the policy and didn't look at the diff. I'll switch to neutral (mainly because the edit summaries confused me). --Idont Havaname 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Grace Note has archived her talk page; part of the discussion with Howabout1 (under Question 3 below) is in the history here. (The remainder is still on Howabout1's talk page.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, I went through all the edits, and it was a clear case of fighting vandalism. Only suggest using better edit summaries to avoid this in the future. Do not think, with the current reasoning, that this should be counted as an oppose vote.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  19:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A.Just about every sysop chore imaginable. I intend to clean out CSD and VfD. I would block vandals, I'm not afraid to. I would also love rollback to help reverting. And to top it all off, I am the founder of a wikicity and have sysop powers there, so I am familiar with them (just not blocking, I'm the only editor except for one edit by an anon.).
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.I'm very pleased with Christian Children's Fund, an article I brought up from a stub. But, as I said, I don't write much, so nothing else.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. See Disruptive user and User talk: Grace Note. Also, Votes for deletion/List of songs played at dances for two half-conflicts.


text:
Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada

Switched affiliation?
Article needs to elaborate a little because as of now it is confusing. On one hand, it says it was created by Greek Catholics. On the other hand it has "ties" with UAOC and operates under the Patriarch of Constantinople. There either is a factual error, or there was an important transition, that's ommitted. Anyone knows the story? --Irpen 03:56, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is my very basic understanding, but I don't know much of the details. Remember that Ukrainian Orthodox and Uniate rites are pretty similar or the same; the differences are mainly political.  Priests have moved from one to the other, and there have been at times several congregations in Canada that did not officially belong to any of the church bodies, or that were subordinate to non-Ukrainian churches, especially in the early 20th century.   I believe the UAOC was established with support from Canadian clergy.  On the other hand, as a member of the Constantinople diocese, the UOCC must now recognize the Russian Orthodox Church, and I believe this has recently caused friction, or at least a lack of communion with the two Orthodox churches in Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 2005-07-18 04:06 Z

 * There must be something else too. The liturgy is similar, so both churches may look close enough for the lay people. Political differences are of course huge but this may've been less important for Ukrainians in remote areas of Canada, who felt united as Ukrainians first of all, than for Ukrainians in Ukraine, who felt divided by what they viewed as "schism" or forced conversions in either direction. But there are also doctrinal differences which may not be unimportant for clergy. I think we should look into this and edit the article once we find out. --Irpen 04:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've only absorbed all this from a few anecdotes related by a historian friend. The early history of the churches in Canada is quite chaotic and interesting.  An example, although I'm probably getting some details wrong: in Winnipeg there were two major Ukrainian Catholic churches across the street from each other.

 * The first urban congregation to build a church in Canada was St. Nicholas' Church in Winnipeg, in 1899. I believe at the time there was little or no official representation of the church from Ukraine here.  The congregation had been operating in the Holy Ghost Polish catholic church, but was essentially kicked out by a new parish priest who had no tolerance for the Ukrainians, so they established their own church (St Nicholas') on McGregor Avenue.  In 1904, they built a new stone church across the street with the support of the local Roman Catholic diocese of Bishop Langévin (There is a large local French-Canadian community, mostly Catholic), abandoning the original building.  The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA sends a Basilian priest to Winnipeg, who takes over the leadership of this parish.

 * In the mean time, another Ukrainian Catholic priest shows up in Canada, who finds that there are enough faithful in the neighbourhood who don't trust the Roman Catholic-influenced Basilians to take over the old St. Nicholas' church building and establishes the church of Sts Vladimir & Olga, across the street. This church has no canonical standing.  It is at least party staffed by clergy without official status, many of whom came to Canada as a result of scandal, and when Bishop Budka visits from Ukraine, he performs services at St. Nicholas and even Holy Ghost, but doesn't set foot in St. V & O.

 * Eventually everything gets sorted out, and now the cathedral of Sts Volodymyr & Olha is the seat of Ukrainian Catholicism in Canada (known affectionately by some as Saint Wally & Olly's). A newer St. Nicholas' and associated monastery is about 20 blocks north of the original location, but its old bell tower still stands across the street from the large cathedral, built over the foundations of the little wooden church. —Michael Z. 2005-07-18 05:08 Z

That above is an interesting story. We should find an article for it :). As for this one, I updated it using http://www.uocc.ca/yesterday1.html site. Info from there is sufficient to further expansion of course, but that will happen eventually. The main thing is that the core confusion is now resolved. Cheers, --Irpen 05:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyway, the church never switched affiliation, because it was never properly affiliated with anyone...it's only affiliation has been the one to the Church of Constantinople.--Calak 01:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sobor" as name of building
How come the UOOC calls some of its' buildings "sobor"s? I though a sobor was a council (like a synod in the west). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1913 or 1918?
The article seems a little confused about the date of establishment. Which is it? StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 * The UOCC was founded at the First Sobor (Council/Synod) in 1918 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. For more information, note the history page on the UOCC's webpage. http://uocc.ca/en-ca/about/history/   Calak (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Unitrends

Unitrends Inc., a Kaseya company, is an American company specializing in backup and business continuity.

Products
Unitrends produces several physical appliances, ranging from small desktop backup appliances to large rack-mounted backup appliances. Unitrends also produces virtual appliances for VMware and Hyper-V marketed as Unitrends Backup. The physical appliances typically consist of some level of redundant components; most notably RAID in the form of RAID 1, RAID 6, and RAID 10. The larger appliances also have tiered flash storage in the form of SSD drives. These appliances perform either on-premises backup, off-premises disaster recovery, or through a technology known as cross-vaulting (a form of replication) an appliance may concurrently perform on-premises backup and off-premises disaster recovery. Unitrends also offers a multi-tenant public cloud-based service, Unitrends Cloud. The company states that Unitrends Cloud is based on its previous product offering using its backup appliances to perform off-premises disaster recovery in a single-tenant private cloud deployment methodology.

Technology
Unitrends uses file-and-image-based backup techniques coupled with storage-based and in-flight AES-256 encryption, compression, data deduplication, and ransomware detection. The technology supports Bare-Metal restore as well as file-based recovery. Unitrends supports a form of disk staging in what it terms D2D2x (Disk-to-Disk-to-Any) where “x” can be a disk, a tape, a private single-tenant cloud, or a public multi-tenant cloud. The company attempts to sell its support of storage, operating system, and application heterogeneity and claims that it supports over 250 versions of operating systems and applications.

History
Since its inception in 1989, Unitrends Software Corporation has developed backup and crash-recovery technology. Unitrends originated from a sole proprietorship called Med Flex, which was founded in 1985 by Steve W. Schwartz to help fund medical missions. The first product, CTAR (Compressing Tape Archiver), was originally developed to handle the backup problems Schwartz encountered in his own medical office. After making modifications to the program, it was sold commercially.

In 1988, Unitrends developed the first complete crash-recovery product for Santa Cruz Operation’s Xenix systems, originally called Jet RestorEase. Unitrends started as a standalone Unix backup software company and provided BareMetal recovery for platforms like the SCO offerings. BareMetal was later ported to SCO Unix and renamed System Crash Air-Bag. From 1988 to 1991, ten other software products were written for the Xenix and Unix environments, and in 1999, Unitrends released their Backup Professional client/server backup software. In September 2002, Unitrends shipped their first hardware-based backup appliance.

Initially based out of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, the company relocated its headquarters further inland to Columbia in November 2003, while support and development remained on the coast until 2005. In 2014, headquarters moved again to Burlington, Massachusetts. where it remains today.

Growth and acquisition
On October 31, 2013, Unitrends was acquired by Insight Venture Partners, a large global private equity and venture capital firm. Shortly after this acquisition, Unitrends obtained PHD Virtual on December 16, 2013. Unitrends acquired another company on May 29, 2014, taking over Australian-based Yuruware. On May 3, 2018, Unitrends merged with Kaseya.

title: Unitrends


text:
Talk:Chum

Chamber mate
The "friend" meaning of the slang word chum originates from the nickname for a "chamber mate" or room mate at a boarding school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianaliffick (talk • contribs) 23:56, July 17, 2005

Political context
"Campaigns traditionally give away items like t-shirts, lawn signs, and bumper stickers. But as far back as the primaries, the Obama campaign has charged for "chum," its official campaign merchandise."
 * The following is included to provide citation for use of the word "chum" in a political context, since references are not used on disambiguation pages:

- Diane Tucker and Dawn Teo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chorder (talk • contribs) 14:44, November 7, 2009
 * There is not an article, which is why it doesn't appear on the disambiguation page. The best place for this citation is on Wiktionary's entry for the word.

— Senator2029  ║  talk  22:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

chum evidently means 'friend'
Someone removed this definition, I've re-inserted it. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

chum (friend) is used in England but is largely archaic. I have edited the comment on "mate" to remove Australia, it's also widely British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.60 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chum


text:
Please Stay (Kylie Minogue song)

"Please Stay" is a song by Australian singer and songwriter Kylie Minogue for her seventh studio album, Light Years (2000). The song was written by Minogue, Richard Stannard, Julian Gallagher, and John Themis and was produced by Stannard and Gallagher. Festival Mushroom Records and Parlophone released the song as the fourth single from Light Years on 11 December 2000. "Please Stay" is a disco song with a strong Latin pop influence. The song received generally positive reviews from music critics.

Commercially, the song peaked at number 10 in the United Kingdom and number 15 in Minogue's native Australia, where it was certified gold by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), selling over 35,000 copies. An accompanying music video was shot for the single, directed by James Frost and Alex Smith. It featured Minogue abandoning a bedroom to visit a group of partygoers in an underground room. The song has been performed live by Minogue on her KylieFever2002 and Showgirl: The Greatest Hits Tour.

Background
"Please Stay" was written by Kylie Minogue, Richard Stannard, Julian Gallagher, and John Themis and was produced by Stannard and Gallagher. The song was chosen as the fourth single from Light Years. "Please Stay" is a disco song, which features a strong Latin-pop style.

Reception
Peter Robinson from NME praised the song for being a "breezy little number, much like Kylie herself." Dooyoo.co.uk also gave it a positive review, writing, "With a slight drift from the camp disco, 'Please Stay' indulges in a light, fast acoustic sound, backed up by a thumping beat and lauded by soothing, inviting vocals from Minogue...she draws you into it and makes you feel like you're strutting the romantic streets of Paris."

"Please Stay" saw moderate success worldwide. The song debuted at No. 15 in Minogue’s native Australia, but did not remain on the charts for long; however, the song was certified gold by the Australian Recording Industry of Australia (ARIA). The song debuted at No. 69 on the Dutch charts, but fell-out the next week at No. 77. The song debuted at No. 47 in Sweden, staying on the charts for three weeks. The song peaked at No. 10 on the UK Singles Chart (one of its higher positions), but did not go further; ”Please Stay” remained on the British charts for seven weeks.

Music video
A music video was shot by James Frost and Alex Smith. The clip opens with Minogue driving a car through the night, intercut with images of her lying on a round rotating bed whilst wearing a gold silk mini-dress with slashed sleeves. After the first chorus, Minogue gets up off the bed in order to pull on a candelabra, revealing the opening to a fireman's pole within the wall. Sliding down it, she comes out the other side into an underground room filled with partygoers, and her gold dress changed into an identical red one. Minogue commences a dance routine with the partygoers involving a pool table, until the clip fades out over images of a pinball machine featuring the "Light Years" album cover.

Live performances
Minogue performed a medley of "Spinning Around" and "Please Stay" on the Royal Variety Performance, which aired on 17 December 2000 by BBC One. She performed "Please Stay" on the KylieFever2002 tour, as part of the "In Your Eyes" medley which included the titular song and "Rhythm of the Night". It was included again on the setlist of her Showgirl: The Greatest Hits Tour in 2005 as part of the What Kylie Wants, Kylie Gets section. Minogue was unable to complete the tour as she was diagnosed with early breast cancer and had to cancel the Australian leg of the tour. The performance of the song was included in the Showgirl video album (2005).

Track listings
Australasian and UK CD1, UK cassette single
 * 1) "Please Stay"
 * 2) "Santa Baby"
 * 3) "Good Life"

Australasian and UK CD2
 * 1) "Please Stay"
 * 2) "Please Stay" (7th District Club Flava mix)
 * 3) "Please Stay" (Hatiras Dreamy dub)
 * 4) "Please Stay" (video)

European enhanced CD single
 * 1) "Please Stay"
 * 2) "Santa Baby"
 * 3) "Please Stay" (video)

UK 12-inch single
 * A1. "Please Stay" (7th District club dub)
 * B1. "Please Stay" (Hatiras Dreamy dub)
 * B2. "Please Stay" (7th District Club Flava mix)

Credits and personnel
Credits are lifted from the Light Years album booklet.

Studio
 * Recorded and mixed at Studio 2 (Dublin, Ireland)

Personnel

 * Kylie Minogue – writing, vocals
 * Richard Stannard – writing, production
 * Julian Gallagher – writing
 * John Themis – writing, guitars
 * Sharon Murphy – backing vocals
 * Ash Howes – recording, mixing
 * Alvin Sweeney – recording and mixing assistant
 * Dave McCracken – Pro Tools

title: Please Stay (Kylie Minogue song)


text:
Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive 3

Wiki formatting
Whosoever felt the need to reformat the entire page using brackets et cetera and generally incorrect wiki formatting and syntax (explicitly attempting to declare the TOC, using links such as 1 for citation notes (and then including the link in brackets, after a wiki-link to the article 1) should not have done so. Whoever you are (I can't find you in the edit summaries, nor do I care to), please stop translating the page into some kind of markup which does not belong to this server.  Every time it is done, some poor soul has to go through and put it back right.  Therefore, one should read about wiki markup, or maybe study some page source, before deciding that correct markup must be reformatted into garbage.  Falcon 02:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, that's simple. Consider this diff. It's a considerable alteration to the page by Gabrielsimon. As usual, Gabrielsimon provides no edit summary. He zaps all the Wiki formatting. (Could it be that he used his browser to save the article as text, and worked on that? Duh.) This removal of all formatting makes it next to impossible to see what other changes he's made. In the following edit (no summary), he attempts to restore the markup, but it's clear that he doesn't understand Wiki markup. (A brief glimmer of hope: can he have fixed the spelling of "percieve" [sic]? Nope, he's just removed it, and "beleive" [sic] shortly afterwards survives his eagle eye.) Oh, he's also removed the medical warning. In the next edit (again no edit summary), he's fixing some more. (Could it be that Gabrielsimon is unacquainted with the Show preview button?)

 * So what does Gabrielsimon leave us with, after his series of edits (none of which has any explanation beyond the single word "formatting")? With this version, which has such gems as "Contents showhide" and "the stylings of old Victirian [sic] England" (in contradistinction to those of new "Victirian" England, I suppose). Oh, and no mention of HIV at all.

 * Falcon, I think you and I agree that we disagree quite a bit. I don't know what you think of my edits; but while I may often disagree with yours, I respect them. Thus I don't want to undo your good work, and I'm sorry for the time and effort you've put into salvaging the earlier mess. But I suggest that you revert the page to the state I left it in — thereby undoing your good work (sigh) — and, with your last version open in another window, edit that version of mine to your satisfaction. I may then change it back a bit (heh heh), but I'm fairly confident that in the short term you, The Anome and I can together come up with a good article. -- Hoary 04:14, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

 * Most sincere apologies - I had no intention whatsoever of reverting your edits, which I generally find to be of good intention and quality (unlike those of some here and some past present). I was very confused by the edit summaries, however I figured that going through them regardless would be a significantly superior choice (versus leaving the page in the pillaged state it was in before).  If you haven't already done so, I will proceed to put your work back straightaway, at least as best I know what it is.  And oh, how I wish the "Show preview" button was mandatory before "Save page" and included a spellchecker.  Ah well.  Falcon 06:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Falcon, you didn't revert my edits; rather, somebody else screwed up a lot of good work: work to which I happened to have contributed most recently. I think it's rather a pity that you didn't just revert to that state, but anyway you didn't, and you put a lot of work into ameliorating the mess. Lupin and you have subsequently done a lot more work on it. You have nothing to apologize for. I'll let you get on with your work, and revisit the page several hours from now. -- Hoary 07:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

 * Thank you kindly. I would have reverted the page to the previous state and then attempted to redo all of the work, but that would have been a bigger mess, because I would have made a reversion in addition to simply re-adding the work of myself and others to the page.  The reasoning by which a reversion was not done by whomsoever was next to edit the page is completely unfathomable to me, however.  Thank you in any case for replacing all of your work that I somehow passed over, and I hope that this person who likes to destroy correct formatting does not proceed to do so again.  Falcon 04:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HIV has nothing to do with vampirism, eith vampires, no matter what sort, and yes its true that you can get aids from drinking someone elses blood, if they have it, but no ones going to be stupid enough to do that without medical history knowledge of the p[erson thats being used as a source, unless they have air between thier ears,, hence it is un nessessary to put it. as for the wiki markup, i tried to fix it, so sue me. as for the sp[elling mitakes, well excuuuuuse me for missing a few things, im not perfect. lay off.

Gabrielsimon 08:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * On the contrary. If participating in the culture carries a risk of contracting HIV, and the risk has been documented by a third party, it is vital that we include that data here under the sanguarian feeding section (or, if large enough, a risks subsection of that).  And yes, I should sue you if you somehow think that the wiki markup was fixed therefore.  You should read extensively on correct style.  Further, I happen to know some foolish and lucky soul who was not smart enough to have tests done.  We should not be so very presumptuous when dealing with such a subculture: many involved are easily excited about it, yet not quite so easily cautioned about the risks.  Falcon 06:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Blood and HIV aside, GS, I'm puzzled by your comment "as for the wiki markup, i tried to fix it". Well, yes. But you only tried to fix it after you'd first completely removed it all and then partially reinserted it, wrongly. Please don't remove all markup. Please try not to screw up the markup that you add. Please use the Show preview button, and act on what you see. If you do do something really stupid and accidentally hit "Save page" (as I have certainly done on occasion), then revert your own edit (as I have reverted my own edits on occasion). Note also that Edit summary says:
 * Always fill the summary field is one of Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * -- Hoary 07:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

thoae points ill accept, but you guys do know that for every idiot that makes the headlines there are more, carefull  peopel who practise the subcultue, and if your going to leave the HIV thing in, i feel you ught to mention that they arent all carriers or risks, i know people who test themselves once every six months, and keep thier "feeding circle" small, well tesed ,and close knit. Gabrielsimon 07:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's hard to know what it is that you accept, GS, because you don't seem to have yet got the hang of the WP convention of indenting responses. -- Hoary 07:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

 * For those not well acquainted with wiki markup, each colon in front of your paragraph indents it one tab over. Therefore, when replying, add one more colon than the paragraph you are replying to.  Example:
 * Thank you for your edit. --Akira
 * :You're welcome. --Baka
 * ::Come back soon. Falcon 04:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i was referring to what falcon said, and im sorry, i dont really know how to revert anything. when i changed what i tohught needed to be changed, my computer was having, lets say, less then co operative attitude problems.....  im sorry if it offends  you, user horay ( spelling?) if im new at this... any hoo, the main point i wished to get across  here was that the quotes around the  terms such as psionic vampire should not be ther, for in the context of the article, they are un nessessary. i was also trying to re do the HIV warning thing to include a mention that not all who do this are carriers, or fool enough to go about this sort of sanguinarian thing without being carefull ( i know more then my share of carefull poeple in this subject matter) Gabrielsimon 07:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * user horay ( spelling?): I think you're referring to me. My username was written three lines or so above the point where you were stumped by its spelling. What's up?
 * Nobody has suggested that all the nutballs who play around with others' blood are HIV positive. Likewise you may well find health warnings in other articles without the extra clarification that not everybody participating is diseased.
 * Reversion is pretty easy.
 * I can't imagine how "less then co operative attitude problems" of your computer could reduce your ability to understand what you are doing; but if they do, please do not edit at these times.
 * Please use the WP convention of indenting comments. Thank you. -- Hoary 02:10, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Vampires, or "vampires"?
This article starts by describing these people in terms of vampires. The article on vampires tells us that: A vampire is a mythical or folkloric creature said to subsist on human and/or animal blood often having magical powers and the ability to transform. Paul Barber, in his fascinating if necessarily macabre work Vampires, burial and death: Folklore and reality (Yale U.P.) describes the folklore and the relevant illusions created by all-too-real human postmortem decomposition.

Are these people who enjoy the "vampire lifestyle" mythical or folkloric creatures? I've been persuaded that on the contrary some actually exist. Do they subsist on blood? Surely only the very battiest claims had blood taking the place of conventional sources of protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, etc. Do they have magical powers or the ability to transform? (Does the tooth fairy?)

All in all, while they may drink blook or think that they are vampires, they aren't vampires.

Because they (i) aren't vampires but (ii) are to some non-negligible extent called vampires (notably by themselves), the use of "vampire", with quotation marks, seems appropriate.

I for one have been putting in quotation marks; at least one other user here has been removing them. A series of battles over this is a huge waste of time, and this is why I am not going to reinsert them until the matter is decided right here. So: Do you agree that the quotation marks are appropriate?

(Lucid arguments with appropriate indentation would be much appreciated.) -- Hoary 08:22, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

the quotation marks are not nessessary within the article. as for the blood, it is merely a sy,mbolic vessle for the carried life energy, which all vampiric beings subsist on, hence the psi vamps are a more "Advanced"form of vampire. For every group  of vampire lifestyle people you canfind a bunch of posers and a few who are the genuine article, (note    though that nothings quite like ledgends, because legends exaggarage) just like with the otherkin and theriomorphic communities, Both ofwhich i am    rather well aquainted with. im sorry for any splling mistakes i am as yet unaware of. Gabrielsimon 08:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, that's one kind of indentation, I suppose.
 * Er, when you say that blood "is merely a [symbolic vessel] for the carried life energy", do you mean that this is factual, or that it's what these people say? Likewise, what do you mean in this context by "the genuine article" -- that they are vampires as explained in the vampire article? Finally, by saying that "legends exaggarage" (sic), do you mean that legends merely exaggerate and that legends about vampires are based on actual vampires?
 * And how's this related to quotation marks? -- Hoary 04:41, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

 * I feel that, in the context of this article, quotes would be reasonable but in severe violation of any kind of stylistic writing whatsoever. In other words, because these people are (after a fashion, I suppose) not Vampires, per se, however they are extremely ugly and would render the article in need of copyediting.  Therefore, I do not feel that they should be included.  Further, I feel that as a countermeasure we should capitalize all references to vampires that follow the traditional myth (eg. "...as opposed to traditional Vampires, who...") and leave the modern ones as an informal noun (eg. "Self-styled vampires believe that...") in order to differentiate between them in a logical, comprehensible and stylistically valid way.  Falcon 04:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Whoa there! First, "vampires that follow the traditional myth"? Which one? Stoker's Dracula (to cite the best known fictional vampire) is very different from the vampires of folklore. Secondly, I can't see any reason to give a capital "V" to "vampire", just as there's no need to give a capital "u" to "unicorn" or indeed a capital "h" to "horse". These (unlike "Dracula") aren't proper names. Thirdly, self-styled vampires is a bit more precise than "vampires" -- the latter leaves open the question of who it is that's calling them vampires -- but it's similar and a lot longer. -- Hoary 04:47, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

 * Well, it seems to me that we cannot hope to do anything to draw the distinction without committing stylistic atrocities. We might replace the term "vampire" with one of:
 * "self-styled vampire"
 * "modern vampire"
 * "believer"
 * "member of this sect"
 * et cetera. I feel that this is better than capitalisation tricks or quotation marks, and will probably be fairly agreeable to others not in this debate as well.  Falcon 22:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as i have said, the mythic vampires arent really anything like the ral ones, though this is from personal experiance woith many things, you could say vampire lifestyleists or possibly people on the poser level, but keep in mind that for every group of posers your likly to find a real one. please bear with me as the idea of a real one is not very much like a mythic vampire of stoker or, say, bavarian ( that area anyway) myth. Gabrielsimon 05:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This is particularly obscure. What do you mean by a "real vampire"? Do you mean a real person that somehow resembles the beings of fables, novels, movies, etc. (as described in vampire) in his or her dependence on blood for preternatural feats -- or something else? And are you discussing "real vampires", or just "the idea" (whose idea?) of "real vampires"? -- Hoary 14:17, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Of course its obscure. and i mean the beigs that the vampoie myths sprang from, who arent undead, who arent blood sucking odd balls, but are still none the less beings who requie infusions of lfe energy with some form of symbolic thorofare in order to remain alive. Gabrielsimon 22:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * GS, have you really not yet noticed the function of a prefatory colon?
 * Of course its obscure, you say -- perhaps if you tried harder you could write with less obscurity.
 * The beings that the vampire myths sprang from were decomposing corpses of regular human beings. Please read Paul Barber's fascinating book Vampires, burial, and death: Folklore and reality (Yale University Press).
 * This "life energy" you talk about -- what does this mean (if anything)? --          Hoary 02:50, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

the vampire myth did spring from corpses, but it also sprang from beings that need life force, some times referred to as ki, in the east, prannic energy,, or Essance in other places... aham... beings that require this energy in order to keep living, if thats not spefcific enough, please sayso, ill try to elaborate. as for obscurity, of course obscrity is, with this subject, becasue the origional stories are so old, and so rarely written down. Gabrielsimon 04:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Please supply references for your claim that vampire myths sprang from something other than corpses. Incidentally, if you're talking about qi (a Chinese term of which the Japanese reading is ki), Sino-Japanese lore says that all living beings need it. -- Hoary 05:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Reversion war re. influences (in heading)
Quoth Gabrielsimon: "m ... books." (edit summary re. reversion of version at 01:25, 20 Jun 2005 to one older)

Gabrielsimon: Any books in particular? Or a website? Or perhaps, at very least, a comprehensible explanation? I am reverting your changes because they are clearly neither factual or within the reasonable domain of logic. Of course there were some Victorian influences, however there were presumably many others as well, and the links are certainly dubious (especially in the case of teenagers who are extremely unlikely to be scholars of the Victorian era). If you wish to revert it further, please explain your changes here first. Falcon 04:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archival
I understand that the comments which I am going to archive are not terribly old. However, the discussions are inactive and no longer relevant as this article looks nothing like the version we were arguing over, and DreamGuy is no longer in the debate. They are clutter and make the page difficult to load and manipulate. I am archiving the conversations "Cleanup" through to "Removals" inclusive. Falcon 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections
The subsections "The thirst", "Creation of new vampires" and "Food sources" are completely unreferenced. Can verifiable cites be provided for these, please? -- The Anome 23:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * It will be done. Falcon 06:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon quote
Quote from Gabrielsimon, above:

 * thoae points ill accept, but you guys do know that for every idiot that makes the headlines there are more, carefull  peopel who practise the subcultue, and if your going to leave the HIV thing in, i feel you ught to mention that they arent all carriers or risks, i know people who test themselves once every six months, and keep thier "feeding circle" small, well tesed ,and close knit. Gabrielsimon 07:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You assert that you know people who do this? That's really interesting. They only test themselves once every six months? Do they use antibody or nucleic acid tests? They should probably consider getting some medical/healthcare advice ASAP. -- The Anome 23:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I know people who do it with no medical testing whatsoever. Falcon 06:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If one can say "Get a life", I suppose one could also say "Get a brain". That sounds to me like good advice for these fools. -- Hoary 06:18, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

 * Well, you could also look at it as evolution in action. -- Karada 23:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Is there a gene for stupidity? Falcon June 29, 2005 19:56 (UTC)

if there was, then we would have an incredible paradiem shift, as far as treatement for idiocey goesm byt whats that have to do with the subject at hand??

Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive 3


text: Talk:Biological determinism

title: Talk:Biological determinism


text:
Talk:Altazimuth mount

Merging telescope mount articles
Hello. I was browsing the various telescope mount articles recently (see Telescope mount, Altazimuth_mount, Equatorial mount, Dobsonian), and I'd like to propose merging them into a single Telescope mount article. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? If so, could you please visit Talk:Telescope_mount and perhaps comment? Izogi 04:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

History of the Altazimuth mount

 * Until roughly the 1960s, altazimuth mounts were considered a poor alternative to equatorial mounts due to their inability to follow diurnal motion by rotation about a single axis.

Moved above to talk because Albert G. Ingalls would not be a source on this, he was dead before the 1960's and therefor could not make a comparison of "considerations" in different decades. Needs some secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * rm'ed (some for the second time) this series of statements since they are not supported by citation, contain weasel words such as "have often been preferred", make no sense in general. Also this---> "simplified design" is an eateregg, please see WP:EGG. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not all about telescopes!
Alt-azimuth mounts are used for many applications besides holding telescopes. Large numbers of them, for example, hold heliostat mirrors in solar-thermal power stations. The largest such stations have more than a thousand heliostats, each with an alt-az mount. So let's not write this page with too much concentration on telescopes, nor with too much comparison with equatorial mounts, which are not useful for heliostats, cameras, antennas, etc..

DOwenWilliams (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC) David Williams

title: Talk:Altazimuth mount


text:
Shooting at the Summer Olympics

Shooting sports have been included at every Summer Olympic Games since the birth of the modern Olympic movement at the 1896 Summer Olympics except at the 1904 and 1928 games.

Events
Shooting was one of the nine events at the first modern Olympic Games in Athens, in 1896. Early competitions included some events now regarded as unusual, such as live pigeon shooting in 1900; dueling in 1906 and 1908; and numerous events restricted to military weapons. After the 1900 games, the pigeons were replaced with clay targets. In 1907, the International Shooting Sport Federation came into existence and brought some standardizations to the sport. Shooting events were held in 1908, 1912, 1920 and 1924.

When shooting was reintroduced in 1932, it consisted of two events. From this, the number of events have increased steadily until reaching the 2000–2004 maximum of seventeen events. The 2008 games had only fifteen. Events marked as "Men's" were nominally open events from 1968 until 1980 (and in shotgun events until 1992), although very few women competed in them. For instance, only five women competed at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, while the next Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, which introduced women-only events, featured 77 female competitors. Two women won medals in mixed events: Margaret Murdock, silver in Rifle 3 positions (1976) and Zhang Shan, gold in Skeet (1992).

Events on the current program are listed at the top.

Men's

 * Muzzle-loading pistols.
 * 20 metres, military pistols, professionals.
 * 30 metres, dueling pistols.
 * 30 metres, military pistols.
 * 50 and 100 yards, miniature rifles.
 * 50 yards.

Medal table
Updated after 2020 Olympics

Multi-participation men
Afanasijs Kuzmins with nine participations is the record holder in this special classification.

title: Shooting at the Summer Olympics


text:
Talk:Dobsonian telescope

Correction to article
This article seemed to incorrectly describes the "Dobsonian" as just a mount. The "Dobsonian" is actually an innovative telescope and mount design. I don’t know if this is because it was originaly a redirect from an article about mount types but I have edited it to be more descriptive of the entire class “Dobsonian”.(Halfblue 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Merging telescope mount articles
Hello. I was browsing the various telescope mount articles recently (see Telescope mount, Altazimuth_mount, Equatorial mount, Dobsonian), and I'd like to propose merging them into a single Telescope mount article. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? If so, could you please visit Talk:Telescope_mount and perhaps comment? Izogi 04:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Dobsonian" article you are refering to was incorrect in that it describes the Dobsonian as just a mount style. The Dobsonian is a full telescope design encompassing the telescope and the mount.

"Dobsonian Mount"?
Is there such a thing as a Dobsonian Mount? The Dobsonian seems to be a class of telescope that uses a combination of previously know innovations for a specific design purpose (a large, cheap, portable, deep sky instrument). It may be a misnomer to call any one of those design features "Dobsonian". i.e. The Dobsonians do not have "Dobsonian Mounts"; they have Altazimuth_mounts. And those Altazimuth_mounts may use John Dobson's design features but that would make them "Dobsonian style" Altazimuth_mounts. I have made a few minor text changes to this end but would appreciate other people’s opinions. Halfblue 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there isn't really any such thing as a "Dobsonian telescope" - I was about to mention that here. The telescope is a normal Newtonian.  The characteristic feature is the mount.  You're correct that it is an Alt-Az but that doesn't mean that it isn't also a Dob - witness equatorial mounts where you have German, horseshoe and fork (+wedge) mounts amongst others.  These are all equatorial mounts but they are also their distinct subcategories.  Same is true of a Dobsonian mount only it is an Alt-Az mount rather than equatorial. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
I cleaned up the edit up to 01:32, 27 September 2006. Sections of it seemed to just describe commercial types instead of Dobsonian evolutions and also read as a "how to" Buyers guide WP:NOT. "Truss Tube” was not "invented" in 1989 so need to more specificaly describe it as an evolution. Uncited claims such as "rigorous documentation to ensure their optical quality to the purchaser", "better distribute the mirror box’s weight", and whole sections on current commercial models seem to be derived from ads and are therefor POV. RV'ed whole sections on "two generations" of Dobs since that doesn’t seem to be substantiated by sourced material. The rest of the changes are very good IMHO and I have simple re-arranged some of them to be more encyclopedic. (PS there are GFDL images of “Truss Tube” Dobsonians on Wikipedia Commons in case the immage supplied gets afD'ed. Will leave current image for now so its editor can supply a Copyright rational.) Halfblue 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-Cleanup
Dear Halfblue. Thank you for comments – it’s great to see that there are others interested in this article. I do disagree with you in many, many areas and I feel a few of your comments are quite subjective and POV (e.g. what constitutes “factual” and encyclopedic) but I’m hoping we can work together to refine this article. The original article was a good start, but as an amateur with 30 years of experience, I feel that it had a very narrow breadth (focusing primarily on ATM’s) and does not encompass the full history or important aspects of this design. Here are the major area’s I disagree with you on:
 * First of all, I’m sensing a bias POV against “commercial” telescope manufacturers as engendered by your concern that the last edit “describes commercial adaptations instead of describing the designs in the amateur telescope making world where Dobsonians were really developed”. Please bear in mind these designs were greatly improved on popularized by commercial makers (many of whom started as ATM’s). Most Dobs are bought, which make manufacturers highly relevant.  Some manufacturers, such as Coulter (e.g the “Volkswagon” of Dobs) and Obsession (which made the truss design popular) greatly changes the overall evolution of this design, and deserve mention.
 * Second, I complete disagree with your characterization that this is somehow a “How To” buyers guide. Again, I’m sensing a bias against the discussion of anything commercial.  An authorative article on cars would likely mention the larger makers, and price ranges of typical model – it’s factually relevant to anyone trying to get an understanding of the subject.  The mere mention of a manufacturer does not mean its advertising.  The discussion of the differences of each type is no more of a buyer's guide than the pro's/con's section that existed earlier.  There’s nothing wrong with it or counter to Wikipedia’s policies.
 * Truss Tubes are a very distinct and popular telescope, and deserve a separate category. I earlier proposed “first” and “second” generation scopes, but perhaps the categories “classic” and “truss tube” may be better.  Commercial truss designs have been in their current form for 15+  years.  Having observed in California in the past 15 years I know that they’ve become the dominant scope by number at star parties, much in the same way C-8’s were 20 years ago.  I don’t feel that “Continued Evolution of the Design” is adequate – this a definite sub category recognized by most sources (e.g S&T, Astronomy, Etc.)
 * I made no claim that the Truss Tube was invented in 1989, only that the first commercial models became available then, so I left this part in. I’ve modified it though to pay homage to the ATM’s that likely developed this contribution.
 * I’ve worked on some of the language your earlier took issue with (e.g “premium optics” and better weight distribution)

I’ve restored much of the content modified in respect to your earlier comments. Please, let’s work together in developing sources and refinements. Let’s not simply delete content wholesale because one of us happens to disagree with it. Again, bear in mind that I’m writing this as a amateur astronomer with 30 years experience who has himself taught classes on the subject. I have no vested commercial interested in any particular telescope or manufacturer. Joeconsumer 09/27/06.

 * Well... speaking as an amateur and professional telescope maker with a 35 year history I have to say... the article looks better, needs work, but looks better. When I talk about "encyclopedic" I mean that encyclopedic articles describe "things". The thing in question is a "design" so the article should describe the design, its origins, and its evolution, relevant additions ect. I have seen other articles where people want to describe a "design" via commercial models that are available. Commercial models may have their place but they are more a response to a market than a relevant landmark in a design. None of the innovations you attribute to commercial manufacturers are in fact "innovations". They all were in full swing well before some company picked them up. The Truss Tube existed way before the advent of the Dobsonian let alone its adaptation by manufacturers. And it was in full use practically in "first generation" dobsonians (have a look at my picture on the Amateur telescope making page and you will see Truss Tube Dobsonians lurking in the background in 1981). And when a manufacturer does pick up a design it lags the actual evolution... for example there is a greater than 20 year gap between the origin of the Dobsonian and the first Coulters. Commercial designs follow markets and tastes... so they are minimally relevant on a page about a design.

 * Have a look at "cars". "An authorative article on cars" does not "mention the larger makers, and price ranges of typical model"... in so much as it lists landmarks in its evolution and commercial companies contribution to that evolution.

 * That's why I changed "Second Generation “Truss Tube” Dobsonians" to "Continued evolution of the design". There is no hard cutoff like you tried to characterize in your first edit. And the prevalence of commercial truss tube Dobs today are not a continuing evolution as much as a few commercial manufacturers' response to a market <--- and that gives you a sub-heading "Commercial applications".

 * Working together on this is a good thing and Wikipedia recommends it for a good reason. Whacking the revert button may not be the best way to do that so I put forward my reasons and views...make what you will of them. Halfblue 04:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi True Blue: Thanks, I agree that there’s a lot that can be done to improve the overall article. Here are my thoughts going forward.

 * Add more ATM History: I’ve mostly bought my scopes over the years, so I’m not as well versed in the contributions of ATM’s outside of John Dobson.  Clearly this group developed a lot of the major innovations so I think we should develop their history more.
 * Don’t downplay the importance of manufacturers: They are important – many of us would not have dobs if it wasn’t for the Coulters and Orions of the world. Going back the car analogy, like ATM's many innovators came up with the fundamental construct of the modern car by the early 1890’s, but it didn’t really become wide spread until Ford produced the Model T – and historically, that’s very relevant. Sure there are the “consumer” driven Meade and Celestrons of the world, but remember that many other smaller companiies (Obsession, Discovery, Starsplitters) started off as ATM’s that simply decided to sell their wares.
 * Add evolution section / other relevant subcategories: I believe that we should have a separate category for truss tubes, but there’s noting precluding the addition of another category discussing ongoing evolution or some of the other new types of scopes.  I seen many ATM’s use monopole supports instead of a Verrier Truss.  The “portoball” type of instrument is a good variation.  I’ve seen many ATM’s (and at least one commercial outfit) experiment with collapsible carbon fiber design – which could have important implications in the future.
 * Add more references / citations: I admit there is a lot of sources we should add.  We could start adding “citation needed” marks and begin the process of locating the references

My thoughts for now... Please don’t let me discourage you from making tweaks /edits to the article. I’ll probably have a bit more time to work on this over the coming weekend. JoeConsumer 06:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC

The Show So Far
All those mods you mention would be a good idea. I have made some more basic mods that may address some of what you mention. They will help categorize any additions to come. I find that you can always find help on Wikipedia its self. On of the first pieces of advice in article writing is What are you (we) trying to say? What we are trying to say is “There is a design, it has these applications, it has had these derivations”. In polishing up a quite a few articles on telescopes I have come across other peoples examples of organizing this type of information. The one I think will help here is Schmidt camera. I am making changes based on that. One line of thinking I am working along is that the "Dobsonian" is getting to be a historical artifact... the creation of one mind or group. So it should probably be discribed as a single or "classic" invention that then has derivations.

So:

 * Introduction (Wikipedia asks that this be short and sweet… hitting just the most relevant highlights) Some edits made there... mostly moves to more relevant sections.
 * Invention and Design. (Covered pretty well)
 * Applications ((Old article has that but this shows me that Advantages and Disadvantages needs to be moved up and needs to be made a sub heading)
 * Derivative Designs (this is where information on amateur and commercial adaptations belongs. And those adaptations should be described in reference to the original design or concept.)

Material has been pretty muched re-arranged into their logical sections These edits continue to follow this philosophy:
 * Get it all in order. Avoid describing the design backwards. It needs to be A-B-C-D instead of trying to describe it from what we see today and working backwards. Get all information into their logical sub headings.
 * Dig!!! Describe variations RE: where they came from (Wikipedia asks for citations when possible) errr… this may be hard since its seldom that one single person can or will step forward and say “I invented the rocker box mount”. But even superficial “digging” shows me that most design variations we are talking about here were not invented by commercial interests.
 * Describe. Describe what the variations are, where they came from, and why an amateur or company used them.

Halfblue 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

objectionable?
I have rm'ed the following to talk since it is unreferenced and therefor WP:NPOV. Could be re-added if there is reference to someone actually saying this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "Dobsonian" is considered objectionable by some purists since the Dobsonian telescopes are just Newtonian reflectors with a simplified mechanical design. Normally, proper names for telescope designs are associated with the optics (Cassegrain, Maksutov, Ritchey-Chretien etc.) and not with with the way in which the optics are mounted.

I put it back. The second sentence is quite correct; do you know of any exceptions? And as a long-term amateur astronomer, I can attest to the accuracy of the first sentence.IrishFilmBuff (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 * We usually don't add more unreferenced opinion to an article just because other stuff exists. The description part of the first sentence is redundant to the intro and .... "considered objectionable by some purists"? --- who?WP:V. You may be able to "attest" but we can't go by that WP:OR. And there are exceptions of telescopes named after the way they function such as Solar telescope, Turret Telescope, springfield telescope. The best we can say is that "Dobsonian" describes a newtonian of a specific mechanical design, and i think that is stated in the intro already, although we could say "The term "Dobsonian" or "Dob" refers to a specific mechanical design for a telescope with an alt-azimuth mount and a Newtonian telescope tube assembly that feature several innovations made popular by John Dobson." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Biased!
I certainly agree with whomever added the "peacock" label. This article is terribly biased. Dobsonian telescopes sacrifice everything for the sake of large aperture. They are a huge step backwards in almost every respect but size. A person who learns about Dobsonians from this article would get a totally wrong impression.JBHarshaw (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Peacock
I made some changes in the opening paragraph to lessen the "peacock" nature of this article.UMinnAstro (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a partial revert of the additions made re:Peacock because the additions made had no references. The way to correct "unqualified opinion" is not simply adding more or counter unqualified opinion. The article does need cleanup but additions/changes should be neutral and help describe a dobsonian telescope, not render opinion on it. I also note that a whole series of very similar edits have been made from accounts with equally similar recent creation dates. May just be a coincidence, otherwise a reading of WP:SOCK is in order. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So that everyone understands where I'm coming from I'll make my own personal position on Dobs clear at the outset:
 * I don't like them.
 * They're cheap.
 * They make some things that should be easy difficult.
 * They are not best suited to planetary work.
 * Contrary to the assertions of many Dob advocates, they are not all things to all people.
 * They are however often the only way of gaining aperture affordably.
 * They are also easy for ATMs to construct.
 * They also have a certain amount of convenience, in that there are no alignment issues to worry about.

 * With the exception of 1) which is of course entirely my POV I believe I can find extensive reliable sources for all of those assertions and I believe them to be fair and balanced. The primary advantage of a Dob is the price tag, which allows larger aperture and/or better quality for a given budget.  I don't believe that is particularly controversial.  However, compromises are made for that advantage.  We need to be careful to ensure that this article is balanced.  Yes, if we are to assert that that "by definition" the primary is poor quality we need to be able to cite that definition.  I think you would struggle to find such a definition, though, and in any case it would be disproved by e.g. Obsessions where the mirrors are first rate.

 * On the flip side, we also need to avoid over-promoting the configuration. This is particularly true of the planetary claim - pretty much any reliable source advises against Newts in particular and reflectors in general for planetary.  Yes, you can use them and use them effectively, but I doubt you will find many experts who would recommend them over a good refractor.

 * In summary, I am on neither side of the constant edit-warring that has affected this article over the last few days. I think all parties need to examine their motives and moderate their statements.  Dobs are not a panacea nor are they abominations.  In other words we need to restore a sense of balance. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC).
 * I think the article has gone through some changes in the past, based on the old talk above and history that have made it the way it is. It seems to have gone from a basic description of the original design (though unreferenced) and then got added onto by an editor who was describing the newer commercial types, probably from first had observation and by quoting ad copy. I think some of the additions as of late have been illogical, for example: any telescope will have a crummy mirror if you install crummy mirror, this is not a "feature" of the Dobsonian. Any telescope can be used for planetary work; it’s not a feature. All designs have advantages and drawbacks. Now allot of the refs show the authors noting how poor the optics were on the Dobsonians they observed, but anecdotal observation or even opinion should be cited as such (see: WP:SOURCES WP:NPOV) re: "Author XXXX noted Dobsonians built by YYYYYY have poor optics". Poor optics probably have allot of reasons: people making "light buckets" on purpose, people tackling very big mirrors the can't properly figure because "hey... I can now have an f'ing big mirror!!!", Portholes that are poorly annealed/warped because they were never intended to be optical surfaces, etc. All in all I think we should refrain from inserting any opinion at all on Dobsonians, that is not our job. We are an encyclopedia so we describe, we do not pass judgment or give advice by definition and consensus. A section on the "quality" and usage of Dobsonians in the amateur community could be added but there would have to be overwhelming notability of such published sentiment. As far as sides in an edit-warring, I suspect that the "sides" were manufactured as was most of the "war", something that is being dealt with. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"By definition..."
Concerning the edit summary comment: "BY DEFINITION, Dobsonians have lower-quality mirrors than ordinary reflectors: I have an 8" pyrex blank sitting under the piano that I hope to start grinding before too long. By your definition I am prohibited from placing it in a dobsonian structure if I manage to polish too fine a figure??? That is preposterous on its face. --Kbh3rd talk 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

By definition redux
I have re-edited the page based on the only objectified description of a Dobsonian telescope's optical performance characteristics---> they are newtonian telescopes. Since the optics in a dobsonian run the same gamit from good to bad as found in any other amateur or commercial telescope they really have no other definition optically. Their mounts have a similar definition---> they are Altazimuth mounts. rm'ed some redundancy as well as text that does not fit the definitions above. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by 75.198.110.119
I have again reverted the edits by the above IP. Editing the "original" Dob section to the present tense makes this section less clear. The whole purpose of that section is that it is talking about a small number of specific telescopes made in the past. It also confuses the distinctive characteristics of the "original" scopes with all Dobs. I am pretty sure that 99% of Dobs made today do not use porthole mirrors. Similarly a truss Dob is still a Dob even though is is not made of Sonotube. Rewriting this section in the present tense confuses those Dobs with present Dobs and disrupts the logical flow of the article CrispMuncher (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Did a cleanup for tenses, style, redundancy, and a general "what are we talking about?". In an encyclopedia Things, such as a design of a telescope, Sonotubes, etc are present tense re: "Newtonian telescope is a type of reflecting telescope". Hard tube dobs are not made in the past, they are still built. Past events of a living person are "past tense" (WP:MOSBIO). I see no reference that dobsonians have any clear "classic", "hard tube" or "first generation" form. "present dobs" are all styles, there is no one "present" design or even past design since every one is a built to suit the user or manufacturer. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, modern Dobs are all different, which is why we need to draw a distinction between the two senses of Dob: the particular scopes built by Dobson and the derivative designs produced since. The old revision of this article did this very well - it covered the Dobs made by Dobson under the "original" moniker and then went on to show how the design had evolved.  The present revision presents this as a "big bang" revolution in telescope design where both the true Dobsonian characteristics and the subsequent eveolution to the design are presented together.  That removes contxt from the article as does not show how the design has evolved over time, as you correctly point out, to suit the requirements of the builder or owner.
 * Additionally, I think the portability arguments are overplayed in this revision. For a start it is not universally accepted that a Dob is more portabel than e.g. a GEM.  However the coverage of the "requirement" of travelling to a dark sky is completely at odds with Dobson's promotion of sidewalk astronomy, to the extent that he is frequently described as the pioneer of the movement.  Sidewalk astronomy is obviously not abotu specifically travelling to dark sky locations.  Most source I have seen attrubute the deign of the Dob to a desire to constrcut it at low cost and from readily available materials.  Portability was a secondary consideration.  CrispMuncher (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

 * It boils down to is there any such animal as a "modern Dob"? That notion is sort of shot out of the water by simply looking at the photographs in this article and in Amateur telescope making. You can see very clearly collapsible and truss tube dobsonian and other style telescopes lurking in those pictures from the early 80's. And the pictures in the April 1989 Smithsonian Magazine show Dobson and the San Francisco Sidewalk Astronomers building all styles of "dobsonians". So they don't seem to have some fixed "classic" design. And what denotes a "modern Dob"? The fact that Ivar Hamberg added wingnuts to the truss design? Even if that were true but we need verifiability, not truth. That is why I rewrote the section to "Dobson's design innovations". Dobson put forward a series of innovations that have all be lumped under "dobsonian", but it is a design idea, not a fixed in stone single design you can call "classic".
 * Dobsonian portability seems to be well referenced. Portability was a given for the purposes of a "monk on the run". The GEM mount for a 16-24 inch telescope is usually way to massive for any one person to move, let alone the OTA. And setting up on a literal "sidewalk" needs a very compact and portable telescope - even more so than setting up in say, Grand Canyon National Park. There are many accounts in the references provided about the "San Francisco Sidewalk Astronomers" setting up at national parks as well as "sidewalks". "Sidewalk" seems to be a euphemism for bringing astronomy to the people more than where they do all their business. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Fountains of Bryn Marr
User 74.42.36.182 raises a very interesting issue that we have often discussed at the Vancouver Sidewalk Astronomers (VSAs): What is a Dobsonian? Our group has several Dobs. We also have one vintage (ca. 1940) 16 inch Newtonian reflector on an alt-azimuth mount. The younger VSA members insist on calling that telescope a "Dobsonian", but I never tire of explaining to the young-uns that it was built decades before John Dobson arrived on the amateur astronomy scene. When I read old astronomy books and magazines, I see pictures of telescopes that would nowadays be called "Dobsonians" -- but they all pre-date John Dobson. So what, exactly, makes a telescope a "Dobsonian"?

Here are some things that are NOT specific to Dobsonians:

 * Optical design. Dobson used a standard Newtonian optical train.
 * Mounting. Fork-mounted alt-azimuths have been around, like, forever. (Russell Porter? How about Lord Rosse? William Herschel? etc.)
 * Large aperture. At my very first star party (1962) I distinctly recall a 20" truck-mounted reflector.
 * Innovative materials -- cardboard tubes, wooden bases, makeshift bearings -- all were in use around the time that I got started in the early 1960's. Cash-strapped amateurs have been finding innovative ways to use common materials since the earliest days.  My first reflector made liberal use of parts from an auto junk yard.

Even the specific combination of elements is not unique to John Dobson. If you don't believe me, take a look at Sam Brown's pamphlets on telescope making from the 1950's (published by Edmund Scientific) -- you will find designs for telescopes that contain all of John Dobson's supposed innovations. But, they are not called "Dobsonians", because Dobsonians had not been invented yet.

Still, most amateur astronomers seem to have something definite in mind when they talk about "Dobsonians". What, exactly, is that, and how does it differ from what came before? That is a key question which this article needs to address, and this is why I undid Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr's deletions. I have also added a link to an article that cites Dobson's own definition of a "Dobsonian".67.208.5.162 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You expanded on a series of unverified and probably untrue statements, I have rm'ed those first two sentences (see "objectionable?" talk above). Also lead sections are for summarizing articles (WP:LEAD) so I have reworded the rest to fit that guideline. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here is what distinguishes Dobsonians from other things -- i.e., why is there a separate class, and name, for these telescopes. This deserves discussion right at the start of the article. I've also removed the fatuous sentence about the "design continuing to evolve". The more the design evolves, the more it looks just like pre-Dobsonian telescopes, since commercial dealers and serious amateurs are doing away with the crude construction techniques that are the sole defining element of Dobsonians.67.208.5.162 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edit, it has been reverted. The opinion that "crude construction techniques" is the "defining element of Dobsonian" can not be the basis for additions to an article per WP:NPOV. Other additions must pass WP:PROVEIT and again not be opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...Fountains, I've spent some time going over your edit history. You seem to have a penchant for imposing your personal point of view on otherwise balanced articles, and invoking one or another of WP's many policies to justify your biased point of view. I'm on to you! 67.208.5.162 (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry you have that opinion and feel the need to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as not making personal comments on talk pages. You may be more happy in another project where you can actually express (impose?) your own opinions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

POV "Dobsonian definition"
This talk page (and these SPI and ANI reports) show a high number of edits from differing anonymous IP addresses and identified sock-puppet accounts that all probably belong to one user. If you have been referred to this talk after restoring one of these edits you should provide reliable sources before restoring and maybe consider creating an account. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Don't know what a "sock-puppet" is but I'm pretty sure I'm not one. I restored the deleted paragraph. It is supported by two good references. If you are going to delete it yet again, please give a bona-fide reason. 67.208.5.162 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason is WP:PROVIT, as bona-fide as it gets. The first two statements are unreferenced (WP:V). The rest is redundant refactoring of material already in the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentences are now referenced. Please don't delete this paragraph yet again; doing so violates WP:NPOV. 67.208.5.162 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added yet another reference. I hope that this one meets your exacting standards. 67.208.5.162 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard you should be adhering to in not mine, its Wikipedia's, namely Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The claim that "Dobsonians" exceed a "rule" is not supported (that has to be someone else's thought, not yours). New ref only cites that there are optical types with specific names, not that there is a "rule" or that there can't be other types (which there are). Rest is still redundant (not addressed at all). reverted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There you go again: Invoking a new reason each time for reverting my edit. What remains constant is your determination to keep this article from being improved. I think it is time to take this to a higher authority. 67.208.5.162 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of thinner mirrors needs clarification
Among the advantages outlined for the Dobsonian, the article says:

Since the telescope design has an alt-azimuth mount the mirror only has to be supported in a simple cell with a backing of indoor/outdoor carpet to evenly support the weight of the much thinner mirror.

I'm afraid I don't follow that. Might one not be just as apt to point a Dobsonian in any direction that you might point a typical Newtonian scope with equatorial mount? So the mirror would have the same strains. If it has to do with the box that holds the mirror, is there any reason not to put that box in a typical Newtonian scope with equatorial mount? Uporządnicki (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Its not where you point it, its the orientation the tube ends up in. People who use EQ mounted newtonians almost immediately hit the situation where "damn, the eyepiece mount is upside down!!!". An EQ mount can orientate the optical tube (and the mirror) at an infinite number of angles and even upside down, meaning you need a complicated cell that can support the mirror at all orientations. The basic dobsonian design only tilts in one plain, 90% to 0%, so you only need to support the mirror back and one side, usually with some form of cradle or strap along that edge. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

NEW CORRECTION BY A TOTALLY DIFFERENT USER
I cant figure out how to use wikipedia to properly edit the article. The Orion 50 inch dobsonian was never produced, it was a market test. http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/323598-orion-monster-dobs-not-happening/ They made a 36 inch which had some apparent problems, the offered 42 and 50 inchers were never even made as a test.

The largest Dobsonian actually produced and sold commercially to my knowledge is a 36 inch by Obsession which is no longer available either, although other makers have said they would consider making 36 and 40 inch scopes.

Also the largest homebuilt dobsonian scope is currently a http://www.davidreneke.com/the-worlds-largest-amateur-telescope/ 70 inch still being completed. It is not in this list of other largest scopes which are probably all dobsonians. http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/Largest%20Amateur%20Telescopes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.128.95 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 * The sources are kind of thin as far as Wikipedia goes, blogs/personal websites/message boards are not considered very usable. The article itself is not much better so this could be added in some way. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dobsonian telescope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://web.telia.com/~u82002652/Galaxies/Obs/Dobson.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601093315/http://www.gadgetytech.com:80/2010/01/09/orions-monster-dobsonian-telescope-will-be-the-talk-of-your-backyard-cookout/ to http://www.gadgetytech.com/2010/01/09/orions-monster-dobsonian-telescope-will-be-the-talk-of-your-backyard-cookout/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Commercial adaptations
If no objection, I propose to remove the "largest commercially available... 50-inch aperture", since Orion never did produce that years ago. Also plan to update that section with some newer information. (No, I am not a Dob seller :-) Assambrew (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was quick. I'll get to it soon. Assambrew (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Last time I really looked at commercial dobs they were Coulters ;) Now days when I do astronomy events I am surrounded by 21-24 inch goto monsters. Good for someone to update the commercial end. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a Coulter Odyssey 8 myself back in the day. Okay, first change I made was to replace the mini-Dob photo with an example of a truss Dobsonian. Hope I did the fair use image stuff right, rather new to that stuff. Still working on the text, I will summarize changes here. Assambrew (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. I made substantial revisions while keeping the basic outline. Much of the original section was unreferenced. Some of that text remains, with added refs. I listed refs for many commercial Dob makers (articles and reviews). Removed obsolete ref to Orion 50 inch model that never happened, and added a 50 inch scope that was actually delivered last year. Assambrew (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dobsonian telescope


text:
Alejandro Planchart

Alejandro Enrique Planchart (29 July 1935 – 28 April 2019) was a Venezuelan-American musicologist, conductor, and composer. He was considered to be one of the leading scholars on the music of Guillaume Du Fay; more broadly, he was a specialist on music of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance music.

He was born in Caracas, Venezuela, and moved to the United States to study at Yale University, where he received the degrees of Mus.B. (1958) and Mus.M. (1960). He received his Ph.D. at Harvard University in 1971, with a dissertation on the medieval English manuscript source, the Winchester Troper, later turned into a two-volume study with edition. He taught at Yale for several years and founded the Cappella Cordina, an early-music ensemble that blended undergraduates, graduate students and members of the community. In 1977 he joined the faculty at the University of California, Santa Barbara and re-established the Cappella there. He was made Professor Emeritus of the University of California in 2006. His Festschrift, “Qui musicam in se habet”: Essays in Honor of Alejandro Enrique Planchart, co-edited by Anna Zaruznaya, Bonnie Blackburn, and Stanley Boorman, was published by the American Institute of Musicology in 2015. Planchart continued to publish many articles and scholarly editions following retirement, including the magisterial two-volume, Guillaume Du Fay: The Life and Works (Cambridge University Press, 2018). He died on April 28, 2019, in Santa Barbara, California.

Among his numerous publications are entries in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (both the 1980 edition and the 2001 edition) on Cristóbal de Morales, Clemens non Papa, Guillaume Du Fay, St. Martial, St. Gall, Venezuelan places and musicians, and other topics. In addition, he conducted numerous live performances and recording sessions, mostly of early music, many on the Lyrichord and Musical Heritage Society labels.

title: Alejandro Planchart


text:
Talk:Equatorial mount

Merging telescope mount articles
Hello. I was browsing the various telescope mount articles recently (see Telescope mount, Altazimuth_mount, Equatorial mount, Dobsonian), and I'd like to propose merging them into a single Telescope mount article. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? If so, could you please visit Talk:Telescope_mount and perhaps comment? Izogi 04:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Replaced image
I replaced image:Equatorial mount.jpg with image:Forststernwarte Jena 50cm-Cassegrain 1.jpg because the former is hard to understand since it is blury, has no telescope attached, and has no counter weight attached. 69.72.7.12 19:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow if you think that picture is better there's something wrong. I am going to take a higher resolution image of the previous image and replace it back onto this article unless I see any objections.  The article isn't about telescopes, it is about the mount, so I don't necessarilly think the telescope itself needs to be in the image.  I'm not even sure what I'm looking at in the current image, so I think it needs to be replaced. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The current guideline on Wikipedia is to make technical articles accessible. It is hard to explain the function of a telescope mount to the layman if the illustration does not include the telescope. Images of just the mount bring up the question "huh?, what?, the telescope goes on this thing where?". Articles such as this are not sub-manuals in a telescope book so they need to be pretty much self expaitory. 69.72.2.71 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Diagrams needed
Hmm. Serious need for some real pictures, rather than the word pictures of the "English Fork", "German mount" etc. Agree. The principles are not well described by examples of those principles in practice. Clear, simple diagrams of the axes and their interrelation to each other an the Earth and celestial sphere are badly needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.4.187 (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not parallel?
"However, since the geostationary orbit is not very distant from the Earth compared with the Earth's radius, the tracking is only approximate, and the optimal alignment of the axis is not parallel with the Earth's rotation axis."

rm above to talk. Satellite dish equatorial mounts have to be exactly parallel to the Earths axis in order to function (personally know from setting them up). There is a (4 degree?) depression angle off the equator due to our view angle. But that is a declination difference, not an equatorial difference. Needs clarification. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As seen from a north-temperate latitude, the declination of a geostationary satellite is more negative (southerly) if the satellite is at roughly the same longitude as the observer than if it is close to the eastern or western horizon. This is because the observer is closer to the satellite if the longitudes are equal, but the linear difference in position in the north-south direction is the same. The apparent declination is the arc-tangent (or arc-sine, depending on how you measure the distance) of the ratio of these. Since the declinations of the satellites vary, the slewing axis should NOT be exactly parallel with the earth's rotation axis. It should be closer to vertical than a polar axis.

Out of curiosity, today I took a look at some dishes mounted this way. I'm at about 44 deg. north latitude, but the axes of the dish mounts were, I estimate, about 55 degrees from the horizontal.

Even with optimal alignment of the slewing axis, the dish cannot (except if it is on the equator) point precisely at satellites at all longitudes. However, the aim is good enough for most radio communication.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) David Williams
 * Thanks for the clarification, found a ref for it. You should supply references in the future. Its an important part of the Wikipedia process and allows other editors to check "facts". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, let's not open that can of worms. Suffice it for me to say that I have had plenty of reasons during my life to put my trust in direct experience (which I do have, in this matter) rather than in citations of other people's writings, which can be wrong no matter how authoritative they may appear to be.

 * Still, if you add some citation to that sentence about satellite mounts, I guess it will make some people happy.

 * P.S. Just did it myself.

 * DOwenWilliams (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC) David Williams

 * Take a look at User:DOwenWilliams and its associated "talk" page to see some background about my scepticism of citations.

 * DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC) David Williams

 * Hmmmm... one may ask why you bother to edit a project that requires verification with reliable secondary sources and definitely not first hand original research... but I won't, at least not on this talk page. This is a case where sourcing comes in handy. The clarification and sources brought up a problem, leading me to not bother ref'ing or expanding the edit. The paragraph is the right description but the refs point to it being in the wrong article, re: the thing under a satellite dish is a Polar mount which seems to be a different enough device encyclopedically to move the description there, which I did. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok. I saw it there.

 * Of course, this whole topic is now somewhat dated. Slewable satellite dishes are used much less now than they were a couple of decades ago. Most of the ones I've seen around here are clearly disused and in disrepair.

 * Sometimes I do edits to fix typos, grammar, confusing language and the like. I used to be an editor of a computer magazine. Old habits die hard.

 * As for editing statements which I *know* are factually wrong, but for which I don't have references, what am I supposed to do? Leave the errors so they can continue misleading people?

 * I have some doubts about the whole Wikipedia project...

 * DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) David Williams

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Equatorial mount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090102184846/http://mathis-instruments.com:80/fork_german.html to http://www.mathis-instruments.com/fork_german.html
 * Added tag to http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/museum/esim.asp?c=202501

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Explanation needed
Came here looking for a description of how this thing works (ie process by which is it aligned with rotation, etc), didnt find it.

47.29.68.71 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Not sure what you are looking for. How to align one? Wikipedia is not a "how-to". How observatories align theirs? That could be added if sources exist. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Center Balanced Mount (CEM)
I am not sure if this is new design but for few years iOptron was producing ZEQ and CEM series mounts. They are center balanced mounts, with a Ra axis in a shape of Z. The CEM120 has a bit different design, but also is center balanced. They say it is a new design, presumably patented, but maybe there is a prior art on this, or similar mounts in some observatories? 81.6.34.246 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks to be a GEM with a $4000 name. There are many ways to skin the cat, but I think it still falls under the basic GEM design and would be a sub type. Worth mentioning there if there is RS on it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Equatorial mount


text:
John Manningham-Buller, 2nd Viscount Dilhorne

John Mervyn Manningham-Buller, 2nd Viscount Dilhorne (28 February 1932 – 25 June 2022) was a British peer and barrister.

Background and education
Lord Dilhorne was the son of Reginald Manningham-Buller, 1st Viscount Dilhorne, and Lady Mary Lindsay, daughter of David Lindsay, 27th Earl of Crawford. His sister is Eliza Manningham-Buller, Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5. He was educated at Eton and the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst.

Dilhorne was 6 foot 9 inches tall.

Career
After service in the Coldstream Guards, Dilhorne was called to the bar from the Inner Temple in 1979. He was Managing Director of Stewart Smith (LP&M) Ltd from 1970 to 1974 and Chairman of the Value Added Tax Tribunal from 1988 to 1995, a member of Wiltshire County Council, 1967 to 1970, of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Statutory Instruments, 1981 to 1988, of the JPC on Consolidation Bills, 1994–1999, and of the EC Select Committee (Law and Institutions), 1989–1992.

Marriage and children
Lord Dilhorne married, firstly, Gillian Stockwell, on 8 October 1955, and they were divorced in 1973. They had three children:

 * James Edward Manningham-Buller, 3rd Viscount Dilhorne (born 20 August 1956)
 * Hon Mervyn Reginald Manningham-Buller (born 11 July 1962)
 * Hon Mary Louise Manningham-Buller (born 8 March 1970)

Dilhorne married, secondly, Susannah Jane Eykyn, on 17 December 1981. She is a professor of clinical microbiology associated with St Thomas' Hospital.

The Dilhornes had homes in London and at Minterne Parva, near Cerne Abbas, Dorset.

Dilhorne died on 25 June 2022, at the age of 90, and was succeeded in the viscountcy by his elder son, James.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dibyajyoti Deb

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 00:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dibyajyoti Deb
No claim of notability (unless being a big fan of the Kentucky Wildcats counts) and only 9 hits. I would have userfied it, but it was created by an anon. Niteowlneils 04:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Agree with Niteowlneils NN Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 04:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 05:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Vanity. Cnwb 07:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn grad student vanity. --Etacar11 00:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:68.189.249.113

title: User talk:68.189.249.113


text:
Talk:Holga

[Untitled]
Please only make absolutely neccessary changes such as additional information and the corrections of misleading and erroneous information. The language in the recent editing is awkward and unneccessary. Furthermore, some important words and phrases have been omitted. In simple terms: do not edit for what is already there just for the hell of it, just because you have nothing to add. Thank you. -Jerry Cargill     www.cargillcontemporary.com

Why is this under Holga camera / why is there a redirect from Holga? This seems a bit nuts - 'camera' is obvious from the article and not precedented by other writeups I can see.
 * You're right I think. I'll move it. --Clngre 13:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed "(perhaps a corruption of the Cantonese phrase ho gwong, meaning “very bright”)", there is no evidence to support this. Please leave out of article until a citation has been found. --Corpse1 21:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I added "ho gwong" back into the article. I found it on a lomography website, there was no information however about the language and I don't know for sure whether or not it's in Cantonese so I'm not going to put that back in until I can be sure about the language. --ISeeDeadPixels 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Holga Chinese name
According to exhibition Cameras Inside-Out, the Chinese name of Holga should be "猴哥". It was produced by a company named "香港 (Hong Kong)宇宙 (cosmos)電子 (electron)". Here is a Chinese blog talking about that. --Dobs 11:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Image sensor size??"
Holga is a medium format (6x6) film camera and has no "Image sensor". It has, however, a film frame and roll mechanism for those mad enough to use one --Roy 19:03 11 July 2007 (CEST)

Junk external links
The best external link was feeble, the majority were mere retailers. Holgadirect.com, holgacamera.com, holgamods.com, holgainspire.com, holgatoycamera.com, hesomagazine.com/photographic/toy-cameras -- I've removed the lot from the list of "external links".

I note that much of this article is sourced to such websites and that of the "Lomography" marketing outfit. That's unsuitable too. Where are the independent, reliable sources? -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Return to Production
To anyone who can help me update the information on this article, I feel it is very important to add that the Holga 120 series returned to production in 2017 or 2018. All information below is at time of writing, May 2020.

While I have only seen this information mentioned in a single place, an article by the South China Morning Post (Article "The Holga story: a cheap plastic camera made in Hong Kong and how it became a cult classic" by Manami Okazaki, published 19th May 2017, updated 24th May 2017), I have seen a steady stream of new Holga 120 models for sale on Ebay, Amazon, and other retailers. A bit of searching showed me that the importer and primary retailer in the US is a website called Freestyle Photographic Supplies at Freestylephoto.com where they also have a bit of information, but little that is useful. The models for sale are the 120WPC (Wide-Angle Pinhole model), 120GCFN (Glass lens, color flash), and the standard 120N in black or white.

According to the above mentioned article in the South China Morning Post, these are being produced by a company called "Sunshine", however Freestyle and all western retailers I have found currently list the manufacturer as Holga. The article would also indicate that they are once again made in Hong Kong, while previously the original production had been moved to Guangdong in 1998. According to the current info on Freestyle, the original molds for the camera may have been destroyed, however they did purchase all other manufacturing equipment and redeveloped the molds at the new company.

I would be very interested to learn more about this, however sources are limited, and I am struggling to find information on any English language websites. PolarisOutThere (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Holga