User talk:Wernher/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.
Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

• How to edit a page
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page (there is also a votes for undeletion page).

Angela 02:25, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

LEGO Mindstorms

Hello, about Lego Mindstorms. I think it is entirely sensible to add it to the physics pages for the time being. As the list grows it can be split into separate pages for technology. I'll leave it for you to do as you might want to add a word or two of explanation

Theresa knott 00:27, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Floppy disk

Sorry about the edit conflict on floppy disk, do you mind checking to see if I mangled it?

Maury Markowitz 02:02, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Intel 4004 Anniversary

Noted your proposal, and i'm enthusiastic. Having watched it, i've always considered the sequence implicitly stated in the combo of

• Intel 4004
• Intel 8080
• x86

to be an unbroken progression, heightening the significance beyond what you stated.

I think much of the content of the 4004 design has been thrown away by now, but am i wrong in thinking each step (other than e.g. 8086 backward to 8088) preserved stuff from the immediately previous model, as a substantial part of the new? It's not obvious that is recorded here; if it's true, can we get it editted in in time? --Jerzy 20:42, 2003 Nov 13 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; as you probably noticed we got the 4004 page on the front page for the relevant time period, giving me for one some academic/geekly satisfaction (considering my quest to educate the mainstream lot about the historical significance/impact of early* computing :-)). As for the quite possibly unbroken chain from the 4004 to todays x86 range, I see your point and have myself had thoughts in that direction, so I guess I'll do some research on it (in time for next years anniversary). --Wernher 05:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(* early computing for 'most people' = everything pre-PC and pre-Internet, I reckon...)

I have the full documentation for both the 4004 and the 8008. They are totally unrelated architectures. There is nothing of the 4004 in the x86 architecture, while every instruction and register of the 8008 still exists in the x86 (although the opcodes and mnemonics have been changed). -- RTC 07:17, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; if this is not already noted in the relevant articles, we should get it in eventually – as Jerzy says above, it is highly significant information, and all the more important to get it right! Also, on a personal note, I sure would like to get my hands on the full, original docs for the 4004 and 8008 :-) --Wernher 07:38, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You might be able to find some on eBay, but it won't come cheap. Mine I got for the cost of a postage stamp writing a letter to Intel when the chips were new. I even designed and built an 8008-1 CPU card (but never got it working due to a bad decoder in the support logic that I was too lazy to replace after locating the problem because I had bought a running 8008 based system surplus for $85 and was getting busy with that). I still have that card.
-- RTC 07:50, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, 32nd anniv. But still! --Jerzy

32's a nice round number for a microprocessor, indeed. :-) --Wernher

---oooOOOooo---

Hi, regarding additions to the main page, it's best to ask on the talk page, or on Wikipedia talk:Selected Articles on the Main Page. Intel 4004 can not currently be listed as it doesn't meet the rules laid out in Selected Articles on the Main Page, in particular:

1. the article needs to be listed in the Events: section of its corresponding day of the year article
2. the article needs to be updated to clearly state the event and the exact day it occurred (with the day and year linked).

Drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Selected Articles on the Main Page if you decide to fix it. Angela 21:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It looks great now but I just realised it's only the 14th, so it won't go on just yet. Anniversaries are done the day after they occur. Mention it on Talk:Main Page on the 16th and either myself or someone else will add it. Angela 00:19, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(Thanked Angela at her talk page. --W)

More talk at my place

Hi Wernher, I like to keep talk in one place, so just come along. Kosebamse 22:53, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jawohl, Antwort gegeben. --Wernher 05:26, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Titeln

Mir sieht es aus, dass Sie mit Deutsch bequem sind. Sie möchten wissen, das meine Titelstil nicht ganz beliebt ist; dazu sollen Sie mir nach das Gespräch bei mir sorgfätig lesen. Wenn Sie das schon gemacht habe, freue ich mich, dass ich einen Waffenkamerad in diese Sache gefunden habe! [Lächeln] (Um diese Seite stehe ich jetzt zur Wache; ich danke Ihnen wegen der Einladung.) --Jerzy 08:13, 2003 Nov 18 (UTC)

Ich muss doch unmittelbar sagen, dass ich Deutsch etwas besser zum Lesen als zum Schreiben behärrsche... So if you'd forgive me for carrying on in "Latin": I had in fact read your 'speech' about subject headers in Talk-pages, and I intuitively agree; still, I'd very much like to integrate it into the 'Post a comment' scheme (not sure if possible w/o involving the server side). --Wernher 04:08, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK; not sure if you are looking for Leseübung that would give me Schreibübung, but fine; sounds like for both of us, English is more fluent than German.

Yes, i also think it would have to take server side changes to make it really work right. But IMO we've got "room" to experiment & become able to offer experience that would help sell a server-side design.

But this is not my strongest interest here; i feel like i "have so many irons in the fire that i might put the whole fire out". (I can't believe i'm still in the middle -- well, maybe just about at the end-- of an edit i started this AM!) So don't "hold your breath" waiting for any flurry of activity from me on it. --Jerzy 04:35, 2003 Nov 20 (UTC)

Oslo

When did Kristiana become Oslo? What was the city called under Swedish rule? What does Dano-Norwegian mean? Adam 04:07, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kristiania became Oslo on January 1, 1925. Under Swedish, as well as Danish, rule, the city was called Christiania (1624–1877), after King Christian IV of Denmark and Norway, and Kristiania (until 1925). Dano-Norwegian is the term denoting the Danish/Norwegian common written language of the period until Norway got its own modern written language(s). --Wernher 07:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I always assumed that Christiania was an English spelling of Kristiania. We live and learn. Adam

History of computing

History of computing has moved to History of computing hardware, so you may want to update the link on your user page accordingly. Cheers, Cyan 21:57, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; actually, I am "hopelessly interested" in both these subjects, so I'll just let the link stay, and later perhaps include both on my user page. --Wernher 22:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

BYTE article restructuring

Good restructuring, but I have a few bones to pick. See discussion at Talk:Byte magazine ;Bear 15:36, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

Very Short Translation Request

Hi, again, W.; i've been working on Seven Summits especially Carstensz Pyramid. I know its summit is either 5030 m or 4884 m, but can't find clear evidence which is the latest & presuambly best figure. My guess is that

"Høyden på 5030 m som er oppgitt i de fleste kilder er uansett helt feil. Det riktige skal være 4884 m."

implies that "The right height is 4884 m", and maybe even explains how the 5030 figure got into the discussion. Can you confirm that? Thanks in any case for your attention.

You're on the right track; a direct translation into English would be as follows (unfortunately, the site does not mention the source of their bombastic statement, so use it for what it's worth):

"The height of 5030 m given in most sources is nevertheless completely wrong. The correct figure is 4884 m."

Well, no one says much abt the difference; both figures are easy to find at present, but little sign of which sites are behind or ahead of the curve, so this is a big help. --Jerzy

(The source is [1], specifically a 250-word item "Fakta Carstensz Pyramid / Puncak Jaya", very close to the middle. They promised the English translation of the whole page "soon" almost a year ago. I'm trying to be very conscientious about copyright, and putting down only what i think i need, but if you want more context i can save you searching that long page by pasting more.) --Jerzy 05:44, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of the site. These guys are quite a bunch of high-endurance travellers/climbers, I must say. They even seem to plan to climb the highest peak of every single municipality in Norway; a total of 434 peaks :-). --Wernher 23:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Heh! Could keep them too busy for bombast for a while. (Do you go high yourself? I'm a fan of winter mountain-hiking; Norway -- well, what is there to say? [Smile]) Tak tusen tak! --Jerzy 23:57, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)

I like the mountains, yes, especially cross-country skiing in them; finding a suitable peak, going there, taking in the view, sitting down for some chocolate and perhaps an orange or two (a Norwegian Easter tradition, by the way), and then skiing down the hillside...--Wernher 02:21, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Links on Current Events

Wernher, did you see my reply to you about the link style on Current Events? Even if you don't agree, do you at least see what I was trying to do? –User:Hajor 17:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yep, saw your reply, thanks for explaining, no problem. I'll put further discussion about this on Talk:Current events. See you there.
--Wernher 00:48, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Commodore PET picture

Yes that's fine. If the photo doesn't add anything then feel free to remove. Secretlondon 17:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Current events worthyness

Wernher, I noticed that you removed a sports entry from Current events. I added a different sports entry today...the one about the death of Marco Pantani. What sports stories are suitable for Current events. Is there a page that I can refer to for possible border line cases? OneVoice 21:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for commenting; for the entry I removed, I followed Wikipedia "precedent" from earlier discussions -- IIRC the matter with sports-as-current-events-or-not has been discussed several times before; more info should be obtainable in the archives, maybe even a more clearcut "policy" page to refer to in such cases (yep, that would be the best, I agree).

As for Pantani's death I think that item falls into a much more "C-E worthy" class, since we're talking of 1) an internationally very popular sport (as opposed to much more region-centric sports like American football or say, a northern European and my own favorite, biathlon), and 2) a sad incident with some relevance for the continuing public discussion on doping in sports and the media's role surrounding that.

In my view (and hopefully, if I got the discussion's conclusions right, per Wikipedia consensus view / policy) both aspects above should be present for a sports event to be "C-E worthy". --Wernher 21:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copyediting

Copyediting: You once edited the copyediting page, and now after several users' contributions I'm trying to clarify whether the entry should really be under copyediting (I think probably so) or copy editor or what--see Talk:Copy editing. Your input welcome! Elf 17:56, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I certainly feel a wee bit honored being asked about this, non-native speaker/writer of English as I am. A problem in that regard is always whether to speak/write US or UK English, or vary according to context and environment... --Wernher 23:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Weserübung

See: Talk:Operation Weserübung.

Good to see that you improved the article, by the way.
Yeah, I know, it's late... but better late than sorrow.
--Ruhrjung 09:00, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting the article for inclusion in Anniversaries. I guess "someone" will have to fix it up a little bit if it is actually to be featured, and maybe I'll be able to do it in time for this year's Wesertag anniversary (but definitely for next year's). --Wernher 16:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)