User talk:Wernher

Contents

1 Welcome/Willkommen/Bienvenu(to)/Bienvenido/Salve!/Buď vítán/Velkommen/Välkommen/Tervetuloa/Fagna! 2 Archived talk vault 3 Congratulations, Wernher! 4 Images at Sinclair ZX81 5 German cruiser Blücher 6 Edit summary 7 Wikiproject Norway 8 Further reading/References 9 Curbing mergaholism 10 Your comments on Image:6407244.jpg 11 New naming conventions for military units 12 PEEK and POKE

Welcome/Willkommen/Bienvenu(to)/Bienvenido/Salve!/Buď vítán/
Velkommen/Välkommen/Tervetuloa/Fagna!

Hi and welcome everyone, please put your messages to me under the related subject headings (starting a new thread on the same subject with the proposed 'intra-subject thread division marker' if you please) – or make a completely new heading if the subject's a new one. Wernher

Intra-subject thread division marker: ---oooOOOooo---

Archived talk vault

• User talk:Wernher/Archive 1
• User talk:Wernher/Archive 2
• User talk:Wernher/Archive 3

Congratulations, Wernher!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And cheers to you, Cecropia! Yes, I'll certainly study the admin reading list to avoid destructive and/or embarrassing f###ups. (Oops, I suddenly feel the Force™ pulsating in my veins... the alluring power of adminship beckons me to join the Dark Side... Bwahahahahahhh!!!! The Imperial March may be heard fading in from the background...) >:-) --Wernher 18:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't have to wait long until I had a use for the revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=BASIC_programming_language&diff=8265423&oldid=8262608) function... --Wernher 18:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images at Sinclair ZX81

Hi Wernher, and congrats on the adminship. Have you seen the recent edit by Infrogmation at Sinclair ZX81?! Will the images have to go? BACbKA 21:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello BACbKA, thanks for noticing my incredibly elevated wikistatus. :) I have now commented on the ZX81 images (thanks for telling me about it; I do not watch the article for the time being). --Wernher 22:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

German cruiser Blücher

I've not virulently opposed to your comment style, but it is not the standard style: if you think it is clearly better then please reinstate (as I see you have already done). I've principally been concentrating on copyediting (judged on the content, I think most of the contributors have English as a second langauge - which is not to denigrate their excellent command of English - I certainly would not even try to write in another language!). -- ALoan (Talk) 01:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi; thank you very much for the copyediting -- I actually learn a lot by watching my English being tuned and massaged by other contributors! :) And thanks for not making a big deal of the src comment style delims I use(d). As for the majority of the Blücher editors being second-language English writers, I think you're probably correct; I would guess many if not most of us are Norwegians and Germans, as the subject -ehem- relates to us in a more, shall we say, direct, way. :) --Wernher 02:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, blimey - sorry for posting on your user page rather than your talk page (:-/) -- ALoan (Talk) 04:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary

You may be interested in Template talk:Edit summary. Thanks. Hyacinth 18:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to you! I went to the page, and then put Wikipedia talk:Edit summary onto my watchlist -- the thread seems to have continued at the latter page. BTW, is your user name in any way related to this nice lady? :) --Wernher 18:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, not Hyacinth Bucket but Hyacinth (mythology) rather. Hyacinth 18:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject Norway

Time for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway? -- Egil 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right'O. Count me in. --Wernher 05:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further reading/References

I carefully split the list up into two sections (as I often do when I add such information on Wikipedia) because I distinguish between i) things that non-specialist readers ought to go to if they want more information than is in the article, and ii) things that will only be useful/intelligible to specialists in the field. In other words, by removing that distinction you're making those lists less useful. If you think some other names for the two sections would be better, I'd be happy to hear them, but please don't take out information for out readers which I have made an extra effort to add. Thanks! Noel (talk) 18:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't know if you ever looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Early computers, but I'm starting to accumulate a good list of sources now; Wikipedia:WikiProject Early computers/Books is particularly good (IMHO, of course :-).

PPS: I still don't watch other people's Talk: pages, so any reply here I may never see. Noel (talk) 18:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for making me aware of your rationale for dividing the article reference section into two---Further reading and References. The only reason I collapsed them into one sec was my perceived notion of "std wkp format", and to keep the number of "auxiliary secs"* as low as possible (which leads to more concise articles, IMO making them more readable). However, I very much see your point, especially after reading your comment at my talk page. :)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to use a References sec only, but to list the references under separate italicized** subheadings (not subsecs---they also clutter up the TOC & article IMO; even worse than separate secs), my suggestions being Further reading: and Academic sources:. How about that? Anyway, I will certainly work through (some of) "my own" articles (those on my watchlist, that is) in order to split the refs into said categories. --Wernher 21:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(* By "auxiliary secs" I mean those "std" secs like See also, References, and External links.)

(** I have noticed that some other contributors use italics for non-subsec "subheadings".)

I like all of your suggestion, with the sole exception of the name of the second subheading. "Academic sources" sounds a bit clunky. I'll see if I can come up with something better... But I can see that making the TOC smaller (especially for short articles) is really a good idea. Oh, and I think I'll go for bold rather than italic so that it mimics the look of section/subsection headers. Noel (talk) 22:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Curbing mergaholism

I noticed you put "merge" notices on the 68008/68012 entries. The fact that these articles are small is not a valid reason to merge. Small is good! I hope you will revert the merge requests. Mirror Vax 08:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I will accept this for the 68008, but I still think the 68012 article should be merged with the 68010 one---due to the very small differences between those two processors. --Wernher 07:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The pin-out is different, so if somebody adds pin-outs in the future it would be good to have it seperate. Mirror Vax 13:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on Image:6407244.jpg

Hi. You posted the following on the talk page for Image:6407244.jpg:

This image was deleted because it was replaced by this image on Commons. You may want to re-post your comments there. RedWolf 21:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

New naming conventions for military units

Hi. My watchlist shows that you were interested enough to work on a military-topic article, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) project, in case you didn't see any of the announcements. — B.Bryant 22:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope, didn't see the announcement(s), so thanks for informing me! :-) Highly relevant for my on-off work on military articles; I always want to use existing standards---or if none exist, to help get some established. --Wernher 22:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PEEK and POKE

OK, I've stopped moving things. My main motivation for doisng the rename/move: PEEK and POKE are so closely related that they needed to be merged into a single article, and the polymer called PEEK is a direct name-clash for the PEEK instruction. All this can be sorted using standard disambiguation tactics, whilst eliminating duplication between the PEEK and POKE articles.

Hoewever, this also means that I've also stopped the link-tidying process as well. What do you want to do now? -- The Anome 01:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, oh well. After having calmed down and thought about it a little, I actually came to the same conclusion as you did---so please feel free to go ahead sorting out the dbl redirects etc. I will do my part as well. Thanks for answering my "distress call", anyway. :-) --Wernher 01:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done a bit of link-tidying and dbl redirect fixing. Think it's reasonably OK by now. --Wernher 01:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)