User talk:XJamrastafire

Tom Peters 20030622: I notice that on 4 June you changed the year of birth of Hipparchus from 190 BC to 194 BC. Also on the alternate Hipparchos page. Lower down, the year 190 BC is still quoted and attributed to Delambre. What is your source for the new birth year (194)?

Tom Peters 20030605: please read my comments on Talk:Hipparchus.

Tom Peters 20030601: I saw you haven't addressed my comments on Hipparchus yet (I suppose you are away for the weekend). Considering you admonition to not edit that page, I started a page "Hipparchos" instead. I mainly re-organized the existing content, pulling the scattered subject matter under a limited number of subjects. See how you like it. Notice the duplications; these, errors, and elaborations are to be removed later, preferably after moving&renaming the existing "Hipparchus" page to "Hipparchos" (preserving history), or otherwise re-edit the Hipparchus page according to my proposals.

XJ, you may want to move your article User:indexed list JM into the user: namespace since it is not an encyclopedia article. Simply start an article called user:Indexed list JM and put the material there, then redirect the old article to the new one by putting the line in the first line of User:Indexed list JM. AxelBoldt
 * 1) REDIRECT user:Indexed list JM

Done. Vielen Dank! Axel for all the help. I've noticed my own stupidity but not being aware of the power of rearranging. You obviously master redirecting. XJam [2002.02.27] 3 Wednesday (0)

As to what I changed, it was just your tiny spelling error on "rearranging". I hope you don't mind if I do that occasionally. ps. the Quetzacoatl article i mentioned is in the Spanish Wikipedia --Dreamyshade


 * Yes Dreamyshade I don't mind at all if you correct any kind of errors even in talking areas. It's hard to spot missing "r" in such words yes. Anyone who is qualified enough can correct any missing period, letter, number, coma, phrase, form etc. I am very glad to learn from such corrections too as I am non-English wikipedian. Till now I have learned a lot from my own mistakes. I must say I had a good teacher for English in my elementary school years ago where you deserved pure 5 (the largest mark) if you had all words and sentences correct. He alowed only one or two errors as I recall. This is very usefull for later days but I must also remark that I would have to study English at university if I want to participate in full to produce at least modest article in Wikipedia. Some English wikipedians are very rigorous about English syntax. I wonder how good are they - if someone with perfect knowledge of English language would rate them. But such person perhaps does not exist.


 * Yes, I know you mentioned that article in Spanish. Irrespective of a language a topic on Quetzalcoatl is very interesting and you gave me directions on it. Some day I shall put some of my contributions there. I have one pretty long story from my own 'pseudo mystical' 'expirienced past life' connected with Quetz. I am glad we met in cyber space. R e s p e c t as Jamaican 'ghettolivers' and English rub a dub 'wikitoasters' would probably say. --XJam [2002.03.20] 3 Wednesday (0)

-

I noticed that you tried to link to "signs for numbers". Do you perhaps mean numerals? User:Juuitchan (How does this date thing work?) Test: [1582.10.15] Today is [2002.07.30]

--

Hey, I just clarified Celje a bit and I'm not sure what the following sentence means. I'm not sure if you wrote it, but can you clarify for me so I can reword it in a more standard English manner?

Because of Celje and Celje citizens and Slovene paralel classes at Celje gymnasium 1895 even fell Austrian goverment of Alfred Windischgraetz. That was those days a real precedent.
 * Yes, Tucci528 thank you first for correcting or better saying improveing the article about the city of Celje. I admit there lied a lot of tiny mistakes, which show non-English user. But what can we do? Better bad or worse English, than no English. Do you agree? Yes I wrote that paragraph. But I've found it in some other place, of course. It simply says that the Austrian goverment almost fell because of the rioting at Celje gymnasium. Is this clear enough? I've read an article again and I must say you've made some mistakes, too. Please read it again and correct them, otherwise I will. At present I am too tired. I'll do it in a week ahead for shure. Thanks again. And one last thing. I didn't know that English write decimal point instead of decimal comma. Isn't this an American manner? Here in Europe we write decimal commas, and therfore we use points for number multiples. These are not strictly an American pages, or are they? -- XJam 19:43 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks for the graphs of the super ellipses! Could you also produce a graph for n = 1.5 and n = 0.5? What software did you use? AxelBoldt 18:46 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)


 * Yes, Axel for shure I can. Just tell me where to put them afterwards. If you want them to be in apropriate article - let me know, otherwise I'll put them somewhere else. The programme was of course the great Maple + minor works on generated bitmaps - mostly colours for the regions, since you have to define some objects inthere (e.g. circle, ellipse, square, ...) to colour them properly. I was a bit lazy for a while concerning math subject mostly because of the lack of time. These are not quite the graphs as are related to the definition of the supper ellipse, but more of a generalized function of a similar kind, right. They are more like astroids if n &le; 2. Graphs are on their ways... --XJamRastafire 22:42 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

Heh, zadnje case nimam ravno casa... tu pa tam si vzamem par minutk za kak komentar, pa tu pa tam kaj malega popravim, pa malo skrbim za tistih par clankov, ki sem jih napisal. Pridejo boljsi casi ... :) Zocky 12:24 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi -

Regarding the Herman Poto&#269;nik Noordung article:


 * my language uses the word cosmonautics equally as astronautics. I can't see why English do not,


 * In English, the two terms mean exactly the same thing, but the word "cosmonautics" is generally used only in reference to the Soviet or Russian space programmes, and then generally only when translating the title (of a person or book) or name of a facility or organisation. The English word is astronautics, and this is the English version of wikipedia... There's a brief note in the astronaut article on the politics of the media on both sides of the Cold War insisting on using *their* term for their own space travellers, but not the "others".


 * what is wrong with Clarke's letter on 1993-01-15? For me it is interesting and I guess it is also for other readers,


 * It didn't seem to add anything significant to the article - why was it important that three backpackers presented Clarke with a copy of the book? And if this was significant for some reason, what did the letter need to be quoted verbatim rather than simply referred to? It just seemed like a quote for the sake of a quote, but please correct me if I'm wrong...


 * you've put out all notes about Vojko Kogej's work of Poto&#269;nik's life and work. You should consider that Kogej is one of the most qualified persons to discuss Poto&#269;nik's work. I think his detective work in 1984 in Berlin's Staatsbibliothek was not just a cat's cough (as we say),


 * Perhaps, but why? Neither the original article nor the Poto&#269;nik website referenced explain why this find was significant. Had the text been missing? Had it not been known that a second edition was published in Germany? Without this context, the Kogej references are pretty meaningless.


 * Von Braun's note that Poto&#269;nik was one of his teachers is now also out, ....


 * Again, just seemed like a quote for the sake of a quote - or more accurately - a reference to a quote for the sake of a quote. Can we find out exactly what von Braun said? In hindsight, I agree with you that at least some reference to this point should probably go back in.


 * it was clearly written that beside Oberth also Wernher von Braun and Arthur Charles Clarke seriously took Poto&#269;nik's ideas (or concepts (what a difference?)). Now sentence says something else if not enough,


 * Ideas and concepts are synonymous in English. I only used "concepts" in the second sentence, because "ideas" had already been used in the sentence immediately before it and it seemed inelegant to use it again so soon when a synonym was available.


 * Clarke - The way the article was originally written, it seemed that he took up Poto&#269;nik's ideas at the same time that Oberth (and his circle) did, which (as far as I know) is not the case. Secondly, it seems to imply a direct link from Poto&#269;nik to Clarke - is there some evidence that Clarke knew of Poto&#269;nik's work when he published the Wireless World article? Again (as far as I know) both men came up with the idea independently.


 * von Braun - When discussing the original uptake of his ideas, von Braun had nothing like the status of Oberth in the rocketry movement - he only rose to prominence later. I agree that given von Braun's later importance more emphasis of Poto&#269;nik's influence should probably be noted, while remembering that the latter was only one of a very many members of the VfR who published books that shaped von Braun's thinking.


 * you've moved out also all Russian "middle names" ("father's names")- I can see that this is common habit in English language, originally is not, ....,


 * Yes - again, this is English Wikipedia, and articles should generally follow common practice in English. In Tsiolkovsky's case, his patronymic was even included in his article title. I guess in the case of someone less well-known in the English speaking world, this might be defensible, but Tsiolkovsky *is* well known and English speakers will not expect his "middle name" to be used - remember the Rule of Least Surprise?


 * "ordunga" is a Slovene colloquial language word not of literary one, so it should be stated so, ....


 * If you feel that the distinction is important enough to point out to an English-speaking readership, then I'm certainly not going to debate with you (since I don't know a single word of the language!)


 * his calculation of Syncom 2 is also left out now. I thought that one of the purposes of encyclopedia is an information, (but now I'm not sure anymore), ....


 * The example that Poto&#269;nik used was a geostationary space station over Berlin, not over the Atlantic, where Syncom 2 was. If you're just pointing out that Poto&#269;nik was the first to publish the correct altitude, then to me, this implies a far more direct link than seems to have existed.

Please take these responses in the friendly way they are intended - you were very specific with the edits that you were unhappy with, so I have tried to be very specific with my answers. --Rlandmann 05:35, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)