User talk:Ezrdr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-grin.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ezrdr! I am Calaka and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Calaka (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Close-up of the front panel of a Thomas Arithmometer.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Close-up of the front panel of a Thomas Arithmometer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Busicom[edit]

Why did you revert my edits on the Busicom article? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took offence at my description of "publicity blurb", it was meant to describe the tone of the text, not offend. Please read what I have written on the talk page. I hope this better explains the problems with what you've added. Encyclopaedias need to be neutral, reporting the facts without the opinions. It would also be a great if you could cite some of your additions.
Reverted what I had done simply to "draw your attention" is what's described as a pointy edit and not encouraged. If you disagreed with the edits you could explain why when you reverted them. You could also leave messages on the talk page. But reverting simply because you're offended by previous edit summarises isn't helping create a better article.
What exactly is the "most important paragraph" in the article? Is it the bit about the 4004's availability and how this made "the rest history"? The difficulty about this is there is no indication where you have gathered these facts, nor any reliable cite explaining why the 4004 was different and so much more important. Remember, the article is about Buicom, not a comparison with these other chips. So if you're going to discuss them you need to have a good cite that makes a connection with them for you. Otherwise it all looks like your own personal opinion and research, neither of which is permissible on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


I uploaded some photos of a BusCom made calculator.

SWTPC6800 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Odhner vs Friden[edit]

Hello, i disagree :-)

As you can read in page you quoted, "Carl Friden, who sold Marchant an original design for a modified pin-wheel mechanism. Instead of individual pins on the rotor, Friden's design uses a sliding gear segment which extends and retracts at the appropriate times to advance the register by the required number of positions" You can see it in http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=US&NR=1476197A&KC=A&FT=D&date=&DB=&locale=

For an observer, the main difference is that in Odhner-like machines, cursors rotate when crank rotate. Instead in a Friden-Marchant machine cursors don't move. This allows to apply white and red pins on the cursors ;-)

First Marchant machines was produced with Odhner pinwheel. Pony was initially Odhner. Last Pony production, XL, XLA and first keyboard machines had Friden's mechanism

Two mechanism are somewhere similar, not identical! Then i think that Marchant XLA is a very interesting machine, but not the "better" example of Odhner-like machine ;-) --Ancelli (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you don't contribute by creating a new paragraph named Variant and explain to the rest of the world what you have kept for remarks and discussions.
This Marchant calculator belongs to the class of Odhner type calculators whether you like it or not (unless you feel that it's a new class of calculator by itself)!
Did you really contribute to the article by inserting a second picture of an Original Odhner machine !?
Ezrdr (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, i don't write articles in en.wiki just because English is not my native language. I can just make little interventions and informal discussions.

Odhner pinwheel was the leader idea in the domain of calculators with a variable number of active teeth, not the only one. The first was Giovanni Poleni, who in Miscellanea (1709) described a similar, not accomplished, machine. Another precursor was Izrael Abraham Staffel, but i know very few about him. Frank Stephen Baldwin patented in US a similar machine, independently (may be before) Odhner, but he didn't succeed. He became the co-funder and main designer of Monroe Calculator Company Some Monroe machines had a mechanism derived from first Baldwin idea. Carl Friden developed his project to save Marchant from legal issues for patent infringement (see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796216,00.html). In Germany, Christel Hamann designed another very successful non-rotating-cursor mechanism for De-Te-We machines (Rechenmaschinen-illustrated.com. All these machines are somewhere similar to Odhner idea, but different!

Vice-versa, a lot of other machines are strictly related to Odhner. Simply consider that he had to call his company "Original Odhner" :-)) Almost all images in Commons Category: Odhner_type, but Marchant and (may be) Walther WSR160, are actually based on Odhner pinwheel.

The main company was Brunsviga. They started working under Odhner license, but they developed their own improvements (by Franz Trinks) and became the leader in Europe. In the article where are some other company names. We could add Toshiba (Japan), Jion-Calculadoras (Mexico), Antares and Esacta (Italy), Dactyle and Vaucanson (France), Famosa (Spain), Rapid Calculator in US (http://www.ameripak-ops.com/history.html ), .... a too long list ;-)

I would just uggest to remove Muldivo. This company was mainly a reseller of re-labelled German machines (Thales, Walther). Just for a while they continued production of Guy machines. --Ancelli (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your English is perfectly alright, I'm also a non native writer, I get corrected all the time (in French too) and it's OK with me. Go ahead, contribute, but remember that this is an Encyclopedia, not a PhD thesis, you're supposed to distill the essence of the subject not write a 500 pages book. Educate but do not teach!
Now look at Willgodt Theophil Odhner, Pinwheel calculator and Odhner Arithmometer, see what's missing or incorrect and see what you contribute. Cheers,
Ezrdr (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Two admins told you there appeared to be nothing in it. I'd urge you to provide more evidence for your claims, but I hesitate because there really seems to be nothing here at all. There was nothing requiring admin action a month ago about the talk:computer debate, and nor is there anything requiring it now. And your idea that the person operating the ErrantX account might be someone other than the person behind Tmorton is frankly a bit bizarre, given the available evidence. PS I note your first language is not English, and I suggest to you that there may be cultural differences here, if you really feel that the behaviour at talk:computer was unacceptable; by English Wikipedia standards, it was normal. Rd232 talk 20:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You closed the discussion for the wrong reason. Please read the Talk:computer and you won't have so many questions. It happened just one month ago--Ezrdr (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Re-open the original, it seems the less dramatic option and I have no real issue. Closing it might have been best in the long run for Ezrdr, but if he wants to pursue it, fine. None of the information Ezrdr has dragged up is private, but he went to some lengths to find it and build this theory - which makes me a little uncomfortable. But I don't think anything needs to rebound on him.
Ezrdr, you obviously feel hard done by. It was difficult communicating with you before, and if you felt harassed or hard-done--by then, sorry. As Rd232 says, that is just the normal cut and thrust of a content dispute. There is, however, a flip side. You almost immediately played the "why am I being harrassed", and after that I found it very difficult to communicate to you the issues with the content you have added. So, perhaps there is something you can take from this too - which is to try and take what people are saying less to heart. It's not an attack on you to try and explain issues with your content. --Errant (chat!) 21:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nothing there demands admin intervention (if you want anyone to be blocked for any of that, you have no chance). I'd advise you to move it to WP:WQA if anywhere, and probably to focus it rather more carefully William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

to William M. Connolley, How far did you see? I would really appreciate if somebody, anybody, read the 40K of discussion, over 5 days, that we went through. The truth should be self-evident. --Ezrdr (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I skimmed it already before commenting at ANI. There is nothing there that requires or even justifies admin action. I think ErrantX's comment above sums up the situation: you formed a view on how you were being treated, and then starting fitting everything into that paradigm. The view was wrong, and you should review Assumption of Good Faith guideline - it's there to protect editors from just this sort of thing. Whether you can review what happened again and change your mind or not, I can assure you that barring some quite spectacular new evidence of wrongdoing that you haven't mentioned before, nothing will come of pursuing this. Perhaps the best I can say to you is this: you know you're a Wikipedian when you've had to accept what feels like an injustice - and carry on editing anyway. And perhaps, with time, comes new perspective. Rd232 talk 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The truth should be self-evident is a nice idea. Alas for you, the truth that appears self-evident to everyone except you is that there is nothing there requiring admin action. I agree. This is a matter that, at best, should be resolved through WP:WQA. On the whole, though, I advise you to drop the entire issue and return to productive editing. Some other advice (a) asking people to read through 40k of text just isn't realistic. If you want to say "there is a problem" then you should be able to provide a few focussed diffs demonstrating this clearly. (b) your complaint is inaccurate. You say the problem occured simply for removing unreferenced material from the computer article. But actually a large portion of the discussion is around some additions that you made (c) you have simultaneously complained about two users without really distinguishing between them (d) why are you bringing up tmorton166, still? That appears totally irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
But to add: I agree that edits like [1] are unpleasant. The first step in resolving this problem should probably be to try to talk on his talk page. I've tried to do this with N before [2] which wasn't exactly a great success but he did at least ack it [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, spamming this to JW's talk page [4] is also, effectively, impolite on your part. This issue simply isn't important enough to merit attention there. And spam is bad. You really ought to remove that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth: I stumbled across this issue (from the link on Mr. Wales' page). I've had absolutely no involvement in it before. I don't know the users in question. I've looked into it, and I also conclude that no action is necessary. Ezrdr, I suggest you accept what everyone is saying - that no benefit will come by pursuing this further. You may think there is some conspiracy, but I assure you there is not. Several independent people have checked this out, and all have said, "no action needed". When that happens, no matter how strongly you might feel yourself, it's best to listen to them. I wish you all the best in your future Wikipedian career. My personal advice is - forget about this, and simply edit something a bit different for a while, instead. Take a break from this perceived issue. That's advice only - take it or leave it. Either way, I do wish you all the best.  Chzz  ►  22:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • re to "You closed the discussion for the wrong reason": Actually I was the editor that closed the original thread. I thought perhaps it would be helpful if I followed up on that close since you felt the need to repost another thread on the matter. I did read through the entire Computer (talk) page, and I simply could not understand why you were upset. Yes, I did see that various editor were discussing material that there was some debate about. Much of it appeared (to me) to center around the sources of that material. It appeared to be a very rational discussion (to me), although I could gather a sense of frustration on several editors parts. I'll admit that there were a few comments years ago that had an air of abruptness to them, but I simply did not, and do not, see anything to be upset about; let alone anything sanctionable. If I am in error in that regard, could you please tell me exactly what ErrantX said recently that upset you so much?

I understand that this is a global project with people coming here from many cultures and backgrounds. That said, I also understand there are times where communications can be misconstrued by one party, and at times people will take offense by something that is said. It appears to me that many people simply don't understand what offended you. As a professional, I'm sure you will agree that two people will not always agree on every detail. We do have policies and guidelines to help in that area, such as: reliable sources. Also, if it is simply a matter of wanting more feedback on the content you disagree with, then we also have a Third Opinion place to request additional views on various matters. Should that fail to gain a Consensus, then we also have WP:RFC where you can open a wider scale request for comments. I (and perhaps others) took your ANI posting as a request to reprimand or sanction ErrantX for something he posted, and there simply seemed to be little support for that. If there is anything that can be done to ease the tensions here, please feel free to let us know. You are more than welcome to post on my talk page if you think there is anything I can do to help, or if you feel I have acted inappropriately in any way in this matter. In closing, I would also like to thank you for your contributions here, and I hope your future endeavors are more enjoyable. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  22:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1635 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Computer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allan Bromley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Programmable machines[edit]

Sorry if I misunderstood your intention. I find programmability difficult to define before this era. Setting up the plug panels of a pre-war IBM tabulator could perhaps be regarded as programming. The more important point, however, was that Colossus was a machine that was programmed and succeeded in performing useful work early in February 1944, so the claim that the Harvard Mark 1 was the first programmable machine does not stand. Perhaps the word "project" explains the claim of a first, but I do feel that the sentence as it was written could be read as a claim that the Harvard Mark 1 was the first programmable machine.

Your new sentence is open to the criticism that Alan Turing was the person who started the era of the programmable computer in his famous 1936 paper "Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". Difficulties of this sort lie behind my disinclination to talk about "firsts". --TedColes (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Invention of the computer[edit]

Hi Ted, here is the story of the invention of the computer as I see it.
This is based on the books I have read,
weeding out 99% of the superfluous and erroneous
and sometime bridging two opposite views of actual actors/witnesses.
The invention of the computer comes from the integration of two independent developments:
First the Babbage-Aiken-Watson-IBM line which gave us the ASCC/Mark I
Second the (Atanasoff-Stibitz)-Mauchly-Eckert line which gave us the ENIAC
The integration of these two branches is the work of John von Neumann:
who had his programmers using the Mark I for the Manhattan project from August of 1944 and who joined the ENIAC group after gaining security clearance in September of the same year.
2 of the 20 ENIAC accumulators were already working when JVN joined the group and Eckert had already published a memo on stored program a year before that. The ENIAC group was already working on defining the EDVAC at this point.
John Von Neumann integrated the great logical power and elegant simplicity of the Babbage architecture, as seen in the Mark I, with the super-fast electronic programmable parallel number cruncher that was the ENIAC.
All work on these two machines was now confidential, classified under military secret ; Around May of 1945, JVN wrote a first draft on the EDVAC, which integrated the Mark I architecture, that was only meant to be distributed within the Moore school group, but Goldstine leaked it broadly in the US and in the UK. Nobody else could comment on it since it was a military secret, so John von Neumann went from being the integrator of the two developments to becoming the inventor of the computer!
(Here I just bridged Goldstine's book: The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann with Eckert's 1991 speech: In my opinion, we were clearly suckered by John von Neumann, who succeeded in some circles at getting my ideas called the 'von Neumann architecture'.)
After the end of the war the pentagon orchestrated the Moore School Lectures in July and August 1946. Of the 48 lectures presented, Eckert gave 11 , Mauchly gave 6, Goldstine gave 6 and JVN didn't show-up for the 1 he was supposed to have given.
The computer was born in Philadelphia that very summer.
You might notice that I did not mention Turing, the colossus or Zuse... because, while they were absolutely part of the primordial computer soup, none of their DNA took part in the conception or in the birth of the computer.
Cheers,
Ezrdr (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Neat, but not in line with my reading. What sources do you rely on that do not contain the superfluous and erroneous? Or perhaps I should ask about those superfluities and errors? As regards Turing see Development of the stored-program concept.--TedColes (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Giving me as proof for Turing an unreferenced (except for the article itself) speculative (Whether he knew of Turing's paper of 1936 at that time is not clear) paragraph from Wikipedia ! You are a living proof of the cartoon: Where citations come from.Ezrdr (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the cartoon, but the verbatim quotation from Stan Frankel seems to me to be a sound source, which is also cited in Copeland, Jack (2004), Copeland, B. Jack, ed., The Essential Turing: Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life plus The Secrets of Enigma, pp. 21, 22, ISBN 0-19-825080-0  Copeland states that von Neumann offered Turing a position as his assistant when he was in Princeton in 1938 which is attested by a letter from Turing to his mother dated 17 May 1938. It goes on to say that "It was during Turing's time at Princeton that von Neumann became familiar with the ideas in 'On Computable Numbers'. He was to become intrigued with Turing's concept of a universal computing machine." This cites Stanislaw Ulam, von Neumann's friend and colleague as saying "I know that von Neumann was influenced by Turing...". --TedColes (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ENIAC may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *{{cite book | ref=SCOTT | last=McCartney |first= Scott|title= ENIAC: The Triumphs and Tragedies of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Von Neumann architecture may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the 'von Neumann architecture''' Eckert said.| Scott McCartney| ENIAC (1999)<ref name=bitter>>[[#SCOTT|Scott McCartney]] p.125 (1999).</ref>}}
  • since September of 1944. The first draft, dated June 30, 1945,<ref>[[#JOEL|Joel Shurkin]], p.184 (19840</ref> was to be a summary of all the discussions that had taken place at the Moore school,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)