LOL! You want to step outside and repeat that remark? You know, a boxing
ring is square, too!! ;-)
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Barrett
Not recipes, but the fact that Go is an unacceptable topic for
Wikipedia: the very raison d'etre of the off-square-ness of the grid is
the player POV. NPOV requires a square grid.
Nobody mentioned yet that there are 3 different size go boards in common
use:
9 x 9
13 x 13
19 x 19
As mentioned, of course, the boards are slightly off-square, to offset
the effect of looking at the board from an angle. And most importantly
the board is not conceived as being divided into squares but hashed with
lines: markers are placed at the intersections of these lines. Territory
consists not of "area" but of the count of /points/ cordoned off by the
markers of one color.
...not sure how this relates to recipes.
We do have an article on go, which contains tips on tactics and
strategy. I sure hope the whole thing isn't deleted and/or moved to
WikiBooks!
Ed Poor
I will be happy to present evidence that Irismeister has been called a
quack and a nutcase.
Irismeister is a quack and a nutcase. There!
(Ah, that felt good to say!)
/ducks and covers/
Ed
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>Remember when it took a long, soul-seaching vote on this mailing list
>for each new sysop?
Votes? I don't, no. When was that?
What I remember is
"I will give it out more or less willy-nilly to anyone who I know"
and
"Anyone else who wants sysop, just email me"
-M-
Isn't this guy now at the arbitration committee stage?
It sounds like this matter needs a moveon.
(BTW , my first entry!)
--
--------- Original Message ---------
DATE: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:39:09
From: "KNOTT, T" <tknott(a)qcl.org.uk>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Cc:
>Can I ask for people to help me out a bit here. Irismeister is following me around trying to provoke me. My tactic of doing my best to ignore him seems to be winding him up as he made a couple of absurd edits yesterday - he removed "if swallowed ....... seek medical help" from ammonium chloride on the ground that seeking medical help from unqualified persons wastes time and is therefore dangerous. This _may_ be because english is not his first language and he doesn't realize the phrase means - go to a doctor or ring the emergency services, but I think it's just that he's baiting me.
>
>Another example is on the reflexology page where he deleted a quote that I put in calling it obscene. This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard so I reverted.
>
>My problem is, I am now at the stage where I simply revert all the deletions he makes of my work without even considering his arguments. It may well be that I make a bad edit, irismeister reverts it and I revert it back again simply because it was him. I am concerned that other editors may be reluctant to argue with me for fear of agree with him, or even for fear of getting involved in the war. So I'm asking for you lot's help. If you see me revert irismeister and you think that even though he is a jerk, his edit had some merit please say so on the talk page. I can't bring myself to argue my case with him anymore, but I don't want the quality of wikipedia to suffer as a result.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Theresa
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
I think you mean, in Western chess's main variant, a chessboard has 64
squares. There's also fairy chess, 3-d chess, etc.
And in Korean/Chinese chess, the pieces aren't placed on squares at all!
Rather, on the points where the lines of a 10 x 9 grid intersect.
Bonus question: How many squares on a Go board?
Tricky Ol' Uncle Ed
Cimon Avaro wrote:
>(pardon my french) The original french encyclopaedists
>made a point of detailing as many crafts and industries
>as possible, down to the most minute detail, with graphic
>illustrations capable of practical implementation. This is
>what made them notable in their own time as spreading
>the industrial revolution.
And the ones in the English tradition have tended to shy away from
instructional material and language.
Again, different cultures will have different ideas about how to best organize
information. The instructional/informative and textbook/encyclopedia
distinction seems to me to be rather prevalent in the English language
tradition.
But different cultures may have different ways of doing things. However, much
of the current situation can be fixed by converting the recipes into
encyclopedia articles (informative voice) and moving the rest to Wikibooks.
Both projects would benefit from this.
I do not favor deletion.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Delirium wrote:
>I just really don't like the condescending tone of "this
>is how you do this". Just *describe* things. We are
>in no position to give instructions, because we just
>report on what other people say; we don't do original
>research and come up with our own tutorials, because
>that's well outside our mission (which explicitly states
>"no original research").
Exactly. The goal of Wikibooks is to instruct, the goal of Wikipedia, at least
the English Wikipedia, is to inform. We can still inform readers how some
people instruct others, but we should *not* be the ones doing the instructing.
To do so would be a violation of our NPOV policy as practiced in the context of
Wikipedia.
This was one of the main reasons why I proposed a different neutrality policy
for Wikibooks. The compromise was to use NPOV but to limit the focus of
textbooks so that they are still useful in instruction.
But different cultures will have different ideas about what is appropriate to
include in an encyclopedia or textbook, so I don't pretend to extend this
concept to the other language Wikipedias (where instructional material may very
well be appropriate to have in an encyclopedia for their culture).
Wikipedia is already a run-away success. Let's not impoverish Wikibooks by
duplicating that project's content and mission.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Jimbo only referred it yesterday. We are still adding evidence at the moment. The arbitration committee will have to decide if to accept it, then they need a week to investigate.
IMO it is more important to follow good procedure than to get things done quickly. Don't worry, although he is driving me nuts I can take it for as long as is necessary. His NPOV edits are reverted by lot's of people so wikipedia will not suffer.
Theresa
-----Original Message-----
From: Arno M [mailto:redgum46@lycos.com]
Sent: 25 February 2004 06:38
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister
Isn't this guy now at the arbitration committee stage?
It sounds like this matter needs a moveon.
(BTW , my first entry!)
--
--------- Original Message ---------
DATE: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:39:09
From: "KNOTT, T" <tknott(a)qcl.org.uk>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Cc:
>Can I ask for people to help me out a bit here. Irismeister is following me around trying to provoke me. My tactic of doing my best to ignore him seems to be winding him up as he made a couple of absurd edits yesterday - he removed "if swallowed ....... seek medical help" from ammonium chloride on the ground that seeking medical help from unqualified persons wastes time and is therefore dangerous. This _may_ be because english is not his first language and he doesn't realize the phrase means - go to a doctor or ring the emergency services, but I think it's just that he's baiting me.
>
>Another example is on the reflexology page where he deleted a quote that I put in calling it obscene. This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard so I reverted.
>
>My problem is, I am now at the stage where I simply revert all the deletions he makes of my work without even considering his arguments. It may well be that I make a bad edit, irismeister reverts it and I revert it back again simply because it was him. I am concerned that other editors may be reluctant to argue with me for fear of agree with him, or even for fear of getting involved in the war. So I'm asking for you lot's help. If you see me revert irismeister and you think that even though he is a jerk, his edit had some merit please say so on the talk page. I can't bring myself to argue my case with him anymore, but I don't want the quality of wikipedia to suffer as a result.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Theresa
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>The only ones that are proscribing the work of others are
>those wanting to delete these recipes.
Deleting is bad. Moving is better. But the best thing to do would be to create
an actual encyclopedia article on the subject and move the "two cups flour, one
dash of salt..." stuff to Wikibooks. But informing readers about the different
ways a particular dish is created can be very encyclopedic if done correctly
(others have gone over how to do that better than I can).
--mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools