User talk:Dongord: Difference between revisions
→Disambiguation link notification for April 28: link fixed |
→Computer chess timeline: new section |
||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
</table> |
</table> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/06&oldid=926750430 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/06&oldid=926750430 --> |
||
== Computer chess timeline == |
|||
: So most of the Computer Chess article was not created by me, but I think last year, I read up on the area in published sources, and tried to add useful facts with references to the timeline section in particular. It seems sbalfour has gone through, and deleted many of my edits as "trivia." You and Quale suggested that you disagreed with sbalfour's definition of trivia. I'm wondering how to handle the situation. Should I create a new separate timeline article, and paste in the timeline from before sbalfour deleted so many entries? Or perhaps create a separate section on the use of chess software by professional chess players (which seems to be one of the areas which sbalfour is deleting)? --Dongord |
|||
Perhaps follow [[Talk:Computer_chess#History_section|the advice given at the time]] and split the late timeline to a different article first. Then it can be shortened to provide more of a narrative of which events led to which advances. |
|||
The change in role of chess software strictly as opponents to its use as a training tool is indeed significant and should be mentioned. Both Kasparov and Anand are notable in this area. The same shift is happening in Go and Shogi, now that they have also reached the professional strength level. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] ([[User talk:IanOsgood|talk]]) 14:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:28, 18 January 2020
Welcome
|
Fair point
I always assumed that seinen meant that it was specifically targeted towards adults, but you're right, I should've checked out the article on it first. I guess this counts as a case of non-diffusing subcategories then since the subcategories are not exactly like the parent. It might be worth adding {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} to the subcategories in question or finding a parent category that fits better, but I can't think of anything presently that would describe them better. Thanks for the explanation and clarification on the categories. Keep on categorizing :).
By the way, you might want to check out HotCat if you add and remove categories frequently.
Opencooper (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Dongord. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Dongord. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Neutral notice
There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Dongord. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Dongord. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Computer chess timeline
- So most of the Computer Chess article was not created by me, but I think last year, I read up on the area in published sources, and tried to add useful facts with references to the timeline section in particular. It seems sbalfour has gone through, and deleted many of my edits as "trivia." You and Quale suggested that you disagreed with sbalfour's definition of trivia. I'm wondering how to handle the situation. Should I create a new separate timeline article, and paste in the timeline from before sbalfour deleted so many entries? Or perhaps create a separate section on the use of chess software by professional chess players (which seems to be one of the areas which sbalfour is deleting)? --Dongord
Perhaps follow the advice given at the time and split the late timeline to a different article first. Then it can be shortened to provide more of a narrative of which events led to which advances.
The change in role of chess software strictly as opponents to its use as a training tool is indeed significant and should be mentioned. Both Kasparov and Anand are notable in this area. The same shift is happening in Go and Shogi, now that they have also reached the professional strength level. --IanOsgood (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)