User talk:Hans Adler: Difference between revisions
imported>Hans Adler (→Non-Borel set: r) |
imported>Boris Tsirelson (→Non-Borel set: I see. Thank you) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:I had the impression that Citizendium favours larger articles and prefers not to have masses of little stubs like Wikipedia does; but I can't find this in the official information, so I may well be wrong. I am not really familiar with (non-)Borel sets, but I would have thought that the natural place for an example of such a set would be at [[Borel set]]. According to [[CZ:Approval_Process#Overview]], an approved article should be "so well developed that it gives the Citizendium reader a good introduction and overview to its topic". I guess you have intentionally chosen a very narrow topic, but perhaps it was a bit too narrow. Looking at some of the articles in [[:Category:Approved Articles]], I get the impression that you are overusing the specific CZ features, and this makes the article even shorter. | :I had the impression that Citizendium favours larger articles and prefers not to have masses of little stubs like Wikipedia does; but I can't find this in the official information, so I may well be wrong. I am not really familiar with (non-)Borel sets, but I would have thought that the natural place for an example of such a set would be at [[Borel set]]. According to [[CZ:Approval_Process#Overview]], an approved article should be "so well developed that it gives the Citizendium reader a good introduction and overview to its topic". I guess you have intentionally chosen a very narrow topic, but perhaps it was a bit too narrow. Looking at some of the articles in [[:Category:Approved Articles]], I get the impression that you are overusing the specific CZ features, and this makes the article even shorter. | ||
:Getting an article approved is theoretically as easy as getting another mathematics editor to sign it off. In practice the standards seem to be somewhere between Wikipedia's GA and FA (''plus'' correctness), and [[:Category:Mathematics Approved]] is woefully empty. But don't take what I am writing too seriously – I am very inexperienced here. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] 22:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC) | :Getting an article approved is theoretically as easy as getting another mathematics editor to sign it off. In practice the standards seem to be somewhere between Wikipedia's GA and FA (''plus'' correctness), and [[:Category:Mathematics Approved]] is woefully empty. But don't take what I am writing too seriously – I am very inexperienced here. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] 22:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I see. Thank you. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 04:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:43, 20 June 2009
Where Hans lives it is approximately: 18:04
Welcome!
Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started for other helpful introductory pages. It is essential for you as an editor to join the Citizendium-Editors (broadcast) mailing list in order to stay abreast of editor-related issues, as well as the mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. Jitse Niesen 10:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Mar(r)iage card games
Hello, Hans! I saw your new article on "Mariage card games" and I wondered whether the first word was misspelled or not. Is the name the French word "mariage" (with one "r"), or is it supposed to be the English word "marriage" (with 2 "r"s)? Thanks. Bruce M. Tindall 21:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, it's nice to get feedback that shows even such an unfinished article is already being read. It's supposed to be French, as in David Parlett's OUP book, because apparently the "marriages" came from France and were added to the German 66 game, which was then known as "Mariagenspiel" (German for "game of mariage"). The Czechs and Slovaks are still using the French name in transcribed form. I believe the game never caught on on the other side of the Channel or Atlantic.
- Thanks for asking. I have just gone through the process of renaming Jass–Belote card games, so I am well aware that some people might not correct a typo in the title because they are afraid of the process and don't want to bother anybody. And the decision whether to translate in this case is far from obvious.
- PS: I just copied the Usertime-text template from your talk page. Very useful. --Hans Adler 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Non-Borel set
Hans, could you please look at my new article Non-Borel set? It is a short article intended for a reader not acquainted with descriptive set theory and curious to know whether a specific example of a non-Borel set can be constructed.
Your comments are welcome, the more so that I am a newbie here. Do you think this article should be developed further? If so, --- in which direction? If not --- can it be approved? Boris Tsirelson 17:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Boris, welcome to Citizendium! I haven't been here long and I am not as active here as I would like to be. Wikipedia is much more lively, and with its masses of unreasonable users it's quite an addictive game.
- I had the impression that Citizendium favours larger articles and prefers not to have masses of little stubs like Wikipedia does; but I can't find this in the official information, so I may well be wrong. I am not really familiar with (non-)Borel sets, but I would have thought that the natural place for an example of such a set would be at Borel set. According to CZ:Approval_Process#Overview, an approved article should be "so well developed that it gives the Citizendium reader a good introduction and overview to its topic". I guess you have intentionally chosen a very narrow topic, but perhaps it was a bit too narrow. Looking at some of the articles in Category:Approved Articles, I get the impression that you are overusing the specific CZ features, and this makes the article even shorter.
- Getting an article approved is theoretically as easy as getting another mathematics editor to sign it off. In practice the standards seem to be somewhere between Wikipedia's GA and FA (plus correctness), and Category:Mathematics Approved is woefully empty. But don't take what I am writing too seriously – I am very inexperienced here. Hans Adler 22:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you. Boris Tsirelson 04:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)