[Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Shlomi Fish
Hi all,

in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell is a
single-player card game, that became popular after being included in
some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about it
used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively short
sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it.
However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or
"non-Encyclopaedic".

Right now there's only this section -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks about the
fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.

I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a
"reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers (including
I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the
sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).

Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists, then
at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:

*
http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2011/06-Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper/Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper-Paper.pdf

* There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the fc-solve-discuss
Yahoo Group:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/1388

The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000 Microsoft
FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were written
outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less fashionable
there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were written
by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the
first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be
impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.

Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to verify
that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential
future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of
my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4
minutes.[Verification]

===========

Now my questions are:

1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic source
that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?

2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there are
hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for
"Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question
does not mention them at all.

===========

Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts. As you
can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the hoops
one has to overcome in order to cope with them.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish


[Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not verified/proved
as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq , so
there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that I
did write some automated tests for them.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://shlom.in/sw-quality

The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
Hubris.
    — http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Pine W
Hi Shlomi,

I would suggest posting those questions on the talk page of the article,
and/or at WP:RSN.

Pine

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Shlomi Fish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell is a
> single-player card game, that became popular after being included in
> some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about
> it
> used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively
> short
> sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it.
> However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or
> "non-Encyclopaedic".
>
> Right now there's only this section -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks
> about the
> fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.
>
> I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a
> "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers
> (including
> I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the
> sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
>
> Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists,
> then
> at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
>
> *
>
> http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2011/06-Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper/Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper-Paper.pdf
>
> * There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the
> fc-solve-discuss
> Yahoo Group:
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/1388
>
> The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000
> Microsoft
> FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were
> written
> outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less
> fashionable
> there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were
> written
> by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the
> first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be
> impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
>
> Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to
> verify
> that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential
> future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of
> my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4
> minutes.[Verification]
>
> ===========
>
> Now my questions are:
>
> 1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic
> source
> that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
>
> 2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there
> are
> hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for
> "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question
> does not mention them at all.
>
> ===========
>
> Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts.
> As you
> can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the
> hoops
> one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Shlomi Fish
>
>
> [Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not
> verified/proved
> as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq
> , so
> there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that
> I
> did write some automated tests for them.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
> What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://shlom.in/sw-quality
>
> The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
> Hubris.
>     — http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Ruslan
In reply to this post by Shlomi Fish
Answering your questions:

   1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
   included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
   matter.) The full reference is
   http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836
   2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be
   included.

Ruslan

2015-12-28 19:50 GMT+03:00 Shlomi Fish <[hidden email]>:

> Hi all,
>
> in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell is a
> single-player card game, that became popular after being included in
> some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about
> it
> used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively
> short
> sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it.
> However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or
> "non-Encyclopaedic".
>
> Right now there's only this section -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks
> about the
> fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.
>
> I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a
> "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers
> (including
> I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the
> sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
>
> Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists,
> then
> at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
>
> *
>
> http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2011/06-Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper/Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper-Paper.pdf
>
> * There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the
> fc-solve-discuss
> Yahoo Group:
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/1388
>
> The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000
> Microsoft
> FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were
> written
> outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less
> fashionable
> there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were
> written
> by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the
> first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be
> impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
>
> Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to
> verify
> that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential
> future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of
> my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4
> minutes.[Verification]
>
> ===========
>
> Now my questions are:
>
> 1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic
> source
> that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
>
> 2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there
> are
> hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for
> "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question
> does not mention them at all.
>
> ===========
>
> Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts.
> As you
> can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the
> hoops
> one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Shlomi Fish
>
>
> [Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not
> verified/proved
> as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq
> , so
> there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that
> I
> did write some automated tests for them.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
> What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://shlom.in/sw-quality
>
> The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
> Hubris.
>     — http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Shlomi Fish
In reply to this post by Pine W
Hi Pine,

sorry for the late reply.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:31:31 -0800
Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Shlomi,
>
> I would suggest posting those questions on the talk page of the article,
> and/or at WP:RSN.
>

I've posted it to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_201#.E2.80.9CReliable.E2.80.9D.2C_.E2.80.9CNotable.E2.80.9D.2C_and_.E2.80.9CEncyclopaedic.E2.80.9D_Sources_for_Automated_Solvers_for_FreeCell ,
which is something I try to avoid because the MediaWiki talk pages' interface
lacks usability, and got no reply. However, someone replied on the thread here.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
List of Portability Libraries - http://shlom.in/port-libs

I used to be arrogant. Now I’m simply perfect.
    — one of Shlomi Fish’s relatives.

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Shlomi Fish
In reply to this post by Ruslan
Hi Ruslan,

sorry for the late reply.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:01:31 +0300
Ruslan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Answering your questions:
>
>    1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
>    included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
>    matter.) The full reference is
>    http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836
>    2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be
>    included.
>

I see. Well, my dilemma here is that if I wrote that the best performing
known solver todate could only solve 98% of the first 32,000 layouts, that will
be very misleading (because like I said hobbyist solvers exist that can solve
31,999 of the deals and I was also able to verify these solutions as legal
ones using a verification code). So what can we do? If I (or someone else)
prepare a small public research document, which won't be an academic paper but
will still have reproducible results, and publish it somewhere (with sources on
GitHub, but also a version available on a static HTML site) and then cite that
- will this be good enough? Or will this violate Wikipedia's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research policy?

Thanks in advance,

        -- Shlomi Fish

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Google-Discontinues-Services/

A wiseman can learn from a fool much more than a fool can ever learn from a
wiseman.               — http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Shlomi Fish
Dear Ruslan,

please reply to my questions below. I've been waiting all along.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:55:04 +0200
Shlomi Fish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Ruslan,
>
> sorry for the late reply.
>
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:01:31 +0300
> Ruslan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Answering your questions:
> >
> >    1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
> >    included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
> >    matter.) The full reference is
> >    http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836
> >    2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be
> >    included.
> >  
>
> I see. Well, my dilemma here is that if I wrote that the best performing
> known solver todate could only solve 98% of the first 32,000 layouts, that
> will be very misleading (because like I said hobbyist solvers exist that can
> solve 31,999 of the deals and I was also able to verify these solutions as
> legal ones using a verification code). So what can we do? If I (or someone
> else) prepare a small public research document, which won't be an academic
> paper but will still have reproducible results, and publish it somewhere
> (with sources on GitHub, but also a version available on a static HTML site)
> and then cite that
> - will this be good enough? Or will this violate Wikipedia's
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research policy?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> -- Shlomi Fish
>



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Emma-Watson/

Chuck Norris does not code; when he sits at a computer, it just does whatever
he wants. (By: Kattana.)
    — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Joseph Fox
Yes, that would be original research and not permitted on the English
Wikipedia.

Joe

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016, Shlomi Fish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Ruslan,
>
> please reply to my questions below. I've been waiting all along.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Shlomi Fish
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:55:04 +0200
> Shlomi Fish <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ruslan,
> >
> > sorry for the late reply.
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:01:31 +0300
> > Ruslan <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Answering your questions:
> > >
> > >    1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable
> to be
> > >    included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
> > >    matter.) The full reference is
> > >    http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836
> > >    2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be
> > >    included.
> > >
> >
> > I see. Well, my dilemma here is that if I wrote that the best performing
> > known solver todate could only solve 98% of the first 32,000 layouts,
> that
> > will be very misleading (because like I said hobbyist solvers exist that
> can
> > solve 31,999 of the deals and I was also able to verify these solutions
> as
> > legal ones using a verification code). So what can we do? If I (or
> someone
> > else) prepare a small public research document, which won't be an
> academic
> > paper but will still have reproducible results, and publish it somewhere
> > (with sources on GitHub, but also a version available on a static HTML
> site)
> > and then cite that
> > - will this be good enough? Or will this violate Wikipedia's
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research policy?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> >       -- Shlomi Fish
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
> http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Emma-Watson/
>
> Chuck Norris does not code; when he sits at a computer, it just does
> whatever
> he wants. (By: Kattana.)
>     — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Sent from a mobile communication device.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Shlomi Fish
Hi Joe,

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:29:12 +0000
Joseph Fox <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, that would be original research and not permitted on the English
> Wikipedia.
>

I see. Thanks for the information (though I'm still frustrated it took this
list so long to give me a reply). I guess I won't be adding information about
the solvers to the FreeCell article after all. It's your loss, really.

Wikipedia has so many rules that you can think it's a small country instead of
an open-content project. :-(.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Can-I-SCO-Now/ - “Can I SCO Now?”

If you have to ask what Jazz is, you'll never know.
    — Attributed to https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Lionel Allorge (lionel.allorge@lunerouge.org)
Hi,

> I see. Thanks for the information (though I'm still frustrated it took this
> list so long to give me a reply). I guess I won't be adding information
> about the solvers to the FreeCell article after all. It's your loss,
> really.

You should mention this information on the talk page of the article :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCell

My two cents.

--
Lionel Allorge
Lune Rouge : http://www.lunerouge.org
April : http://www.april.org
Wikimedia France : http://wikimedia.fr


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Shlomi Fish
If you get it published off Wikipedia then it becomes a reference and someone else can mention it on Wikipedia
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Shlomi Fish
Sent: Tuesday, 08 March 2016 2:30 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Hi Joe,

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:29:12 +0000
Joseph Fox <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, that would be original research and not permitted on the English
> Wikipedia.
>

I see. Thanks for the information (though I'm still frustrated it took this list so long to give me a reply). I guess I won't be adding information about the solvers to the FreeCell article after all. It's your loss, really.

Wikipedia has so many rules that you can think it's a small country instead of an open-content project. :-(.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Can-I-SCO-Now/ - “Can I SCO Now?”

If you have to ask what Jazz is, you'll never know.
    — Attributed to https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4540/11775 - Release Date: 03/08/16


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Shlomi Fish
In reply to this post by Lionel Allorge (lionel.allorge@lunerouge.org)
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:08:17 +0100
"Lionel Allorge ([hidden email])" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I see. Thanks for the information (though I'm still frustrated it took this
> > list so long to give me a reply). I guess I won't be adding information
> > about the solvers to the FreeCell article after all. It's your loss,
> > really.  
>
> You should mention this information on the talk page of the article :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCell
>

which information?

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

> My two cents.
>



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Buffy Factoids - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Buffy/

By the time Chuck Norris found out who John Galt is, Summer Glau already had
sex with him.
    — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Summer-Glau/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Shlomi Fish
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
Hello Peter,

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:36:02 +0200
"Peter Southwood" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you get it published off Wikipedia then it becomes a reference and someone
> else can mention it on Wikipedia

Published where , how, why, what, and when? What forms of publishing are
acceptable for using as a Wikipedia reference?

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

> Cheers,
> Peter
>

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/shlomif/

Larry Wall’s pure‐Perl code is faster than Assembly.
    — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Larry-Wall/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

geni
On 10 March 2016 at 12:22, Shlomi Fish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Peter,
>
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:36:02 +0200
> "Peter Southwood" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> If you get it published off Wikipedia then it becomes a reference and someone
>> else can mention it on Wikipedia
>
> Published where , how, why, what, and when? What forms of publishing are
> acceptable for using as a Wikipedia reference?
>
> Regards,
>
>         Shlomi Fish
>

Anything that meets the requirements of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

In your case you would be looking at peer reviewed journals, retro
game magazines or perhaps someone publishing a book through a
reputable publisher on microsoft's games.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>