Your CxLL project is a great idea. I'll help out when I can. Good luck with it. --Kirjava 01:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank's Thom, hope you can add up CMLL because I don't know that many algs for it // Kenneth 06:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. If we made it so everyone could delete pages, that may get out of hand. Perhaps if we can undo deletion of pages, it wouldn't be that bad. I will see what I can do soon. This week and upcoming weekend will be very busy, but I will get to it ASAP. Great work so far, Kenneth.
How about making it so only registers users can delete pages? I think you can undo this anyway... --Kirjava 12:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll try setting that up soon. -WikiAdmin
Sorry about that. Fixed now. I was messing around with making TeX work, and apparently messed with the image paths. Thanks for letting me know.
Deleting the picture
I did it because this wiki is very unencyclopedic at the moment, and I was doing cleaning up.
An image should not be in the heading of a section, and I did not find it at all appropriate.
- I don't know why it was in the header but I think it should be images of the most common puzzles at the main page. // Kenneth 19:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kenneth, I've noticed you've put a bunch of your methods up (KBCM, PEG, PORT, E15/E35). I don't mean to offend you but the pages you write are kind of difficult to understand, and since you're the only one who really understands the methods it would be very hard for other people to edit the page. It is also weird to see so much information on those pages when the articles for much more common methods like Petrus and EG have much less information. What I'm trying to say is that the pages for your methods seem like something you would put on your personal web page. Perhaps instead of writing all of the information and algorithms on the Wiki article, it would be better if you put the details on your personal webpage (or on a personal article - did you know you can create articles 'under' your username, like User:Kenneth/KBCM/Step_1? That would be a better way to organize your stuff, especially the methods you have not completely written up yet.). When you put so much specific and detailed information in the main directory it says to others that (a) your method is more popular/important, because the article is longer, and (b) the articles about your methods represent the knowledge of the community (even though they are actually just updated by you). qqwref 20:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree, there is room for my pages here. The problem you see is mainly caused by the fact that it is only me who has written much into the wiki. The unbalance will be a lot better when the wiki grows. I have not planned to write about more of my methods than those I have placed here now, all planned from start, not that I get an idéa and start to write an article about it, these are methods I developed during several years, methods I know are really good, methods I have written long treads about earlier, I just try to collect that writing here, makeing the important parts easier to look over. So the space I use here will not grow much more than that I will compleate the pages that I have started. The pages about PEG and PORT I listed under experimental methods but nowhere else, I think that is OK, maybe it was a stupid idéa to put the algs in the CxLL pages but man, it was no work, just putting the algs there, it was so easy =) I can move out that and put the algs at the pages about the methods instead. The pages about my big cube method, it's pretty obvious it's mine =) // Kenneth 21:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Right, but I mean, it's not like there's a page for everyone's big cube method, you know? I'm glad that you are making your own methods but does it really need six articles worth of coverage when there's only one person who uses it (and he isn't THAT fast as far as things go)? Also I don't think the wiki will grow as much as you think, there are only a few people who are really putting work into it, and I don't think anyone else is going to (for example) paste the entirety of Lars Petrus's website onto this wiki just to have the information here. I don't think the wiki should have extensively detailed information on everything - I'd prefer to explain the method in general, and then provide a link to a page that contains ALL the details (recognition of cases, a list of every algorithm, and so on). If you're just going to copy a huge list of algorithms from the forum, why not just explain the steps of your method and then link to the forum post? For example take a look at the Wikipedia page for a book or something, they don't write out the entire work (even if it's just a short story or a play), but rather write a synopsis of it so that you can understand what's going on, and then if you want to read the entire book you can do that somewhere else. By the way I really wish you would spend a bit more time on the formatting, for example the pages on PEG and KBCM_Step_6 are very hard to read and don't look like a wiki article at all. Maybe you could add some pictures or something (or, again, just link to a forum post where you already have it all written down). qqwref 23:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
lol, you forgot to read the first line of the page (KBCM_Step_6), I did a cut and paste and that's the only work I have done to it so far, like 2-3 minutes, in the background I am making images for the cases and when I'm done I plan to place them on the page and then also edit everything. After that the page will be of mabe 25% of the lenght it has now = much more compact and easy to follow. That is also why I move the stuff here, that original description is text only with no possibility to use tables (it was originaly a post in the Y-group), here I can work on the layout as I like. The article about PEG is just the firts version, I plan to edit it more, but hey I can't do it all at once =) I don't have any personal page where I can put this stuff, and if I had one it would not have a wiki (you need a server for that) and the wiki is the reason for me having the energy to do this work at all, it's so much easier to create pages than in HTML, it's less than half the work. If I can't do it here the pages would newer exisist.
And seriously, I can't see the problem at all, what if my pages are the biggest in the wiki?, what diffrence does that make? // Kenneth 06:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Kenneth, I think you've done a great job of documenting your ideas, and in my opinion that's what wiki should be all about. Space should not be the issue, but rather, the ability for the information technology to summarize and organize the use of that space for everyone's benefit. If I may make a suggestion, the individual's decision to make up an acronym here or there could be offset by an edit that displays both the "legacy acronym" and the "mainstream acronym", as both may be of interest to the general public, and it would also make both searchable. I can forsee many advantages to researchers in the future who have access to both. I for one take great liberty in making up my own vocabulary and library of acronyms for everything from software techniques to theories on reality, and I find no fault in this as that is how language develops. In my opinion history should reveal the bold attempts at new language and mainstream side by side.
--Tony Snyder 02:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank's Tony. Yes, if you and I and the rest of the cubing community did not make up the names, acronymes etc, then who would?
// Kenneth 07:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It would also help if there were a quick-reference to mainstream acronyms and lingo, clickable from the menu on the left. For example, right now I'm trying to verify whether my use of the word "algorithm" in representing a set of moves is consistent with mainstream cubing. I remember a long time ago "algorithm" was used to describe the method, whereas "manuever" was used to describe a set of moves, and at some point I thought that was a bad idea and started using "algorithm" instead for the set of moves, and "technique" for the method.
--Tony Snyder 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think both are valid. It is a bit miss used today that's right. // Kenneth 08:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with inventing the names PEBL and PCBL for your own method, but you can't just create terms for someone else's method and then claim that those are the correct terms to describe them. The way I see it a Wiki is supposed to be a source for correct and authoritative information from the speedcubing community, and putting in something that isn't true (like saying that the edge permutation step in Square-1 is commonly called PEBL) is just wrong and misleading. I don't want a beginner to come here and read something that everyone but one person would agree is wrong, and then go out believing it as truth. If you have a method of your own you can call it whatever you like, but don't put words in other people's mouths... And if your goal is to get people to start calling their method PEBL and PCBL instead of EP and CP, then you should make a topic about it on speedsolving, rather than editing the Wiki for your own purposes. qqwref 20:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and as far as inventions are concerned, my goal is NOT to stop you from inventing new methods and terms, I just don't think inventions belong on the Wiki mainspace unless they fit in with what the community would say. It's fine to create descriptions of methods and file them under the 'Experimental Methods' section (although I don't think that EVERY detail belongs on the Wiki, it would be better to put it on a personal web page, which this is not), but don't create articles with your personal opinions and then claim that they are facts. qqwref 20:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- "like saying that the edge permutation step in Square-1 is commonly called PEBL"
- But I did not said it is commonly used, I just used the naming convention for steps because I have no other name, OK it may be EP both it is in both layers and that makes EPBL to me, it is that simple.
- I think you are confusing "wiki" to being the same as "Wikipedia", this was newer ment to be a "Wikipedia" as far as I remember but a place to put all kinds of resourses and tutorials, may be the common ones or your own. Did you read this thread?.
// Kenneth 12:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I know you don't want to follow every philosophy of Wikipedia, and I don't either, but I think it is still very important to present correct information! For example if you put a paragraph on the Fridrich method page saying something like "the second step is called 4CEP because it solves 4 Corner-Edge Pairs", I would have no choice but to delete it, because it's simply wrong. You should not take it as a personal offense that I delete mention of PEBL and PCBL - square-1 solvers (of which I am one) simply do not use that term, and so by including them you are only confusing people, not helping to create a repository of knowledge. If you don't know something, it is better to not talk about it at all than to make something up which will probably be wrong. qqwref 21:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Great work setting up the wiki over the last year. It actually does get quite a bit of traffic - upwards of 500 unique visits a day currently. It is great to see people like you really contributing to make it a great resource. Happy New Year! --PJK 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank's Pat, I was a regular at the Wikipedia, there I learned how useful a wiki is to a community like ours =)
- Happy new year to you too! // Kenneth 20:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kenneth, I have a slight request for you. I was wondering if you still have (or know!) your RULM PLL's, and if you wouldn't mind sharing them. A friend needs them, and I remember hearing that you had good ones, so I thought I'd ask. --MiniGOINGS 20:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, oh, Don't know exactly which ones you are talking about. But I can look into it. Give me a day or a few and you will have them. Can't do it today because I'm occupied in some other matter. // Kenneth 05:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Have these at first, you can build many PLLs from combinations:
- Model : op1 [M] op2
- Operators 1 and 2 may be any of these:
- Adjacent (A) : R' U L' U2 R U' L
- Diagonal (D) : R' L' U2' R L
- Mirror operators:
- -A : (y) L U' R U2 L' U R' (y')
- -D : (y) L R U2' R' L' (y')
- M is "modifyer", usally no action at all or a U turn but can be whole algs if you like.
Most of my RUL PLLs are from that system. You can solve all but for some cases you need to do op1 [M] op2 [M] op3 [M] op 4 and that is as you understand looong. Three operators would do if it was not for the fact that every uneven operation exchanges two F2L pairs.
Ok, I just did a little google search and found what I was thinking of (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Kenneth+RULM+PLL), so I was hoping that you still had them. That's ok though, I don't need them right away, and I already know which ones I'll use for the EPLL cases, I could try and generate some of my own if that would help (so you don't have to find them all). --MiniGOINGS 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- NP, I know most, just have to write them down, will have dinner first but then...
|PLL||(x') U' L U' R2 U L' U' R2 U2 (x)|
Mirror A (don't know wich is a or b really and that goes for all that are mirrors =)
|PLL||(x') U R' U L2 U' R U L2 U2 (x)|
- I have no RULM for this one, I use a D2 commutator
|PLL||(x) R2 U2 M R U r' U2 l U' r U2 M' U'|
- oh man! I don't have energy to write them (I hate G =) but they are all combos of the system I show above, algs are A -D / -A D / -D A / D -A
J-PLL (you already know RULs for these but you have them anyway)
|PLL||R L U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R U'|
|PLL||R' L' U2 L U L' U2 R U' L U|
- 2x(A) and 2x(-A)
|PLL||M' U R2 (x') U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' M' U' M|
|PLL||M' U' L2 (x') U2 L U L' U2 R U' L U M' U M|
- is long in RUL use something diffrent (A -A works):
|PLL||R' U L U' R U R' U L' U' R U2 L U2 L'|
Y-PLL (A U' -A)
|PLL||R' U L' U2 R U' L d' L' U' R U2 L U R'|
(d' is the same as (y) U')
May be errors, I did not check, let me know if you find any =)
// Kenneth 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: LOL, the partial algs I posted at first I copied from the megamoxie-PLL pages, did not work here :P But I think I fixed them now =)