This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion. For a listing of essays see the
essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
I caught the reference to
Mu (negative) early on. The koan wikilinks to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FU . That does follow a pattern Mu --> Fu --> WP:FU and there is an association of disallowing (as Mu (negative)) inappropriate "Wikipedia:Non-free content" (as covered in WP:FU) in Wikipedia featured articles. -
Bevo16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Rouge or rogue
Once, an admin stood before his assembled editors, and stamped his foot before them. He spoke: "If you call me a rogue admin, you ignore the facts of my appearance. If you do not call me a rouge admin, you ignore the facts of my actions. Now quickly, call me!"
Is it intentional for #5 to use two different adjectives for the admin, rogue first and then rouge second? In this context they both have specific, separate meanings (but moreso, of course, outside the context).
BigNate37(T)21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it's a typo, but I didn't conceive it. It is a good koan with rogue used twice, but otherwise I'm lost! -
Bevo21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a derivative of this koan
‘Shou-shan held out his short staff and said, If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality; if you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now quickly, say what it is!’[1]
Well, my concern was that if it is intended as written, there is a simple answer which commits neither ignorance: call him a rouge.
BigNate37(T)22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Every guideline is created to defeat a particular type of problem. If you can determine what the original problems were, you will understand the guideline.
The phrase He summoned his successor to the MedCom is structurally ambiguous (and not really necessary, but whatever). Is this his successor to the MedCom, or is his successor being summoned to the MedCom? Also, the clause whom had achieved... doesn't make any sense. —
The Storm Surfer22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Since this comment, the first had been changed to to the head of the MedCom, which wasn't much better. I've reworked the sentence including the who/whom part and hope I've managed to improve it. If not, revert.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)reply
We're very ecumenical here at Wikipedia. Figures like
Han-Shan didn't see any need to choose one or the other, so I don't think we need to either. --
Gwern (contribs) 18:11 12 January 2010 (GMT)