text:
Wikibooks talk:Decision making

All the previous discussions on this page dealt with an older version of this policy which has been completely replaced by the current text. Older discussions for this policy are still available in the history of this page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * SwisTrack 175.158.46.93 (discuss) 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Majority, consensus and unanimity
The discussion here has shown that no-one wants a simple majority voting system for anything but the most basic market research issues such as BOTM. It has also shown that everyone understands that a single user who endlessly blocks a decision for malicious or wierd reasons should not be allowed to do so forever. Hence the term "consensus" has been bandied about as the solution to decision taking.

I agree that consensus is a good idea. However I am deeply opposed to gang rule. The idea that there will always be a group of Wikibookians who are reasonable and objective and who will coalesce to guide a decision to an appropriate conclusion is pure fiction. What actually happens is that a dialectic occurs in which chance remarks and objectionable style cause people to polarise into groups. Without any constitutional constraints the strongest group wins. Gang rule occurs. After the most powerful group has accomplished its polarised aims Festinger's Dissonance Theory applies and the winning group construes itself to be all sweetness, reason and light and incapable of anything but a justified decision.

The current guidelines attempt to avoid this problem by constitutionalising the process. All advanced organisations do this, it is only the most rabid dictatorships and transient anarchies such as the school playground and revolutionary groups that would ever contemplate operating without a constitutional method for decision taking. RobinH 09:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * No offense, but I'm not quite sure what the point of the above is.
 * I for the most part liked you recent edits to the policy wording, but removed the bit about the majority rule in the third round. There was no consensus of this in the debate before the guideline went official (strictly speaking, you probably shouldn't have done any changes in wording before discussing it on the talk page .. but I won't fret over the ones I agree with ).
 * My concern over using the majority rule as a last vent rises from the fear that it will reduce the willingness of a majority for compromise. If all you have to do to get your way is wait till the third round, why should you even engage in dialogue. --Swift 11:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The point of this section is that the word "consensus" is being bandied about without anyone being clear about what it means. In practice there are only majority votes (50%,60%, 100% or some other fraction) and imposed decisions. There is no magical "consensus" that can be used for decisions, the word "consensus" without qualification just covers bullying or use of power.

 * There was no consensus that the wording should become an accepted guideline.

 * Yes, the majority could wait until the third round. Alternatively, with the version after your edit, the dissenters could just continue to dissent until they kill the decision making process. RobinH 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree, This topic has recently been under [(19-20 March 2007) discussion] on my talk page so I'm reactivating this topic. Consensus doesn't support ignoring objections and must be part of an open process. I'm still working on an essay on Decision making and Community consensus on Wikibooks that fully addresses the problems, I have found so far. I take the change to call attention to the Hang on a sec post on the archive to anyone discussing the proposed drafted text.  --Panic 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"a" process
The process outlined is only one potential process for developing consensus. If it's "the" (only) process then we should have used it once or twice by now. (I couldn't find where we have.) RfD's VfD's certainly don't follow the letter of that process and yet the RfD VfD process isn't broken and I don't suggest changing it. Instead I suggest keeping that process as an example process but not a mandated one. I did this by changing the word "the" to "a" because I believe that this reflects the current practice of the guideline better. -- xixtas talk 03:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think in the end it is simplistic to suggest that one decision making process for every aspect of Wikibooks (or other Wikis) is going to work. In the end there will always be judgment calls to be made.  In theory (?!) admins are trusted to make these calls (or 'crats - there was an RfA on Commons that caused some stir recently) and everything is reversible (some bits are harder than others - removing sysop rights for instance).  While guidance is great "rules" can hamper things considerable (I'm quite good at following guidance, please don't ask me about rules!).
 * An interesting aspect is the use of (and importantly the counting of) "neutral" votes. I read quite a bit on quite a few Wikis.  I tend to vote "yes" or "no" - however sometimes I vote "neutral".  It is a conscious decision.  The answer on Commons (FWIW) is that they do not count but can be influential - probably a reasonable answer (IMO).  However it adds a dimension to the complexity of decision making -- Herby  talk thyme 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with this change. Even if this is a policy or a guideline, we want wikibookians to be able to use their judgment with preference towards this method. Wikibookians are not robots, and we cant expect them to act in a single specific way in every situation. The main point of this page is that wikibooks is not strictly a democracy, and a majority should never be free to ignore and trample on a minority. This is not to say that a consensus cannot be achieved with outstanding objections, only that those objections need to be considered before rendering a verdict. Even on VfD, if everybody votes to delete a particular page, and one person votes to keep, we will frequently not delete that book so that the one dissenter can work to improve it. The process is not reversed however, we won't "try" deleting a book if only one person votes that way. The idea of this method is to preserve the status quo unless there is overwhelming opinion to make change. The burden always falls on those who want to change the status quo, which leads to an inherent unfairness in the system: People who want to make change need to do alot more work then those who want to oppose it. So long as these principles are held, i dont really care how wikibookians go about making decisions. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No Outside Authority
I wanted to maybe add a note to this page about stewards and outside authority. I want to point out that there really isn't any outside appeals that can be made if a situation here is not handled satisfactorily. I am leaving this message in response to a message on the administrator's noticeboard that stewards are administrative only, and do not hold any particular authority to make decisions. I would also like to point out that the WMF board has taken a largely laissez-faire approach to the projects, which means that even if we send them a complaint, they are hihgly unlikely to get involved. Plus, for the board to get involved in a dispute here, they would open themselves up to getting dragged into disputes on many thousands of projects.

I think that there is some assumption that there really is a last-ditch external appeal that can be made in a dispute, but I want to make clear that this isn't the case. Wikibookians really need to be self-reliant, and we need to make our own decisions without being able to appeal to an external authority. In some cases it might be acceptable to bring in a neutral arbiter, but that's a topic that really can be left up to the disputants. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I definitely agree that something like this should be mentioned in the policy. Previous situations have taken wrong turns on this assumption and we need to make it clear that the Wikibooks word is final. -within focus 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Exactly, it's not really a change in our policy, it's mostly just a clarification of a point that we've been mistaken on in the past. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Howabout text like this:

I know it's a little long-winded, but it really does cover all the points we need to make: The wikibooks community is the final authority on any issue, no decision is "final" and can always be revisted by the community, neutral third parties can be imported from outside the project to act as arbiters, and people outside wikibooks have no authority to make binding decisions concerning wikibooks. I do acquiesce that certain global decisions can be made by the board concerning all projects, but they aren't decisions on which Wikibooks is likely to have any control over, nor any input on anyway. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I strongly disagree that this is the case. There is little reason to believe that the WMF or any other group (appointed or elected from a multi-project basis) would ever even listen to any arbitration decision without it having "gone through the process" of any local or individual project decision process.  This by itself should stop anybody from trying to "appeal directly to the top" for a decision before the rest of the community has had a chance to step in and voice their opinions on the topic.

 * Still, such actions "from the top" have happened here on Wikibooks in the past, and often at times at odds with what most of the community wanted to see happen. Content has been removed, substantial content, without so much as a VfD discussion reviewing the merits of that content.  And recently as well, by people who weren't even regular Wikibooks administrators.  There may have been very good reasons for doing that, but the point is that there is a "higher authority" in action here, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.  Writing a policy that denies the existance of this "higher authority" is going to be a great disservice to new Wikibookians who read this policy, only to discover that another reality actualy exists.

 * I do disagree that the WMF board won't listen to legitimate cries of intervention for gross cases of abuse. They have done so in the past, and I have no reason to believe that they won't in the future.  That they choose (wisely, I might add) to not get involved with the situation started by the dispute with Panic is besides the point.  If you compare this to the U.S. Supreme Court (one I'm a little familiar with), they get thousands of appeal requests each year.  They only "hear" about 30-40 cases, and even then don't necessarily make a final decision on all of them.  Quite often, they remand them to a lower jurisdiction with only a comment about one or two fine points of law for that court to consider.  A meta-arbitration board certainly could do just this sort of activity if it is ever set up.

 * Indeed, I would point out that some of the problems that came up with Jimbo's intervention on Wikibooks in the past was precisely because a few individuals did "appeal" directly to the top (Jimbo) and demand some sort of action to happen immediately. Without any sort of community input first.  That is not what I'm talking about.

 * Ultimately, authority to act as an administrator, bureaucrat, steward, or any other "leadership" position has its authority derived from the WMF board of trustees. Legitimacy comes from the user community, but the real power is the one who controls the ability to pull the plug from the servers we are using.  That is the WMF board.  Any fanciful policy statement to the contrary is not going to change that fact, unless we become completely independent of the WMF board.  And even then it is still something that is up to whomever has the ability to physically operate the hardware (at least directly paying the bills for the hardware and is legally responsible for it) that can force the decisions to be made.

 * Basically, not only do I disagree that this ammendment to the decision making policy should be made, I don't think legitimately there is even grounds to suggest such a policy in the first place. Decisions by a group of administrators is not the final "court of appeal" on this or any other Wikimedia project.  --Rob Horning 04:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Rob, I think you're really splitting hairs here and are missing the point of this proposed change. Nobody really cares who has the power to "pull the plug", it is out of our hands, but it's also out of our minds. We don't discuss closing wikibooks down here, and so it doesnt matter under whose authority such a thing could happen. What I'm looking to do with the amendment is to prevent people from looking beyond wikibooks to seek solutions. We have all the mechanisms here for resolving disputes, making decisions, and collaborating together. There is no need to try and go beyond the system, and so we should take steps to discourage attempts to do that. The WMF board has said on numerous occasions that it wouldn't get involved in community disputes. Hell, the WMF refuses to even play a helpful role in the selection of a new logo for this project.
 * Second, the kinds of "from the top" actions that you are discussing happened long in the past and are unlikely to happen again. However, we can take rudimentary steps to prevent it by making policy that states that the wikibooks community has final authority around here. Jimbo doesnt play the role that he once did in the WMF, and none of the current board members are interested in taking the kind of proactive stance that Jimbo took with the projects. The fact is, and something that you need to accept, is that the kinds of things that you're worried about simply arent an issue here anymore. We dont have to worry about the radical power abuses that happen on some of the smaller projects, and we dont have to worry about heavenly intercessions from the board into our daily affairs. The buck, for all intents and purposes starts and stops here with the wikibooks community, and I can't see a reasonable situation where outside assistance would either be asked for legitimately (as the decision making process is pretty comprehensive) or given (as the board is unlikely to intevene in any case). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * This is not where I'm living in the past, as you seem to be implying, but facing a reality here. The WMF board of trustees really does have the ultimate authority, and I think it is wise to note that.  And they have acted in the past, and have not made any statement showing they won't act in the future.  Indeed, some significant policy decisions (this is policy admittedly) have been made even over this past year which has had perhaps even a modest impact on Wikibook.  And while it may be buried under a pile of more mundane day to day administrator actions, there have been actions by board members and stewards here on Wikibooks that involved both content and user accounts over this past year that could have gone through the community decision processes (aka the VfD page and similar community forii) but weren't.  This is my point, that appeals have been made and decisions reached that did not involve the Wikibooks community, because this isn't the ultimate authority.  That I happen to agree with the actions performed by these individuals is one reason I haven't raised a stink about it on community pages... or at least haven't tried to reverse the actions myself.  I'm not talking the distant past or something that happened two or three years ago.  I also haven't seen any formal policy pronoucement on the part of the WMF board to suggest anything has really changed, other than perhaps the WMF board trusts the en.wikibooks community to more or less take care of itself at the moment, and are generally pleased with what policies we have come up with on our own.  But that is not the same as suggesting "we" have the ultimate authority and there is no room for appeal.

 * In addition, I find it somewhat comforting to know there are avenues of appeal in the case of abuse. Even if it is a seldom used option and something that would only be of value in cases of blatant abuse of authority.  At the very least, having avenues of appeal on decisions like a user block would be useful if only to acknowledge that sometimes people do make mistakes, and are very human in their actions with personal prejudice and pride.  I would hope that no one individual (including myself) would have ultimate supreme authority on any matter, and that actions could be reversed.  To acknowledge that the WMF board is very unlikely to get involved in all but the most blatant abuses of authority may be true, but I still think it is reasonable to mention the possibility.  Meta Arbitration Committees have been mentioned in the past on Foundation-l as well, and this is something that may happen in the future.

 * I should note here that this is a difference in opinion, however, and I do understand more or less what you are trying to get at Whiteknight. Authority of action, however, is the issue here, and I am suggesting that the authority is from the WMF board, not the "community" of generally active Wikibooks users.  Ultimately, there is "outside authority" that is superior to any decision reached by the Wikibooks community, and that authority shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.  --Rob Horning 13:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I didn't mean any offense by my "living in the past" comment, I only was trying to point out that the kinds of things you seem to be worrying about don't pose a present danger to our community. I would be interested to see what kinds of steward actions in the recent past you are talking about. There were a handful of times in the past year or so when my internet connection was unreliable, but I was able to contact stewards to act on my behalf via IRC. It is a frustrating situation when I can watch a vandal operate on the RC feed, but can't log on to the website to do anything about it!
 * If a person is blocked unfairly, they can always appeal the situation to the community. In that way, all admins are kept in check, because if one admin is blocking improperly, other admins will come in and correct that. The flip side of the coin is where the community as a whole does something that is deemed to be "unfair", but I would tend to say that a "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" situation is just an error of perception from the "victim". I would really like to see the steward or board member with large enough cajones to come in here and say "the entire community is wrong on this issue, and i'm going to unilaterally correct it". I don't feel like such a situation would end well, and it would be in our best interests not to even leave that option available. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrections to the text:

I haven't changed the "However, such arbiters can only help to reach a conclusion, and cannot enforce a binding decision without consensus from the general Wikibooks community." but I strongly disagree with it. It may be part of the request to ask the arbiter(s) to reach a conclusion and it should be up for the community to validate the proceeding and determine that the conclusion is enforcible if not in opposition to an existing policy, this will reduce the noise level and void processes, as to save all parties time and provide a quicker resolution. As an apart, I consider stewards and even the Wikimedia Board of Trustees members of the Wikibooks community. I understand what the text is attempting to avoid but I think that the idea is not expressed correctly. --Panic 05:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reworked some of the wording made some thing more Wikibooks related and clear that the decisions we are talking are reached by the decision-making process.
 * Removed "Neither of these groups is likely to respond to such requests anyway." it isn't up to us to comment or infer on other groups actions or intentions.
 * Removed "neutral" as classification of the arbiter if it is by mutual agreement we shouldn't attempt to enforce a trait (it is up to the parties to do the selection and agree on it).
 * Removed limit of arbiters (they may be free to agree on the number also).

 * I changed a sentence to sound better, but I don't think the message is any different. Also, if you or anyone else wish to extract the idea that Stewards, Trustees, etc. are Wikibooks community members, then the above text needs to change to something like "established Wikibooks editors" or something similar. There's no way I would support this text if people try to find loopholes or other interpretation issues like how "everyone is a part of the community". I don't think that view is correct in the first place, but if others do believe such things then it needs to get cut or re-worded. -within focus 12:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Did small correction on the wording and removed duplication of meanings. As for the definition of the Wikibooks community, I don't like your idea to reduce it only to "established Wikibooks editors" that is also a minority group of Wikibookians, you must keep in mind that to be able to express an opinion and participate on a decission one must only register an account (at least for now). As for the stewards and other "top echelons", they fall outside of the need to register as they by default can act and even in cases change or drastically alter, decide or affect decisions or actions taken here. I would agree that most would abstain to participate in minor local discussions but probably would be willing and mostly welcomed and useful to more complex issues. I prefer inclusion to exclusion and think that this view is beneficial to the project... --Panic 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I meant to suggest some words that would limit the definition of community to members that are here at the project and did not mean that the editors needed to be experienced. The term "established" defines that they have a presence here only. It only takes an account creation to establish one's self here. If a Steward starts to do anything here then yes they are a Wikibooks community member, but they are no longer any more important than another user really and shouldn't be considered a path to further appeal. -within focus 20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I don't think "appealing" should be in this (or any) policy at all. Nor anything about eschelons, really. Nor criteria for what makes a contributor "established". Stewards, foundation members, admins, longtime users and new contributors should all simply be treated as interested participants, and their views weighed according to the strength of their arguments. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset)

My 2 cents worth:

I reworded it some, since participants through mutual agreement can ask anyone from the outside to be arbiters, just nobody is obligated to do so, which I believe was the issue that was being brought up in regards to stewards and the board of trustees. I believe saying "don't do this" in this case is a bit too instructional and may only encourage people to do it. I believe "binding until reversed by the same process" is enough, anything else is outside Wikibooks' control.

That said I see a few problems with any suggested changes so far that isn't addressed and admittedly I'm not sure yet how to address it. I don't believe a decision made by a single lone contributor should be considered binding nor should a decision be considered binding if there is nobody around to care. Under any of the proposed changes, for example someone could start a book and could retain "control" over a book through scaring potential participants away who disagree with there POV, because there decision would be considered binding. This would encourage book "ownership" rather then cooperation. Also since this doesn't address abandoned book it seems to imply any decision made would be binding even on abandon books, so someone who wants to adopt a book would under this proposed change, it would seem be required to follow any previous decisions since there would be no active contributors to discuss it with in order to reverse a previous decision. --dark lama  23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, how do we make the point that people shouldn't go "crying to mommy" at meta or foundation-l every time they don't get their way? My biggest point with even bringing up this whole issue is that people should not be looking outside Wikibooks for solutions, when all the solutions or the mechanisms to derive solutions all all available here on Wikibooks already. We have a decision-making process that does not have a finite end point on purpose, it's a process that is never considered "finished" or "final" in any respect. To that effect, because no decision is ever final, you can't leave the system to find a better resolution, you are forced to work in the system and with the system to improve things for everybody.
 * To address your concern as well, a single contributor is never really considered "the community". But then again, if only one person votes on an issue, the result will always be 100% in favor of that person's opinion. It's only when other people get involved in a discussion do other possibilities emerge. Also, we are not likely to suffer trolls or control freaks very well, and if we find people who are chasing off new users, we will act as a community to stop that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * w:WP:BEANS. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * w:WP:REICHSTAG - This may not even be all that applicable, but it has to be linked. Has to. -within focus 02:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Decision making


text:
Talk:Using Firefox/Search

It says, firefox will "beep quietly" to inform that it didn't find what you where looking for. Well, on my computer (laptop, linux) it is a rather annoying speaker beep which mixes with the music I'm listening on the line-out. How can one stop that? It is one of the most annoying "features" on firefox.

Possible Solution: see - http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Firefox_started_beeping

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Using Firefox/Search


text:
User talk:86.139.111.146

This IP address was blocked for 1 day for participating in a repeat vandalism attack. The block should expire on the morning of 22 August, 2006. If you have any questions about this, please send a message to User:Whiteknight.

title: User talk:86.139.111.146


text:
Brewing/Mashing

Introduction
Mashing is the process of immersing the milled barley (grist) in water so as to convert the starch in the ground up endosperm into smaller sugars. The resulting liquor is called wort. When you brew from extract, you are using a concentrated form of wort, much like using frozen orange juice to make orange juice.

The goal of mashing or diluting an extract, to create wort, is to provide an environment in which yeast will thrive. Sugars in the milled barley are in long chains, which are unfermentable. The mash process allows you to extract fermentable sugars from the grist, or milled grains, by dissolving starches and then breaking the starch chains up using enzymes developed in the malting stage.

The processes described here will work well in any of the mash tuns described in the equipment section.

What Happens?
Conversion of barley starch into sugars is primarily the result of two types of enzymes - alpha amylase and beta amylase. Both enzymes break the chains of glucose which form starch at alpha 1,4 linkages. Alpha amylase breaks these bonds at random points in the starch chain. In contrast, beta amylase acts on the bond between the last 2 and 3 glucose residues in the starch chain, releasing the disaccharide sugar maltose.

It may help to imagine alpha amylase as an enzyme that breaks chains in half, while beta enzymes merely nibble at the ends. Beta enzymes will quickly turn starch chains into fermentable sugars, whereas alpha enzymes, given the same amount of time to work, will leave a lot more of the longer, unfermentable chains. The more of the longer chains left in the wort, the thicker or fuller the final beer will feel when consumed. However, with more of the smaller chains, or fermentable sugars, the beer will turn out with a higher alcohol content. The relative effect of each of these enzymes is determined by the temperature - alpha amylase has an optimum temperature of 68 degrees C, while beta amylase has an optimum of 65 degrees.

Limit dextrins are non-fermentable sugars which are produced from the parts of the starch molecule which are branched (ie contain alpha 1,6 linkages). The enzyme which removes the alpha 1,6 branch (in the branched small sugars, not the original starch) is called limit dextrinase, and is destroyed by the high temperatures of mashing (typically 65 degrees C or more), although it is active at lower temperatures. The limit gravity, or residual sugar present after complete fermentation, is in part determined by these limit dextrins. Brewers can control the limit gravity by:

 * minimising the time that the mash is at the temperature at which beta amylase is active, as this will convert larger limit dextrins into smaller ones''
 * adding adjuncts with varying degrees of branching in their starch chains.
 * minimising the time the mash is at lower temperatures where limit dextrinase is active (eg protein rest)

Additional processes that can occur during mashing are

 * proteolysis (if there is a protein rest stage at 50 degrees C)
 * destruction of the beta glucan layer which protects the starch granules
 * colour is extracted from the malt

Mashing systems (techniques)
There are various mashing techniques and the choice of technique is linked to the equipment available, the level of expertise, the beer style produced, the level of process control and the number of brews to be produced per day.

Iso-thermal Infusion Mash
The iso-thermal infusion mash is the simplest way to make wort, however, since the technique lacks a protein rest, it is recommended that you use mostly well modified malts. The infusion mash is also referred to as the one-step mash, since the process requires only one step.

Iso-thermal obviously refers to the single mash temperature. In this system mash conversion (the malt starch is converted to sugars) takes place in the same vessel as wort separation. As there are no heating stages it is not necessary to have an agitation in the mash tun.

The ideal situation you want is to attain is one in which your mash rests at a temperature between 66° and 70° C (150°-158° F) to allow the amylase enzymes to do their work. The colder the rest, the more fermentable sugars will be available for fermenting, and therefore the higher alcohol content in the final beer. The hotter the temperature, the more unfermentable sugars will reach fermentation, and thus the fuller the mouth-feel. This is, of course a comparison of otherwise duplicate mashes. Remember, the enzymes will work outside their optimum temperatures, so given an adequate amount of time, all starches can be converted to fermentables.

For an infusion mash, mix a measured amount of hot water in a container with your grist (milled malt) and allow the mash to rest for 30 to 60 minutes. For every pound of grain, you will use 1 quart of water. At this ratio, the mash will stabilize at a temperature 9°-10° C (16°-18°F) lower than the temperature water added. For example, adding 10 quarts of water at a temperature of 78°C (172°F) to 10 lbs of grist will stabilize at a temperature of 68°-69°C (154°-156°F). You will be well served to take temperature readings at regular intervals to make sure you are maintaining the optimal temperature range. Adding small amounts of hot water to bring the temperature back up is permissible, however avoid bringing the temperature too high as the higher temperatures will negatively affect enzymatic activity, just as much as too low.

Decoction Mash
Decoction mash is the most complex technique used to extract sugars from grain. The technique was born out of the lack of accurate temperature measurements, with the only accurate points of measurement being freezing point of water (0° C or 32° F), blood temperature (~36°C or 98°F), and the boiling point of water (100°C or 212°F). This method also is believed to result in better yield. However, because of the complexity, and the unlikelihood of a homebrewer choosing to use decoction, detailed instructions will not be given here at this time.

The basic method begins by infusing a measured amount of boiling water with water and grist at blood temperature to bring the mash up to the initial rest temperature. This initial rest can be an acid rest, or the mash could begin with a protein rest. Near the end of this rest a measured amount of water and grist is stolen from the mash, heated to a boil, and then returned to the main mash to bring the temperature up to the next temperature rest. This process is called decoction. Sometimes, when an extended rest time is expected, the mash is decocted again, or even a few more times to maintain rest temperature.

Step Mash
If you are planning to use under-modified malts, or just simply want a better quality product, the Step Mash (or Program mash or Temperature-Controlled Step Infusion Mash), is only slightly more complicated than iso-thermal mashing. There can be two or three steps, or rests, in your mash.

 * Unmalted grain - 40 °C activates:
 * debranching enzymes - 35 - 45 °C (5.0-5.8 pH),
 * phytase - 30 - 52 °C (5.0-5.5 pH) which lowers mash pH, and
 * beta-gluconase - 35 - 45 °C (4.5-5.5 pH). Maximum activity 40 °C.
 * Proteolytic stand - 50 °C for 20 to 30 minutes. The protein rest activates:
 * protease - 45 - 55 °C	(4.6-5.3 pH) "Breaks up large proteins that form haze," and
 * peptidase - 45 - 55 °C (4.6-5.3 pH) "Produces free amino nitrogen," and
 * phytase - Maximum activity at 50 - 60 °C.
 * Saccharification stand - 55 - 66 °C (5.0-5.5 pH), Beta-amylase produces fermentable maltose.
 * Maximum activity of beta-amylase is 60 °C,
 * highest yield of reducing sugars occurs at 60 - 63 °C, and
 * highest percentage fermentability at 63 °C.
 * Highest extract - 65 - 68 °C for 20 to 60 minutes for starch conversion and saccharification. Beta-amylase is active at the lower end of temperature range, alpha-amylase at the higher and prefers a slightly higher pH.
 * Highest yield of fermentable extract occurs at 65 °C.
 * Conversion stand - 68 - 72 °C (5.3-5.7 pH) for 20 to 30 minutes. Alpha-amylase breaks down any large starch particles to achieve starch conversion. Produces a variety of sugars including maltose, oligosaccharides, and dextrins. The end of this stand is confirmed with the starch test - see below.
 * Maximum activity of alpha-amylase at 70 °C, dextrinization temperature.
 * Mash out stand - the mash is finally raised to 76 °C for 5 to 10 minutes to denature all mashing enzymes.

In practice, for every pound of grist in the mash, you will use 1 liter (1 qt) of water at 54 °C to get the mash to the initial protein rest. Then, for each pound of grist, you will use .5 liter (½ qt) of 93 °C water to raise the temperature 10 C-change. These are rough figures, since the more water added, the larger the volume, and therefore the more water required to raise the temperature a comparable amount. However, if you use these figures to figure the amounts needed, you will be pretty well off.

End of mashing
Mashing usually takes about 30 minutes with a typical pale malt - however times may be more or less depending on the enzymatic activity (diastatic) power of the malt. Mashing may take as long as 6 hours.

To test for mash conversion we test for the presence of starch: this can be done by mixing 1g of Lite salt (potassium iodide) with 50 ml 3% iodine solution and adding a drop to a sample (a teaspoon full) of the mash. If it turns deep blue starch is present.

Unconverted mash
If you continue to get starch, even hours after mashing, then the milling of the grain may be at fault in that the starch isn't being broken up enough to allow the enzymes to access it. High mash temperatures may have de-natured the malt enzymes.

Grain steeping
The most basic way to extract flavors from specialty grains is by steeping them in warm water.

The simplest way to perform this is to add the crushed grains (in a nylon or cotton grain bag) to the (cold) brewing water as is it brought to boiling temperature. The grains should be removed before the temperature reaches 170°F to prevent the extraction of too many tannins. Dip the bag in and out a few times and let it drip for about 15 seconds before discarding. Do not squeeze the bag. Squeezing will also extract too much tannin from the grain husks.

Alternatively, the crushed grains are steeped in 2-3 gallons of 150°F water for 30 minutes before being removed from the wort. This allows for a more complete extraction.

Partial mash
Not much more difficult than steeping is the "Partial mash" or "Mini-Mash" procedure, which utilizes emzymatic malts in addition to the specialty grains and will result in a much better extraction of flavors and colors.

Start by setting your oven to the "warm" (or lowest) setting. We are looking to a achieve a temperature of between 140 and 160°F. If the temperature of your oven is higher than 160°F at this setting, simply turn off the oven before placing the mash pot inside. The thermal mass of the hot grains and water should maintain a proper temperature during mashing.

Heat between 1 and 3 quarts of water per pound of crushed grain that will be used to a light boil. Remove from the heat, allow to cool to 160-170°F, and transfer to your mash vessel and mix in the crushed grains. Mix thoroughly to be sure that the grains are not clumped then place the mash vessel in the oven for 45 to 60 minutes. Do not open the oven door while mashing is in progress or a significant amount of heat will escape. Do not let the mash temperature fall below 145°F. An oven themometer with a probe will allow you to monitor the temperature, although this is usually not necessary.

While the mashing is taking place, heat an additional 1 to 3 quarts of water per pound of crushed grain (roughly the same amount you used for mashing) to a light boil, remove from the heat, and allow to cool to 140-170°F. This will be your sparge water.

Once the mashing process is complete strain the mash into your brew pot using a stainless steel colander (pasta strainer). Then, slowly and evenly pour the sparge water over the mash. The mash is now complete.

""Add an amount water necessary to your brew pot to get up to the volume of water you traditionally use for your extract brewing.""

title: Brewing/Mashing


text:
User:Kunderemp

I'm an Indonesian, Born in 26th December 1982

My real name is Narpati Wisjnu Ari Pradana My complete nickname is Kunderemp Ratnawati Hardjito. Ratnawati is my mother's name while Hardjito is my father's name

My e-mail is kunderemp at hmmm.. I think it was at gmail dot com.

Currently, I started project for Pencak Silat, an Indonesian Martial Art. It will be in form of Dictionary. You can see in Dictionary of Pencak Silat and other Malaysia-Indonesian Traditional Martial Arts.

title: User:Kunderemp


text:
Nature/Future

Nobody can exactly forecast the future. There is a whole part of literature, the utopian literature, which is today called  Science fiction . This kind of fiction deals with the possible future of mankind and the extraterrestrial life in space. Famous example of this literature are Thomas More's book Utopia, Swift's book Gulliver's Travels, the books of Jules Verne, the book Brave New World, the book 1984, the books of S. Lem and many more. In these books one can find many predictions of possible technical and social developments. The above books are quite exciting, and still worth reading.

A branch of science tries to forecast the future. It is called  futurology . This science has developed methods to determine future developments. One of these methods, for example, includes the Delphi survey. A group of experts in their field are asked to estimate the most important changes to come. The result is statistically evaluated. For instance, nuclear physicists can be asked when they expect the technical completion of a fusion reactor.

Some statements about the future are no doubt from a scientific point of view. They are described below.

The future of life on earth
The future of life is not predetermined. It does not have  a goal , even if it develops according to the rules of the evolution. The further biological development is open. It is ruled by randomness and biological needs at the same time and it is only partly foreseeable. Randomness is the basis of genetic mutations and variation, whereas the selection process is not random but governed by environmental conditions. Increasingly human technology alters and accelerates this biological evolution by breeding and genetic engineering, so that the natural development is strongly overlaid already today by the human influence.

The end of life in the scientific view of the world is rather clear. This future may appear a little sad, because it does not offer any paradise. It confronts us with the fact of own death, the death of mankind and the death of life on earth. This future is from today's viewpoint unalterable. Perhaps later generations may find means and ways, to overcome these limits.

The following hard rules about future are valid in the scientific conception of the world:
 * Each human being is mortal. Its active mental life is mortal too and his mind will die latest with the death of its body.
 * It is also sure, that life on earth will end at the latest when our sun will be blowing up to a red giant through exhaustion of its energy reserves.
 * Mankind will become extinct once. Except mankind will become independent of the sun.

This all has a positive aspect: Humans do not need to fear of making everything wrong. At the same time it has also a negative aspect: No matter how we strive, the end of the earth will come once.

The future of inanimate nature
There is a law of thermodynamics, which says that all structures tend toward more disorder. Another law of astronomy says that the world started with the Big Bang is expanding.

If these two laws possess universal validity, then the universe is an increasingly empty space and it will end in a physical heat death.

However, some structures like our sun will stay quite stable over billions of years, an extremely long time from a human perspective.

title: Nature/Future


text:
User talk:Swift

I watch talk pages where I have recently left messages. Please reply in the same section to make discussion easier to follow.

If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here.

Thenub for CU
You may be interested in Thenub's request for checkuser permissions. Regards Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 11:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WCI 2011 Proposal :Accelerating Wikibooks. Help Needed!
Hello!

I will be delivering a Talk at the Wikimedia Conference India 2011 on the topic of "Accelerating Wikibooks".

Over the next few days, I aim to make the proposal more and more wholesome and relevant. I'd like to discuss with you about the proposal and hope you can recommend me a few names on Wikibooks with whom I can discuss this.

I'd be very happy if you could discuss the proposal at User:Thewinster/Accelerating_Wikibooks

--Thewinster (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the proposal
This is not a summary of the final talk, only a tentative guideline.

 * Create Roadmaps for a book
 * Define Learning Outcomes
 * Annotate and Discuss new content available from around the web.
 * Minor tweaks and fixes which concentrate on crowdsourcing.
 * Identifying Small Contribution that advance a book and designing good UIs and triggers according to B.J. Fogg's Behavior Change Model, 8 Step Design Process. The paper can be found here at Persuasive Design : Eight Step Process by B. J. Fogg

Japanese/Reader/彗星
You are listed in Japanese/Introduction/About as an editor of the work, the page is under a copyvio that was a response to the RfD based on the same issue, since the discussion is going for a long time, because of that I will not attempt to contact you by mail. I will close it as a copyvio. You can probably requests and perform a undeletion at a later date if you missed the issue and see the page as useful for your work (I will support the undeletion on that basis). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hello Swift, you've been quite inactive recently (no edits for six months and no use of the sysop rights for a year). Do you plan on resuming activity here? I'm only asking because historically we'd usually start an RFP to remove the sysop bit at this point. If you plan on coming back in the coming months then there'd be no point in kicking it off - hence my question. Please let me know, thanks. QU TalkQu 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The RFP is here, if you intend to become active again in the coming months please let us know at the RFP page - thanks QU TalkQu 20:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

De-sysop
Hello Swift, your admin / sysop bit has been removed following the RFP. If you ever return and want it back then please let us know as I'm sure everyone would welcome you back. Kind regards, QU TalkQu 09:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Please can you help me with the page cricket (subheading game types)Yimingllewyn (discuss • contribs) 07:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Swift


text:
User talk:BrendaJohnson

hi can you ask jennifer to email me now: my email is laurenwhitmarsh@stockportuk.com, thanks! Lauren W

"Contents Tab"
Hey Brenda!

When you say "Contents Tab", do you mean the automatic table of contents for the page? The automatic table of contents appears when you have at least 4 headings on the page, and the discussion page only has 3. However, you can manually insert the TOC whereever you want it to be by using the tag. I have already put that tag at the top of the discussion page for you.

I hope this is right, let me know if you need anything else. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfect thanks Kight --BrendaJohnson 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KidneyStone.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:KidneyStone.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikibooks because of copyright law (see Wikibooks' Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikibooks are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information or giving false information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Study help desk. Thank you. Derbeth talk 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:BrendaJohnson


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Recreation/Geocaching

1. Define Geocaching.
Geocaching is an entertaining outdoor adventure game for GPSr users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a GPSr unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the Internet. GPSr users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

2. What is a GPSr (Global Positioning Satellite receiver)?
A GPSr unit is an electronic device that can determine your approximate location (within around 6–20 feet) on the planet. Coordinates are normally given in Longitude and Latitude. You can use the unit to navigate from your current location to another location. Some units have their own maps, built-in electronic compasses, voice navigation, depending on the complexity of the device.

You don't need to know all the technical mumbo jumbo about GPSr units to play Geocaching. All you need to do is be able to enter what is called a "waypoint" where the geocache is hidden.

It's also good to know that the GPSr units built for turn-by-turn car navigation will sometimes have undesirable features. One such feature is that it might "snap" you onto a road. The GPSr knows you are close to a road, but not on the road, but will assume that "since you're in a car" its coordinates are incorrect. So it will display your position on the road instead of off it. If you can turn this feature off, you will have greater success. Third party software is available for some GPS receivers to defeat this feature. Consider using it, but understand that you are taking a risk when you do so.

Another feature of these in-car devices is that if your speed drops below a certain set point (such as 1.5 MPH), it will quit updating your position until your speed increases above that set-point again, or it notices you have moved some distance (such as 50 feet). This feature prevents the GPS from "bouncing around" when a driver is stopped at a traffic light, but it is quite maddening for a cacher (just as you get close to the cache and slow down, it quits updating). If you can turn this feature off, do so. As with the "snap-to-road" feature, third party software is sometimes available to defeat this as well. Use it with caution.

3. Demonstrate 2 ways of finding the location of a Geocache in your area on the Geocache website.
Have the student look on the website, www.geocaching.com. This is a family-friendly, kid-friendly website. Two methods of finding a location are:
 * From the Main Page at the top drop-down menu, click on "HIDE & SEEK A CACHE". Then enter a zip code in the "By Postal Code" box.
 * From the Main Page on the top drop-down menu, click on "Hide and Seek a Cache" then enter an address in the "Address" box.
 * From the Main Page at the top drop-down menu, click on "HIDE & SEEK A CACHE". Then choose a state in the "By State" box.

4. Demonstrate entering the latitude and longitude coordinates into the GPS to find a Geocache in your area.
Each GPS is a little different, so have the student enter coordinates in the GPS units that are available. Ask around, there may be several people in your club or church willing to show the Pathfinders how to use their particular unit.

5. Define the following terms

 * Traditional cache: This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a logbook. Normally you'll find a Tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page is the exact location for the cache. The general rule of thumb is, "If you take an item, leave an item of equal or greater value, and write in the logbook." Some caches are themed, so make sure to read the description before going on a hunt.
 * Micro-cache: This is a traditional cache in a tiny container holding usually nothing more than a small roll of paper and pencil on which to record your visit; and you may need to bring your own pencil

 * Virtual cache: This is not a physical cache, but rather a place of usually historical or local interest; that is, a commemorative plaque, sign, object, or building. Virtual caches are grandfathered on Geocaching.com.  New virtual caches are now accepted only on waymarking.com.
 * Multi-level cache: This is a cache with more than one location; frequently the Geocacher must find the clues to the second cache in the first cache and so on.
 * Travel bug: This is any object tagged with an identification tag that wants to travel to a specific location or accomplish specific tasks, for example, to get to a geocache at Mt. Rushmore or to attend a baseball game in every state. Look on the Geocache website Travel Bug page for more information.
 * Geomuggle/muggle: This refers to a non-geocacher. Usually this term is used after a non-geocacher looks puzzled at a geocacher making circles with their GPS receiver, or when a non-geocacher accidentally finds a cache.  Muggles are mostly harmless but try to not let them know the location of the cache because it may increase the chances of the cache going missing.

What is usually in a cache?
A cache can come in many forms but the first item should always be the logbook. In its simplest form a cache can be just a logbook and nothing else. The logbook contains information from the founder of the cache and notes from the cache's visitors. The logbook can contain much valuable, rewarding, and entertaining information. A logbook might contain information about nearby attractions, coordinates to other unpublished caches, and even jokes written by visitors. If you get some information from a logbook you should give some back. At the very least you can leave the date and time you visited the cache. Larger caches may consist of a waterproof plastic bucket placed tastefully within the local terrain. The bucket will contain the logbook and any number of more or less valuable items. These items turn the cache into a true treasure hunt. You never know what the founder or other visitors of the cache may have left there for you to enjoy. Remember, if you take something, it’s only fair for you to leave something in return. Items in a bucket cache could be: Maps, books, software, hardware, CD's, videos, pictures, money, tickets, antiques, tools, games, etc. It is recommended that items in a bucket cache be individually packaged in a clear zipped plastic bag to protect them.

What shouldn't be in a cache?
Use your common sense in most cases. Explosives, ammo, knives, drugs, and alcohol shouldn't be placed in a cache. Respect the local laws. All ages of people hide and seek caches, so use some thought before placing an item into a cache. Food items are ALWAYS a BAD IDEA. Animals have better noses than humans, and in some cases caches have been chewed through and destroyed because of food items in a cache. Please do not put food in a cache.

7. Know and practice good Travel Bug Etiquette
Use the Golden Rule when you find a Travel Bug. Most owners would rather see their travel bugs do a lot of traveling, so try not to hold on to a travel bug for too long. If you plan on holding onto the bug for more than 2 weeks, make sure to send a courtesy email to the owner letting them know.

8. What is meant by Cache In, Trash Out?
This is a slogan to help remind geocachers to practice good outdoor etiquette. An activity held sacred by Pathfinders everywhere, Trash Out simply means to take along a plastic trash bag while hunting Geocaches and picking up trash on the way. Always pack out your own trash and be sure to follow all the rules of outdoor etiquette: The 7 Leave No Trace Principles 1. Plan ahead and prepare. 2. Travel and camp on durable surfaces (stay on designated trails). 3. Dispose of waste properly. 4. Leave what you find. 5. Minimize campfire impacts (when camping). 6. Respect wildlife. 7. Be considerate of other visitors.

9. Find 3 Geocaches in your area, at least one of which must be a regular (traditional) cache.
Comply with local laws, use common sense with regards to safety, take along something to trade, and have fun.

NOTE to Instructors: The new "challenges" listed on Geocaching.com do NOT count as cache finds according to Geocaching.com and thus would NOT count toward fulfillment of this requirement.

10. Write about your geocache find in your logbook on the geocache website.
From the Main Page of www.geocaching.com at the top right, click on “Create a Membership!”, for a free account choose “Get a Basic Membership”. This is a family friendly, kid safe web site. No personal information is available from this site. Emails are safe and password protected through this system. When you are a member you can post into the logbooks your cache finds.

Note to instructors: Notice that these requirements do leave the opportunity for a GROUP to go find a cache and use a pre-existing Geocaching account to write the log on the geocache website. Each individual Pathfinder does NOT need to write a log. No "register for a free Geocaching.com account" requirement until the Advanced honor.

11. Discuss Matthew 6:19-21 and Jeremiah 29:13 and compare them to geocaching.
Sometimes geocaches succumb to the elements. The containers can get broken, or the cache could be found by someone who doesn't know what it is, and they throw it away or destroy it. Sometimes the log in the cache is too soaked to sign. When you find one of these, it would be good to think of this verse. We can depend on our treasure in heaven!

I have visited some caches several times before finally finding it. Sometimes the cache owner can be exceedingly clever and hide a cache in plain sight. It is possible to look right at it and not recognize it for what it is, even though it is the one thing you are searching for! But persistence pays off. When you have trouble finding a cache, think about this verse, and take comfort in knowing that when you seek the Lord, you will always be repaid.

12. Discuss safety concerns you should consider when geocaching.
Dangers include heights, falls, traffic, rough terrain, poisonous plants (like poison ivy or poison oak), snakes, spiders, wild animals, strangers, etc. Do not Geocache alone or at night in a remote area. Wear sturdy shoes as for hiking and make sure to take plenty of water when hiking to a remote area or for any distance. Let someone know what you are doing, where you are going, and when you expect to be back.

13. Links.
Below are useful links relating to this honor:

-Here is a workbook for club members to fill out while completing the requirements for this honor. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8bGYzFJPGxcNzVSOUduZC1hdjQ Note: Download and open this document in Word for it to print right. If trying to print from web browser the format will not print correctly.

| /Completed Honors


text:
English Grammar

This Wikibook is designed to teach standard English Grammar as taught in English-speaking countries. Although the English page has a separate section for grammar, it seems harder to follow if you are using it for self study or classroom use. If you plan on taking a course for grammar, this resource may help. The layout and structure is based upon the 1963 edition of Warriner's English Grammar and Composition, but does not use any resources or text derived from that resource. All text in this Wikibook is self-made or taken from another public domain resource. As this Wikibook is new, it is very easy to add any additional information about particular parts of a part of speech (i.e. helping verbs, subordinate clauses, etc...). Any additions to this Wikibook are greatly appreciated.

Contents

 * Chapter 1. Basic Parts of Speech
 * Lesson 1. Nouns
 * Lesson 2. Pronouns
 * Lesson 3. Adjectives
 * Lesson 4. Adverbs
 * Lesson 5. Prepositions
 * Lesson 6. Verbs
 * Lesson 7. Interjections
 * Lesson 8. Conjunctions
 * Lesson 9. Determining Parts of Speech
 * Chapter 1 Review
 * Chapter 1 Test
 * Chapter 2. Subject and Predicate
 * Lesson 1. What is a Sentence
 * Lesson 2. Subject and Predicate
 * Lesson 3. Finding the Subject of a Sentence
 * Lesson 4. The Sentence as a Complete Thought
 * Lesson 5. The Predicate Nominative
 * Lesson 6. The Predicate Adjective
 * Lesson 7. Direct and Indirect Objects
 * Chapter 2 Review
 * Chapter 2 Test
 * Chapter 3. Phrases and Clauses
 * Lesson 1. Prepositional Phrases
 * Lesson 2. Phrases Used as Adjectives
 * Lesson 3. Phrases Used as Adverbs
 * Lesson 4. Participles
 * Lesson 5. Gerunds
 * Lesson 6. Infinitives
 * Lesson 7. Clauses
 * Lesson 8. Complements and Modifiers
 * Lesson 9. Sentence Structures
 * Chapter 3 Review
 * Chapter 3 Test
 * Appendices
 * Appendix A. Answers to the Exercises
 * Appendix B. Additional Grammar Resources

Related books

 * English in Use — Articles about parts of speech, syntax etc., links to which are broken in this book.
 * Rhetoric and Composition

영어 문법 기초

title: English Grammar


text:
English Grammar/Basic Parts of Speech/Nouns

A noun represents a person, place, thing, or idea. Nouns are used in sentences in two different ways: as subjects (performers of action), or objects (receivers of action).

The word comes from the Latin "nomen," meaning "name." Word classes like nouns were first described by the Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini and ancient Greeks like Dionysios Thrax, and were defined in terms of their morphological properties. For example, in Ancient Greek, nouns inflect for grammatical case, such as dative or accusative.

What is Noun? A noun is a kind of word that is usually the name of something such as a person, place, thing, quality or idea.

Common and Proper Nouns
A common noun is any nonspecific person, place or thing.

A proper noun is any specific person, place, living being, or thing. A proper noun can be a name, places, companies, and trademarks. In the English language, all proper nouns are capitalized, which makes them easy to recognize.

Examples
In comparing common and proper nouns, the word cat can be used to describe many things, which makes it a common noun. Describing an animal as a thing happens in grammar but not biology since they're living beings. (J.D. Meyer) However, you could be more specific and identify a certain cat as being Garfield or Felix, which would make it a proper noun.

B countable noun:these are kind of nouns that can be counted accordingly examples are: stone, sticks, Books...

Uncountable noun:this kind of noun is used for things that can not be counted examples are: rice, water

C Abstract nouns:These are kind of nouns that we cannot see but can be felt examples are: love, fear, happiness e.t.c Concrete nouns:this kind of noun can be seen and touched

Special Classes of Nouns
Examples: air, flower, food, water Examples: love, God, truth, belief, sympathy Examples: flock, herd, pack, etc. Examples: advice, equipment, fruit, information, weather Examples: skyscraper, rubout, commander-in-chief
 * Concrete noun  names something that can be perceived with the five senses (sight, sound, touch, smell and taste).
 * Abstract noun  names something that can't be perceived with the five senses.
 * Collective noun  names a collection or a group of similar things.
 * Mass noun  a noun that is very rarely plural and is never with articles 'a' and 'an'.
 * Compound noun  is made up of two or more words forming a unit idea.

Properties of Nouns
Examples: bus, girl, boy, town, stone Examples: brother, gander, nephew, father, John Examples: mother, sister, doe, Mary Examples: teacher, parent, horse, cat, child Examples: rock, leaf, sea, mountain, hill, paper
 * 1) Person
 * 2) Number
 * 3) *Singular in number indicates one object only.
 * 1) *Plural in number indicates two or more objects. Most noun form their plural by adding -s or -es Examples: bag-bags, tree-trees, glass-glasses, church-churches
 * 2) Gender determines the sex of a noun.
 * 3) *Masculine gender indicates the male sex.
 * 1) *Feminine gender indicates the female sex.
 * 1) *Common gender indicates uncertainty of sex which is either male or female.
 * 1) *Neuter gender indicates that an object is without sex.
 * 1) Case shows the relation of a noun to other words in the sentence or phrase.
 * 2) *Nominative case  indicates that a noun is doing or being something in the sentence. A noun in the nominative case can be either a subject or predicate but not both in the sentence.
 * 3) *Objective case  indicates that a person or a thing is being acted upon. A noun in the objective case can be use as object of the verb or object of the preposition.
 * 4) *Possessive case indicates that a person or a thing owns something. The possessive form of a noun is usually formed by adding an apostrophe (') or an apostrophe s ('s)

Uses of Nouns

 * 1) Subject refers to the word about something is said in a sentence.
 * 2) Predicative nominative or predicate noun renames, identifies or explains the subject in a sentence. It is normally placed after a linking verb.
 * 3) Direct object refers to the receiver of the action in a sentence. It answers the question What? or Who?
 * 4) Indirect object tells to whom, to what, for whom or for what a thing is done.
 * 5) Object of the preposition answers the question What? or Whom? after the preposition.
 * 6) Appositive refers to a noun that identifies or provides further information about another word in the sentence.
 * 7) * Essential appositive makes the meaning of a sentence clear. It is usually not set off by a comma.
 * 8) * Non-essential appositive may be omitted in the sentence without changing the meaning of it.
 * 9) Objective complement adds to the meaning of or renames the direct object. It appears only with these verbs: appoint, call, consider, declare, elect, judge, label, make, name, select or think.
 * 10) Direct address is the name or word by which a person is addressed. It is set off by a comma.

Identifying Nouns
In the following paragraph, taken from Black Beauty by Anna Sewell, all nouns appear in bold lettering. The first place that I can well remember was a large pleasant meadow with a pond of clear water in it. Some shady trees leaned over it, and rushes and water-lilies grew at the deep end. Over the hedge on one side we looked into a plowed (British English: ploughed) field, and on the other we looked over a gate at our master's house, which stood by the roadside; at the top of the meadow was a grove of fir trees, and at the bottom a running brook overhung by a steep bank.

Proper Noun and Common Noun
Identify if the noun is a proper noun or a common noun. Common noun Proper Common Proper Common Common Common Proper Common Proper Give a proper noun that is related to the common noun. Give a common noun that is related to the proper noun.
 * cat
 * 1) Florida
 * 1) umbrella
 * 1) Wikipedia
 * 1) water
 * 1) shorts
 * 1) alcohol
 * 1) Samsung
 * 1) song
 * 1) Cinderella
 * 1) television
 * 2) shoes
 * 3) singer
 * 4) actor
 * 5) country
 * 6) book
 * 7) laptop
 * 8) cellphone
 * 9) tree
 * 10) ball point pen
 * 1) Snow White
 * 2) Google
 * 3) Ford
 * 4) Sunflower
 * 5) Asia
 * 6) Hawaii
 * 7) Meet the Robinsons
 * 8) Don't Quit
 * 9) Kobe Bryant
 * 10) Supercalifragelisticexpialidocious

Other Exercises
'''Identify the nouns in the sentences below. There may be more than one noun per sentence.'''

1. Janet is the name of a girl.

2. Off-key whistling is annoying to me, but not to everybody.

3. Cleanliness is next to godliness.

4. The World Wide Web has become the least expensive way to publish information.

'''Identify the nouns in the paragraph below. Text is from the first stave of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens.'''

5. The air was filled with phantoms, wandering hither and thither in restless haste, and moaning as they went. Every one of them wore chains like Marley's Ghost; some few (they might be guilty governments) were linked together; none were free. Many had been personally known to Scrooge in their lives. He had been quite familiar with one old ghost, in a white waistcoat, with a monstrous iron safe attached to its ankle, who cried piteously at being unable to assist a wretched woman with an infant, whom it saw below, upon a door-step. The misery with them all was, clearly, that they sought to interfere, for good, in human matters, and had lost the power for ever.


text:
English Grammar/Basic Parts of Speech

Table of Contents for Chapter 1: Basic Parts of Speech

 * Lesson 1. Nouns
 * Lesson 2. Pronouns
 * Lesson 3. Adjectives
 * Lesson 4. Adverbs
 * Lesson 5. Prepositions
 * Lesson 6. Verbs
 * Lesson 7. Interjections
 * Lesson 8. Conjunctions
 * Lesson 9. Determining Parts of Speech
 * Chapter 1 Review
 * Chapter 1 Test

title: English Grammar/Basic Parts of Speech


text:
Category:Queried pages

These pages were queried using and qr-em templates and have not yet exceeded 6 days.

title: Category:Queried pages


text:
User:A3nm

Hello! I am a3_nm, French wikipedian, and this is my user page for the English version of Wikibooks.

''This information on this page is **incomplete** and **outdated** (and will probably always be)! You are advised to check out my user page on the French Wikipedia for accurate info, if you don't mind it being entirely written in French! (sorry for this).''

Oh and if you're interested, my blog is there : (English version available for most recent posts at the time of writing).

It is very likely that I will make mistakes caused by : Please :
 * the language and
 * the differences between conventions on French and English Wikipedia and
 * the differences between conventions of Wikipedia and Wikibooks
 * correct them when they occur and
 * notify me at once in order to avoid them from occuring and
 * notify me again and again until I got the point and they don't occur anymore (might be pretty long)

fr:Utilisateur:A3_nm

title: User:A3nm