User talk:Billbrock/MyBackPages20151231
Kewl. Your chess credentials are superior to mine. Nuff said. Maybe you could expand the 1970-1972 Fischer section, with some diagrams. My personal favorite is the third game of the Fischer-Spassky match. From now on, I will probly just comment in the discussion section re. the Fischer article. It seems like the Illinois chess scene is mostly on the youngsters, the academic tournaments. I was disappointed when Elmhurst College wanted rent for hosting tournaments. That was an easy drive in from Rockford. And the college lost free publicity for its school. Now Osman Palos, he was a character!AaronCBurke 06:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Billbrock, let me just say that I cannot believe you truly think that a "WP length bio" has no place for a decent coverage of the infamous post-9/11 interview and its aftermath! Especially, when the USCF came to disown its world star. This is a tragedy that reaches far beyond chess and Robert James Fischer, like a mad and furious Shakespearean prince, is in the thick of it. The Gnome 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't think the difference between our positions is that great. I agree that these things are worth talking about, but encyclopedia articles have conventions such as brevity, proportionality, and focus. In my judgment, the aftermath is more about the reception of Fischer by the American public (or by the US chess subculture) than about RJF himself. And it's not clear to me that this subculture's opinion of RJF in 2001 or 2006 is that directly relevant to RJF's life. Certainly an extended treatment belongs in a book-length bio. We are talking about an article that doesn't mention the 2nd Piatagorsky Cup, Rovinj-Zagreb & Herceg Novi & Buenos 1970--my edit was dictated by proportionality. Billbrock 06:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then let's mention them. The proper approach, in my opinion, is not cutting down proportionally, when the article is incomplete, but, rather, trying to complete it. The Gnome 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- This article, missing essential info as it is, is already bloated by WP standards. The proper approach IMO :-) is not either/or but both/and. After 1975, Fischer found USCF completely irrelevant--and the article's subject is RJF's life. Billbrock 00:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Topalov article
[edit]Hi, did you deliberately throw away 2 days of edits to the Veselin Topalov article? You haven't made a revert comment, which makes me wonder whether you did it by accident. Rocksong 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Pure accident! Billbrock 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I was looking through the history of this recent FA and noticed you used Template:blatantvandal on that page twice, one time specifically asking if non-admins can do that. Since no one else told you, and in case you haven't realised, just wanted to let you know that anyone can use that template. However it is only intended to go on the talk pages of users who have commited blatant vandalism. Also, when you use it, use {{subst:blatantvandal}}. The subst means the text will be substituted into the page code rather then remaining as a template.
Anyway, basically, it's used to warn users that they behaviour is not welcome. This serves 2 purposes. Firstly it will hopefully discourage them from continuoing. Secondly, if users continue to vandalise after receiving sufficient warning (one blatant vandal is enough), you can ask for them to be blocked at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (read the header).
While some wikipedians don't appear to consider it important to warn users, I do. I often come across vandals, even ones with IPs (which appear to be semi-permanent), who have carried out vandalism a number of times but not been warned. Warning them may have ended the behaviour and more importantly IMHO, if they had been warned & hadn't stopped, I probably could have asked for them to be blocked which would hopefully mean one less vandal to worry about. On the same note, it's equally annoying to come across vandals who keep getting warned with test1 even tho the vandalism has been blatant of there has been a lot of it. If it's blatant vandalism, don't hesitate to use the blatant tag. If it isn't but the user has been warned recently with a lower tag, escalate it as you feel appropriate.
BTW, from what I've read, some admins ban account users even without sufficient warning if their account appears to only contribute vandalism. However I personally don't feel like asking unless a user has been warned appropriately. Nil Einne 16:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the explanation & advice! Billbrock 19:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
AfD
[edit]I saw your edit to Bobby Fischer. You might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fischer's endgame. Bubba73 (talk), 05:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Office IP was part of an autoblocked range
[edit]I've contacted the blocking admin about this. In the meantime, please bear with us, and thank you for your patience. Luna Santin 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Billbrock 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Issue should be resolved. —Pilotguy (radio check) 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
AMA
[edit]I will be your Advocate. If you can prove that the user is indirectly related to Sloan, then you can post at AN/I. Geo. 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you still need an Advocate? Geo. Talk to me 02:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Just let me know. Geo. Talk to me 02:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Again?
[edit]"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)
(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))
- Relax, it's only a few WP articles. It's not like he's shtupping kids again. Billbrock 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
under 40?
[edit]How the heck do you go about saying "odds are I am under 40?" How did you calculate those odds? I dont suppose you work in Vegas or Atlantic City. All I did was correct your error, which you since erred again, and was since corrected, again, by another user. You say you know the policy about ordinary recent deaths so the fact that you keep putting it back is tanamount to vandalism. Please stop. Oh and just because something is the lead story on NYT or CNN does not mean that it belongs on Current Events. Please be civil. No more unfounded agesit comments please. WikiTony 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Please be civil"? No ad hominem intended on my part. I believe it's truly hard for someone who wasn't around in the Vietnam years to gauge the extent of Vonnegut's influence. Also, his work after Slaughterhouse-Five fell off sharply, so I think he means less to generations after mine. I believe that "ignore all rules" is a WP rule. Also, the deaths of prominent persons is an exception to Rule 5. I wouldn't equate death of Vonnegut to death of a Pope--that's silly--but it is an event in the world of letters, and arguably the most significant obit YTD from a US perspective. The NYT's editorial judgment was in line with mine. Regards.... Billbrock 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cover LeonRussellAndTheShelterPeople.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Cover LeonRussellAndTheShelterPeople.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Mig Greengard
[edit]
An editor has nominated Mig Greengard, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mig Greengard (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cover LeonRussellAndTheShelterPeople.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Cover LeonRussellAndTheShelterPeople.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Bobby Fischer and Gothic Chess
[edit]We're having a discussion about whether to include the Gothic Chess material in the Bobby Fischer article. I'm letting you know about it because one issue we're talking about is your opinion on the subject. Check the discussion at Talk:Bobby Fischer Just to clarify (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Bobby Fischer Ed Trice Knew ? -- thanks for the laugh. Quale (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:James von Brunn
[edit]Hey, I noticed your complaint at Talk:United States Holocaust Memorial Museum regarding User:James von Brunn. I hope you don't mind, but I moved the complaint to the Administrators' Incidents noticeboard where I hope it will get proper administrator attention. Rami R 19:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI - I posted a speedy delete. JunoBeach (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Outstanding
[edit]This is very old, but I was reviewing a talk archive for Bobby Fischer and found The Bobby Fischer Ed Trice Knew. Outstanding. The Trice article is long gone now, but I have always really appreciated your wit and intelligence in defense of the encyclopedia. Thanks. Quale (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)