User talk:Bubba73/Archive 3 (2007)

SVG??

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. Also, could you please resond on my talk page? Thanks. --Green-Dragon 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. Bubba73 (talk), 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote

For the record I changed my vote to move to project namespace to save the 'list'. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You voted to keep the "list of articles related to quackery" but we do not have enough votes. So your vote won't count towards anything. Now, our only option is to vote for move to project namespace as a development project. Thanks. --QuackGuru 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kramnik played weakly?

I just wanted to add, that the result of the match can not be considered as being an overwhelming victory for the chess engine. In German media (I don't have any usable citation) there were remarks, that Kramnik didn't play with the concentration and the commitment like he used to do it in his championship match againt Topalow. Commenting every single move is not the intention of this article, but I think, that a blunder like this is a good example for my doubts, that he took that all really seriously. Remove it, if you think this shouldn't be mentioned. Bye... Strafrechtler 14:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Space nit-pick, Roswell

I dunno about the nit-pick charge - the first four-day flight was the first flight to be up for four days, which the flight in question did not manage. This is even more true for the first two-week flight, where G7 was listed even though S9 was the first flight to be in space for two weeks. I mean, for a page which such a huge debate over what "rendezvous" means, I am rather amazed that there seems to be no problem with calling a flight which lasted 13 days and 18 hours the "first" two week flight when clearly it was not.

Besides, in this place we should be "nit-picky". IMHO.Canada Jack 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bubba, just want to say that I hope your nose isn't a bit out of joint over this space stuff. I did a quick peek of your profile and it seems we are on the same page on a lot of stuff - especially in terms of scientific skeptism.

As for Roswell, I have been rather surprised to essentially been given free reign to redo the entire piece! I started to do it, section by section, and then a crew from the paranormal group at wiki came in and did a restructure, wikified it etc. But they largely embraced my approach and an attempt by Dr Fil to put a pile of "unbalanced" notes on the page was quickly shot down. He is still around, but I think he knows he won't win here anymore. He's added a lot of crap to a subsidiary page, Roswell UFO Witnesse Accounts, and we've had lenghty debates there. But as it currently stands, the net effect of all his "unbalanced" tags on a page which is near-totally pro-ufo in the alien accounts (which is STILL not good enough for him) leaves the impression with the uninitiated that the "lack of balance" probably resides in the near-total pro-ufo credulity on the page.

For the first time, control of the Roswell UFO page is in the hand of skeptics like myself who permit a balanced debate. Most didn't think it was possible, but I think we've managed it. Canada Jack 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious response. I didn't intend to pick a fight here, and it seems some felt I had. I can come off that way. As for Roswell and Dr Fil, I've known him from Space.com days and we had a number of titanic debates there. He and a guy named Skyeagle (I am pretty sure they are not the same) would get into these debates where they would concede NOTHING. It was ludicrous. Once, I made the point that Roswell was forgotten until 1978 and Friedman, then he (Sky) pulled out some quotes from a 1950 Time article which seemed to say otherwise. Well, once I actually got the article from the library I saw that it clearly had NOTHING to do with Roswell, he refused to concede he had misled us. SOme of these guys are clearly... obsessed. I asked Timothy Printy to look at it and he said he was pleased with what we had done, and I am curious as to what if anything you might feel needs clarification, to be included, etc. Cheers. Canada Jack 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bubba73! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. froth^{T C} 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Your AfD on Fischer's endgame

From your post, it seems you are now convinced the endgame is indeed valid. You can request an end to the AfD by using the overstrike annotation on your opening remarks of the debate requesting the deletion. Then, you could insert a comment immediately underneath the overstruck remarks and explain why and perhaps make a recommendation (merge seems the best but that should be your determination. Thanks for your diligence in researching this further and obtaining a translation. Most AfD nominators would not do what you did. Cheers, Ronbo76 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The superiority of the R+B over R+N is discussed in Capablanca's 1921 book Chess Fundamentals, the chapter "advanced endgame strategy". I have not been able to find any reference to it called "Fischer's endgame" in English. Even Kasparov's book on Fischer (which he originally wrote in Russian) discusses the position with Taimanov, but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". I think that he would probably mention that if it was a common term. I have no personal stake in this, but other reasons I think it should be deleted are because it is only a stub and the notability is questionable. WP:NOTE says that something should have two independent sources to be notable, but this has only that one, and some editors are questioning its accuracy. For now, I'll let the AfD continue. Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

added a link to his article "Fischer teaches the endgame" --YoavD 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) "Kamsky's woes continued, as he was outplayed positionally by Ivanchuk in a Kan Sicilian. The latter is on record as having named Fischer as his chess hero, and today he turned his pressure into the "Fischer endgame" of rooks and bishop v rooks and knight. (Those of you to whom this terminology is unfamiliar are strongly recommended to buy a copy of Mihai Marin's wonderful book Learn from the Legends, after which all will become clear). Kamsky showed his usual tenacious defence, but with the more passive pieces and several pawn weaknesses, he never looked likely to hold the ending, and went down to defeat in 54 moves. " [1] --YoavD 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fischer%27s_endgame" (just in case you will not see it) --YoavD 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Whered u get ur name from

where'd u get ur name? RealG187 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Realg187

The user that asked you where you got your name is basically a vandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Realg187]. Wahkeenah 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

HEY! Peps edit my page all the time! 75.153.204.116 03:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The new and different article

The new and improved list of articles is well referenced now. It has undergone a "massive remodeling." It will withstand any attempts at deletion, period. Thanks for your suggestions anyways. Your friend. --QuackGuru 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a famous person and there is an article on me here at Wikipedia. I have extensive knowledge about certain subjects. The article will be nominated for deletion and then as contributors we can voice are votes. Nothing more. We have a shared belief for the better world. --QuackGuru 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Apollo

Thank you for once again saying it better than I can. We seem to get a "Carfiend" popping up every few months, thinking he's the first one to raise this so-called issue. And this is just the moon landing "hoax" page, which is a fringe issue. I don't even want to think about weighing in on the Evolution page. Wahkeenah 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a clear consensus on that page. If my count is right, the IP address user has been reverted five times by three different editors. Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And you laid out a pretty convincing case that the burden of proof is on the accusers. Meanwhile, the section in the article reads a little less like an editorial, so maybe some improvement will have come from this debate. Wahkeenah 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Bubba. I'm not aware of this issue beyond the general awareness that a lot of the TV/computer data is in danger of becoming irretrievable because of changing technology. I work at CBC here in Canada, a large television network, and I am pretty sure a lot of the video technology from 1969 or thereabouts would not be retrievable. I had an audio reel-to-reel tape recorded at a slow speed and I couldn't find a machine to play it on! We have one in an audio suite, but it used soley to hear audio mixes through its speakers, I don't thinkn I've ever seen an actual tape threaded on it.

That being said, this sounds to me to be one of the stretches that those who insist "conspiracy" are making in painting what I would call a classic "dead-tech" issue as something sinister. I mean, the plans for the Apollo rockets are gone - NASA would literally have to go from scratch if they went back to the moon! I see nothing sinister here. Sure, bureacracies screw up, don't save what they should in terms of old plans, tapes become outmoded etc before being transferred to new formats...

Beyond that, I lack the expertise to assess these claims, I tend to demand that a high level of evidence be presented before some of these allegations are to be taken seriously and the onus is on the ones making the claims to provide it. Canada Jack 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That "Independent Evidence" page is starting to shape up. There might be a little too much about moon rocks, but there is a growing body of info to stand up against the hoaxsters' assertions to the contrary. I'm not so sure that was Gravitor's intent, but it seems to be working out the right way. Meanwhile, with almost everyone reaching the same conclusions about the format of the article, Gravitor seems to have taken the day off. Imagine that. Wahkeenah 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been on WP much the last 10 days or so, but I did put in my 2 cents on that article's talk page. Eight months ago I said that I was going to cut down on WP, but I didn't. I made a New Year's resolution for the same thing, but didn't do it in January. Now I have done it - I'm being much more selective. Bubba73 (talk), 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My wife claims I'm addicted. No, it can't be. Can it? Wahkeenah 03:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes,it can! I've seen your number of edits and the number of articles you've edited, and they are both close to twice the numbers for me (and the numbers for me are large). There have been quite a few days when practically all of my free time was spent on WP, or doing reasearch for it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, that's scary. However, I suspect that as time goes on, more and more of my "edits" are being spent reverting vandalism or other screwups to articles that I happened to be interested in. Maybe the solution would be to reduce the size of my "watch" list and just focus on stuff that I'm most interested in, instead of my frequent "drive-by editing". Wahkeenah 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

revert edits

I noticed that you reverted some edits by HotLotusDNA to the James Randi article. You might want to examine his edits to Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They were reverted before I got to them. However, I have posted the usual warnings on Talk:HotLotusDNA. Michaelbusch 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Vibraimage

G'day. I notice that you are interested in some of the articles dealing with ultrasound and the electro-magnetic spectrum. I wonder if you could have a look at Vibraimage and tell me if you think it is a hoax or some pseudoscientific gadget. It achieves less than 300 Google hits and I'm inclined to AfD it but I'd like a few more opinions first. Thanks Maustrauser 07:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article but I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to say, sorry. Bubba73 (talk), 16:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder...

User Gravitor came back after being off since September. Today we have a few entries for Carfiend... his first since September. Things that make you go "Hmmm..." Wahkeenah 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Bubba73 (talk), 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked an admin whether he can see if they are the same user. Their rhetoric is similar, and although Gravitor's renewed commentary started out moderately, he is falling back into the same pattern as last summer, though so far coming up short of Carfiend's over-the-top behavior, as with last summer, as I recall (I don't quite have the stomach for re-reading it). Wahkeenah 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I could announce it on the page, but I have more recently taken the course of turning these kinds of issues over to admins, as slugging it out with the users directly plays into their hands. Wahkeenah 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water... Am I your sockpuppet or are you my sockpuppet? I forgot which is which. (That is a joke to anyone reading.) Bubba73 (talk), 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's not easy being a sockpuppet 1,000 miles apart. Wahkeenah 02:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, we have that NASA payola to fall back on. Wahkeenah 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Shhhhh!!! We were paid to not talk about that! Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, everyone supporting NASA is a liar, so this can't possibly be true. Wahkeenah 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and be up front about it on the hoax talk page before posting it (about 2 minutes later). Here's the posting. I haven't done this before, so I don't know if it's totally correct or not. [1] Wahkeenah 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting graphic. To really do it right, you would have to take a sample of times they were both heavily active and see if they ever edited at the same time or not. My hunch when I saw those handful of Carfiend edits today was that Gravitor had forgotten which user to log on as, and thus had kind of an "oops" moment. But it could be coincidental. Thus, it would be interesting to track the times of Carfiend's edits today vs. Gravitor's, and see if a pattern is evident. That would be an easy starting point. If only it weren't so late. :( Wahkeenah 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not so difficult. Today (sorry about the reverse-order):

Carfiend - 17:29, 17:23, 17:22, 17:21, 17:19.

Gravitor - 01:37, 01:36, 01:31... time gap ...17:05, 17:01, 16:59, 16:56, 16:18, 16:15, 16:12

My conclusion on the above sample: inconclusive. Wahkeenah 05:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More suspicious but inconclusive stuff: (1) Carfiend left for months after the RfC about him, and Gravitor left too. (2) the Apollo hoax article is the main one both edit (but that doesn't say much because it also applies to you and me) (3) both have talked to other editors of the article but don't seem to have talked to each other. Bubba73 (talk), 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Gravitor is essentially a one-topic editor. The "list of Milestones" is Gravitor's second-most edited page, and Gravitors edits and comments were very similar ot Carfiends, IIRC. And Gravitor's page says he is interested in NASA and gravity, but he hasn't made any positive contributions to any articles involving NASA or gravity. Suspicious, but inconclusive. Bubba73 (talk), 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Although you and I tend to focus on an article when someone starts attacking it, we both edit lots of different articles, revert vandalism on stuff we're interested in, and so on. Those two are one-notes. What makes me suspect them more than anything is their style and tone being so similar, even including similarly worded sarcasm/insults/personal attacks, reverting what they don't like and calling it "vandalism", accusing others of stuff they are guilty of, etc... along with the acceleration of "attitude", as with last summer. Typical "trolling" behavior, followed by disappearance once they get bored with it... so, not conclusive, as you say. Meanwhile, I've seen nothing (so far) about my request for investigation, but I'm not overly concerned about that at the moment. Wahkeenah 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One odd expression sticks out: "NASA shill", along with the silliness about being on the payroll. Seems to me they both used that expression repeatedly. But it could be copycat. Wahkeenah 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have 10,000 edits on 1,900 pages. You have 18,000 edits on 3,700 pages - almost all different pages, in fact. Thas also makes it pretty hard for one of us to be a sockpuppet of the other. Who in their right mind could make 28,000 edits to 5,600 pages???? Bubba73 (talk), 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A NASA shill, I suppose. Meanwhile, my request to have someone check on those one/two IP addresses was declined. We'll just have to see if he/they come back again... and if the disruption continues to accelerate, then maybe a simple Royal Flying Corps would take care of it. Wahkeenah 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to check. I think there is a lot of reason to suspect a sockpuppet. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked the admin who rejected it to explain why. It can't be all that much effort. I get the feeling he might have an attitude. We'll see. Wahkeenah 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps mention some of these other reasons for suspicion. Bubba73 (talk), 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did. I heard back from him shortly before your message was posted. He said being merely annoying wasn't enough. So I gave him more of the history. I also invited him to verify that you and I are not sockpuppets. If he does that, we can cite it if someone accuses us in the future. And it's still possible that G and C aren't the same guy, maybe just copycats or "copytrolls". Anyway, it seems like Gravitor has gone quiet again, but it's too early to tell. Wahkeenah 08:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar comments popping up here and there from an anonymous IP. I'll give that to the admin also: "LOL @ the gestapo tactics. They are not the same person.24.7.34.99 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)" Wahkeenah 08:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that two more complainants entering the mix finally caught that admin's attention. If Gravitor and Carfiend are unrelated, I'll stop accusing them of sockpuppetry. It's more like they are either copycatting or were separated at birth. Wahkeenah 07:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Looks like they followed up on your request, and found them to be unrelated. The ".99" user used the phrase "NASA shills" recently. ("Don't listen to the NASA shills"). Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

They are nothing if not copycats. I've been advising some of the more prominent users on that page to maybe "boycott" it for a month and see if Gravitor does anything else with it or goes away when no one engages him in debate, i.e. takes away the fun. However, User:Lunokhod is proposing an "RFC" on the content dispute, which I told him I think is actually a "request for mediation". Anyway, I dropped your name on him, since you did one last summer. In fact, once the facts showed up Carfiend and defeated his "rendezvous" argument, and with an RFC looming over him, he disappeared, along with Gravitor and some other red-link users. For awhile. Wahkeenah 11:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your post at WP:HD regarding special characters in IE

Hello again Bubba73,

While patrolling #wikipedia-bootcamp I was notified of another article, First-order logic, with the exact same problem you reported at the Help Desk regarding math symbols displaying as boxes in Internet Explorer. I had a look at its talk page and found a comment there regarding this, which mentioned UTF-8 and, in the end, led me to Help:Special_characters. This page explains the problem extensively. I'm not sure how I could have missed this and apologize for not noticing this earlier.

In any case, see the Viewing and Displaying Special Characters sections, specifically. Apparently, the "correct" way to handle this problem is by making use of unicode. The {{unicode}} template talk page has usage instructions, examples, and also a post or two about the problem and IE.

I see you've started replacing the affected symbols in Empty set with their <math>..</math> equivalents. I would feel very bad if I caused you any unnecessary work, so just wanted to mentioned that I believe using <math>..</math> is just an affective solution. Just wanted to give you a heads-up though, should you run into this problem with other articles as well.

Also, I thought it might be a good idea to "tag" affected articles with the same "Technical note" box displayed at the top of the Help:Special_characters page. At least this will alert IE users viewing such articles about the problem, and possible solutions. If you decide to make use of this, the code is:

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #f3f9ff; margin: 1em 2.5% 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;"> '''Technical note''': <small>Due to technical limitations, some [[w:web browser|web browser]]s may not display some '''special characters''' in this article. Such characters may be rendered as boxes, question marks, or other replacement symbols, depending on your browser, operating system, and installed fonts. Even if you have ensured that your browser is interpreting the article as [[w:UTF-8|UTF-8]] encoded and you have installed [[w:List of typefaces#Unicode_fonts|Unicode font]](s) that supports a wide range of [[Unicode]] [[w:Mapping of Unicode characters|blocks]], fonts such as ''[[w:Arial Unicode MS|Arial Unicode MS]]'', ''[[w:Code2000|Code2000]]'', ''[[w:Code2001|Code2001]]'', ''[[w:TITUS (project)|TITUS Cyberbit Basic]]'', ''[[w:Lucida Sans Unicode|Lucida Sans Unicode]]'' or one of the [[w:Free software Unicode fonts|Free software Unicode fonts]], you may still need to use a different browser, as browser capabilities in this regard tend to vary.</small> <includeonly>[[Category:Pages with special characters|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> </div>

This will display:

—Xhantar^Talk 11:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unicode / UTF-8 and HTML

Hi, Bubba73!

I've read your comments (in several places) about the use of Unicode in Wikipedia, specifically in articles about mathematics. I just want to give you a heads-up, and offer to help you out.

• A whole lot of editors who work on math articles all the time have gone to a great deal of effort to work around the current problems caused by SVG renderings of TeX expressions. There's a de facto agreement among most of us that when an HTML entity for a particular math symbol (like ≤ or ≥ or ⊆ – that's &le;, &ge;, or &sube;) exists as a standard part of HyperText Markup Language, then it should be used.
• When you make wholesale changes from HTML to TeX, you may make things look better in your own browser. But you're making it look worse for thousands of other people, who have the same right to enjoy Wikipedia as you do.
• Please don't get in a fight with the entire community of mathematicians. I'm sure if we work together we can get your browser patched up so that it actually performs up to spec. Try taking a look at this table and also at this one to find out where the bugs are in your browser. Remember, Microsoft does not define what HTML is. That task belongs to the W3C.
• If you just identify which HTML entities do not render properly on your copy of IE-7, I'll be glad to help you find a font that has a glyph for those entities. I think most of your problem is font-related, but it is possible that IE-7 doesn't recognize all the standard character codes defined in HTML 4.0. I'm not real sure about that, because I only use Windows (98SE) part of the time.

Have a great day! DavidCBryant 12:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again!

I got your note. The thing is, I didn't code a character. I coded an HTML entity, &sube;. The fact that it shows up as a small square for you proves that you don't have a font installed for the corresponding Unicode character, 0x'2286'. IE 7 translated &sube; into a hex code (X'2286'), and then turned that into a UTF-8 code (which takes three bytes, I think ... it might be four bytes). Anyway, your problem is farther along in the process, when the font engine tries to match the Unicode character with a bit-map for the glyph.

I'll do a little digging around in my treasure trove of fonts and see if I can't find one that you can download free off the internet. Since you're using Windows I'll look for a True-Type font. I've got it floating around on my machine somewhere, I'm sure ... I just went through a similar hassle a couple of weeks ago, and got it all straightened out using Code2000. But that one's shareware, not freeware. DavidCBryant 15:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do with what I have built in? Perhaps a setting in IE or Winows will fix it? In the tables, it looks like over half of them show up as boxes. Bubba73 (talk), 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Bubba73. Just a progress report. I found a font that contains quite a few special MathML symbols. Now I just have to figure out which file contains it, and where I got it from. The directory structure in Linux is sort of a nightmare. Oh – we had an edit conflict! I don't think a setting is going to fix it. Which version of Windows do you have? I already heard about IE 7 -- I think the only thing you can do there is enable UTF-8 encoding, which is apparently done already. I suppose you could try reading through Windows Help pages for "Unicode" and "UTF-8". I've got an old version of Windows (not running right now -- dual-boot machine) that has faulty support for Unicode, but when I boot to that later today I'll take a look through my own Win help.  ;^> DavidCBryant 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! I found a web page that looks as if it might be just the ticket. Try looking at this web page at MIT. The instructions look pretty simple … they've even set it up with an installation wizard. I'll try it out on my own Windows machine later today when I boot that up, and let you know if it worked for me. DavidCBryant 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Windows XP media center edition, service pack 2. Internet Explorer 7. All of the latest updates. Bubba73 (talk), 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I installed the MIT MathML fonts, but it didn't help. Bubba73 (talk), 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I installed MathPlayer and it didn't help either. Bubba73 (talk), 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Under My Preferences, Math tab, I've tried "always PNG", "recomended for modern Browers", and "mathML", but none of them help. Also, see the message above this section. Bubba73 (talk), 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed my main browser font to Lucida Sans Unicide, and now the symbols work. Other people have had this problem too, but thank you for all of your help. I don't know if what I have done is the best solution, but it works. Let me know if you come up with a better solution. Bubba73 (talk), 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't come up with a better solution. I tried most of the same steps as you did. The "Lucida sans Unicode" trick won't work for me. But then, I have an older system, so the file I have installed may not be as complete as the one on your system. (Oh – the rest of this message is a copy of what I put on my own talk page just a little bit ago.)

I think this problem is tougher than it ought to be. I just jumped through a lot of hoops with my Windows setup (IE 6.0). I installed a compatibility package from the MIT instruction page, and verified that I had the proper fonts installed in Windows to display a large variety of MathML characters. I double-checked all my compatibility settings in IE's "Internet Options" dialog box. And now, what do I get?

I get fairly good performance out of Firefox under Windows, and really crappy performance out of Internet Explorer. I've done some reading, and it appears that IE can't find a good glyph unless it's included in the basic font selected from the "Internet Options -- General -- Fonts" tab. So that means the only way to get good translation of MathML symbols under Internet Explorer is to find a really complete Unicode font all in one big file, and install it, and then select it as the default font for everything. The only fonts I know of that fill the bill are shareware. I'll let you know if/when I come up with anything that works better. Oh -- I'm sorry. I thought this would be easy to resolve, but it isn't. Mozilla and Linux have a much more flexible system for handling glyphs from multiple font files than Microsoft does, apparently. DavidCBryant 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Gravitor

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with Chess articles

Thanks for your contribution to the Chess Informant article. I appreciate it. This morning I've spent a bit of time cleaning up the ChessBase article, and consequently created two other new pages: Chess Assistant and Chess Informant Expert. The CA article was immediately identifies as spam. I could certainly use your help there, if you are willing.--JStripes 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

the spam tag was removed, but the article needs expansion.--JStripes 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Endgame tablebase

I've overhauled the article, and I'm shooting for FA or at least GA. (I nominated it for GA a month ago, and was declined mostly because of references.) In addition to copyediting, expanding, and uploading two images, I've dumped in about 30 references, but they're not formatted, organized, or otherwise consistent with MoS. Can you help with that?

As a completely irrelevant note, I see you and someone else were disagreeing about a phrase with pawn, rook, and queen...well, that whole sentence is gone anyway. :) YechielMan 08:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that. The three-piece tablebases do not include K+B vs. K and K+N vs. K, as far as I know, because these are all draws. There is no need for such a tablebase, and as far as I know they don't exist. I see that you made many changes to the article and I will take a look at it. I don't know how much work I can do because I'm seriously cutting down on my number of edits. Bubba73 (talk), 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've done a lot of good work on the article. One thing, the famous Browne vs. tablebase is described at Computer chess, and I wonder which article should have that. I think probably leave it where it is, since this article is more directly about the tablebases. Bubba73 (talk), 20:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

69.218.222.129

Would you take a look at edits to Debunker by 69.218.222.129 (whom you reverted on Occam)? The edits to Debunker seem equally confusing to me. Bubba73 (talk), 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelbusch 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific coverage

It is part of the WP:FRINGE guideline, under "A note about publication." However, it's also common sense. Cranks send stuff like that to science journals all the time, and it gets pretty much uniformly rejected. By choosing not to publish, they're stating their take on it just as clearly as if they specifically stated "This is baseless." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Help report

Please add comments: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Carfiend. I think that the evidence is pretty strong: they act in tandem, tag team, and have very similar editorial styles. --ScienceApologist 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if they are different people, they are still meatpuppeteers, which is in many cases much worse. There is precedent in Wikipedia for banning meat puppets for example in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. --ScienceApologist 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On Feb 14, 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gravitor indicates that there is no IP or geographic connection. Therefore, I think the meatpuppet angle should be pursued. Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Carfiend and Gravitor / Gravitor and Carfiend

The gift that keeps on giving. Wahkeenah 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! They have been blocked. The admin was even astute enough to see the connection between them and the user For Great Justice who, if anything, was even more outrageous than those two were. Naturally, Gravitor has protested, with complaints about lynching that I'm sure will impress an admin. Carfiend has not said anything. Presumably, if he does, he'll be smart enough not to use the exact same words as Gravitor, but ¿Quien sabe? Wahkeenah 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I've just been reading it. I thought that the admin's analysis was very good, and picked up on some things I didn't notice, like the use of "taxonomy" by both. It is safe to go back in the water. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The admin really did his job well. I recall that peculiar term "taxonomy", now that you mention it. In any case, I take back every bad thing I've ever said about admins. I also posted a note on the admin's page thanking him (and promising to be a better do-bee myself). :) Wahkeenah 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really suspect that ForGreatJustice was the same, but thinking back, the tone was similar. Wasn't around very long, I don't think. Just think of all of the hours and hours - not only editing and in the talk pages, but it takes quite an investment of time to bring an RfC. Bubba73 (talk), 02:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of the RFC, which is to put the brakes on attempts to clobber a user just because of an edit dispute. It basically took three times with these characters, and they can't say they weren't warned. They were cut plenty of slack, which is fair. But at some point, a good admin has to say "enough already". Wahkeenah 03:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The first admin to respond to Gravitor's request for unblock stated it well: "Unblock requests that contain personal attacks against other users are not considered." Wahkeenah 11:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Chess openings cleanup

Thanks for that. btw, have you noticed this? EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, but there are dozens of articles similar to it, and we need a general policy for dealing with all of them. Bubba73 (talk), 14:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Merge

Actually, it's much easier than AfD. See Template:merge. Basically, stick the following text (as you see it now) on top of all the articles you want to merge...

{{merge|{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}|REPLACE_THIS_WITH_A_TALK_PAGE|date=April 2007}}

...replacing REPLACE_THIS_WITH_A_TALK_PAGE to a link to the talk page you're discussing the merge at. You don't open an AfD to discuss a merge, sorry if my instructions were unclear. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

UFO

• I am not sure they ever identified the ufo at roswell (i speculate it is still a UFO from outside this planet) ... but Ralph Horton flying saucer crash was identified ... but I mean if you disagree wiht this please change it to whatever you think is best (my intention is only to help the ufo articles here in wikipedia, hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

^{chess names}...

...seems as if it works... Where was the other place that you said was that list...?--Ioshus^(talk) 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Algebraic_chess_notation#table_of_piece_names Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing.--Ioshus^(talk) 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I thought I have seen basically the same information in an article. I thought it might be chess piece, but it isn't there. I'll try to remember where, or find it. Thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Descriptive chess notation is one page with similar info. However, I'm not sure if the new template needs to be there, due to DN being obsolete. Bubba73 (talk), 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I replaced the table on Descriptive chess notation.--Ioshus^(talk) 16:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Konstantinopolsky Opening

Hi Bubba73. I hadn't actually given the opening stubs thing much thought. It seems to me that stub categories don't normally count in the general rule not to put something in a general cat and then in a direct subcat. Discussing it might not be a bad idea. In a different but not entirely unrelated issue, I've been thinking a little about trying to clean up Category:Chess players. We have a lot of pages in it, and it's large enough that I think removing pages from that category and making the primary classification be Category:Chess players by nationality would make sense. Someone suggested that some time ago on the cat talk page, but it's a fair amount of work. Quale 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts were that an opening stub should not be directly put in both Cat Openings and Cat Opening Stubs. But then if someone goes to the main Cat to look for openings, they might not think to go to the sub_cat. I saw that when you added the tag to this opening, it made it appear automatically in the stub sub-cat. So I'm thinking that all of the stubs should be done this way - don't put them directly in the stubs sub-cat, but do put them in the openings cat and do ass the chess-opening-stub tag (which will automatically add them to the stub cat until the tag is taken off). Bubba73 (talk), 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Chess players by nationality

That's a good point, and it's much harder given the many changes in borders in Eastern Europe from 1918 or so on. I don't know a good solution for the problem: dumping everyone in Category:Chess players doesn't really seem all that wonderful either. As it is now, we generally don't have the GMs in there, but potentially Category:Chess grandmasters could grow to about 1000 entries, and that would be pretty crowded too. Quale 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sicilian Defence. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Modern Chess Openings and link to David Hooper

The David Hooper page says he's an American author, music marketing expert, and radio show host born in 1972. According to the U.S. Library of Congress, the David Hooper who coauthored the 1996 edition of The Oxford Companion to Chess was born in 1915. I've removed the link for now. Quale 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I just got the second editon of the book yesterday, and I linked to David Hooper in a lot of places (about 20), that I need to go back and fix. Do you think we need to start David Hooper (chessplayer)? Bubba73 (talk), 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that you changed most or all of my incorrect references back. Thanks for doing that - I felt obliged to do it, since I made the mess. I have very little info on Hooper - just what is on the back of a couple of books. Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. It was easy to find the references by using "What links here" from Hooper's page. Basically nothing links there, which seems appropriate given his bio. (You probably don't remember this, and I certainly hope you've forgotten, but I think you once repaired an absolutely horrible edit I made to Castling (chess). I think that was my single most embarrassing Wikipedia edit, and I don't plan to ever surpass it.) I think an article on David Hooper (chess player) would be excellent, if you have a good source. I don't really know him outside of The Oxford Companion but it looks like he's written several chess books. Possibly they are better known in Britain. I'm glad you got a copy of The Companion. It's a shame it's out of print, and used copies are a bit hard to find and a little expensive too. Quale 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a good source of info on Hooper. Other than the Oxford Companion, I've had two of his endgame books for many years (one with Euwe). But all of the biographical info I have on him is the brief bit on the back of the books. Bubba73 (talk), 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Hooper wasn't vain enough to put himself in his own book or we'd have a good source. (From the looks of the page, modesty isn't a problem that the other David Hooper is likely to share.) I'll check Jeremy Gaige's Chess Personalia later if I remember. (It's in the bedroom and my wife is asleep, so I can't wake her to retrieve it now.) Chess Personalia only has very basic bio info (dates and places of birth and death), but it also gives pointers to other bio info that might help. — My wife just awoke suddenly, so I was able to retrieve the book, but it isn't much help. "Hooper, David Vincent. born 31-08-1915 Reigate, ENG. bio sources: letter from David Hooper." Quale 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently got a copy of Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, and it has enough on David Vincent Hooper to create a reasonable stub. You can probably improve it by expanding the list of his chess books, and maybe gleaning something useful from the jacket blurbs. Quale 06:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology not one of the sections of the AAAS

You need to correct your link. It's faulty. This is the correct link [[2]].Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I had it wrong initially, but changed it two mintues later. The one on the evidence page works for me. Bubba73 (talk), 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sample chess game

Hi, you shouldn't create articles that only consist of an external link, even if it's a soft redirect. In this case, you could change any article that linked to this article to link to wikibooks instead (with a link to eg. wikibooks:transwiki:sample chess game, although it would probably be best to wait until it's moved away from the transwiki location). Thanks- Bobet 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't know how to do it properly. I wasn't aware that Sample chess game had been moved until today. I found that it was redlinked on chess terminology, and I found the new location. There were other pages that linked to sample chess game, but they weren't fixed either when the article was moved. Now I can't find out what those links were, or I'd update them. Bubba73 (talk), 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Sample_chess_game still works on deleted articles. None of them are from the article namespace though, so I don't know how useful fixing them would be. On the other hand, links to other projects are generally less confusing to people from the other namespaces. Fix them if you think it would be useful, thanks. - Bobet 09:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that feature. None of the pages that link to it now are in the main namespace, so I don't think any fixes are needed. Bubba73 (talk), 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Grunfeld

Yes - it's ready (User:EliminatorJR/GRUN). I've added The Game Of The Century and I realised I'd forgotten the Neo-Grunfeld. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I haven't redirected the Bf4 article though as it would contravene AfD. I'm about to put a note on the AfD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Algebraic chess notation

Thanks for fixing the "used as recently as the 1960s" thing. I saw that once when skimming through the article and should have fixed it myself. I think Fischer recorded his moves in the 1972 championship match using descriptive. I don't know how smooth the changeover was in Spain, but many in the U.S. were quite slow in switching to algebraic. Walter Korn whinged about being forced to switch to algebraic in a 1978 book. (The small number of sample games in the book were in descriptive anyway.) Quale 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

some article says that DN was used until the 1990s. Chess Life was still using it some in the 1980s, but then I let my USCF membership lapse for many years and I don't know when they quit using any DN. Bubba73 (talk), 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

When I was participating in junior UK congresses in the mid-80's it was compulsory to use algebraic for any scores you wished to submit for "best game" prizes etc. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Soltis' Chess to Enjoy column in Chess Life was a stronghold for DN well into the 1990s. The June 1997 issue has an amusing answer as to why he kept using it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly,Chess Life went to AN for most things, but Larry Evans was also a holdout. I remember he saying that if you ask a quesion in DN, he will reply in DN. Bubba73 (talk), 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it sounds like we have some folks here who are familiar with Chess Life. I only read it for a few years as a teen when I was a USCF member. Have you looked at the Chess Life page? It could use a little love. I created a section for well-known contributors and added all the people I could recall or quickly google, but it could use some expansion. Especially helpful is if you know the names of the column(s) the individual wrote and the years (or maybe decades) in which they appeared. Quale 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have my issues from 1968 until the late 70s or early 80s together, I can go through them sometime. I was also a member for a year or two in the 1990s, but I don't know where those issues are. I have been a member again for a year. Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence..

I thought it might be a good idea to cut down on the mass of arbcom evidence information there is. I cut my evidence down to simply pointing out that parapsychology being affiliated with the AAAS doesn't mean it's a 'field of science' and I believe we should probably combine our evidences into one single part so that the arbcom folks don't have to wade through it all. Would you be willing to allow me to bind your evidence into mine and you erase yours? TO make it easier for the arbcom reviewers to read it all? Since it's essentially the same thing.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. In fact, about an hour ago I was looking for the AAAS stuff to add a similar comment - being associated with Princeton university doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing real science either. The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab closed down after 28 years of no positive results. Can you imagine a legitimate field science going 28 years with no positive results? Astronomy probably doesn't go 28 days without a new discovery (just look at any issue of Astronomy magazine.) Use this comment on PEAR if you wish. --Bubba73 (talk), 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've combined our evidences.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this Barnstar for your valiant work on improving Wikipedia! Wikidudeman (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Topics in ufology

This case has been opened, please see the case page at [3]. You may want to assist or contribute. I think you were only on the periphery of this conflict. Thank you! JodyB 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comment on my talk page. Thanks! --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. Others have done more work on chess articles, but I try to help where I can. It's been easier and more fun since things have quieted down for the time being. I hope Sjakkalle comes back soon. Quale 07:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaha Riza image

Hi Bubba. For your future uploads, the reason the image was being deleted was because you hadn't given a way for anyone to verify that it actually was public domain. The news website you found it on said it was PD, but third-party websites often get copyright information very wrong. It's necessary to trace the image back to the source. In this case, I was able to find the image through http://images.google.com/images?q=shaha+riza and then the World Bank page at http://www.worldbank.org/springmeetings/photos041103-mna.htm verified that it was PD. Thanks for your help, ··coelacan 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I requested that it be deleted, but I understand what you are saying. The Shaha Riza now has a copy of the same photo that is from the Commons. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I see that you are the one that replaced the image. Thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I know; I just deleted yours. I meant the reason it was originally being deleted: I thought that someone had come along and applied an "unsourced" tag I now see, looking at the deleted version, that it had been {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}, which is the tag that is applied to copyrighted images of living people. Had I not replaced the image, it might have been deleted later if the reviewing admin could not find the original source on worldbank.org. ··coelacan 01:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really understand that tag, but I added it as the thing suggested. At that time, I hadn't seen any picture of her except that one, so I thought it would fall under fair use. An image of a public person, or something like that. I'm somewhat familiar with copyright issues, but not completely. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has more stringent fair use requirements than does the US law on fair use. Since we're trying to be a free (libre) encyclopedia, we don't allow non-free images except when there is (almost) no chance for a free equivalent. You can see the details at WP:NONFREE. I see you've been around since 2005; the requirements have actually become more stringent since then and not everyone's aware of this. Basically if a person is still alive, we consider any non-free images to be replaceable (and thus deletable) since someone could take out a camera and make a free image. We do make a few exceptions for real hermits like J. D. Salinger and Osama bin Laden. ··coelacan 01:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand what "replacable" means. I had it all confused. I thought that this image would not be replacable because it was the one so widely used, and I couldn't find an image of her to replace it. Thans again. Bubba73 (talk), 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. =) I only went looking for the image because you'd already uploaded it and mentioned that it was supposed to be public domain from worldbank.org. So that worked out well. In this case, since it's public domain, World Bank has released the copyright and we don't have to worry about fair use at all. ··coelacan 01:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, with Wolfowitz resigning, her 15 minutes of fame are probably over. :-) Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Majestic 12

Funny you should ask about M12, Bubba, because I have been in touch with Stanton Friedman only this past week and he sent me a package of stuff which included that. He's a very approachable guy, even when I made it clear that when it comes to Roswell, I don't think aliens were involved. You feel M12 page needs a clean-up? Canada Jack 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter UFO Incident‎

Can you please stop making dozens of small edits. It makes it more difficult to keep track of what you are actually doing.

perfectblue 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. I don't like to make a lot of small edits in one edit because of the possibility of "database locked coming up". Bubba73 (talk), 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you question the date so much, then why do you take out information used to determine the actual date? Bubba73 (talk), 13:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I keep finding sentences that I referenced from a source, and then you come along and change the meaning of the sentence into something that the source does 'not say. I have to change it back to be accurate. This has happened many times. Bubba73 (talk), 13:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing Soviet chess players

I've created a section on the WikiProject chess talk page to discuss how we should categorize Soviet chess players within Category:Chess players by nationality. I'm interested in what you think, so I invite you to weigh in with your views at WT:CHESS if you like. Quale 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Roswell aliens

Of all the witnesses who we know were on the ranch where the debris was (as reported in 1947), to the Roswell base and to Ft Worth, two claimed to have seen an actual alien craft or aliens. One was Lewis Rickett, who accompanied Marcel and/or Cavitt to the ranch. Neither Cavitt nor Marcel ever claimed to have seen aliens or an alien craft. Rickett claimed, just before he died, to have seen a craft with bat-like wings.

Walter Haut, who wrote the initial press release, claimed before he died to have seen a craft with aliens brought to the base, though he previously made no claims while expressing certainty there an alien craft was recovered: “I am convinced that the material recovered was some type of craft from outer space.”

There were other second-hand accounts of some of the witnesses where it is claimed they saw aliens - like Brazel and Sherrif Wilcox. The problem with Brazel's account is that only one person ever claimed he said anything about aliens - reporter Joyce - yet none of the others who he knew - his family, the whistleblower Marcel, etc - ever said anything about Brazel mentioning aliens. Canada Jack 15:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. And of these claims of seeing aliens - were any of them omtemorary, or were they 30+ years after the event? Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilding

Hey. Can you keep an eye on the Bodybuilding article? Someone keeps removing an image from the article which has been justified for being there. Their reasoning is baseless and personal and I don't want to break any 3rr rules. I justified it's existence on the talk page many times and it's the only copyright free viable and quality image that exists at present. Can you restore the image and revert their edits? Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for helping to defend Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Apollo11Honeysuckle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Apollo11Honeysuckle.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Teslascope#Article_rewrite

someone just rewrote the entire article and I undid their revisions, if possible could you please share your insight in the talk page, this is a very important article (at least i think so hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 02:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read through the changes quickly. I'll have to read them more carefully to form an opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been searching for a paper reference. I couldn't find it among my books. However, I found three articles I need to re-read. Bubba73 (talk), 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've only found one paragraph, with few details. Bubba73 (talk), 03:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Computer Science

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Computer science. Glad to have you on board! If you haven't done so already, please stop by the project talk page to see what's going on right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chess piece point value

You (and other contributors) have done a really nice job on Chess piece point value. I wouldn't have thought there was so much to say about it. Quale 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are so many different systems. You probably noticed that I just added Berliner's system. The article needs a little polishing, I think (consistent formatting of the values, etc). Bubba73 (talk), 19:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Roswell debris

If the skeptics are right, the debris, once assessed as being part of some experiment, was likely simply tossed in the garbage. The Mogul crew had no equipment on board the train which would have been anything they needed back.

Of course, if the UFO proponents are right, then the debris is likely in some tightly secured facility...

Since the Air Force said there was no indication that any debris was recovered from the time period was of any great significance, it would seem that it would be logical to assume that any mundane debris (as seen in the photographs) would have been tossed out. There is some indication that the debris indeed went to Wright Patterson, but if that initial assessment was correct, the stuff surely would be tossed out. Since there was no indication that that initial assessment was wrong, there was no need to investigate further. One of the big criticisms of the first Air Force report was that there was no documentation of the Mogul flight thought responsible for the debris and no debris - or samples of a similar flight - to compare with the descriptions. If there was, no doubt there'd be fewer out there claiming this was an "alien" craft.Canada Jack 19:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

George Adamski

• hey bubba, do you think you could provide the citation for the 1957 hoax letter? I know many websites talk about it, but I thought it would be best to use were you got your info from -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I put it back. It used to be there, for instance on Aug 28, 2006, but someone took it out. Bubba73 (talk), 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:HoneysucklePolaroid.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:HoneysuckePolaroid.jpg. The copy called Image:HoneysuckePolaroid.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Evaluations

Done. Comments were placed on the comments subpage of the banners. John Carter 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Yep, definitely a different person, but he has a similar compulsive need to reply to everyone who doesn't agree with him. I think he has made the nominations in good faith and believes that the articles violate WP:NOT. I think it's a little bit tricky, but strategy and tactics in sports like baseball, any of the varieties of football, fencing, or chess are not at all the same as video game guides. For instance, I haven't checked, but I think that each of the well-known karate kicks and punches should be described in WikiPedia. These techniques are well described in many independent sources. The descriptions won't be enough to make the reader a karate master and aren't intended to, but are essential background for any understanding of the sport. It's the same with chess, and definitely not the same with Pokemon. Quale 01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you buy a video game, the instructions normally come with the game. If you buy a chess set or a baseball, they usuelly don't have the rules with them. Bubba73 (talk), 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Psst Remember to keep quiet about Chessmaster, Fritz, and IBM Deep Blue, or else people will find a way to classify chess as a computer/video game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning deep blue in the context I did worked well -- it is about human and artificial intellegigence (though my spelling right now isn't too good). Needing to know the rules of chess in order to learn the mysteries of the human mind is a pretty encyclopedic reason, I think XinJeisan 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone said that there are about 2,000 chess articles, and that is probablt about right. I think that the Rules of Chess is probably the most fundamental one of all. Practically none of the others make sense if you don't know the rules. The rules define the game. Bubba73 (talk), 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for classifying Rules of chess as Top importance/priority. I didn't realize that we hadn't specified the priority for that page. Walter Chan is doing a yeoman's job of classifying chess articles, but we still have over 1100 not prioritized. Quale 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. All three of those were tagged as "top importance" long before the AfD came up. Strategy and Tactics are marked "start", which may be part of the problem. They do need work. I think that Rules is the most fundamental of all of the chess articles. (It could have some history in it, but the history of the rules is in the main chess article and some of the sub artices such as threefold repetition and fifty move rule.) Bubba73 (talk), 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the strategy and tactics articles need work. They really should be fixable. What they really need is the systematic approach that you've applied so well to the many endgame articles you've worked on: instead of every passer-by just adding whatever happens to come to mind when they think of chess tactics, base the development of the article on the standard references by summarizing the most important points. Chess strategy and especially tactics are very well referenced with WP:RS sources, so we should make these articles better. Chess strategy, chess tactics, and middlegame are the three chess articles I think are currently in greatest need of improvement, which means I should stop yapping and get to work trying to improve them. Quale 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Strategy and Tactics are broad fields, so they may be difficult to cover in the length of an article. Those articles need work, though. Bubba73 (talk), 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes from blocked user NobutoraTakeda who forgot to say "please" and "thank you"

Please don't place condesending rubbish like that on my talk page again. Also, Brittanica is online, not Paper, so it only shows ignorance for you to claim that I should read such things. NobutoraTakeda 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously he didn't go to the same school as me, where the Britannia was half a shelf. Orderinchaos 11:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The above user is ignorant that http://www.britannica.com/ is the Encyclopedia Britannica electronic version. NobutoraTakeda 14:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rules of Chess

It is very refreshing to see those who will contribute to an article up for deletion, knowing the work may be lost. In this case, it seems your efforts resulted in a withdrawal, thus saving the article. Even if the article had been deleted, your work and effort is much appreciated, as it definitely improved the article. the_undertow ^talk 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I normally don't make changes to an article up for deletion, because (1) those edits might get thrown out with the article, and (2) I tend to believe that people voicing an opinion on AfD should be talking about the same version of the article. If the article changes substantially after the AfD starts, the early comments may no longer make sense. I normally limit my edits to AfD articles is to minor things like links and references. In this case I did make changes because I was sure tha it would not be deleted.

I'm glad that is over, because I had to spend two days of my Wikitime defending wikipedia rather than improving it. Bubba73 (talk), 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have certainly found that I will spend a giant chunck of time adding reliable sources and references to articles which are up for AfD. I wouldn't concern yourself with the article changing - that is part of the process, right? I mean, you proved that even though the comments didn't refer to the original article, that the article could be kept because the modification added to consensus. I share your concerns, but I always try and remember that people can look through the article history to see what changes, if any, have been made and compare them to the discussions. The two days you spent DID improve wikipedia by virtue of the fact that an article was saved, improved, and policy towards WP:NOT in reference to games will be re-evaluated. the_undertow ^talk 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind messages. Bubba73 (talk), 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deserved

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one Pseudoanonymous 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have much more than 500+ please don't be offended; I am thinking about

• The Chain Barnstar of Merit: 1500+
• The Chain Barnstar of Diligence: 2500+
• The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour: 5000+

But I have to make them first Pseudoanonymous 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thats its primary function, as an encouragement for those without one; but it's okay to give it people with barnstars as long as they have more than 500 edits; I am trying to spread this to as many people as possible so that they would give newer users the star; thats why I gave one to you. Pseudoanonymous 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I already had some barnstars, but I passed one along to User:Baccyak4H, but I forgot to count his edits (but they're > 2000). Bubba73 (talk), 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I am considered "Diligence". :-) Not that it matters... Onward... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There I fixed it Pseudoanonymous 15:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How about now? the ( |} ) have to be in a separate line. Pseudoanonymous 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pigasus Award

I nominated this in good faith. I've presented my reasons honestly, and I've asked that it meet wp:n, and have secondary sources as required. I think your joke that I'm a conspiracy theorist is way out of line. If you really think I'm acting in bad faith, step up and accuse me of it formally.Horrorshowj 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "conspiracy" anywhere, I was just making a comment about the appropriateness of the secondary sources. If you took offense, it certainly wasn't meant personally, and I'm sorry for that. Bubba73 (talk), 13:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endgame Tablebase and GA categorization

Those of us in WP:UCGA are only adding the appropriate top level category that the GA article is found at over at WP:GA (I'm not inserting any personal bias, basically). It may seem weird that this article gets an Everyday Life tag, but that category includes sports and games within it, so there are chess-related topics. Understandably, this may seem like a computing topic, but since video games also fall into Everyday Life, I believe it's categorized correctly. If it is not, I don't know what the procedure is right now to correct that (if it's just a matter of editing WP:GA and the GA/AH tag within the talk page or if there's something more former to go through); I'll get back to you on that, but I don't believe it's mis-categorized. --Masem 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a better category at the UCGA page. I think the general chess article would definitely be "everyday life", but the endgame tablebase is pretty specialized. Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's other articles like that where you think it might be in one area but it was classified in another (which still made sense but was a bit confusing to start). For endgames, it almost seems like it should be in the computer area which is over for Engtech (applied sciences and technology), but none of the GAs in that area match up well against this one. I wouldn't worry too much about it; it's readily apparent that "everyday life" is mostly just some title that may denote too narrow a field for what it covers. As there's not many other articles similar to the Endgame one to compare to (such as other game theory articles), I think it's in the right place, but if you and other editors feel that it belongs elsewhere, there's nothing stopping you short of knowing the procedure to recategorize an article both on it's talk page and on WP:GA to the desired area. --Masem 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Neat spacing trick for pages with chess diagrams

I just saw what you did to fix whitespace and diagram placement on Zugzwang. I did not know that trick before, and will keep it in mind; it may come in handy in many chess articles. I learn something new every day! Best, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes it clear out any diagram or whatever before starting the next section. There is also {{clear}}, but I read that it has been replaced by <div style="clear: both"></div> . Most of the things I've learned about WP editing features I have learned by seeing what other people did. Bubba73 (talk), 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of song names

Hi there. Please note that song names should be in double quotes, not italicized. See WP:ALBUM#Formatting. I've reverted your changes to a few album articles. Please self-revert any others. Thank you. --PEJL 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, when I did that to two or three articles, I thought that they should be in itallics. Sorry, I didn't know about that convention. Bubba73 (talk), 17:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --PEJL 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you fixed two albums I did it to, and I fixed Little Wing. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for noticing! I was born and raised in Brunswick (I've always been fascinated with the area); I'm hoping that in the end, Brunswick will be nominated as a Featured Article. However, I've still got a long way to go. Once again, thanks!

-- Jaxfl 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate bridge

Good catch. When I saw the Swiss system article was updated to avoid the bridge disambig page, I thought that it was a good edit except I wondered what the heck Ordinary Bridge is. Contract bridge is the game I was familiar with, but duplicate bridge is better. Quale 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Contract bridge" is really not that wrong, but "duplicate" is more accurate. Duplicate is a form of competition of contract bridge. Bubba73 (talk), 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's something I could have known, but didn't (or else I simply forgot). My mother played tournament bridge for a while (for fun, not seriously), and I think she said she was once at a tournament featuring Omar Sharif, although she never played at the same table as he did. Quale 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

At my age, I've been playing bridge for over 20 years, mostly to the exclusion of chess. Bubba73 (talk), 02:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm too much younger than you. I'm a lot more familiar with the chess greats in the Fischer era than those in the Kasparov era and later. When you commented that you didn't recognize most of the names of the requested bios at WP:CHESS#..._to_create I was relieved because I thought I was the only one. Just looking over them quickly I don't think I recognize a single name. Quale 08:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm 53. I played in chess tournaments from 67-72 (1/3 of them scholastic), then from 80-85, then two small ones last year. I played correspondence chess most of the time from 71 through 87. I started playing bridge in 84 and in bridge tournaments (several a year) since 91. My chess has deteriorated but my bridge ahs improved. Bubba73 (talk), 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got me by 9 years. My chess was perhaps OK but certainly never great, but I enjoyed and enjoy it. I played in only a small handful of tournaments in my mid-teens, but didn't study enough or get enough competitive experience to improve much. (I still remember my shock when I found I was paired with a USCF Expert in the first round of my first tournament, when I was 13 or 14 and unrated. I didn't understand how Swiss system pairings were designed to work, and in any case lost head-spinningly quickly on the white side of a Schliemann Defense. In an impromptu post-mortem the kindly expert tried to help me by indicating where I first went wrong, but as I was completely unprepared for tournament play my first mistake was probably on move 4.) Ultimately I got distracted by other things and haven't been involved in chess competition since, but I still enjoy reading about the game and following some news. (I used to enjoy beating up on chess computers, but as the hardware and software have gotten better I haven't been able to beat a good chess program for years.) It's tempting to think "if I lived in a city with great chess clubs like NYC I would have gotten a lot better", but I think it's just as possible that I would have run up against my limitations as a chess player even sooner when faced with stronger competition. Quale 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I grew up in rural south Georgia, and I might have gotten better if I'd been in a bigger city. Also, I quit when I was 17 and started back when I was 26. I lost 8.5 good years there. Bubba73 (talk), 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"threatened with capture" language also in king article

This construction, which you had issues with in the checkmate article, also appear in the King (chess) article. In the context of the whole lead, it seems tolerable as the last sentence there implies that even when checkmated, the actual capture never will occur. However, there is a minor clunkiness to my ears there still, despite the fact that most of the language is due to my edits :\

While I hope you agree that the sky is not falling over these constructions, I still thought it worth an FYI. Happy editing, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is a very small issue. "Threatened with capture", even though the capture never takes place is npt too bad, and may be about the best way to say it without getting convoluted. Bubba73 (talk), 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And since I'm so busy, do respond on my talk page so I know you got it and read it. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin AfD

Hi there, the article has been re-written a bit so it isn't self-contradictory. However, we still don't have any sources to establish his notability. Could you have a look through the new version of the article and see what you think? All the best Tim Vickers 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it. I had no opinion one way or the other about the AfD. Bubba73 (talk), 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Italian Game

I’m thinking there’s a need to re-open the page on the Italian Game (I’ve lodged a discussion here about it); do you have any objections? Moonraker12 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you back - I was afraid you were gone forever. Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cluestick

A big cluestick to Bubba73, who definitely has a clue. - Fyslee

Your comment at the RfA is right on. Good going! -- Fyslee / talk 03:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Apollo

Hiya. I used to be User:Wahkeenah. I "reincarnated" and cut my watch list way down. I was just curious whether you're still having the same old problems on the Hoax page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It has mostly be quiet on the Apollo Hoax articles. Vandalism comes up fairly frequently, but that is about it lately. Someone wants to shorten the article since it is longer than tha Apollo article, but nothing has been done along those lines, except I cut out most of the discussion about why current telescopes can't see things of that size on the moon. Bubba73 (talk), 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Martins Arbitration

I want to leave this note to you. Please try to only discuss Martin at the arbitration and not get off topic and discuss the paranormal or anything else. I would suggest that you remove any off topic discussions from the arbitration so that we avoid it turning into a confusing mess of paranormal discussion which gets us off track from the actual point of the arbitration, martin. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bubba. Having seen Martin's previous Arbitration and RfC, I can attest that once the comment/response cycle gets going, it never ends, resulting in a lengthy mess that Arbitrators ignore. Best not to feed it. - LuckyLouie 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are right. I struck out my off-topic comment. I would have removed it but it had responses. I'm not going to be involoved much in this case. Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the clerk has refactored it and moved it to my original comment, I decided to remove it. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 15:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:WhiteWitchSpiritualGreeting.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:WhiteWhitchSpiritualGreeting.jpg. The copy called Image:WhiteWhitchSpiritualGreeting.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Diagrams on endgame study article.

Hallo Bubba73, I added a list of major endgame composers to the "endgame study" article. When I saved the new section I noticed that two diagrams regarding Kasparyan study had moved within my section, I think through an error of the program. I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to put them back to the upper section. If you can do it, the article will be better presented. Reading your bio-notes I see that we share some interests: I too have an interest in math, chess, and to some degree astronomy. I also like geography, the US being one of my favorite topics. I have a 22-volume american encyclopedia, and read quite a bit of it. Greetings, --Gabodon 09:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I put in an instruction to "clear" after the examples, which will keep them from going into the next section. Bubba73 (talk), 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:GaFlag1920.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GaFlag1920.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 18:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WhiteWitchSpiritualGreeting.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WhiteWitchSpiritualGreeting.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) 04:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WwLP1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WwLP1.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 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Rules of chess‎. Thank you. --Slashme 08:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually do. I made comments on two earlier edits. On the one I didn't, I made a very small change. Bubba73 (talk), 15:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I usually check the user's contributions before leaving a message, but I forgot this time. --Slashme 18:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

prods

When you prod an article, in addition to giving the reason in the edit summary,it is necessary to give it in the prod tag as well, using the format {{subst:prod|reason}} where you replace "reason" with the reason. (it's then enough to just say "proposed deletion" in the edit summary.) DGG (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never PRODed before. Bubba73 (talk), 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Link

That link is to UFO Watchdog, which clearly states that Philip Klass smoked and snoozed during conferences and has never investigated any UFO case, YET he could "explain" to people what it was that people have seen, even if said "explanation" is utterly ridiculous. That same site is used to criticize Linda Howe and Richard C. Hoagland, yet it is NOT allowed to criticise the Great klass. Why the hell not ? Said criticisim is on the site's Hall of Shame 1, 7th on the listing. That is really biased when UFO Watchdog is used to criticize a paranormal proponent, not so called "skeptics". Don't you agree ? 65.163.112.128 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I read it before deleting the link. Read WP:EL, e.g about the relevance of external links. I do not think that link is relevant to Klass. Bubba73 (talk), 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided # 1, #2, and #12 - I think these all apply. Bubba73 (talk), 06:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone, such as myself will feel that UFO Watchdog is used to criticize pro paranormal people, not skeptics, thus is the concern for bias. Agree ? 65.163.112.128 (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to get a Wikipedia:Third opinion? I'm leaving town for a few days so I can't follow up on it right now. Bubba73 (talk), 15:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR for Chess

Chess has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Figurative Algebraic Chess Notation

Hi, Bubba37. I'm afraid the Unicode for FAN doesn't work in my browser. Please respond at Talk:Chess notation. Philcha (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevent link

The UFO Watchdog link to Philip Klass is relevent, since UFO Watchdog criticizes both sides, not just the pro paranormal personnel. Hope this helps. Can you reinsert it ? Did you see the underlined matter about Philip Klass and CISCOP on that site ? I have, so have other people. That is why I placed it in the first place. I know how to handle evidence, I work with the police and other law enforcement. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC):)

That is your opinion, my opinion is different. We need a WP:third opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)