User talk:Gcpolerio
Sources for Giulio Cesare Polerio
[edit][1] VAN DER LINDE, ANTONIUS: Das Schachspiel des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Nach unedirten Quellen bearbeitet. Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin 1874
[2] LEON, J.A.: Forty-Six Games of Chess: by Giulio Cesare Polerio, from a hitherto unpublished Manuscript.
[3] BARON VON DER LASA, TASILO Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Schachspiels. Verlag von Veit & Comp., Leipzig, 1897
[4] MURRAY, HAROLD JAMES RUTHVEN: A History of Chess Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1913
[5] BAFFIONI, PROF. GIOVANNI: Giulio Cesare Polerio Lancianese Maestro di Scacchi (XVI-XVII) Regione Abruzzo, Centro Servizi Culturali, Lanciano, 1993
[6] SANVITO, ALESSANDRO: Il Boncompagni-Ludovisi era ritenuto disperso: Ritrovato un codice di Polerio L’Italia Scacchistica: 311, 1994
[7] BAFFIONI, PROF. GIOVANNI: Lectura Polerii Regione Abruzzo, Centro Servizi Culturali, Lanciano, undatiert (Geschenk der Biblioteca “R. Liberatore”, Lanciano)
[8] BAFFIONI, PROF. GIOVANNI: Giulio Cesare Polerio, l’Apruzzese, Maestro di Scacchi Europeo (XVI-XVII) Litografia Botolini srl, Lanciano, 1995
[9] SANVITO, ALESSANDRO: Bibliografia italiana degli scacchi, Degli origini al 1999 Edizione Sylvestre Bonnard sas, Mailand, 1999
References
[edit]I tried to make some order in the references. I recommend you to try and keep this order. One of the tricks is: no hard breaks in the references. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to work on this article but still have problem with the techniques here. How to reference a statement?Gcpolerio (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting article. I'm happy you want to improve it. If you just want the reference to be at the end, then you can add it in the same way I did.
If you want the reference to be inside the text then do like this:
<ref>[http://www.domain.org/etc. Title of the page]</ref>
That is: <ref> at the beginning, and </ref> with a slash "/" at the end. The link to the page together with the title should be inside "[]" square brackets, and separated by a space. If you have no title, you can still use the square brackets, but I personally prefer to leave out the square brackets in such a case.
There is also {{Cite web}} to make very nice references. You can read the documentation page of that template if you like. If you start using the Cite web template you still need to use the <ref> and </ref> tags.
If you need any more explanation, just tell me what you want to know. You can write me on my talk page. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope I can find trhough. Thx for assistanceGcpolerio (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Images
[edit]I made a very small change to Talk:Giulio Polerio to make the image smaller. Have a look at this and you'll understand how it is done. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Move articles
[edit]You (!) can change the name of the article, if you so want. Changing the name of an article is called moving an article. Press "move" on top of the page you want to rename and enter the new name. I agree with your suggestion that it would be a good idea to rename the article. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Drafts for planned articles
[edit]These are links to so called user subpages. Now you can work on the articles without anybody disturbing you. As soon as you have something that is worth showing the world, you just move it to the real names Il Puttino and Codexes of Polerio.
As I said in Talk:Giulio Polerio I am willing to assist you with technical help and advice, but not the actual research and writing. If that is fine with you, of course. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
@Debresser
I actually need your support - I understand that you are not expert for Polerio, but I suggest you have expertise on a lot of different fields.
Three questions:
1. Please have a look on these files:
deleted filesGcpolerio (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
They concern books as old as 300-400 years of age. I got them (need overall 6 - quality as you can see) as scans on photopaper about 8 to 10 years ago from the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, National Library of the Netherlands. Do you see any (legal) problem to publish them at Wikipedia? Is there a possibility to get them now (it already 8-10 years later) directly from the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, National Library of the Netherlands as jpg, for means of free access? (If you see any legal problem I will kill the two scans from the Server)
2. What I can do, technically, to upload 6 jpg files to Wiki?
3. To describe Codexes of Polerio is difficult as highly interesting as well. I think it should be done PUPBLIC (i.e. starting at a very draft version just being at Wiki_English). The most relevant on these Codexes has been published, until now, in Italian and German languages - therefore I think in the English Wikipedia (I speak both languages, but Italian as of 1550-1634 causes some difficulties to me). Could I start a draft on which you can have a look first - whether it is appropriate etc.? If you think that it is appropriate - the work should be done public with the support of different people (of different first languages). This is a big job. E.g., just van der Linde list 250 games - noted by Polerio (not meaning that he has played them ... ). If you find it interesting, could you give me some technical advices how I can draft - while you are lookin on the draft (and only you for the beginning)?Gcpolerio (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
1. The books themselves are in the public domain since they are old. The scan are another story. The best idea is to write the library and ask their permission. You'll have to state the nature of the permission when you upload the scans to Wikipedia, or they will be deleted after 7 days.
2. See Wikipedia:Upload. I recommend creating an account at Wikimedia Commons and upload there. Just follow the instructions.
3. My experience with making pages is that it is easier to make the draft on my userpage and move a more or less serious version of the article to the main article space later. If only to avoid being tagged for deletion as "too little content", or a dozen other tags.
I am watching both draft pages above and (when I'm online and can spare the time) I will give them my best. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thx a lot! Please note that I just have published an article called Il Puttino, already revised by you and others. Potentially, I'll contact Koninklijke Bibliotheek, National Library of the Netherlands for some *.jpg files from Salvio's books - but this has no priority. I'll start in the next days to publish a draft on the Codexes, as suggested by you on User:Gcpolerio/Codexes of Polerio. Would be nice to get some comments from you once the very first draft is in a mature stage.Gcpolerio (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Terminolgy of "Polerio Gambits"
[edit]Help Help Help: How to write on impact of Polerio on Terminolgy without introducing the (not existing) term Polerio Gambit at Wikipedia???Gcpolerio (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you say it doesn't exist? I saw you even made it into a section heading here. And you brought a source as well (On Page 186 of "Das Schachspiel des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Nach unedirten Quellen bearbeitet, Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin 1874" van der Linde wrote).
By the way, the word "page" is written without a capital, "page" not "Page".
You are getting into trouble with Wikipedia:No original research. This means you can't say anything that hasn't been said before in this encyclopedia. Any novel conclusion should (and probably will) be removed. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thx, have understood. I hope you and Wikipedia accept my apologies and the form written now is okGcpolerio (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just telling you, so no apology needed. It restricts our freedom to write, although we usually one way or the other fall prone to it. Like stressing certain points of view, taking loose connections for hard ones, etc. And nobody will make a point of it, as long as you don't do anything more blatant than that. Part of the trick is to avoid certain words that give away that you are putting forth your own conclusions, and use even weak references to make what you consider to be a valid point. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Proposed deletion of Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez
[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Notability not indicated.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-20t11:38z 11:38, 20 April 2009 (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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)