User talk:OGBranniff/Archive1

This is an archive of user talk from December 2012 to 15 March 2013:

Welcome

Hello, OGBranniff, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wayward Queen Attack

You should revert your recent moves of article to "Parham Opening" name, you can't make those changes without new info, new discussion, new consensus, since the name was discussed at length on the article Talk (didn't you see it?) and your unilateral moves completely cross that consensus. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already moved it back. A bold move is OK if the name hasn't been discussed, but once a consensus has been reached (Talk:Wayward Queen Attack#Naming; Why is it called the "Parham Attack"?) you should discuss it and reach a new consensus before performing a rename. If you read the talk page I think you'll see that no perfect name was found, but this was thought to be the best compromise by those participating in the discussion. Quale (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, as Ihardlythinkso can tell you Wikipedia is in some ways a very strange and bureaucratic place. You can be here for years and not encounter all the "rules". I can't really call myself a chess player as I haven't played competitively for about 30 years (which also tells you that I'm getting old). My rating wasn't anything special back then, as I topped out south of USCF 1900. I enjoy reading about chess a lot, and I used to write about it here a fair amount but I have mostly observed for the last several years. If you are interested in chess you should consider joining the chess wikiproject at WP:CHESS. It isn't anything formal, but you'll get to know a bunch of Wikipedians who enjoy chess and edit chess articles. Many of them are much stronger players than I am. WT:CHESS has been quiet for several weeks around the holidays, but it's a good place to bring up any topic that you think should have the attention of Wikipedia chess editors. You can also use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Index_of_chess_articles if you want to follow recent edits to Wikipedia chess articles. This is a neat use of Index of chess articles as a kind of shared watch list. There's a lot to do to improve the chess articles we have on Wikipedia if you're interested. You can also start by browsing Category:Chess. Quale (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you enjoy the holiday season. Quale (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely confused

Seriously, why did I get a warning? I thought I was being helpful. I added an Internet Chess Server to the list of them. Why was that wrong? I'm not trying to troll you or anything, I really don't know why what I did deserves a warning. 166.82.205.115 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I keep looking for what I did wrong, but, I can find no difference between chess.com and say... gameknot.com. So, why is one allowed on the list, and not the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.205.115 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure you see it in the midst of all the other talk there, my response to you was: Yes, I'm a member at chess.com. I'm also a member at gameknot, and schemingmind, and I've had an account at most or all of those sites at one time or another. That said, would you mind showing me where gameknot is "verified"? Certainly chess.com is more notable than schemeingmind, right? 166.82.205.115 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I was given an appropriate link. That said, if the rules are to be applied fairly, there are probably other sites on that list that don't belong. 166.82.205.115 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was bluster and inappropriate. User:OGBranniff should review WP:VERIFY:

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...]
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.

With his failed AfD re Andy Soltis, which SNOW-closed over vociferous protests about others not following WP:VERIFY, OGBranniff has established a clear pattern of demanding immediate deletion of anything he likes to challenge re sourcing. "[...] challenged or likely to be challenged", but the notability of Andrew Solits was not "likely to be challenged", except, apparently, by User:OGBranniff, so that is perhaps why that article lacked sourcing for the time it did. Ditto with Chess.com's membership in List of Internet chess servers. The appropriate thing to do was to tag with "citation needed", instead of throwning delete bombs and accusing editors of being "vandals" and "idiots", in addition to all the other numerous insults and slurs at User talk:166.82.205.115#Chess.com and User talk:166.82.205.115#Editing policies. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for attempting to harass other users, as you did at User_talk:166.82.205.115. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. KTC (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:166.82.205.115, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bobherry talk 03:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com

Why do you seem to have a bias against this one site. Every time it appears on wikipedia, you go out of your way to delete a mention of it, and you always have reasoning behind it, but, if you really believed your reason for it, you would delete all the other sites that apply as well, but you only delete the one. Why is this?166.82.205.67 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested in creating an account, no, but thanks. I was pointed to the discussion on chess.com from that site, and I was just looking around, and noticed that you seem to dislike that site for some reason. I mean, I get that, I can't stand Gameknot myself, but, that doesn't seem like a good reason to try to delete it from the face of wikipedia like some kind of crusader, which is exactly the impression you are leaving by your actions.166.82.205.67 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Mkdw ^talk 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess internet servers

Dear sir, I suggest you read the discussion here Talk:List_of_Internet_chess_servers. Your revisions are against consensus. The predominant view, per policy, is to only include notable chess sites (the ones with articles here). Please also do not accuse people of "vandalism" without just cause. Have a nice day. OGBranniff (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Three things to note.

Firstly, if you read the article talk page you will see the reasonable position about chess servers is that there are hundreds of them, and attempting to create a list of them all would be pointless. So this list only includes notable servers that have articles. If you think any of the servers you are adding are notable then please create an article for them first, before adding to the list.

Secondly, adding external links to articles is not citing. Placing external links within the body of an article is not guide style, especially in list articles. Wikipedia is not an internet links directory.

Thirdly, I can see you have repeatedly put these entries and links into this article, and repeatedly they have been removed. And you haven't attempted to discuss this on the talk page. Please try to establish consensus for them before adding them again.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I second everything that User:Escape_Orbit has said. I attempted to say the same, but he did a much more eloquent job. Please read the article talk page and please discuss your ideas on the talk page first. Your reversions are against consensus. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This right here is why I won't make a wikipedia account. So, the additions are against consensus, but, consensus is against common sense, and everyone seems to be ok with this. In this particular case, it's obvious that there are a few folks 'round here who don't like chess.com. They say it's not notable. Common sense says that it being the largest chess server on the internet alone would make it notable, but, since the consensus says it's not, any reference to it gets removed from the site. Y'all have your fun, I'm done with this site.166.82.205.67 (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your input. Consensus is based on Wikipedia policy. While you might have the opinion that a certain site is the "largest chess server on the internet," unless that information is published in multiple Reliable Sources independent of its subject, your opinion remains unproven. Furthermore, even if your opinion was true, that still doesn't make the site notable per Wikipedia policy. I suggest you read WP:GNG for a general overview of what is considered notable and what is not. OGBranniff (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my point, which you seemed to miss was that Wikipedia policy is the most important thing in the world to many Wikipedians. Where as I tend to value logic and common sense, which the policies do not allow for.

Also, If you personally really cared about your rules as much as you claim to, why do other sites with less notability than chess.com have pages on this site? I know your answer when I last asked you something like that was basically "well, I only have so much time to edit", but, if that were true, then your deletions would be targeted at multiple random sites, not just one.166.82.205.67 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did u ?? JunoBeach (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly comment at WT:CHESS

You might want to refactor your ugly comment at WT:CHESS#Notability (International Masters and chess in England). I found your attempt at humor rather offensive, and I'm probably not alone. Quale (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, what are you talking about, sir? OGBranniff (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. We can all sleep safe then

Slightly comical, this new gunslinger in town routine. But hey, whatever keeps you happy. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I close my eyes and throw a fist-full of darts at a dartboard, one of them might even get a bullseye. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess bio AFD nominations

I would appreciate it if you would slow down a bit on your WP:AFD nominations of chess biographies. If my count is accurate, you have at least fourteen open AFD discussions on chess biographies currently. Your track record in getting these bios deleted is rather poor. I have many concerns over your activities, including the small number of article space edits you have made aside from AFD nomintations, the high volume of nominations for deletion and the fact that your judgment of what is notable doesn't seem to be in line with that of the Wikipedia community as a whole (hence your poor success rate). I think your language can be wild, aggressive, provocative, and condescending or insulting, and the fact that you take this tone in AFD nominations makes me wonder if you goal is really to get the articles deleted or simply to try to provoke other editors. I find nominations such as Andrew Soltis (AfD discussion), Jana Bellin (AfD discussion), and most recently John Roycroft (AfD discussion) especially troubling. There is essentially no chance that any of these articles will be deleted, which suggests that this is either a WP:COMPETENCE problem or an example of WP:POINT.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in trying to decipher your motivations. I'm really only concerned about behavior. If you continue to make spurious nominations at this rate I (or someone else) is likely to take up the matter at WP:ANI. This isn't a threat or a promise, but rather a prospect that makes me sad. I have been editing Wikipedia for over five years and I have very rarely had any involvement with ANI or the arbitration process. My main reasons for editing wikipedia to have fun and learn, and I find ANI a depressing place. At ANI I would likely ask that you be sanctioned, either completely banning you from nominating chess bios for deletion or setting a throttle limiting the number of simultaneous nominations you could have open. You already have been blocked once, and comments like this and this make me believe that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add that if you really want to get a lot of chess bios deleted from Wikipedia you might be best served to see how the current batch of nominations turn out. That will give you a better gauge for how the community judges notability and would help you be more efficient in future nominations. Quale (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Got it. One thing that I did learn from the first lot was: 1) UK constituent country champions are inherently notable (like Scotland, Wales, etc), 2) Female champions are also inherently notable, 3) Grandmasters are notable, and 4) participants in Chess Olympiads are probably notable. In any case, like I said on your talk page, I'm done with AFD's for at least a week; we'll see how today's lot turn out. I was a bit more discriminating in this group. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very pleased to hear that you are taking a break of a week or longer from making chess bio deletion nominations. However I'm afraid I'm not your friend, since I don't think you and I are here for the same reason. I'm quick to extend a welcome to someone new, but once trust is lost it takes a long time to regain. I actually have no interest in communicating with you beyond the bare minimum that is required to improve the encyclopedia, or at least prevent you from making it worse. Do not expect me to reply to your talk messages (friendly or otherwise) unless I think it is necessary for those reasons. I'm sure you will find some other Wikipedians more able to provide you with interesting and helpful talk page discussion than I am. If despite my cold shoulder you care for a final bit of advice, I suggest that you focus on making article space edits that actually improve articles for a while, whether in chess or any other subject. Heavy involvement at AFD or other project space pages without demonstrating experience actually editing articles is viewed with suspicion by many editors, including me. I should also warn you that simply tagging articles for notability or lacking references is not always seen as helpful, so better areas to focus on are wikifying and fixing spelling, broken wiki syntax, citation formatting, and WP:MOS compliance. Actually adding references and expanding articles is even better. I agree that Wikipedia does need some pruning, but generally I find building more rewarding than destroying. Quale (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree. Even today when I was looking at chess articles, I considered doing an AFD but instead added this source to an article here. And I agree article space edits are the most rewarding. Furthermore, I'm not much into doing those "tags" and what not. OGBranniff (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Do your homework on these before automatically doing an AfD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, OGBranniff. You have new messages at Basalisk's talk page.
Message added 16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please list AfDs

Since you are a member of the chess project, when you AdD (or PROD) and article, would be so kind as to list it here: WikiProject_Chess#... to delete/listed for deletion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice about your edits to WP:CHESS

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Quale (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OGBraniff, I like a bit of fun as much as the next admin, maybe more, but there is nothing funny about the offensive remarks you made here and here. Only one of them is recent, and let that be a salvation of sorts. Please consider this a final warning: such commentary is deeply offensive to a wide variety of editors, and they have no place here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chessmaster AfD

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Löwe. Since this popped up from Google Books immediately: Frederic Boase Modern English Biography: I-Q 1897 Page 1531 "LOWE, Edward, b. Prague, Bohemia 1794 J emigrated to England about 1830; played a match with H. Staunton 1848; one of the first class chess players of his time; kept a lodging house at 14 Surrey st. Strand 1851-8, kept a private hotel there ..." and so on. ... I tentatively suggest you may wish to stand back from making any further AfD nominations until you are more familiar with how to check for notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]