Jump to content

User talk:Quale/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

January 2012

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Board game: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Just a thought - hope you don't mind the suggestion. Trafford09 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Classic Player Records

I must admit that you were correct and I was wrong on the point of top players' records against one another. Even figuring out Efim Geller's record against many of the world champions has proved very difficult. (Well, except for Fischer and probably, Petrosian) As someone with experience on this point, which sources have you found to be the most trustworthy? I intend to investigate specific discrepancies between Chessgames and 365chess and look at some books, but perhaps there is something else. Thanks a bunch ahead of time!ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Quale: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Your editorship has been missed. (Thought you might have gotten run over by a city bus or a gator got you. Glad that didn't happen!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Quale. You have new messages at Ihardlythinkso's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jan Ehlvest

Hi there - I have responded at the Ehlvest talk page to the question you asked on mine. Nice to hear from you again. Regards, Brittle heaven (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Submitting Article for Quality Assessment

I have never done this before, but feel that after the most recent revisions, the quality of the George Henry Mackenzie page is up to the level of a C-class page instead of a Start-class one. Considering that I myself made most of the recent changes, who should I ask to grade its quality? As an experienced chess editor, can I ask you, for instance? Thanks a bunch in advance! ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation and kind words. Reading that topic from 2008, I tend to agree with your overall views on biographies as well as quality and importance ratings. I am also normally surprised at how many world-class players have biographies marked as merely Mid importance. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited George Henry Mackenzie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harpers Magazine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Award

A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award
For valued leadership contributions to Project Chess! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I haven't earned any awards. Awards should be reserved for those who actually do significant work improving or creating articles, which I really haven't done in about four years. Even so, I appreciate the thought. Quale (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hastings 1895 Tournament Book and Flags

Feel free to respond to my comment in the Talk topic at your leisure, but I must admit I'm very interested and looking forward to your reply! Thanks. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jules Ehrat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chess player (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ding Yixin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chess player (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Chess players

I did give that some thought - however, as the two in particular I looked at for London were listed as chess editors/writers, I thought I'd leave it at that. No matter; I'll run a fix with AWB tonight and clean 'em up. Should be a small matter. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Parham Opening

Sorry, I didn't see that but now I understand. Are you a chess player too? What's your rating? OGBranniff (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello Quale, and Merry Christmas! OGBranniff (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WP Chess in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chess for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

BCO 2

This pic of BCO 2 shows "Gary": [1] Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Olympic bold :-)

Not to make too much work, but in the Olympiad articles, the first-place team is in bold too (at least in some I checked). It seems that this bolding isn't necessary either, since it is already indicated as the #1 team. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

And I can fix those with AWB. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


Checkmate Patterns

Wondering why you removed the backlinks. What is the rationale for removing functionality?

I use this page a lot, it's a pain to navigate without the backlinks. With them, I can just click on heading, go to toc, and look up another mate. Often chessplayers need to do this, e.g. to distinguish between dovetail vs. swallowtail. It's quite standard to backlink to toc when pages have dozens or more lists of entries.

(Note: please don't say to use Home key. I want to click the entry, use the mousewheel to read, then click to go back to toc and lookup a new entry without having to take my hand off the mouse)

Please refer me to a wiki guideline for practice prohibiting this if you could be so kind.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.75.241 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

AWB inconsequential edits

Hi Quale, regarding your recent post on Magioladitis's talk page about very minor AWB edits filling up the watchlists, I've started a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Making inconsequential edits, in case you want to comment. Best wishes, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC) is this the proper way to talk to you? I am working on pages on chess players too best regards Franky Wan (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Hi, tks a lot for your answer we might end up working a lot together...glad to meet you... I am fixing my computers right now... as soon as I am in a normal situation I am going to get back to you over and over 

cheers

Franky Wan (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost no presentation stds

Allow me to rant! (Thanks.) ... Just a tiny drop in the bucket what happens when there are no presentation standards to speak of. (Users deliberately design their own, acc. their own subjective preferences, and they lash about, reverting one another, and back again, and back again, and articles become an inconsistent hodge-podge of presentation formats, even inter-article, and not worth straightening out, since the "straightening" has no staying power without any convention standards. This particular article even has custom section heads, different from nearly every other openings article, but all according to the IP's taste at the time, and, what is the point to changing it, when there is no support for identifying any consistent, agreed-upon presentation style?!) The only things that're agreed at ProjChess, is lower-case for piece names, and, "White" = player, "white" = piece (and even that def lacks adequacy in many instances!). For any area that gets messed with like this, I for one will not be wasting my time to "reset" or etc. (Seeing that there are no standards, about anything, then every aspect of presentation is open to "being messed with".) Ok, I feel better now! Thx for letting me rant. (It's all your fault, ya know!) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The deal is, I think chess is different from many WP topical areas, allowing consistency, due to all the repetition inherent. (Especially openings articles. How moves are presented [notation conventions], tree struture orgs, diagram caption/title conventions, annotation/analysis lines, symbols [e.g. promotion], names of variations, game records [WLD], etc., etc. A juicy candidate for consistency in presentations. But ... "Nope!") Ok, done. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Quale, thx for your msg on my Talk. Yes there were some 'good' edits mixed in all the notation preferences changes to QGD, it makes it a task/work to change back then since no 'undo' is possible of course. (I see you went thru that work recently! It's tedious, there's no automated way to do it.) I see the same user did same to French Defense article, and Sicilian Najdorf article. Also changed to his personal preferences, in part, at World Chess Championship 2010. You mentioned that reverting these types of changes is justified, but without conventions agreed & posted at the project page, I'm not sure "this is more common" is a strong enough argument for someone set on seeing their personal preferences in their pet articles (or elsewhere). (I could see someone just reverting the effort, saying there's no MOS on it or agreed convention mentioned at ProjChess.) Anyway I was teasing when I said "all your fault" I trust you didn't take seriously. As another example look how User:Tony1 gave me crap (repeating at me "What about the sources?" endlessly) when he changed "Bxa5" to "B×a5". There was 99.999% predominance in articles for "x" not "×", but he ignored that and went his own way, insisting on his own way till the end. (A user who had it out for me got his nose in, and tried to make me look bad if I reverted him, as though no consensus and no policy and an edit war. So I didn't revert. Then another clear-thinking ProjChess member came along later and just reverted the whole deal at Morphy Versus, as it was clearly nonsense. The other side just apparently gave up on that article, but not the principle of the disagreement over convention.) Without conventions at ProjChess, I don't see any basis for contending with ridiculous changes like that, or editors' personal preferences. I just see no logical argument to lean on to back up changes, as again, no agreed conventions. I've tried to pick low-hanging fruit (like "O-O" versus "0-0", and "=" for promitions), but there is no appetite to form conventions there, either. Thx for reading. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

FIDE id

I noticed that you added the FIDE ID back to Marie Sebag. I checked several current players, and it wasn't in any of them. They are linked in the player's info box, at the FIDE rating. I don't know if this was discussed on the chess project page or not. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Stripper Heels

Hello. While we are on the subject of worthless deletion rationales, I found this your comment on "Clear Heels" to be wildly inappropriate. OGBranniff (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, I just hit 200 edits on Wikipedia. Thank you for your encouragement and your invitation to join "Wikiproject Chess." OGBranniff (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I would like to wholeheartedly thank you for inviting me to join "Wikiproject Chess." At this time I have just passed my 250th edit here. Thank you for noticing my interest in the Royal Game and your invitation to the Wikiproject back in December 2012. Cheers, OGBranniff (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Sir, I have received your message. I have to say that yes, the first batch of nominations was when I was more junior and not in sync with some of the notability policy. However, I hope you will find that today's crop of nominations (9 March 2013) will be more successful and more in line with policy. In any case, I promise to stop nominating articles for deletion for a while. Today's batch will be the last for at least a week. Thank you and feel free to share your concerns anytime. I do value your opinion as a senior contributor. Your friend, OGBranniff (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI statement

Quale, thank u for taking the step filing that ANI. (I'm flabbergasted by statement from Admin Monty845, that User:OGBranniff's editing behavior has "been generally within guidelines"!! (I've asked Monty to explain, FYI.)

I have extremely low, low, low expectations of ANI, and won't have anything to do with that venue personally, so, I really should not be shocked by anything coming out of it. ("Nothing good ever comes from that place." --Malleus Fatuorum) But I appreciate the step you took, it was time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adolf Zytogorski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chess Monthly
Alexey Dreev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to World Youth Championship
Hugh Alexander Kennedy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Algebraic notation
Phillipe Ambroise Durand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Falaise

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Stress relief

Did you see this!? (It's the best [word] I had today. I actually got a belly-[word] out of it. We gotta keep this! It just needs a little dust-up maybe, but I can see potential for it GOING PLACES, vistas of EXPANSION potential.) :) :) :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Again

Quale, you are welcome to bring your concerns to ANI, if it fits the "incident" description. Or you could try the RfC/U route, as I suggested to Ihardlythinkso. Let me suggest to you, though, that if you bring a case to ANI you bring one that is really actionable, with more evidence of more serious disruption. And if you start an RfC/U, it should be written up in a calm and collected manner with a plethora of well-organized evidence. That ANI thread you submitted simply did not present enough grounds for a block: you cannot expect admins who peruse the board to do a complete investigation of all issues surrounding an editor's behavior, and while I've now been criticized by just about everyone who's ever moved a pawn around a board it is worthwhile noticing that the other admin who commented also didn't see anything blockable, nor did any of the admins who saw and read the thread but did not comment, let alone take action. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, other editors have been blocked, even indef-blocked, for a whole lot less. Admins are permitted to wield their tools with discretionary latitude, which they frequently exercise. They make judgement calls. OGBranniff was in violation of a whole string of things: DISRUPTION, TENDENTIOUS EDITING, POINT, GAMING THE SYSTEM, INCIVILITY, and BATTLEGROUND MENTALITY. And it would take only a minor amount of research to see that. Admin Monty, who fould no immediate cause to block, also apologized for me and admitted he was wrong when stating in the ANI that OGBranniff's behavior was within guidelines. (Although, I still take issue with him that comment "Ooohhh... I know you're probably giving yourself a major hard-on acting like you're all "cool" and "rebel" by being contrarian." is not a sexually-charged insult, with Monty saying "my read of that comment was that it was not accusing you of masterbating per say.") Admin Monty suggested "the conduct was not so far outside the behavioral guidelines that an immediate block, rather then more warnings and discussion was in order.", but that just shows me that he just doesn't get what's with this editor ... unless the communication to OGBranniff is a threat from an Administrator, or someone agreeing on the agenda he wants, attempts to discuss with OGBranniff is merely exploited as opportunity to play head-games for his amusement. Drmies, there is a strong, strong culture in Admin corps that another Admin's action is rarely questioned and even less rarely countermanded. I would bet all five fingers of my left hand no Admin would have challenged a block of OGB as a result of that ANI (and, I play the violin!). Instead, the condition you set for actionability using phrases like "plethora of well-organized evidence" goes the other way, and I can see a fair criticism that it is interpreted as protecting this trollish editor, while threatening a serious editor with Wiki-death (me). Why would you require a mountain of evidence, which only guarantees numerous hours of additional disruption, raised to the level of criminal court criterion "beyond a reasonable doubt", when 1) I've seen blocks for a whole lot less, unchallenged by the Admin corps, and 2) you yourself on User Talk:Kudpung called the OGBranniff affair a "time sink", and in the same small time window threatened me with pursuit of interaction ban which would have effectively been a Wikipedia-wide ban on me. (You seem to pull out guns when wasting your own time, but when it comes to wasting ProjChess members' time, well, that is perfectly okay. I see that you are significant conent contributor, Drmies, so perhaps it is additional reason you are impatient to have your time wasted on OGBranniff affair. But this is just more reason to understand others' same view.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Good luck to you all on the next outing, wherever it may be. This affair is indeed a time sink because of all participants, and I am not interested in any more accusations, in which you all have seen fit to include me. Ihardlythinkso and Quale, I suppose it is fine to be disappointed with an admin's decision, but if there is ever something you want done by an administrator it would be wise to not cast too much shit their way. I'm going to archive all y'all's conversations on my talk page and wish you the best. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
But it is OK for you to compare me to your toddlers, exclaim the too-easy insult "Grow up!", offer me a cookie & a ribbon if I behave like a good little boy, and (less I forget) threaten me with the equivalent of my Wiki-death. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear fellow Schachspieler Quale

When you today asserted to Admin User:Drmies that I had but limited and insignificant article-space contribution in my entire history on Wikipedia, did you conveniently forget these article contributions of mine spanning over the last two months?

I apologise if this was mere oversight, but then again, why did you make this personal attack against me here?.

Again, mere oversight? Eagerly awaiting your kind response, OGBranniff (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I stand by what I wrote. Quale (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about a name change and reliable sources

I have changed my surname, but 91.105.4.23/Quale undo my edit posted: "no references for the name change". So the question is: how can I prove that. Or what kind of reference would work as a proof that it's my real name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.4.23 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you two talking about? How does an IP change his "surname"? Was your maiden IP name 91.105.4.86 before you married Mr. 23? OGBranniff (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Go away OGB. Adults are talking here. Quale (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that lame attempt at humor; I took a pretty big dose of mescaline last night and was kinda "out of it." I still feel kinda spaced out. OGBranniff (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Chess portal on Kennedy article

Do you know what is the deal re portal? (I.e., why placed on this article? Required? Recommended? Why this article and not others?) I don't see any value for the Kennedy article. Do you know if it's intended for some flavor of article (say, readers new to chess, e.g.!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Clear to me what is going on -- opinion/comment

It's clear to me why Drmies gave us a hard time stemming from the ANI you opened on OGBranniff. IMO, it is because I had something to do with OGBranniff (dialogues with him), and, I'm not particularly liked by several Admins, who are friends here. Since crossing swords with Admin User:Dennis Brown, I've received un-solicited shitty treatment from User:Basalisk (whom Dennis Brown nominated on successful RfA), Admin User:Bbb23, Admin Elen of the Roads. Now I see there is friends-connection between Bbb23 and Admin User:Drmies, see here. So though there is no "cabal" as they say, I think it is clear these Admins chum with one another, lend support to one another, and give shit to anyone who has gotten on poorly with another member of their circle (i.e. my distain for Dennis Brown). So in no way do I think the result and any of the subsequent comments flowing from the ANI you opened were objective. I was associated in the spiderweb, and, I'm not liked by these fellows, because I had a word or two with Dennis Brown and told him what I thought. The nasty, aggressive and hostile Administrator groups, relationships, and cliques on WP is one of the most unpleasant and discouraging aspects of editing here, way way worse than any divisive or aggressive non-Admin editor I've ever encountered so far. This is consistent with my thoughts that power (Admin blocking "clubs") corrupts absolutely and quickly. Giving blocking power to editors elected by other unqualified editors produces and has produced this kind of atmosphere and environment. The worse place this is expressed is at ANI, but also on User talks. My own feeling is that the corruption of blocking power application, and nastiness associated with power invested in anyone who gets enough !votes at RfA, will collapse eventually under its own mass of corruption and silliness. (I even read recently Admin user Basalisk referring to himself as a "cop" and boasting of a block he made to his fellow circle of friendly Admins. That is not the right attitude -- block should be carried out as necessary but unfortunate, not something to gloat. But this place is already corrupted vis-a-vis Admins' abuse of power, so, what the hey.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC) p.s. In the link I provided, notice also how Drmies refers to blocking as "pulling the trigger". (No quotations, just straight-out reference to gun-shooting violence.) Power has gone to these Admins' heads IMO, making obscene and unnecessary and unprofessional references like this. ("Higher standard of conduct". Yeah, right.) Dennis Brown told me in my complaints about him that he supposed I was seeking "death by cop" (again referring to Admins as police officers with guns). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Muskie72

I have added Muskie72 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"An interest in totalitarian regimes," huh? That explains my interest in Wikipedia. Muskie72 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The name change issue

Hi, concerning the problems illustrated at User talk:91.105.4.23, I wonder if you are interested in my response to it at User talk:95.68.2.199.

These things are really tricky. Some time ago we removed the line "Verifiability, not truth" from WP:V, a change that I wholeheartedly supported, in order to indicate that we do care about keeping articles accurate and truthful. We don't add untrue information just because it is stated in an otherwise reliable source. But just changing the wording in the policy does not make the reality of the issue go away. A name clearly needs to be in a biography, and the "just remove verified information that we know is inaccurate" option is clearly not applicable. Pragmatic reasons (such as confirming that a complainant is who he says he is) do indicate that it is best that we use the information the sources give us, so I support your decision to revert the name back to the old one. Still, it does pain me to tell someone that an article must be left out-of-date for the time being. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian Bridge Federation NBF

Hello. Do you want to help me ? Could you write this article Norwegian Bridge Federation and translate fr:Fédération norvégienne de bridge fr:Norvégien , please ? Cordially , Vitani. 92.146.13.82 (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Here you have some informations :

Robert Byrne (chess player) death source

Here is the source I got it from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/crosswords/chess/robert-byrne-chess-grandmaster-dies-at-84.html?_r=0

There are also many other articles about his death, but I think NYTime's is the most prevalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubado (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mendoza2909

Hello. Not only were you totally off-base about your accusations concerning User:Mendoza2909, but you were unnecessarily rude about the whole affair. I think you owe Mendoza a sincere apology. Man up, brah! Miami Airline Pilot75 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, why I last month referenced this AFD edit of yours from 2010 is because I wrote that article on Clear Heels, and even myself took the original picture that was included in the article. Thank you. Miami Airline Pilot75 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No checkusering is needed when the account admits to being a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. I have indeblocked Miami Airline Pilot75. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff

I've refiled this case against Mendoza2909, feel free to leave your observations if you have time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Quale, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Chess talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Chess WC disambiguation pages

Hello, Quale. You have new messages at Niceguyedc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Azerbaijani Chess Championship

I finally returned to editing Wikipedia articles after a several month hiatus, and took a look at the article you mentioned to me almost three months ago. I doubt it's possible to discover the country's champions prior to the 90s (nor would they be notable players), but I'm very curious about Gashimov being listed as champion in the mid 90s, not least of all because he is one of my favorite players. I started a topic about it on the Talk page. Let me know anything you can find, and thanks ahead of time! ChessPlayerLev (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Years in chess

List of people who have beaten ...

Hi there. Well I guess we were bound to disagree on something at some point! I must firstly apologize for mentioning the Fischer article; I hadn't realized it was mostly your work. Looking at it in detail, it is certainly well formulated and written and yes, the other articles would benefit enormously from such a treatment. Glancing at some other AFD comments, it would appear that my own view is at odds with that of the Project. Therefore, out of respect for the Project consensus, I'll not take any further part in the current wave of AFD discussions. Further than this, I wish I could convince myself to support the articles, but I can't. It may be a failing of mine, but I try to picture any article having a proper place in the conventional chess encyclopedias that we often refer to. However, these articles feel out of place to me (and they're not the only ones!). I'm just unsure as to their worth in making the reader feel better informed; I mean, I'd expect Kasparov to have lost a few games to Karpov, and maybe occasionally to Dreev. I'd also imagine a few not so good players will have caught him out at under 16 level, or whatever. Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this one, but no hard feelings I hope. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind and generous comments. Your first paragraph expresses, far more eloquently than I could have done, how much respect I (vice-versa) feel for your editing here on Wikipedia. It is rare and I hope well-intentioned, that my first instinct is not to back up other Project editors; however, I fully agree with your assertion that worse harm comes from excessive, uninformed, outside interference, than will result from our internal differences. On a more optimistic note, it is nice to see that some energetic new editors have appeared here recently. I hope that User:Voorlandt will return one day, as he is another editor with an immaculate good sense and conviction that eclipses most. As my own circumstances have recently changed for the better, I hope to have more time to engage in article writing, something I have not done in ages. My first aim is to continue the '19XX in chess' series of articles, but also to generally improve citations; I am frustrated by the many dead and improper links that exist to 'here today, gone tomorrow' internet sites. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

List of chess grandmasters

Hi Quale! I had added some Turkish GMs and WGMs to the list in the belief that it also contains women. As I see you've removed Betül Cemre Yıldız. If the list is only for men then the entry for Kübra Öztürk (WGM) is also incorrect. If you think Yıldız is not a WGM then I suggest you to recheck. Cheers. --CeeGee 13:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1900 in chess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Marshall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, unfortunately John's response to your post, accusing you of trolling, doesn't surprise me that much.

As you may have gathered, the dispute arose over the issue of an excellent content contributor who unfortuantely has made several personal attacks. The camps have become firmly entrenched, and I was rather taken aback by the fervor in how people were arguing. Over the years I have been at Wikipedia, I have seen the tolerance for gruffness (or outright incivility) swing back and forth, between too strict and too lenient. On the one hand, even good editors lose their cool, and being overly harsh when something happens would cause them to leave feeling unappreciated. On the other hand, nobody should be above the civility/no personal attack rules; they are essential for a functioning environment. At the present time I believe the pendulum has swung over to the "too lenient" side, and sometimes I have seen postings with ideas that I regard as outright (for lack of a better word) humorous, for example one person argued that calling a person "asshole" wasn't offensive because he was British [2].

I want to extend my gratitude for your attempt at defending my activity, and my character (which was needlessly attacked in the post that you referred to). Just perhaps, it might be best not to make numerical comparisons of how much I am worth compared to other editors, but you stepping up to the plate to call someone out when they post things like that is something i greatly appreciate.

I hope all is well with you in Wisconsin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1902 in chess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moulton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Quale. You have new messages at Basalisk's talk page.
Message added 10:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Persistent"

Compare:

Also, Euwes analysis is 100 years old. Zimbecks lines were proofed with a computer running 16 processors which have the ability to outcalculate Euwe any day of the week. Or Carlsen for that matter.

to:

In almost every line Houdini misplays the line and I personally found every single move necessary to vindicate the soundness of the opening. I can actually beat Houdini in blitz because I know some of the lines by heart and the computer misplays them.

(And clearly the latter argument was in response to WP:CHESS not permitting unpublished chess engine analysis.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Qs

Hi, do you think the Collins article s/ have a {{infobox person}} or {{infobox chess player}} Infobox? (The article states he was one of top USA players at one point, but seems like he's noted not for that but for mentoring, etc.) That asked, it still seems a bit weird to me the change "David Pritchard (chess writer)" → "(chess player)" ... The Infobox for Pritchard is {{infobox writer}}, which seems right, as {{infobox chess biography}} is a synonym for {{infobox chess player}}, and that Infobox looks geared for people notable for player accomplishments only. Thanks for any feedbacks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jack Collins as John W. Collins

I see. Thank you for the information. The only reason I attempted to move the page is that I have five books on Bobby Fischer that all refer to John Collins as Jack Collins. In fact, other players from Fischer's era also seem to refer to John Collins as "Jack" and never John.

In order to avoid confusion between the two I put in the name "Jack", just as Robert James Fischer is known as "Bobby" and, as you see, he is referred to by that name.

Just my two cents.

-Sir Mouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow Up:

I took in your suggestions and fixed up and moved the page as "Jack Collins." Although I had done SOME work on the page in terms of citations, I was busy with citing other articles and did not realize that much of the page is un-cited. Therefore I have included citations for a number of different claims to improve the quality and integrity of the article.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thank you.

Sir Mouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sirmouse, 1) new sections at anyone's Talk page go to the bottom of the Talk page, 2) sign your messages on Talk pages with four tildas (~~~~), 3) something went wrong w/ the article move, since the article Revision History (edit history) is missing at the new location. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I left a note on Sir Mouse's talk, but it was another cut and past move so I undid it again. Quale (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your latest comments on WT:CHESS

Let me be honest and admit that after your first long reply to the issue I raised, I thought you were just trying to shut me up. My reply was unfairly aggressive in retrospect: I apologize. I was not aware of your contributions to the Ruy Lopez article and I wasn't trying to denigrate them. They are most certainly not inferior in quality to anything I wrote at the time.

I'm afraid that the light and heat generated by my comments has obscured the point I'm trying to make. So let me take a step back and ask you for your opinion on these two questions:

  1. What makes a move significant enough to mention in a chess opening article on Wikipedia?
  2. What makes a move significant enough to merit its own article on Wikipedia?

Cobblet (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I realize that you (and all the regulars on WT:CHESS) have far more experience than I do editing here, so I take your opinions seriously. And feel free to reply in your own time—haste never helps this sort of discussion anyway.
Just redirecting irregular chess opening to chess opening is definitely a better idea than what I first proposed. A mention in glossary of chess wouldn't hurt either, I think. Many of the longer chess opening articles end with a list of rare early deviations—I see no reason why chess opening absolutely needs to be an exception.
Speaking of which, that's definitely an article I'd like to work on in the future. For me, Giuoco Piano would be an obvious inclusion in the discussion if we didn't already talk about Italian Game, which includes it and the Two Knights. My rationale is a bit different though: apart from how common it is in amateur play, it also has historical significance as one of the first openings to be played and analyzed intensively. Which is why I'm also OK with including King's Gambit, which leans even further in that direction in terms of historical notability vs. current praxis, and with the otherwise disproportionate representation by the open games in general. Indeed, the article right now makes no mention of the historical evolution of opening theory—I'd like to fix that one day. Cobblet (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Outstanding. Although we certainly disagree on a few other points, I think I'm in full agreement with you regarding the KG and the need to discuss evolution of opening theory. In fact the evolution of opening theory could get it's own article if we had enough material. I really wanted to do something about that myself and even tried to acquire some sources, but I didn't find much. I had high hopes for Keene's The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory: From Philidor to Kasparov, but I found it disappointing. The most interesting parts are the quotes from the old masters, but Keene makes little or no interpretation of his own and doesn't really put anything in context. I can't remember the title of the other somewhat relevant book I have (Championship Chess by Sargeant and Reinfeld? Not sure if that's it), but although it has some useful material it is rather narrow in scope. It covers only openings played in championship matches and stops at Botvinnik because it is older. Watson has written quite a bit that could help, of course.
Your work on Modern Defense shows that you are much better equipped to do this work than I am. If we could also coax User:Krakatoa out of wiki semi-retirement for this project, the article could be amazing. Quale (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
((You're talking about Chess from Morphy to Botwinnik by Imre König - JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)))
Thanks, you nailed it. That's the book I had in mind. Quale (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you envision on the evolution of opening theory. I have addressed that sort of thing at [3]. Krakatoa (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, I had forgotten about your fine work on the chess opening article. I was actually thinking of an entire article devoted to the subject. Chess theory#Opening theory actually seems to be mostly about the history of chess opening literature. It does that very well, but there's little that actually discusses how the theory of the opening itself has changed. For example, the Handbuch is mentioned, and later we ECO. But the section doesn't say anything about any differences in the coverage of openings in those two works, or how the approach to the opening has changed in the last 150 years. We talk about early books and later books, but don't really say much to compare what they contain. From this you might reasonably guess that the only real development in chess opening theory has been greater elaboration of openings that were known long ago. I think there are qualitative and quantitative changes to how professionals have viewed chess openings over the history of chess, and this could make a great article if we can manage it. Watson's works are closer to what I have in mind, although it would have to be considerably simplified and condensed for a general audience. Quale (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback request

Hi, it's a work in progress and it needs more detail in the description of the site, but my proposed article is in my opinion properly sourced and NPOV, and demonstrates notability in that (a) it is a popular website which ranks highly in the alexa rankings (b) it has been mentioned in independent sources and (c) it features a number of notable players and writers. I'd be very appreciative if you could have a look at it and suggest where it needs improvement. I'd request feedback on the WikiProject chess talk page but unfortunately abusive new accounts have hijacked the discussion. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The subject of your proposed article really hasn't been mentioned in independent sources, unless you count that TechCrunch, which you haven't gotten over the hump of it being a reliable source. Did you see that NY Times article about TechCrunch? Now, assuming arguendo that the subject of your article has been mentioned in independent sources, you must see that yes, the subject has been "mentioned," sure, but it has not received substantial coverage. Back to work! Fishface gurl (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Blog source

I noticed you made a comment that a blog is not a reliable source. It's disappointing to see experienced editors repeating this falsehood to others, who then likely convey the misnomer to others with a seemingly endless cycle of errors. Of course blogs have to be used carefully and checked thoughtfully, but a blog can be used if it meets reliable source criteria. Take a look at the article on Barack Obama that has many blog references, almost every aspect of that article has been debated at great length on the talk page, several blog references have been in place for years and many used when the article went through it's featured article review, of which it passed. I don't have a interest in the Raymond Keene article, so I leave it up to you. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Richard Geoffrey Eales

I was reading some old Tim Harding (The Kibitzer) columns at Chess Café the other day and recalled your request for a decent source for RG Eales. Well, Harding here describes Eales' book as the best statement on the currently accepted view of the origins of chess - quite an accolade! Might help, although you may have been looking for something more 'hardcopy' of course. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I promised myself I would write more articles now that I have more time available, but I'm finding there are certain problems of inertia to overcome! I will however get back to Keene very shortly - that still may need some resolution, although I believe another editor has trimmed and maybe slightly re-ordered it in the interim. Regarding Eales (isn't Chess For Dummies by someone called James Eade?) another of his books that I frequently see referred to by historians is Cambridge Chess; it concerns a somewhat narrow and specialized branch of chess history and is more of a large booklet than a book, but should you want to refer to it, it was published by Chess Ltd, Sutton Coldfield (Series Ed. BH Wood) in 1979, as part of the "Chess for modern times" series. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Index of chess articles

WP:INTDABLINK is policy. If Index of chess articles needs direct links to disambiguation pages because it is serving the non-encyclopedic purpose of acting as a "shared watchlist", then it needs to be moved out of the mainspace and into project space, or a copy needs to be maintained in project space for this non-encyclopedic purpose. This principle has been enforced by the community before. Mainspace is for articles that serve the purpose of articles, and direct links to disambiguation pages in article space are forbidden; this is not optional. bd2412 T 01:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the page is in violation of multiple policies, including WP:SELFREF and WP:INTDABLINK, I have implemented the solution of moving this page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles as an alternative to outright deletion of the page. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alejandro Ramírez (chess player), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Chess Championship 2004 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

user pages shouldn't be in regular article categories

Hi Quale, I saw your edit here. Thanks and sorry about that. Those 117 user pages are only for testing a new bot. As soon as the bot is ready, we can delete them. In the meantime, if you've got an automated process to delete the categories of all those pages, you're more than welcome to go ahead and use it so it doesn't cause a problem to you. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quale/Archive_4&oldid=1141431468"