User talk:SyG/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:SyG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome

SyG, well done with your first article, Four pawns attack! It's really impressive to see a new editor get the hang of wikipedia so quickly and turn out such an excellent article. Kudos to you. Don't hesitate to drop me a line if you need help with anything, though you seem to be rapidly figuring it out on your own. Here's a proper welcome msg (helpful for the links):

Welcome!

Hello, SyG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Kchase T 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kchase, and thanks for your welcome! I have discovered Wikipedia 4 hours ago and it is becoming fun! Thanks for all your kind words, your advices, and all the usefull links you provided. Of course as a newbi my main problems will be about being compliant with the etiquette.

Also the "grammar stuff": I am not a native English speaker (as you probably realised already...), but I prefer to expand the English Wikipedia for ideological reasons. The danger is that I may make a lot of grammar errors, which would take a lot of time to other persons to get rid off. Do you think I should stop editing because of that, or is it bearable ?

As you have seen I have created my first "article". Well, it is more of a test for the moment but I intend to expland it much further. I have placed it in the "stub" world. I have also tried to create a link from another article towards my article, but it did not work. It is because my article was not reviewed or "too new" or something like that ? Or are the links case-sensitive ?

I have had a look at your profile. Greetings for all the good job you do, and for participating to such an ambitious project, maybe the biggest one since the French Encyclopediae in the 17s !(which kind of brought up the revolution in this country, incidentally). SyG 09:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I absolutely encourage you to stick around. Even if you make minor grammar errors, wikipedia is a work in progress and there are always lots of people correcting grammar, spelling, etc. I would be happy to proofread whatever you do. Feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page and I will get to it as soon as possible. Cheers! Kchase T 18:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic chess openings

In case you missed my response [1]. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Budapest Gambit

Hello ! The name 'Budapest Gambit' (not 'Budapest Defense') is generally used in chess literature for an opening 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5. Would you be so kind to move it ? (I have just tried but without success). Best wishes, Mibelz 15:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tx for your answer. I have just written into Talk:Budapest Defence#Requested move: "I agree with SyG that the "Budapest Gambit" is generally better known and commonly used than the "Budapest Defence/Defense". It is the same in other languages (German "Budapester Gambit", Dutch "Boedapestgambiet", French "Gambit de Budapest", Polish "Gambit Budapesztański", Russian "Будапештский гамбит", and last but not least Hungarian "Budapesti védelem"). So, we ought to move it. Mibelz 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)". Hope for the best ! Mibelz 17:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your idea of creating an infobox for chess openings I award you this barnstar. Voorlandt 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review

Thanks for your message on my talk page a while ago, glad it made you happy (it was a great idea). Thanks for your work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review! I must say, I am getting a little bit demotivated by the lack of participation. But it is nice to see that you keep working on it. Hopefully it is just the holiday season (the Silly season) and things will get more active later on. Voorlandt 09:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Chess

Thanks for your work on the chess project. It's great to have an infusion of new blood and energy and ideas into the project. The chess content on Wikipedia has improved by leaps and bounds over the last couple of years, and I think that the chess community will continue to make it even better. Quale 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kieninger Trap

Thanks for adding the reference to Budapest Defence. If you think you have enough material, you could create a Kieninger Trap article and add it to Category:Chess traps. The number of named traps is fairly small and I'm always interested in seeing this category grow. Finding good references is the usual problem. Quale 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea of an article on the Kieninger Trap, that is a good suggestion. However I have some doubts about the notability of this trap for having an article on its own. I mean, noone has written a whole book on this trap, has he ?

In particular, for the moment I have not been able to find a second source naming this trap. Moreover, it is just a variant for the Smothered mate, which already has an article. Also, there is about the same mate in the 4...Nd7 variation of the Caro-Kann. So probably for the moment I will just let this trap as a "tactical theme" in the Budapest Defence page, but I am of course open to discussion. SyG 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the welcome and the recategorization! Skarioffszky 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ana Srebrnič

Ana Srebrnič, which part/word would be a problem? --AndrejJ 13:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest for discussion, I will put my explanations on Talk:Ana Srebrnič. SyG 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bughouse chess as Good Article

Long explanation. Articles can be rated as stub, start, B, GA, A or FA. FA is a community consensus rating determined at WP:FAC, and A-class is generally a consensus rating determined by a subject-specific wikiproject. GA is a little more complicated. There is a general, community "Good articles" project at WP:GA/WP:GAC, but some wikiprojects also use the "GA" rating internally, independent of WP:GAC. (As far as I know, all projects which do this consider a project A-class rating to be higher than a project GA-class rating.)

Bughouse chess appears to have achieved an A-rating from project chess, which is great! The "general" GA rating that goes with {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} templates is the community-given rating at WP:GAC, which is had by nominating an article at WP:GAC until a reviewer reviews it. These reviews are separate from any subject-specific wikiproject review. (The reviews at WP:FAC are also separate from any subject-specific wikiproject review.) In practice, then, an article rated as "GA" by WP:GAC may have project-specific ratings of A, GA or in some cases B. Since the article already has an A rating, a GA review would not change the project assessments, though it might possibly generate some feedback faster than the ongoing peer review. I hope that helps explain the situation; if not ask me some more. Gimmetrow 00:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now my point for putting the article GA-class some time ago (independantly of any WikiPorject assessment) was that it had successfully gone through independent reviews, and it satisfied (in my opinion) the GA criteria.

I understand that you deleted that because it had to go through the whole GA process: nominate, wait for reviews, assess. So my understanding is that it is not sufficient for the article to have been reviewed, having been nominated for GA-class is also compulsory. Please allow me to make my question clearer: is there a way an article can go into the GA category without having been nominated ? are the reviews a necessary condition or also a sufficient one (i.e. bypassing nomination) ?

Just a final question: now if I still want to have this article as GA-class, all I have to do is nominate it through the process you have indicated to me, and wait for reviews, correct ? SyG 08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For the general GA-class assessemnt, yes all you need to do is list the article at WP:GAC and wait for a review. But of course, there is no need or obligation to have this general assessment, especially when it already has a project-level A-class assessment. I'm not sure which other independent reviews you are referring to, other than the reviews at wikiproject chess. Gimmetrow 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mig Greengard again

Hi SyG, a few days after the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mig Greengard was closed, this interview was posted on the site of the United States Chess Federation. Apparently he has now been awarded the title "Chess Journalist of the Year" [2], not merely been nominated for it as was the case during the AFD. I wonder if you think the presence of this interview coupled with the award he got should change the assessment of this person's notability? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have a strong point there. Now let's try to think to that, I can see at least two different ways of thinking

We could say that the title "Chess Journalist of the Year" awarded by the USCF automatically confers notability. Why not... But then for consistency I assume we should write an article on all the "Chess Journalist of the Year" which could mean more than 20 if I safely assume there is a different winner every year. Also, as the USCF is not particularly more notable than some other federations (Germany's for example), we would need to write an article on all the journalist titles awarded by all federations that are as notable as the USCF. Assuming that is another 20, that would give us a total of 20*20=400 articles on chess journalists. Sounds a lot to me, but I am ready to discuss.
Or we consider the title of "Chess Journalist of the Year" does not automatically make Mig notable in itself, but coupled with other notable elements (which we still have to find), Mig becomes notable by the addition of a sufficiently large number of such notable features.

I don't know what your inclination is, but I will be happy to discuss it, especially as it could then be generalised for other cases (e.g. I am having some doubts on Sam Sloan as well). SyG 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My basic inclination is that the consensus may well change due to this, and that it would be fair to give it another round of discussion.

I am not aware of so very many chess journalism awards, but for smaller countries which don't have a large independent chess media, I would guess such awards become de facto internal awards within that national chess federation. (I can only speak for the Norwegian Chess Federation, where commendations and honorary memberships are given for achievements of this nature, these are clearly internal and by itself not enough to generate notability.) However the CJA award spans newspaper columns and other chess magazines not directly associated with the USCF, and is probably of greater significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I expressed my opinion in favor of keeping the Sam Sloan article, not because the chess, but because of the judicial history of being the last non-lawyer arguing and winning before the US Supreme Court. The article is currently slanted towards the chess-related aspects, and in fairness, that is where he gets most of the attention, but there is more to the person's notability than the chess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Chess Journalist of the Year" award is given by the Chess Journalists of America and the "Cramer Committee," both of which are independent of the USCF. The CJA members (about 150, theoretically all chess journalists, though this hasn't been enforced in a while) vote on it. Whether this makes him notable is an interesting question. Personally, I think that Greengard, who has quite a large readership in chess terms, is more notable than some of the pretty minor chess figures already listed (e.g., Rustam Kamsky). Eddore 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance of chess articles

I'm pretty sure that you misinterpret the guidelines on priority assessments. The assessment that matters for WP:CHESS is not how important the article is in the whole scheme of human experience, but how important it is within the community of chess articles. Did you read this on the page that you quote:

Importance or Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another.

I think you've made this mistake in prioritizing other chess articles as well. Also, you probably shouldn't put days on the date= tags you've added to articles. If you look at the bottom of those pages, you'll see that you're putting the pages in categories that don't exist. Instead just use "September 2007". Quale 18:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortress (chess)

You rated Fortress (chess) as a stub. Do you think that is the correct rating for the article? Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that is clearly much too harsh, I will change the assessment. Still I think the article would gain from a Footnotes section. SyG (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was clearly not a stub. It does have five references, but no footnotes. Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Chess (application)

Hello, this particular application is made for every Mac OS X release. I believe it's a notable game because it is a software packaged for a notable computer system. I am also comparing this game with others such as Minesweeper (Windows). RaNdOm26 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for this explanation. I am not sure I have completely understood the point here: the Super NES is notable but that does not mean all the games for this platform are notables themselves. I mean, it could just be mentioned in the article on Mac OS X, why should it have its own article ? SyG (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA-Class

Hi, GA class does need a review I am afraid, please see Wikipedia:GA and Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. Basically A class is a rating within a wikiproject, while the GA is a wider recognition of quality. So I have reverted two GA chess articles back to B class. Voorlandt (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I understand your concern, as GA-class does need a review indeed. However we should not mix up the GA-class for a particular WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess in our case) and the GA-class for the general Wikipedia, as these are two things that are slightly different in my understanding (although I am not completely sure). See for example Talk:Endgame tablebase which has both GA-class, one being attributed through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and the other through the formal GA nomination process.

Moreover, even for the GA nomination process, I would tend to think that the reviews we are doing (in the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess) could be good enough to serve also for the wider GA scale. In order to be sure, I have raised the question to User:EyeSerene in this paragraph, as he is a mentor on the GA system. SyG (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am absolutely sure that there is only kind of GA-class. Perhaps the "Good article" template makes this confusing. The GA template is simply there because some articles belong to no wikiproject, but can also get GA class. I am sure EyeSerene will tell you something similar (and I hope, because two different GA-classes, that would be confusing!) Voorlandt (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I would like to put the two articles that you reverted in the whole GA nomination process, but unfortunately I cannot do it myself alone, because the person reviewing the article must be different from the one who reviews it, as far as I understand. Maybe you would agree to nominate these articles and I could do the GA review ? SyG (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re 'In house' GA reviews

Thanks for the message, and apologies for the delay in replying (busy weekend!). Official Good article status is currently only awarded via the GA WikiProject, although there have been discussions regarding some WikiProjects assessing their own material - this may work for the larger, more active projects (eg MilHist), but nothing has yet been decided. Of particular relevance, one condition of reviewing an article is that the reviewer has not contributed in any meaningful way to that article - this was introduced to avoid any accusations of articles getting an 'easy ride'.

Regarding Alexander Alekhine, this impressive and fascinating article is not quite fully GA-compliant yet. Although I have not read it comprehensively, from a GA review standpoint the lead needs a bit of work to fully summarise the rest of the article (more on WP:LEAD).

If you decide you want GA recognition for your articles, I would recommend that you nominate them at WP:GAN for outside review. We have no problem with you arranging personally with someone else to perform the review, as long as that person is familiar with the GA criteria, has not contributed to the article, and can review impartially. Following the GA procedures helps ensure the process has been transparent and can avoid subsequent delisting or argument on WP:GAR.

I hope this helps! If you have any more questions, or need a hand with the nomination procedure, let me know. All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 12:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks for these great explanations! SyG (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Get in touch if you have any more questions. EyeSerene^TALK 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject template

Is there something special about this template? I'm looking to integrate it's contains into a WikiProject Chess header. ChessCreator (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello ChessCreator, and thanks for the impressive work you are doing on chess articles! What is special in this template is that it is exactly the same for all the WikiProjects, so that the reader knows at first sight that the page he is viewing is a WikiProject. If you would like to propose an alternative, I would suggest to realise the tests in your sandbox and then to present the alternative to the members of the WikiProject chess in the Talk page. Happy editing! SyG (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Many WikiProjects do use it, that's true. Will leave the WikiProject template at the top.

PS Where would I find the sandbox if I have something else to test out? ChessCreator (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find some sandboxed here or there. You can also create one as a subpage of your User page. Sandboxes are useful to make some tests until the result is stable and satisfying enough. SyG (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Those options seem rather basic. I do have a User Test Page, it does for some very basic testing things, but it can't test say template intereaction with existing pages, without it going live. What I was really asking for is a Sandbox where the testing is isolated from the live system but also contains something akind to to a live system(normally a week old backup or similar), but perhaps wikipedia don't have such a thing. Regards. ChessCreator (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is possible to create a template in a sandbox and to use it in another sandbox, to see how it works. Apart from that I do not know if something more structured exists for testing. SyG (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance pages in mainspace

I wonder why do you create these introductions in mainspace ? These pages are generally placed as subpage of the portal. I don't see the point in creating them in mainspace, it's not an article, it's used for maintenance. I moved the page, I hope you don't mind. Cenarium^Talk 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I create these pages in the mainspace because I want to be able to do multiple transclusions on them from some Portal pages, which I cannot do if the text is directly in a Portal page. Thus I do mind about your move and I will have to change it :-)

You can see what I want to achieve here. If I am mistaken in my method, please explain me how I can do what I want to achieve in another way. SyG (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can create a page with a name like this: Portal:Chess/The Turk for an introduction or Portal:Chess/Introduction/The Turk, so that it's in portal mainspace. The Mainspace is used only for articles, all the maintenance pages for a portal should go to its subpages. Well, it's the experience I have about this. Cenarium^Talk 14:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that is more in line with Wikipedia structure, I will displace all the Introduction articles I have created to things like Portal:Chess/Selected article/Introduction/The Turk. Please tell me if that solves the issue you raised. SyG (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it solves the issues, you can tag the introductions left in Mainspace with {{db-author}}. If mainspace is used only for articles, it's also because it's very visible (in search engines etc), and we try to hide the maintenance work and things like that from the reader's view (for example, the maintenance categories are "hidden".) Cenarium^Talk 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Budapest Gambit aka Budapest Defence

I hope that was an oversight rather then a deliberate act of vandalism to rename Defence to Defense and claim it was to 'harmonise name'. ChessCreator (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You should hope so, because you have to comply with WP:AGF :-)

According to the Manual of Style, it is fine to use either defense or defence, as long as you remain consistent throughout the whole article. Currently in Budapest Gambit both spelling are used, which is not good. That is why I harmonise. SyG (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you don't normally make mistakes, so seems you make an error here and hence the question above.

For this article the variety of English was established and was in place. Firstly very clearly by it's naming 'Budapest Defence' and secondly by it's history, thoughout this year [3], [4] etc

You didn't realise with your edit on March 9th that you introduced a none harmonising wording.

Simply because it's morally and ethical to do so and also because it's required by WP:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety, I return this article to it's existing variety and respectfully ask you to assist with this also. Anything else could appear that one would be in favour of a rename just to sabotage it's British English spelling into American English. ChessCreator (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Guideline WP:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety that you rightly cite states that If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety. Whereas I had tried to uniformise all the spelling, your last reverts reinstalled a situation where both varieties cohabit, which is not compliant with this Guideline. Please fix that. SyG (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Bird's Opening

I've removed the extra section headings from this topic. I thought it would be an improvement to add headings for what it missing, as it encourages others to add the missing information but somehow adding extra headings degrades the article. SunCreator (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Giving to everyone some hints on how to improve the article is a good thing, but it is best done on the Talk page. I do not understand the purpose of the "cleanup" tag, as it could be applied to basically almost all articles in Wikipedia, which means it is useless. SyG (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment

I think as you are using minor issues like lead to short, not enough references, to much missing etc; you are soon going to end up reduce the 225 B-Class articles down to about 50-100 articles. It was said before that articles are being marked to hard (see User_talk:Bubba73#WP:CHESS article ratings). So I recently became a bit more relaxed about what is B-Class (after re-reading the B-Class criteria in Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment), it seems a duplication if you are going to revert them all back from B-Class to Start-Class. SunCreator (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't desire especially to reduce the number of B-class articles to 50-100, but that would not cause me a great trouble either. My point was that the description of the Start-class included the sentence "The article [...] may lack a key element", hence my remarks about the Lead too short or others. However I may perfectly be wrong in my understanding of the criteria, so if you think I misjudged some articles please feel free to revert my change. SyG (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm planning to leave all existing ones alone and only re-assess those I've not re-assessed before (like first time today Chess in China) and those where there has been significant changes since I last assessed it. Any that you re-assess I will leave alone with whatever Class you choose to give it. SunCreator (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Alekhine GA review

Hi, SyG. I've summarised the outstanding items (Talk:Alexander Alekhine#GA_review) and there's one on which I need your input - how to present in the main text A.'s tournament results 1927-35. Philcha (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philcha, and thanks for all the efforts you put in this review! I will think to your point and see how we could improve this part of the article. I will write my proposals directly on the Talk page of the article. SyG (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SyG. I've re-inserted text about San Remo 1930 and Bled 1931 - they're A's most famous tournament wins.

At Talk:Alexander Alekhine#GA_review I've suggested condensing A's Olympiad results as we did for tournaments (details in table). What do you think? Philcha (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, everything that can be in a table should be in a table, as the text is better for prose. SyG (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SyG. Many thanks for your help in clearing up the loose ends in the article. I think we have a misunderstanding about the Alekhine-Capa negotiations. Fine (World's Great Chess Games) writes words that are equivalent to "Negotiations dragged on for several years, often breaking down when agreement seemed in sight," so I have re-inserted that sentence. The problem is that at the time there was a big blame game, and it still seems to be going on. This is not a situation where sources Wall or even Fine can be trusted on the details (it is similar to the Nazi issue, where the only source I could find that I would trust is Winter). I was hoping for references that reproduce parts of original documents such as letters from lawyers or financial backers or prospective organisers / hosts, or contemporary reports of such transactions. Even so, many thanks for your help. Philcha (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Philcha, and thanks for the tremendous work and sourcing you put in the article. If we reach the GA-class it will be thanks mostly to you.

Sorry for the misunderstanding on the Negociations issue. Unfortunately I do not have any source that could clarify this one way or the other, so probably Fine is the best we have for the moment. At least, one source is better than none. On the other hand, if there is only one source and you do not trust it, why not scraping the statement alltogether ? SyG (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What Fine actually says is "Time and again the negotiations seemd to be on the point of succeeding, whebn something went wrong." That statement is neutral, and does not blame either side. There are other things I've read over years where authors refer to one side or the other discussing details with them. So I'm happy with that sentence of Fine's. But for anything that blames either side, I would want to see the writer's sources, (which Winter shows in the Nazi issue). The real problem is that in my opinion the idea of a reliable source is not absolute - for example Fine is good on matters of chess play, but should be used cautiously in controverisal issues (and not at all on Howard Staunton - all USA writers appear to have a strong anti-Staunton bias). Philcha (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK then the Fine citation is, well, fine :-) SyG (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Alekhine and NKVD (later KGB)

Hi! There are rumours of Alexei Alekhine's and Alexander Alekhine's death, and different interpretations. Please see, for example works of Pablo Moran, Tomasz Lissowski, etc., and such a person as Alexander Kotov who had been a KGB agent. I hope you are not a defender of Soviet propaganda. -- Best regards, Mibelz 9:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mibelz, and thanks for your contributions to Alexander Alekhine. I am definitely not a defender of Soviet propaganda, but I am a defender of the Wikipedia Policy that facts should be referenced, so unless you have some reliable sources regarding NKVD's involvement (even phrased in a conditional or sceptical way), I am afraid we cannot really let rumours or "probable facts" into an article. SyG (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First-move advantage in chess

it looks like you are in a edit war on this article and it looks like you are close to a 3rr rule break which could lead to a ban for you so be carefulOo7565 (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have not noticed Krakatoa and myself are actually busy working on improving this article and my revert was only when I thought Krakatoa had done an unintentional mistake (see my comment in the revert, to explain him why I have done the revert). Please do not see edit wars where there are none. By the way, could you please explain to me where I have done several reverts ? (I thought I had done only once) SyG (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry it look like you were in a edit war now looking again i can see you not so i am so sorry to bother you with this sorry again.Oo7565 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, patrolling on recent changes is a difficult and valuable task, and certainly my edits could be interpreted in several ways. I will try to make clearer description in the "Edit summary" for my future changes, so that this kind of misunderstanding has less chances to occur. Keep up the good work! SyG (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Conlang/Esperanto tag from Judit Polgár article

Hello, SyG. I noticed that you have removed the WP:CL/WP:ETF template from the Judit Polgár article. I see that your rationale is that is that she has never done anything to promote the language. However, she is categorized as an Esperantist, which puts her within the scope of the Esperanto task force (the task force that added the template) if she is indeed an Esperantist. However, if she is not an Esperantist, then we should remove the article from Category:Hungarian Esperantists, which it is currently in. As a member of the Esperanto task force, I know that the key question that determines if she is within the scope of the task force is whether she should be classified as an Esperantist or not. The definition is a little tricky; the best attempt I've seen is "someone who speaks Esperanto and uses it for any purpose. An Esperantist is also a person who participates in Esperanto culture." According to the articles here on Wikipedia, it appears to be that of the Polgar sisters, only Susan is fluent in the language, while her sisters Judit and Zsófia are not. I think that the best solution here would be to remove the Esperantist categorization, and likewise the Esperanto task force templates, from Judit's and Zsófia's articles, while leaving them on Susan's, thus calling Susan an Esperantist, but not the other two. Please let me know what you think of this proposal. I may also mention it to other people who are working on Esperanto-related articles and see what they think. Thanks for your time. TFCforever (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello TFCforever, your proposal seems full of common sense. As you mention, it seems Susan promotes Esperanto (see this link for example), while Judith and Zsofia do not. So I will proceed the changes you propose. SyG (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of ChessGames.com re: First Move In Chess FAC

Hi SyG,

I've managed to fix most of the issues raised in the FAC review for first move advantage in chess, but I'm having trouble finding 3rd party references to ChessGames.com. Any chance you could assist with that? We've got 2 extra supports if we resolve that issue, although finding a way of prose-ifying the drawn in chess section and expanding the lead also need to be done. Reckon you've got a good shot with this one! Always good to see an article jump straight from GA to FA in a few weeks!Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Caissa's DeathAngel, and thanks for your valuable help on the FA-review. I have spent a bit of time to assess the reliability of www.chessgames.com but it seems weirdly difficult. I have also tried to find other references for the games linked to www.chessGames.com but unfortunately it is sometimes difficult as well. I will try my best!

For the article, you should first thank User:Krakatoa, who is an incredibly strong player and who wrote this article pretty much alone! SyG (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Weirdly difficult is right! Given how damn useful it is as a chess player, it's incredible that I'm finding it so hard to find third party commentary on it! I mean, whenever anyone talks about finding a chess game, you say to go to ChessGames.com. Lol it shouldn't be as hard as it is! Oh well, I'm sure there's something. I'll have a look tomorrow when I have more time. I will pass my thanks onto Krakatoa if I get a chance, but as a WikiSloth I may never get round to doing so ;) Heh, I'm hoping to see this article passed before my interest fades, as it is so wont to do, but I'm pretty confident, it's in good shape and the whole diagram-spacing issue was the only real concern anyway. Cheers! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard Staunton

At first I was cursing you because we had an edit conflict on the review page. Then I saw your "OK, I strike that one because it is not important enough to give a damn" and ROFL (rolled on the floor laughing). Philcha (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry for the edit conflict and thanks for having taught to me a new English expression: "ROFL"! SyG (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with all the items where we've agreed on the action. Since these are now the great majority, I've wrapped blocks of "done" items in collapsible tables so we can easily see the rest. I can remove the tables in 1-2 minutes when the review's complete, or if you don't like how I've done this.
I've been very conservative about this - if I had any doubt that an item was resolved, I did not hide it.
If you want to remove the collapsible tables yourself, the easiest way may be:

Copy the whole review into a text editor
Global replace with empty string the mark-up {| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100% style="text-align:left; background:transparent;" border="1" ! style="font-weight:normal; border: 1px #aaa;" | "Done" items |- |
Global replace with empty string the mark-up |}
Paste the result back into the review. Philcha (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

award

Congratulations

Thanks for note; I was delighted to see it promoted. Its a great article, more please!. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What are "missing sections"?

What sections are "missing" in Opposite colored bishops endgame? Bubba73 (talk), 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can think of several that could be useful to the reader:

A common mistake is to consider that what is in the Lead should not be in the article. Actually the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a section in itself. For example the Lead explains that Without other pieces (but with pawns) these endings are notorious for their tendency to result in a draw. These are the most difficult endings in which to convert a small material advantage to a win.. I think this would need a section on its own, e.g. "Draw tendency", explaining why they tend to result in a draw and why converting a small material advantage is difficult.
I would like to see a "History" section. What is the first known example of this ending ? When did the expression "opposite colored bishops" appeared ? A good example is what Krakatoa did for Zwischenzug.
It is possible to imagine a section on the impact of these endings. Are they frequent ? Are there openings that are avoided (or looked after) because they result on these endgames ?
The article currently restricts on endgames without other pieces. Are we sure the endgames with other pieces, like R+B, cannot be called "opposite colored bishops endgame" ?
While the general tendency to draws is not in doubt, there are also a lot of cases where these endgames favor a win, generally when there are a lot of pawns. There is no section on those cases.

I think the article in its current state is very good for a chess manual, but still not close enough to the highest encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. But of course this is only my subjective assessment. SyG (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the history of opposite colored endgames is. These must have occurred shortly after the rules took their current form. (The same thing for Opposition, etc.) The history of the term is unimportant. Who cares? Could you write a section on the history of opposite colored bishops?

There is an example with several pawns in which the opposite colored bishop helps to win (Bogoljubov vs. Bluemich).

When you say "sections are missing", say what sections you think are missing.

"still not close enough to the highest encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia." This is not trying to be a FA. It should easily be a "B", and that is no where near the highest. Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, probably my answer was a bit too long to be clear. I think the missing sections are: "History", "Draw tendency" (with one subsection on the draw tendency and one subsection on the exceptions) and "Impact on the game". SyG (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can work on a "draw tendancy" section. As far as "impact on the game", I can't think of anything to say about that other than about one sentence that is in the lead (they are often drawish). I have all of the books listed at chess endgame literature, except "1000 minor piece endgames" and vol 4 and 5 of ECE. Most of them discuss opposite-colored bishop endgames. I can't find any "history" of either the endgame or the use of the term. I can't think of a single sentence to write about the history, so if that has to be in there someone else will have to do it (or point me to a source). As far as adding a pair of knights or a pair of rooks, I have material on that, but the result is too complicated to codify the way it can be done with only pawns. But I'll try to mention that with an example of each. Bubba73 (talk), 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as B+R are concerned, if I am not mistaken there is a fantastic game of Topalov (White) against Aronian where Topalov wins this type of endgame in dramatic fashion. Probably this one. SyG (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That should be a very good one to include, but I checked all of my books that are new enough to possibly have it, and it isn't in any of them. I have ordered "100 endgame positions you must know", so it might be in there, but it is unlikely. So I don't have a reference for any comments or analysis of the game. Bubba73 (talk), 22:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my interrupting, but I've found a reference for that game. Try this report from ChessBase, which goes into detail on the endgame which is of course the relevant part: [5]. There is no denying ChessBase's reliability as a reference because of the FAC for First Move Advantage in Chess. Hope that helps! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It sure does. I'll use it. Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a long endgame, I'll have to hit highlights. I'm not sure if is naturally a won endgame or Topo just gradually outplayed him. Bubba73 (talk), 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Staunton

Hi, SyG, thanks for the message about the GA nomination. And many thanks for all the work you've put into this review! In order to continue improving the article I suggest I copy all the points that are are still open to the article's Talk page? What do you think? Philcha (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You certainly deserve this for being so patient and helpful in the A-class review of Howard Staunton, as well as the work you did tying up the loose ends in Alexander Alekhine. Many thanks! Philcha (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this Barnstar indeed! You should have it one as well for enduring my comments for so long! I hope this article will make it to the highest levels of Wikipedia!

About the points that are still open, putting them on the Talk page is certainly a good idea, but on the other hand it runs the risk to overload the Talk page. As far as I am concerned I will try to continue to work on the review at the "Review" page, but I have a lot of work in my real life as well so please forgive me if I take my time. SyG (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You more than earned the Barnstar! As for the comments, I've known for over 25 years that it's easier to comment on something that's in reasonably good shape to begin with. I should thank you for putting up with my argumentative responses.

Do we have any idea how long before the GA review starts? I'd prefer to get some discussion going about the outstanding issues 2 weeks before that.

My biggest concern is the section "Modern reputation", which duplicates a lot of content and which K added because he could not break down my arguments for the way I presented S's personality. Philcha (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, it can take as long as one month before the GA review actually begins (they are backlogged for the moment), but the norm is more something like two weeks. I agree with you there may be an opportunity to think again how it is possible to better integrate Krakatoa's interesting addings about Staunton's reputation. SyG (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Staunton Review

Hi, thanks for your message; I was waiting for all the frantic editing to die down a bit and I think that time has probably come. I will re-read the article and give my recommendation in the next day or two. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now completed my assessment (under my previous comments) on the Review page. Regards Brittle heaven (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, your comments are great! SyG (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

grandmaster (chess)

For grandmaster (chess) you say that there is no illustration. Do you mean a simple photo of a grandmaster? Bubba73 (talk), 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would suggest a photo of one of the first grandmaster in history, or also a photo of Verlinsky (USSR grandmaster), or also a photo of one of the first grandmasters after WW2, or a graphe illustrating the inflation of title (might be extremely hard to find in fair-use, though), or something else... SyG (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There are controversies about the first GM. The title was sometimes used informally. In 1914 the tzar of Russia awarded titles to a few players, but this is also controversial. When FIDE started giving GM titles in 1950, they awarded several at the same time, so none of them was first. Bubba73 (talk), 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The photo of a GM after 1950 could be caption "XXXX, one of the first GM titled by FIDE", in order to avoid the *first* issue. SyG (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added three photos, but there isn't one of Verlinsky. Bubba73 (talk), 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for the article! SyG (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that make it good enough for B class? Bubba73 (talk), 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the assessment to B-class. SyG (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

B&N checkmate

What "history" does bishop and knight checkmate have? Can you give me a reference? Bubba73 (talk), 23:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The earliest example of the method to win this endgame that I know of is in Philidor's famous treaty, you can find it online here.

On more general grounds, in order to avoid any misunderstanding I would like to explain that the assessments on Wikipedia only aim to judge whether a certain article does or does not meet certain Wikipedia criteria. In no way it is a criticism of your/my work. Also, the fact that you or I cannot expand a given article (because of lack of references or another reason) does not mean the article is perfect, nor does it imply that the article automatically meets the criteria. SyG (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That is enough for one sentence, but not a section.

All of your points about the lead sections of articles were correct. I didn't know until recently that the lead section was supposed to be able to stand on its own rather than being an introduction to the rest of the article. But in many cases you just said "sections missing" without saying what is missing. In most of these cases it was "history" and in most of those cases, it is inconceivable that there could be enough for a history section. Bubba73 (talk), 15:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Chessmetrics

In your review of Howard Staunton you commented that an FA reviewer gave you trouble over the use of Chessmetrics and questioned whether it was WP:RS. Have a look at Talk:Howard_Staunton#Chessmetrics: the academics Moul and Nye used Chessmetrics in their article "Did the Soviets collude?" and explained why they preferred it to Elo (better predicitive ability). So Chessmetrics is the most WP:RS assessment available for anything before 2006 (when Sonas stopped updating). -- Philcha (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a great justification, thanks for the hint! SyG (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Staunton (again)

You had me ROFL until the tears ran down my leg! But "let's forget about the size" might not have been the wisest edit comment. -- Philcha (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm yes, I am so used to hear this sentence in real life that now I start to use it randomly. And please don't ask why I hear it that often ;-) SyG (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

English may not be your first language, but you consistently beat me at jokes contests in English! It almost makes me want to study French, so I can see how good you are in French. -- Philcha (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Albert Salomon von Rothschild

You have tried to remove Albert "chess" Baron von Rothschild from the Chess categories because of your subjective opinion - "its influence on Chess seems non-notable to me". Sorry, but this is no argument.

I suggest you to see http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=84586, http://weblogs3.nrc.nl/schaken/2007/09/24/een-nieuw-schaakpaleis/, http://www.endgame.nl/wien.htm, etc.

--User:Mibelz 22:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. See also http://www.chessmetrics.com Chessmetrics Player Profile: Albert von Rothschild

Your first two links do not really convince me but the two others make me think. All right, I have reinstalled it into the scope of the WikiProject Chess. SyG (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Style and New Style dates

In a page Alexander Alekhine you wrote a wrong statement: "unsourced statement that the birth date would be wrong".

In 1918, after the Revolution, Vladimir Lenin raised the question of calendar reform and, after an investigation of the subject, published a decree directing the adoption of the Gregorian style "for the purpose of being in harmony with all the civilized countries of the world." http://personal.ecu.edu/MCCARTYR/Russia.html

So, both birth dates - October 19, 1892 (Julian Calendar, Old Style) and October 31, 1892 (Gregorian Calendar, New Style) are correct! Of course, his death date is in the Gregorian style.

User:Mibelz 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill Wall mentions the October 31, so yes it must be the correct date. Thanks for pointing that to me and for the correction! SyG (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

List of chess books

I noticed that you are making a lot of additions to list of chess books. Do you know if all of the ones at chess endgame literature are in there? If they aren't, or you don't know, I will try to add them. Most of the books there are not in the "citation" or "cite book" format, but I have them in a file that I use, so I could copy most of them rather than having to create the Citation format for it. Bubba73 (talk), 21:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My method for filling List of chess books is to go through all articles listed in List of chess topics. So I have already gone through Chess endgame literature. As I mainly copy the books located in the "References" section, however, I think I have missed some. So I will go through the article again to be sure nothing is left out. Thanks for pointing that to me! SyG (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I have gone through Chess endgame literature entirely and I have added the ones missing to List of chess books. That should be fairly complete now. SyG (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For several things, (1) almost singlehandedly doing list of chess books, (2) rating (at least) hundreds of chess articles, and (3) a lot of other stuff! Bubba73 (talk), 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bubba73 (talk), 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow!! and I mistakenly thought noone had noticed the creation of List of chess books! Thanks very much for this Barnstar, that is a great encouragement to continue. SyG (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed links

Hi SyG. You're doing a great job as an editor! I like very much the chess section of the wikipedia and I use it everyday. Congratulations!

I have noticed you removed some links to 365Chess.com from sections like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_openings and others.

I would like to explain my pont of view.

Why 365chess.com should be present at wikipedia project?

Mainly for two reasons:

1. 365Chess.com is completely free. There are links related to sites that are not completely free because you get only part of the features they offer if you decide not to pay a monthly fee. In the other hand you can browse the entire database of 365chess.com without paying anything. This is much like the wikipedia inspiration.

2. 365Chess.com has the biggest searchable database online It has more than 2.5 million chess games and you can search and browse it completely free. I'm sure it's a great contribution to the chess community.

It's true that the link I mentioned is similar to the other external links that the article already have but from 365chess.com list of openings you can reach an entire collection of games played with that opening. I think it's a very relevant difference.

I tried to be not so extense in my thoughts. Thank you for your time and I will wait your response in order to add that links again. Masugly (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Masugly! I understand you are a new editor, so thanks a lot for the keen interest you put in Wikipedia and in chess. One of the issues we have to run Wikipedia is to avoid it becoming a giant advertiser for websites. I mean that a lot of people run various websites, blogs, FaceBook pages, and add some links to some articles in Wikipedia as an attempt to increase traffic. That means we are often very prudent about what kind of internet link is worth enough to be added to an article.

Now I am not saying in any way that www.365Chess.com does not deserve to have links on Wikipedia. I have briefly looked at this website and it seems to be very serious and useful. However I would have at least two concerns about it:

Most of the links were added in articles where there were already some similar links to www.chessgames.com, a well-known website that has about the same informations as www.365chess.com. In that sense the link to www.365chess.com was not adding a lot of value to the article.
The website www.365chess.com has just been created a few months ago, so there is a slight danger that it could disappear soon. In this case all the links would be broken, meaning we would have to spend a lot of time removing them one by one, which is tedious. Including links to fresh websites is contrary to the Wikipedia:External links guideline (see "Longevity" paragraph)

Now if you think I am eventually wrong in my opinion, I would suggest to bring the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess so that we can have some opinions of more people. Happy editing! SyG (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

SyG, I have similar concerns with your removal of chessvine.com from the chess wiki as a news source external link. I understand the reasoning in that chessvine is not very old and therefore is questionable. however, unlike the other news sources chessvine takes its information from a broader net of sources (whereas chessbase, for example, depends almost entirely upon press release). Is it just the site's youth that raises a flag? In other words would you consider 'unediting' the external link to chessvine.com after six months or more of operation? ColonelCrockett (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, ColonelCrockett! I have removed the website www.chessvine.com from Chess because there are already two news site, so I do not immediately see the point of adding a third one. According to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia should not try to replicate Yahoo in listing all the websites available on a subject.

That being say, you may think www.chessvine.com is better than www.chessbase.com as a source for chess news. Fair enough, in that case I would propose you to start a discussion on Talk:Chess to replace www.chessbase.com by www.chessvine.com, in order to build a consensus. You may also want a broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess, in order to get more participation in the debate.

Finally, in my opinion the fact that the site was created only one month ago is a critical problem. As a general rule I would be against the inclusion of any site younger than one year. SyG (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SyG, thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns so quickly ... I see your point about wikipedia not being a repository of links. The young age of chessvine.com is obviously a major factor and therefore the discussion is somewhat moot. I seriously doubt if chessvine would be a replacement for chessbase (at least at this time) but I'll let some time pass and then bring up the topic of its inclusion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess. Good points all around, thanks. ColonelCrockett (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for the Barnstar SyG! Reminds me, it has been almost two weeks since I last updated it, I better get on with it :) Best regards, Voorlandt (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I left something on the talk page for you to look at.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And what Talk page please ? There are several of them on Wikipedia, it seems to me. SyG (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stylised Templates

Hi - I recall you had a major part in sorting out the appearance of the templates a while back and was wondering if you'd seen what has happened recently on the French Wiki Site. They are starting to customise their coloured template headers to include a stylised image/motif that is relevant to the topic. See examples - [6], [7], [8] I think they look quite good - is it something we could consider? Or would it have to come by way of a central initiative from en.wikipedia.org? Maybe we could become the first English Wikiproject to use them! Regards, Brittle heaven (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I had a look at the French site, and it is more complex than it looks. I am no expert, but the real different thing seems to be that instead of a simple color in the title of the InfoBox, you put a picture. In order to achieve this result they had to change their "MediaWiki:Common.css" to create new CSS classes, which can only be done through a central initiative I guess. They even set up a special WikiProject (see here) to coordinate this effort. So I guess it will be difficult to achieve the same unless we setup a special proposal at the Wikipedia:Village pump. SyG (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay - sounds a bit tricky, but many thanks for looking into it so quickly. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at the | Roger Federer page. It's just a variant of the standard infobox template. Now we know a French Wikipedia url, we can copy the code quite easily, set our own background colour and icon, and boast about how clever we are. -- Philcha (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard Staunton

Thanks for your contribution to the GA review. Do you think it wouldbe a good idea to knock up a sandbox page that bullet-lists the items in the lead and then we can play with priorities? -- Philcha (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philcha, and thanks for your neverending support to this article! Yes, suming up all themes in a bullet-list could be convenient to do some "stock-picking" after. It seems the article will have to be significantly reduced to reach the GA-class. SyG (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you've resolved that issue single-handed, mon héros!

OTOH after "I am now ready to crash the whole Wikipedia into italics and to suffer the anger of the gods for my recklessness" I might take a wikibreak. -- Philcha (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yes that was a bit extreme from my side, I have to admit ;-) SyG (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A sacrifice is required appease the gods you have scorned - you shall enter the new lead. Justice must be seen to be done! -- Philcha (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I responded about the image at Image talk:Staunton2.jpg. Eubulides (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a good idea to make suggestions about cuts. Krakatoa and I agree (!!!!!) that this reviewer is trying to cut far too much. I'll chekc the diffs to see if there's cruft that I missed in my last clean-up. If theres' not cruft, than I think Krakatoa's commment "he had a very eventful life" makes the most important point.-- Philcha (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit tracking the article's length is hard at present because we have quite a few slimmed down sandbox versions. There are a few requests for the reviewer to comment. -- Philcha (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad that Krakatoa and yourself come close to an agreement! Seeing that even historians like Winter and Whyld can have such a difficult time about interpretations (e.g. about Morphy's alleged homosexuality), that Wikipedia is able to come up with a balanced summary is quite a feat!

About the length, I am happy to hear Krakatoa's opinion, and I understand his/your relunctance to treat the article with an axe. I have to admit, however, that I would tend to stand with Eubulides on that one, as I consider 110 kB way too long for an article and 50 kB more suitable. Sometimes axes are golden! SyG (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you comparing the game of kings to a hack and slash game! Relax, your secret is safe with me :-)

Alexander Alekhine, which you helped get to GA, is currently 96.3KB. Staunton had a less turbulent life than Alekhine, but organised the 1st international a tournament, in his own time was a more influential writer, was more controversial in his own time, and the S-M controversy was more complex and has aroused more debate that Alekhine's alleged anti-Semitism and proven faking of game scores. Can you please explain why you think Howard Staunton should be reduced to little over half the size of Alexander Alekhine? -- Philcha (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The size of the articles is possibly not one of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, which may explain why Alekhine did it to GA-class, and also why Eubulides does not list the size as a problem for GA-class but only for FA-class. My reasons for wanting to reduce the size of the article are:

Prepare the way for FA-class by complying with Wikipedia:LENGTH#A_rule_of_thumb
Avoid redundancy and unnecessary details, which are much easier to watch out with a smaller article.

I sometimes feel the article gets a bit carried away into a whole Wikibook on Staunton. SyG (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My god, you're contemplating another review? -- Philcha (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the article reaches the GA-class, then it needs a peer-review for prose, then another peer-review to be sure (and to be able to say at FA that the article has been peer-reviewed twice), then the FA-review where they will tell us all our sources are crap and we have to rewrite everything because it does not comply with their brand new policy on the colour of vowels.

...

OK, maybe we can wait a little bit after GA. ;-) SyG (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, where have I read about "the colour of vowels"? -- Philcha (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking about something more poetic. SyG (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstarofpeace

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		You certainly deserve this for your recent efforts. The "Quotes" thread was a brilliant safety valve. -- Philcha (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the barnstar. You and Krakatoa are two incredibly gifted and knowledgeable Wikipedia editors, so it is a pity to see such a revival of the American-British controversy about Staunton :-) I hope we can bring the article to the recognition it deserves. SyG (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at User_talk:Philcha#Dinosaurs_.26_Christians. -- Philcha (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent one! For every man comes the day when he has to choose between form and content. Keep up with the content! ;-) SyG (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh? -- Philcha (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean, we should not refrain from adding content just because we are afraid we could shock one user or another. Let's be WP:BOLD. SyG (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiMedia for Portals

I just reverted your edits to WikimediaForPortals template, in keeping with the posted warning on this template which says "please don't edit this template to suit your own portal" because doing so buggers up several hundreds of other pages. Hint, hint ... thank you. BeeTea (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh! I did not realise it was a common template, sorry for the damage and thanks for the reversion! SyG (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Chessmetrics debate

I just couldn't read more than two sentences at a time of a certain person's repetitious waffle. You have the patience of a saint! Hmmm, there's an idea to brighten up a quiet week or celebrate Christmas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess - who should be saint of what? -- Philcha (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All the dumb management stuff learnt in clueless seminars about keeping his head cool is helping at last! I am afraid we will never know what this interesting Wikipedian really wanted :-) SyG (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that as in "interesting times"? -- Philcha (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Adminship?

Hi SyG! I wonder if you would be interested in accepting a nomination for adminship, and gain the tools of deletion, protection, and blocking? Although success at WP:RFA is never guaranteed, I think you have a very strong record and stand excellent chances.

You have participated in discussions in a very calm and reasoned manner.
You have contributed very well to article writing.
You have given excellent advice to other editors in reviewing articles.

I would be honored to set up a RFA nomination for you if you wish to do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sjakkalle ! Many many thanks for your proposal, it really pleases me to see you appreciate some aspects of my Wikipedia contribution. I do not think, however, adminship would be good for me. What I like on Wikipedia is trying to make chess articles better and promoting the chess coverage, and I do not think adminship would help me to do that. Tell me if I am wrong, but I feel becoming an administrator is mostly to get access to some specific tools, and for the moment I do not see these tools as useful for the work that I do. So regretfuly I will have to decline your kind proposal. Thanks again ! SyG (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, that's OK. You are right that spending time on activities which require admin tools can sometimes get in the way of content writing, even though it's not supposed to be a big deal. Nonetheless, whether you are an admin or not, Wikipedia needs more editors like you. If you ever change your mind about this, I'll do what I can to be on the support list, for you have the qualities I look for in an admin candidate, and can now add "a strong desire to work to improve Wikipedia rather than to seek power" to that list of qualities ;-). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Chess Infobox

Hi there - looking at a few articles today, I noticed that the adjacent main body text runs all the way up to the infobox border, such that it is practically touching - this looks quite untidy and I feel sure would not happen in regular desktop publishing packages. Has something occurred to make this happen recently? I can't say I've noticed it before. Can a suitable buffer (roughly 3-4mm or two text characters) be introduced perhaps? Who knows, maybe it's just my browser that's responsible. Any thoughts? Regards Brittle heaven (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brittle heaven ! For the moment I cannot reproduce the bug you are talking about, could you please precise a few articles in which you see the problem ? SyG (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, upon further investigation, it happens when I first enter any chess infobox article; the infobox displays 5mm to the left of where it should be. It then corrects itself when I click the mouse on the frame of my browser's 'Favourite links' toolbar, which can be stretched out; in other words, any adjustment at all to the page width makes the infobox jump to the right and realign with the page edge. This reinstates the gap between body text and infobox border, as it should be. It's odd because I am using standard Windows XP with all updates, which I imagine is quite a common choice. I wonder if anyone else gets this? Probably just a quirk of Microsoft - their products are not very well coded, as my Apple-Mac user friends keep telling me! Brittle heaven (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly Microsoft products have a strange behaviour sometimes. However, I am using Windows XP as weel, and I do not have the problem. But I am using the navigator Firefox; are you using Internet Explorer, maybe ? SyG (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you are correct. Firefox has a good reputation - I must convert one of these days. Regards Brittle heaven (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

George H.D. Gossip and Charles Ranken

Hi. I've responded to your thoughtful comments on George H.D. Gossip and think I've addressed your concerns. Please let me know what you think.

Also, could you take another look at Charles Ranken when you have a chance? You rated it Start-Class. I think it now has about as much as one can find on this guy. He's a minor figure in chess, and there just is not much out there. Thanks again. Krakatoa (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SyG. I've added a review of George H.D. Gossip at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review/George_H.D._Gossip but it does not show at Talk:George H.D. Gossip. Any idea how to fix this? --Philcha (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Philcha ! I have tried something, it should be solved by now. Tell me if you are still experiencing the problem. SyG (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Krakatoa, as you suggested, I had a glance at Charles Ranken and raised it to B-class. See my review on the Talk page. SyG (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I will check it out. Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for all of your work on the George H.D. Gossip A-Class Review, and support for A-Class for that article! Krakatoa (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

SyG, I'm happy to pass George H.D. Gossip as A-class. Since this is my first A-class review and you're more familiar with the process, I'll leave the rest to you. --Philcha (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My (non-monetary) bribe offer has worked, and thanks to Voorlandt (and you and Philcha, of course) we finally have three A-Class reviews, all positive, for George H.D. Gossip. Hooray! Krakatoa (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Great trick indeed ! I will pass the article as A-class. By the way, I had nominated the article for GA as well (the article is still queuing). SyG (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have passed the article as A-class but I will not close the A-class review for now, so that the various discussions can end up before. SyG (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Staunton vs Popert 1840

Thanks for the heads up. Mark Weeks gives the score as +8 -3 =2, which is what Howard Staunton has always said apart from the recent incorrect edit. Joyeux Noël et bonne année! --Philcha (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I always knew you were the right one. SyG (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New year

I'm finding it difficult to do much with your user name. -- Producing Homogeneously Impressive, Laudable and Complete Historical Articles (talk)(Philcha (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

As long as you continue to produce fine articles, feel free to keep the acronym. I wish you all the best for 2009 ! SyG (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

José Raúl Capablanca

Hi, SyG. I'd be grateful for your advice, as WikiProject Chess' expert diplomat. I've started work on José Raúl Capablanca, and IMO there's too much chatty stuff (although mostly well-sourced) and most of it should be removed to make way for more serious content. For example I'd cut San Sebastion to 1911 to: it was a super-tournament; Bernstein and Nimzowitsch objected that Capa had not qualified; Capa won the tournament, got the brilliancy prize for 1st-round win against Bernstein, and also beat Nimzowitsch. For St. Petersburg 1914 e.g. "After taking a 1½-point lead in the preliminary stage, he was overtaken by a finishing spurt from Emanuel Lasker. Alekhine thought Capablanca could have won if he had taken the contest more seriously, was "flabbergasted" by his skill in rapid chess, and noted his charm – especially with the ladies." I'd put all the stuff about rapid play in the assessment section, e.g. "He was also a superb rapid chess player ..." (and cite the Alekhine passage again, without quoting).

However the article is already B-class, and some of our knowledgeable enthusiasts may be upset if I remove their favourite anecdotes. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not see any clue of an edit war, the history of the article seems reasonably clean and constructive, and no especially acrimonous discussion is on the Talk page. Anyway, being only B-class is a disgrace for such a genius as Capablanca, whose merits would be worth several dozens of Wikipedia articles. Am I going a bit too far ? So I would say go ahead, be bold, and cut that down to something notable. Perfection is not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing to remove. SyG (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your compatriot René Descartes would disagree about "Perfection is not when there is nothing to add" - that's the whole point of his ontological argument for the existence of God (at least in the English translation). --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is actually rated C-class by us, not B-class, si? Krakatoa (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be rated B-class by the WikiProject Cuba and the WikiProject Biography, but C-class by the WikiProject Chess. However, I guess the B-class in the other wikiprojects is just because they have not updated for the new scale, so I will harmonise to C-class everywhere. SyG (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

George H. D. Gossip

Thanks for your vote of support for George H. D. Gossip. One thing: you write "I think the article upholds the A-class criteria". I assume you mean "FA criteria"? Krakatoa (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry for that misspelling, I will correct it. SyG (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chess tournament

Thanks for spending the time to review chess tournament. I'll get back to you when I've made the appropriate changes. Thanks again, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have made all of the changes you have recommended for the article.I left a response here if you are interested in re-assessing. Thanks for your time, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay SyG, I'm back here to bug you about the chess tournament article again ☺. I'd like to do some more work on the article, but I'm not sure where to start. In your opinion, what information about chess tournaments is the article lacking? Don't feel obligated to read the entire article, just glance at the section headings and tell me what you think. Your opinion matters, thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I did not answer more quickly to your request, I had a lot of things to sort out in real-life. The suggestions made by Brittle Heaven in the WikiProject Chess seem very good to me, and will help you to greatly improve the article further. SyG (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Evans Gambit

Your edit to to Emanuel Lasker re: the Evans Gambit might be OK, but it needs to be fixed. The addition of "until the 1960s" might be correct, but it is not supported by the cited referenced (Reuben Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings). You should either remove the edit or fix it so that it does not indicate that this is what Fine wrote. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for intrudingm but the ref includes a link to Fischer vs Fine 1963. --Philcha (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clarify by mentioning that Fischer revived it. SyG (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Philcha. Unfortunately your attempted sourcing made it worse. First, what the heck is a skittles game between Fischer and Fine played at Fine's home over 20 years after Lasker's death doing in Emanuel Lasker? It seems entirely irrelevant to the page. The sentence says "tournament play". The well-known Fischer-Fine Evans Gambit game (from My 60 Memorable Games) was not a tournament game and Fischer never played the EG in any tournament. The reference you provide (a single game score, it's impermissible original research to draw any conclusion from this) simply does not support the claim that Fischer revived the gambit. I think that it will be hard to find any source that does because a one skittles game and a bunch of uses against fish at simuls didn't really revive the gambit. A search of games databases suggests that tournament use was scarce for at least a decade after Fischer-Fine 1963, and the very modest use of the gambit beginning in the 1970s doesn't seem to coincide with the publication date of My 60 Memorable Games either. If you want tournament use of the EG you would be better served to look at Kasparov-Anand 1995. I think there are many sources that say the Lasker Defense made the EG nearly extinct in tournament play, in addition to the Fine source already cited. A final point to illustrate how bad this attempted reference is and how irrelevant the Fischer use of the EG was is that Fine did not play the Lasker Defense in that game. As I recall, Fischer included two EG games in My 60 and in neither game did Black choose the Lasker D. How are you drawing conclusions about the Lasker Defense from a game that didn't use it? A more accurate description of the situation can be found at Evans Gambit, which notably doesn't mention Fischer at all. I think it the best thing to do is to cut your losses and revert the addition of your qualification. Stick precisely to what the sources say and you will stay out of trouble. 24.177.121.141 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone's in a bad mood! I've changed it to "until a revival in the 1990s", citing MCO (2000). --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the same things could have been said with a much more tempered tone. The courage of the anonymous... SyG (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "The courage of the anonymous..." a common saying in French? --Philcha (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmm no, not really. But it is popular on discussions forum :-) SyG (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

← Do we have one of those misunderstandings where I'm waiting for you and you're waiting for me? --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh, yes probably. Am I supposed to do something specific on the Evans Gambit ? I think your changes are fine, I would suggest to let it as it is. SyG (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Emanuel Lasker

Hi, SyG. I think it's time the GA review reached a conclusion. I'll summarise what I think are the outstanding issues here, as the review page would certainly fail WP:SIZE :-)

Length of the article. First, Lasker achieved a lot outside chess. Then there were the controversies over his match conditions for Rubinstein and Capa - notable in their own right, and spurred attempts to define rules. Finally, the article presents lots of little details because there is no source that gives a reliable summary - Tim Harding describes Fine's (e.g. World's Great Chess Games) and Hannak's presentations as "hagiographies" and Hannak's bio of Lasker as "notoriously unreliable"; Johannes Fischer at the Emanuel Lasker Gesellschaft agrees. Harding explicitly says there are no more recent bios of Lasker.
Coverage of matches. I think if anything there is now too much on the Janowski matches, as Janowski was more of a payday for Lasker than a serious contender. Re Lasker-Capa 1921, I've found exactly 2 views: Lasker in mysteriously poor form (Fine, World's Great Chess Games; Golombek, Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess - "the match was sadly lacking in the great achievements one would expect ..."), and I've seen suggestions that Lasker made no attempt to prepare; Kramnik's view that it was an "even and fascinating fight" but Capa was a little stronger, 20 years younger and had more recent competitive practice. That appears to be all there is. I've included the Fine / Golombek view as well as Kramnik's.
Reading age. I'd like to get it nearer 12, but then someone would complain about short sentences ("choppy" is the favourite put-down) and copyedit it into a "more literary" style. Unfortunately there are editors who are more concerned to show of their "mastery" of English prose than to communicate with readers.
Lasker-Capa 1914 (Ruy Lopez Exchange). If you can provide a source for what you said about Lasker choosing an opening that required Capa to play aggressively, which the tournament position made him disinclined to do, I'd love to see that in, as it illustrates the realistic basis for comments about about L.'s psychological approach, as opposed to the wild claims of Reti etc. That would be in addition to the actual record, which suggests L. used the Ruy Lopez Exchange as a "secret weapon" (if a good source said that, I'd use it - WP should be a bit more vivid).

BTW I've done a few copyedits, where your English, although very good, showed up as a 2nd language. I hope you agree with them. --Philcha (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, this review has lasted long enough. I will close it as it is. SyG (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The items you contributed about Lasker-Steinitz 1984 and Lasker-Tarrasch 1908 were real goodies. --Philcha (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lasker, Anderssen and Steinitz

Hi, SyG, sorry for not responding to the query you left on 25 Jan (3 weeks ago!!) about whether I wanted to leave Lasker, Anderssen and Steinitz up for A-class review. Personally I'd be quite happy to do that, as Wikiproject Chess members have made valuable contributions to articles I'd alraeady got to / near GA level - GA has the advantages of an independent review, A-class' bonus is specialist subject knowledge. However chess articles seem to wait a long time for A-class reviews, and I would not want to hold up an article which has scope for improvement. So I'll leave it to your excellent and fair judgement. --Philcha (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 1972

Can you look at World Chess Championship 1972 and give an opinion of what it needs (if anything) to get to B class? Bubba73 (talk), 06:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bubba73, sorry not to have answered before, I am in a professional hurry this week (and last week as well) so I will probably not have time to look at your request before the next week-end. SyG (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bubba73, I eventually found time to look at the article, see my suggestions on the Talk page. SyG (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Members of wikiproject chess

Hi! I just have a little comment on removing inactive members from the project. In general, I don't think it is a good idea. Wikipedia does not do this either to its members. Some people may chose to take a prolonged wikibreak (eg Quale), or simple don't edit often. I would even say that people who never edit can be member, ie a passive member. Also, the number of participants does not seem to go much over 50, due to you removing the most inactive ones. I think this gives the false impression that the wikiproject chess is only reserved to 50 elite members, with most edits. All of this can potentially make the wikiproject unwelcome to people who want to join. Of course I know that all of this is not your intention, but that is my feeling. Best regards, Voorlandt (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Voorlandt ! My idea was to keep a list of the real participants, as opposed to the people who have just put their name on the list without contributing to a chess article. In that way we could know who to talk to in case we needed some work to be done. But I understand your reasons that it could scare off newcomers, which is certainly not my intention. So I will stop doing that. Cheers ! SyG (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Quality chess articles is redundant

In parser functions: 50. The WP:ANN bot should also be capable of doing a little adding. I've suggested at User:LivingBot/ProjectSignup that the Quality category be deleted - rst20xx (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. I have continued the discussion at User:LivingBot/ProjectSignup. SyG (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

James A. Leonard

Hi, SyG! Could you please take another look at James A. Leonard when you have a chance? I've done some more work on it, and think it may warrant B-class now. Krakatoa (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have eventually reviewed the article, although Voorlandt had already raised the article to B-class. Incidentally I had to correct what seemed to be a mistake in the notation of the last game, can you please review that ? SyG (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and sorry that this response is so belated. I looked at the book from which I got the game. Your surmise as to the intended move was correct. I had "translated" the descriptive notation in the book to algebraic notation, and screwed up in the one instance that you caught. Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Great ! I tried to guess the move, but I was unsure because both rooks were possible. SyG (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)