User talk:Thewriter006

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Thewriter006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for The Lost Symbol. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Loves Macs (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

boldface for Lê Quang Liêm

Hi – thanks for trying to fix the missing boldface for Lê Quang Liêm at Champions Chess Tour 2021, and for writing a detailed edit comment about the problem. The reason your edit didn't work was that you put the boldface markup on the wrong side of the column separator – you needed '''[[Lê Quang Liêm]]'''|'''3''' instead of '''[[Lê Quang Liêm]]|''' '''3'''. I fixed it. Joriki (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info! Thewriter006 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of female chess players

Consider the claim that Judit Polgar was the first female player to have a rating above 2600. This is undoubtedly true. But to put it into Wikipedia, you would have to demonstrate that it is "notable", i.e. that people care about it. For instance, an article in the press mentioning that fact. This could be an article in the "chess press", e.g. something like chessbase (online) or some print chess magazine, or it could be an article in the mainstream press. I have not seen, or even looked for, such an article, but you are welcome to try your hand. The article, Judit Polgar, does not mention that statistic; if you think the statistic is notable, you might want to add it to that article, even more than adding it to this list article.

Likewise for the claim that Hou Yifan was the youngest ever female 2600+. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--> why do we do 2800 for open but not 2600 for females? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating

Thewriter006 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure people care about each and every entry in that list, either, but I wasn't aware of it until now. Most of the stuff in the "Notes" column ought to have explicit citations of sources; for example, who really cares, or ever cared, that Vladimir Kramnik was the youngest player to reach 2800+ at the time? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 things

1 re notable claim:

who was the 1 before alireza? who was the 1 before that? see https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/qzpm44/re_alireza_firouzja_2800_youngest_list_of_records/ and https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/36699/list-of-female-chess-players-by-their-peak-fide-blitz-rating and https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/36988/how-do-i-find-data-to-determine-records-like-the-youngest-person-to-obtain-a-cer/37245#37245 and https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/po1a08/list_of_records_for_youngest_supergms_since_1950/hctahkh/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_prodigy#List_of_youngest_grandmasters (oh and to my very pleasant surprise there is now this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_prodigy#List_of_youngest_female_grandmasters :D )

2 re citing assuming we are going to mention this:

how exactly does one cite something like this? technically they can just look it up in https://www.chessgraphs.com/ but no one's really compiled a list outside reddit or stackexchange. And even if they did compile a list it wouldn't be exactly a primary source unless the list is some kind of autogenerated list like you input your parameters and then using something similar to QUERY in google sheets you get the youngest ever list... is it acceptable to cite only the site https://www.chessgraphs.com/ ?

Thewriter006 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello, I'm Le Marteau. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wesley So, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wesley_So&type=revision&diff=1073923417&oldid=1073373212 Le Marteau (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so as far as wikipedia is concerned...wesley did not (necessarily) reply? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Hi! I'll reply in the 960 thread soon but I'll have to wait until the evening when I have enough time to write down my thoughts. Both you and IHTS have raised some interesting questions/points I feel need well-written replies. In the meanwhile, I thought I'd link Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to you, as you may be unfamiliar with the editing approach I took when editing the page. Bold edits are not unusual and reversion is one of the expected outcomes, which is why I later went to the talk page to discuss with other editors and see if consensus can be achieved. We may arrive at one, but if we don't I'll file a request for comment so that a wider group of editors can help reach a consensus. If I seem passive aggressive or uncooperative I can assure you it is not my intention :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. thanks for the info. Yeah it was either like I was new to something or breaking the good faith assumption is warranted. So yeah. (reading now...) Ah ok it's indeed a Wikipedia thing. Eh. I think I kinda disagree with it, but ok ok fine. I guess it's like Cunningham's Law. Thewriter006 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily equate it with Cunningham's Law, but it's not too different. I'm glad you don't think I was acting in bad faith. Far from it! I just want, as you do, to improve our encyclopedic coverage of chess topics. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because paging thru your contributions was unable to find a single WP:CHESS article you've edited. --IHTS (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'The main question is "how familiar are you with chess / 9LX?"' and then Ixtal says 'Enough to where I can contribute to content discussions on its Wikipedia article.' Do you think Ixtal has enough 'chess experience' ? https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/wm3enq/is_it_possible_to_be_expected_to_definitely_beat/ Thewriter006 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you won't see me editing many computer science articles even though I am a computer scientist by profession, Ihardlythinkso. Editing activity does not correlate with expertise. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never brought up your profession or expertise. The point is your telling Thewriter006 I just want, as you do, to improve our encyclopedic coverage of chess topics seems a bit disingenuous based on that you've never edited any WP:CHESS article til now. --IHTS (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that as my main editing purpose on Wikipedia, but I do want to improve our encyclopedic coverage of chess topics. If not I wouldn't be discussing improvements on a chess article talk page. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'I do want to improve our encyclopedic coverage of chess topics' - then any particular your 1st stop was the 9LX page and in particular your 1st chess-related Wikipedia decision was to delete AN ENTIRE SECTION that's been up for years? Like, what, it's a coincidence that your 1st chess-related Wikipedia decision was to do with the 9LX page and was such a huge edit? Thewriter006 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ixtal, re I didn't mean that as my main editing purpose on Wikipedia, um, no one wrote, suggested, implied, or hinted that was the case. (So to whom are you addressing? A ghost?) This is the second instance of you responding to things not said or even implied, then knocking them down, a well-known manipulative argumentation technique called "straw man" of course, and, it makes it increasingly difficult to entertain you seriously and keep good faith. On a related point I didn't want to bring up but now that Thewriter006 has, it is curious, you never having edited any WP:CHESS article til now, what drew you to the 960 article. (You don't have to answer, of course, but your behaviors have made the question pregnant.) --IHTS (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my theory/hypothesis: Ixtal doesn't really have much chess experience. And then the generic chess Wikipedia articles were accessible to Ixtal. Hence, Ixtal didn't make any edits. However, when it came to 9LX, this is where Ixtal's low chess experience came in. Ixtal's Wikipedia experience + low chess experience triggered Ixtal to do something about the page.

Also Ixtal indeed doesn't have to answer, but silence, much like chess, would speak for itself. (Let's see if Ixtal is familiar enough with chess to understand the joke here.) Thewriter006 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also IHTS God bless you really. Bobby Fischer I'm sure is smiling upon you from heaven (or below you from hell - who knows really) for your contributions to 9LX on Wikipedia. Thewriter006 (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'what drew you to the 960 article' what is your opinion of that Ixtal didn't do something about the chess endgames quotations after I brought it up? Thewriter006 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me, am a believer in consistency, so that compare w/ move me if I were in her shoes. But the deal is, even when consistency is screaming to be addressed, WP culture is such that editors will conveniently ignore, using prepackaged WP links (like WP:OTHERCONTENT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) to supplant real thinking, thoughtfulness, and evaluation, which is a huge dumbed-down danger to people's minds IMO, but nevertheless the accepted argumentation culture on WP. (So, pressing the consistency issue w/ get you nowhere, IMO.) Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No point in tackling that article if I fail to get consensus on this one. First this then the chess endgames article. Again, I will not respond to queries about chess experience. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'No point in tackling that article if I fail to get consensus on this one. First this then the chess endgames article' --> Ah I see ok makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

'Again, I will not respond to queries about chess experience.' --> It's ok. Your silence, like chess, 'speaks for itself'. ;) Thewriter006 (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait we didn't ask about chess experience this time. We asked about chess interest. Why is chess960 your 1st stop in the chess wikipedia world iydmma? Thewriter006 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IHTS Do you think Ixtal knows about 'speaks for itself' ? Thewriter006 (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt so. p.s This is funny [1]. --IHTS (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re doubt so LOL. re PS - yeah I saw that. damn yasser. yasser's usually so calmn and then LOL. Thewriter006 (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh dead link but order speaks for itself is yeah original here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU5XvLEoKWY Thewriter006 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Am I wrong to think chess experience (Note: not expertise but experience!) is relevant here? To the chess community (I really mean chess community not just the 9LX community), the quotes may make sense. To the non-chess community, maybe not.

It seems like you need both experience in both chess and Wikipedia because you're making a decision about chess and Wikipedia.

2 - Now that I think more about this situation and stuff, it seems like what's going on is you're kinda outside the chess community and then you're saying 'Hey chess community (or 9LX community), while I'm not so familiar with 9LX or even chess, I'm very familiar with Wikipedia, and it seems like you guys aren't doing what you're supposed to on Wikipedia even though you've been doing it for years already' ?

No offense, but it seems like the same situation I encountered here https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/wm3enq/is_it_possible_to_be_expected_to_definitely_beat/ where there was someone so familiar with a particular novel series 'Classroom of the Elite' but wasn't experienced enough with chess and so made wrong claims about chess based on the novel series (eg 'What happened in the series is realistic.') Thewriter006 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writer006, topic experience isn't of course required to edit WP, and Ixtal's chief complaint is the format of the sec, and the quantity of quotes, which are valid concerns, but her deletion of the entire referenced sec was inappropriate, she was previously advised against this sort of thing by a WP administrator [2] but apparently discounted that advise. Take care, --IHTS (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WOW 1 - not just previously warned -- excuse me -- advised 2 - but still repeated anyway and 3 - it was only a month ago? 4 - Does this sound like the 2015 Wesley So - Var Akobian incident? Or what? Thewriter006 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wait why merely 'advised against' instead of 'warned' ? Thewriter006 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to search contributions for WP:CHESS please? like in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ixtal I'll type 'WP:Chess' in 'Tag filter:' and press search? Thewriter006 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can display changes to all WP:CHESS articles here, or click on Related changes under Tools in the left sidebar on this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles. (I used to inspect WP:CHESS changes regularly, but because it's so broad, found it not so useful. You can mark individual articles to display on your personal "Watchlist" by either editing an article, which adds to your Watchlist, or by clicking the empty star above any article you want to watch.) Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I mean how do I search for contributions for Ixtal's WP:CHESS contributions please? I mean: You said 'paging thru your contributions'. How do you do this? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? Thewriter006 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how that's done, or if even possible. Ixtal's contribs started Sept 2020, so wasn't hard to page thru all. --IHTS (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok thanks. Thewriter006 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually re 'I'm glad you don't think I was acting in bad faith.' The whole Wikipedia practice of this Cunninghama's Law-style of radical edits is in my opinion insane. Without this practice, I would've definitely assumed bad faith/rejected good faith. But ok it is what it is. Thewriter006 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is BRD again? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer random chess has an RFC

Fischer random chess has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow ok you are really into this huh? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsen–Niemann controversy

Please realize that inserting ridiculous claims in the article about "anal beads", by using as sources some anonymous posts on reddit, comes very close to vandalism. Your intentions might be honorable but the practice of reproducing unreliable sources is entirely unacceptable. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question about compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Gnome#Compromise? . It wasn't anonymous. I'm nicbentulan. See my linktree. Thewriter006 (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our personal knowledge or experience does not count in Wikipedia. Article text is based on third-party, independent, reliable sources. No editor can "compromise" by accepting something that lacks the required verification. -The Gnome (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about personal knowledge or experience? Thewriter006 (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I think your edit summaries are often wildly inappropriate, so I'm asking that you read and consider WP:SUMMARYNO. I think your enthusiasm could be a benefit to wikipedia, but I have a very negative reaction to many of your edit summaries. Quale (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

k fine thanks for your honesty. inappropriate comedy than generic inappropriate? XD

wait you're talking about the 9LX page right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fischer_random_chess&action=history Thewriter006 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you think your behavior is funny on Wikipedia then I think you need to recalibrate your sense of humor for this venue. I'm also not a fan of talk page section titles such as Talk:World Chess Championship 2021#'It is. As per FIDE rules, unless you announce adjustment, you MUST move the piece you've touched. Of course it's the responsibility of the opponent to claim it, but it's a violation of the rules nonetheless. This is why I view it firmly as a fair play issue.' What is the purpose of trying to interact on wikipedia like that? Quale (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 - lol k.

2 - You don't have to be a fan. You just have to accept the truth that Magnus cheated Nepo. Thewriter006 (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so what's wrong w/ what I did? Magnus DID cheat Nepo.

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/88625/would-it-be-have-been-unhelpful-for-hans-niemann-to-bring-up-magnus-carlsens Thewriter006 (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil in your edit summaries

You have been asked before, but I ask again: please remain civil in your edit summaries. These two are not appropriate [3]; [4]. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you thought meant morally sucks? Magnus sucks at classical chess960. That's what I meant. However, Magnus does suck morally.

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/88625/would-it-be-have-been-unhelpful-for-hans-niemann-to-bring-up-magnus-carlsens Thewriter006 (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Stylez995 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Chess960 Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spike. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sites not to use as sources

Please don't use social media sites or forums such as reddit, substack, youtube, twitter, telegram, facebook etc etc for references. These sites are user generated, meaning anyone can post anything they like with little or no oversight, therefore they contain a lot of garbage. They may never be used as a source for anything on wikipedia.

Also, please stop gossiping about chess players. This is not TMZ, we have a policy called "biographies of living persons" (WP:BLP) which applies in all parts of wikipedia, including article talk pages, personal talk pages and even edit summaries. Any negative information about a living person must be backed by reliable sources or it will be immediately removed.

In general, note that wikipedia is not a social networking site. We're not here to hang out and talk crap, there are plenty of other sites where you can do that. Unless you are here to build an encyclopedia you are likely to end up blocked or banned. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]