User talk:MaxBrowne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hooperag[edit]

Hello Max Browne, In comment to your latest revert on the edits I did to the page on Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, I would like to apologize to you and the whole Wikipedia community for my edits resembling vandalism. However this was not my intention however likely it seemed to be. it has been a few days that the Wikipedia main page is featuring this women's face, and to be frank I am tired of seeing the face of a sick and immoral person every time I visit Wikipedia. I feel pain in this and want to "be the change I wan't to see in the world" as Ghandi says. Anyways I appreciate your loyalty to Wikipedia and determination to fight against vandalism. Please understand where I am coming from with that edit and better yet help me find some way to change the photo on the Wikipedia main page for "in the news". Thanks,

~~Hooperag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooperag (talkcontribs) 02:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


Sammie Libman[edit]

Hi there, I have found a page on her Facebook that talks about a whole bio of Sammie Libman. However, there is no bio on her besides from her Facebook and YouTube whatsoever. I really hope to get this page in working order. Thank you, Sutowe12 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

For wikipedia you really need coverage in independent sources, not facebook or blog posts, and not personally written by the subject of the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The 5 awards from 1914[edit]

You may find it interested to read the article Grandmaster_(chess) and also the talk page. It's a complex issue. SunCreator (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

...for the catch on this one.[1] Usually a Wikipedia footnote follows its source, so I didn't think to check the previous source (though I should've). I've moved the footnote to the end of the paragraph to make it clearer that it covers both of those sentences. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio[edit]

I'm sorry to say I again reverted this edit: [2]. I'll be happy to discuss more on the article's talk page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Following on a discussion of the issue at ANI (you were not a named party there), I've taken a look at the article and just wanted to drop by to explain with regards to your restoration of content that multiple reproductions of material does not eliminate copyright protection in it. Generally, the best thing to do in such a case is to rewrite the content (outside of the cited quote, of course) in your own words so that the information can remain without any potential copyright issues. For more on our local practices regarded previously published tet, please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary[edit]

Hi Max, I'm not sure why you keep edit warring over stuff like this without discussion. I left a note on the talk page specifically addressing this, and stated that in my edit summary that I had done so. Why would you revert without even looking there?

In this case, the Associated Press provided a different translation than the one you want. I'd rather follow the reliable source in this instance, but if you have other reliable sources that back up your translation, I'm personally fine with either. Let's make sure the source gets added to the article, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There's thousands of reliable sources for the "Mother of God" translation, which is by far the most common rendition in English language media.MaxBrowne (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough; Googling both, the "Mother of God" translation appears to outnumber the other around 2:1, and is clearly the better translation. More than the edit itself, I was simply frustrated to see your rhetorical question suggesting you hadn't bothered to look at the talk page about this, and that you hadn't chosen to respond with a source. It'd save some time and reverts if we could simply talk about these things like this, or the copyright violation from earlier today, on the talk page.
If you'd like, please do let me know your thoughts on the rest of the changes. Hopefully this new version is sourced enough to satisfy me and detailed enough to satisfy you, if that's a fair summary of the difference. I noticed recently that this had become by far the most-visited article for WikiProject Human Rights; it'd be a great one to get up to Good Article status down the road if you're interested. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't look at the talk page all that often and I'd rather not have to consult and get into a deep discussion over every single edit. I'm also frustrated, frustrated by your pedantry regarding sourcing. In general I don't like it when relevant information is deleted from an article because of some perceived technical violation of wiki policy. That was a great quote from Feygin, and it was sourced. Why delete it? Why not just reword the other text if you're worried about copyright? Also, I actually consider Pussy Riot to be a more "reliable" source of information on Pussy Riot than most media, including AP. There is a *lot* of misinformation about them out there, particularly in Russian media like RT. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think the difference in our viewpoints is that I'm much less persuaded that a wiki-editor's take on sadomasochistic themes, etc., is relevant information. As for the Feygin quotation, I agree it's funny, but it didn't seem essential enough for me to rewrite those sentences on behalf of the original plagiarizing editor. Sometimes I do this, and sometimes I don't (and you've seen me do both on this article). But when you said you felt it was important, I was willing to rephrase it for you, which you were unfortunately too busy to do in re-adding the plagiarized sentences. I'm doing my best to meet you halfway here.
Anyway, if you won't use the article talk page even when I direct you to it in my article edit summary, I suppose I can keep watching here. When we want to communicate about edits, we can do it here, and I'll put links at the article's talk page. Like it or not, we'll occasionally need to talk to each other if we're going to keep collaborating on this article; you have questions for me and I have questions for you. Nobody's asking you for a "deep discussion on every single edit", but if you're reverting an edit I just made, we obviously disagree, and need to figure out which is better, or some sort of compromise version. Sometimes that's fast (as above), sometimes it's slow, but otherwise the page just turns into pointless revert-warring.
Regardless, I really do appreciate your work on this article. Even if I haven't agreed with all your edits, the more eyes that are on this, the better an article this will turn into. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing in, looking for one more source[edit]

Hey Max,

You know the sources for this article better than I do. Do we have a source for this sentence: "This was at a time when church services were not in session and only a few parishioners were in the cathedral"? A passing IP tagged this as citation needed, and I can't turn up a citation for it on my first pass through Google. Thanks for the help with reorganization, btw. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The video evidence supports the claim that no service was taking place. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be picky... but do we have a video that shows the crowd, too? I've seen the official Pussy Riot video and one from a front row cell phone, but I'm not sure I've seen anything to show how many people were in the church. I'll be surprised if YouTube links will hold up for sources in a GA review, but I'm willing to give it a try. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
ok maybe remove the "few people at the cathedral" claim. Does examining a video and using common sense count as original research? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Depends on the claim. If it's to say one of them is wearing a yellow mask, no big deal. But for a larger detail, it does start to raise questions like "if this is true, and important, why isn't it in any of these thousands of sources"? Is this just a wiki user wanting to make a case of her/his own?
But I just thought of a new way to Google this and got a source for both the no service and empty cathedral: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/the-absurd-and-outrageous-trial-of-pussy-riot.html. I'll add to the article shortly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
not exactly a NPOV article :) MaxBrowne (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
True. =) Somebody might make a case that this is an op-ed. But New Yorker's so legendary for fact-checking even its fiction that I think we're on solid ground. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

PR[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MaxBrowne. You have new messages at Devilishlyhandsome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dates[edit]

Hi Max, noticed this edit summary [3] and just thought I'd explain. I actually have zero preference for whether the article has US or UK style dates; if you feel like the reverse is more country-appropriate, that's fine with me too. I'm simply trying to keep the article internally consistent per MOS:DATEUNIFY. Sorry you appear to continue to find this process frustrating, but I'm grateful for your input to the article. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I started a stub article today on Pussy Riot lawyer Mark Feygin to avoid the direct link to the Russian wiki. Your help would be welcome if you're interested in pitching in--I'm limited to English sources only. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This has been a topic for numerous heated discussions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers, resulting in the current compromise which says to retain the format used by the first editor to add a date. Unfortunately the decision was that WP:STRONGNAT applies only to English speaking countries, otherwise WP:DATERET applies. Like most of the world Russia uses dd/mm/yy. Many people have a strong dislike of the mm/dd/yy format, and in my opinion it is only appropriate for articles with strong ties to the US or Canada (which uses all 3 formats). MaxBrowne (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I hear you. I'm an American, but I set my default reference template to dd/mm as well. I do try to abide by the date policies when I notice a trend in the article one way or another. In this case, I've no personal objection to your switching in the other direction if you've a strong preference. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For being the primary writer in bringing Pussy Riot up to Good Article status. Your work is appreciated! Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FIDE[edit]

Not very much surprised: [4]. So this means that WCF and wcfchess.org are unrelated ? --Askedonty (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess players never talk about the "WCF". The guy's a total kook. http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009383/the-april-fools-prank-that-was-and-wasnt-040413.aspx MaxBrowne (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I knew it was the FIDE so I wondered about the Wikipedia World Chess Federation redirection page. Amazing that the guy really weights the money put at stakes. --Askedonty (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Claim of confirmed sock[edit]

I'm looking for evidence that Elvis lives. Can you point me to the evidence of the claim. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, my post above is suppose to be humorous, but when I read it back I thought it could be misread as harassing. I know your not making the claim, your finding the claim elsewhere and relaying it. So no problems, but just like to track back the source. Thanks! Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_brah. Valeri_Lilov confirmed as Wiki brah sock. Fantasia west inconclusive. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, my apologies. I know you have been overly hassled by some socks in the past. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

suggestbot[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources
ChessCafe.com
Paul Keres
Vasily Smyslov
Titan (moon)
Rudolf Charousek
Chvrches
Cleanup
David Levy (chess player)
Boris Akunin
Morgenthau Plan
Expand
2012 British Grand Prix
LGBT rights in Russia
Frank Anderson (chess player)
Unencyclopaedic
Koror–Babeldaob Bridge
Alexander Khalifman
2012 Malaysian Grand Prix
Wikify
Classified information
José Raúl Capablanca
Comins Mansfield
Orphan
Nadezhda Kouteva
Embedded hypervisor
Virtualization software licensing
Merge
Cyberwarfare
Moleben
Budapest Gambit
Stub
Ginny Blackmore
Vasilios Kotronias
Wilhelm Cohn
Gennadi Sosonko
Roshen
Lawaaris (1981 film)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A little more proof?[edit]

Hey, I declined the speedy. I'm not entirely sure that this is a sock, but I will open a SPI to investigate whether or not User:Hector the Toad is a sock. I don't necessarily think that this was an entirely good faith nomination, but I'm just a little hesitant about deleting the AfD altogether without a little more proof. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

SPI is already opened under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_brah, and I'll be any amount of money you like it's him. It's a bad faith nomination for sure, I am familiar with this user as he's been harassing me for months, and specifically targetting articles I created for deletion. I don't even care if he's right, banned users should not be given the time of day or encouraged in any way. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If it is him, let me know and I'll update my remarks on the AfD. I'm really sorry that you've had to deal with harassment. I notice that he's already been warned about uncivil editing as far as the Chess AfD goes. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Grantham[edit]

FYI, since Hector is banned, you can instantly invalidate the AfD as a WP:Speedy keep, tagging it with {{db-banned}}. I would have done so but I saw you voted Delete. Personally, I'd prefer to see that happen and then renominated if truly problematic -- but I have no stake. --— Rhododendrites talk |  12:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd more or less forgotten about that article, no big deal if they delete it. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

escalate further[edit]

If they go back to2007 they have issues beyond what we can deal with on-wiki. Obviously a sad and lonely individual with no other sourcw of gratification. Sounds like this needs to be addressed at WP:AN/I. On the other hand, the hard thing to do is just ignore it. Blocking has not worked. We are left with revert ignore. Dlohcierekim 13:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate[edit]

This edit seems to be completely inappropriate. Please watch your tone. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

His too. The dispute had nothing to do with him and he used it to take a swipe at me. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate behavior as a response to inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MaxBrowne. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk#IP user trolling on talk pages.
Message added 17:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello gendarmes lie[edit]

Why add information about the group better known as "frenzy of the uterus". "They are not good luck in getting success in the music of fact , psychologically pushed them to commit feat Herostratus", is hidden in the English speaking world? As well as the fact that in Russia they are perceived as bullies and not the Champions of the idea that not allowed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsianen (talkcontribs) 10:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be easier if you write in Russian, because your machine translation is incomprehensible. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Почему информация о группе, более известный как "бешенство матки". А именно то что неудачниц в музыке психологическая травма подтолкнула их совершать подвиги Герострата. А также тот факт, что в России они воспринимаются как хулиганы, а не борцы за идею скрывается в англоязычном мире? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsianen (talkcontribs) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that they are perceived very differently by most Russian people, and I would like to see the differing opinions described in the article. Wikipedia strives for a Neutral Point of View. Ideally, people with opposite opinions should be able to read the article and agree that it is a fair summary of the facts. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Так что же вам мешает увидит в статье разные точки зрения на этих борцов за справедливость. Почему вы боритесь с известными фактами? Почему вместо объективной фразы "Pussy Riot call themselves Russian feminist punk rock protest group" писать "Pussy Riot is a Russian feminist punk rock protest group based in Moscow.". Если вы ответите опять общими фразами, без конкретики, я прекращаю общаться. И буду вас считать агентом какого нибудь FBI или другим ужасным человеком. И расскажу всем своим знакомым что про википедию не врут это действительно аппарат пропаганды а не источник объективной информации.

Wikipedia strives for objectivity, as described in the neutral point of view policy. There are certain words to avoid such as "so-called", which are expressions of doubt. You and I probably disagree about Pussy Riot, but that is not important. What is important is that we agree about the factual representations of the article. The language must be neutral. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of chess grandmasters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | {{sortname|Alexander Al.|Ivanov|Alexander Alexandrovich Ivanov)}} (FIDE)||1965-01-19||||2008||{{RUS}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

TWIC[edit]

Thanks for finding and broadcasting the url for the complete history of TWIC. Thanks also for your other work improving chess articles. Quale (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW[edit]

You've made your point fine on the IB. As well, the other party was handed some rope, and did the opposite of using it to get out of a hole. I'd back away and let nature take its course. DP 10:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I should probably have left that alone. I'm just a little impatient with the lack of action or comment of late. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

IBAN[edit]

Per the AN thread, I am enacting the following:

MaxBrowne and Ihardlythinkso are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

This has been added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 02:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your comments and support at the "WikiProject Shogi" proposal page. I made that proposal quite awhile ago and not many people post comments so I sometimes forget it's even there. Your observations on "reliable sources" "points of view" are interesting. It does seem like some people feel that a source can only be reliable if it is in English. For certain subjects, however, there is often better and more detailed coverage provided by non-English sources. Although there are a number of pretty good English books and websites about shogi, most are dated and only cover the basics. Many websites were created by native Japanese speakers and are based upon their translations of materials in Japanese so the wording and phrasing can sometimes be confusing and occasionally incorrect. There is obviously so much more up-to-date and reliable information written on shogi in Japanese than English, so it seems sort of silly for people discount it all simply because it is not in English. The Japan Shogi Association (JSA), the only shogi organization of its kind in the world, has a website that I would consider to be the most reliable and up-to-date source on shogi that there is. Yet, because it is only in Japanese, some feel that stuff written years ago in English by an author as part of compilation on various board games and which only touches on shogi is more reliable. Since you seem to know a lot about chess, maybe you have heard of Almira Skripchenko. One of the categories she's listed under is "shogi player", but there is no mention of her playing shogi at all in the article. I only know of her because (I think) she participated in an chess/shogi exhibition in France a few years ago with some shogi pros who also play chess, but to the best of my knowledge that is the extent of her "career" as a shogi player. Things like that are some of the reasons why I think shogi needs it's own WikiProject. Sorry for the rant. Please do not let your lack of familiarity with shogi discourage you from participating. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort where we all bring what little we know to the table in an attempt to improve articles. Your experience editing chess articles and getting things done on Wikipedia would be most welcome. Thanks again for the support - Marchjuly (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just though I'd let you know that I moved the "Support" section back to where it originally was because that seems to be where most of the Wikiprojects at WP:WPPRO#Current proposals have it. Also, not sure why but another editor seems to disagree with your editsum and edit and changed "Support" to "Decision". "Support", however, seems to be the word used by most WikiProject proposals so I changed that back too. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
MaxBrowne please ignore the parts of my posts that I have stricken out. I completely misread the diff and mistakenly assumed that the change from "Support" to "Decision" was made by someone else and not by you. Please do not hold any ill will over this towards that other editor because of my mistake. It is totally on me and a silly mistake that they had nothing to do with at all. Really sorry for any problems this may have caused the two of you. The other two were also silly mistakes that need to be corrected as well. Sorry about all of this. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about it at all. I have no difficulty distinguishing between an honest mistake and a deliberate or malicious misrepresentation. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know Almira Skripchenko plays more poker than chess these days.... Anyway I didn't say anything about "reliable sources" in my posts, but I totally agree that reliable sources do not need to be in English. In fact, for information about Shogi, I'll venture to say that anything published by the Japan Shogi Association would be a far more reliable source than anything published in English in a general book about board games.
I'm not really familiar with the procedure for proposing new wikiprojects so if I got that wrong no problem. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Editing restrictions[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MaxBrowne. You have new messages at Marchjuly's talk page.
Message added 07:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

King's gambit[edit]

Just telling you I had no idea this was an april's fool. Sorry about that and thanks for letting me know.--Grondilu (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Flippant[edit]

[5] I don't give a hoot what you think about my "flippant attitude". Harassment is harassment. I have certainly not harassed you at all. You can consider me commenting on you as "harassment" all you want. It isn't, however.

You will delete this post, and I will not repost it to your page. Restoring it would be borderline harassment, but I don't do that anyway. If you think you've somehow declared an IBAN on me in any venue by stating that I am "harassing" you: you are sadly mistaken. Welcome to AN/I. Cheers. Doc talk 03:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your stats say it all - your most edited page is AN/I, followed by your own talk page. You're more interested in getting up in other people's business and treating the site like a social network than building an encyclopedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You are commenting on the contributor instead of the content. You don't know the quality of my article edits at all. You're judging me without considering much. Not a good habit. Doc talk 04:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Let me amend this further. I was a bit unduly harsh with you when you first reported IHTS to AN/I, and I do understand your anger at me for that. I apologize for that. We've moved on now. No hard feelings at all. Cheers :) Doc talk 04:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Kasparovian[edit]

I found Kaspy's 8.Qd3 move variation in the Alekhine-Chatard Attack very interesting but I'm not about to get into a fight about it. If the sentence 'no longer made sense' it would only have taken some small amount of punctuation to clarify it so don't see why you felt the need to delete it. I never delete other editors constructive contributions. But never mind. SmokeyTheCat 14:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ok sorry, it would have been more diplomatic to fix the grammar/punctuation. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Iván Faragó[edit]

I've listed the article at the BLP noticeboard. Know that its not me intentionally targeting the article, I just want some third party input here on the article's current state as it relates to the blp policies here. You can comment at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Iv.C3.A1n_Farag.C3.B3, if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

IBAN[edit]

Max, in regard to Talk:Chess#.22Chess.22_as_.22Chess_variant.22, I strongly urge you to steer clear of threads that Ihardlythinkso has commented in. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My post in that thread was civil and on topic and did not in any way violate the IBAN. And why is it being brought up now one month later? MaxBrowne (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Because I was asked about it much later than I should have been. Look, I know it was civil and all that--I'm just asking for this as a courtesy on your part. A preventative, if you will. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am not topic banned, nor am I subject to an enhanced IBAN like the editors involved in your thread. Sorry but I'm allowed to have an opinion and if someone's got a problem they can take it to ANI. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't poke the bear, though. You being able to participate in the thread while the other editor is getting harangued for interacting with you sucks for them. And it likely played a role in this escalating. You *can* participate. There's nothing proscribing it. But I think there's a value to choosing when not to participate. From a purely tactical standpoint, if you provide implicit support to their argument that you provoked them somehow, a disinterested editor might be more like to say "a pox on both your houses". But more importantly, the drama boards should strive to make getting banned there not feel like a succession of ass whoopings for the editor involved there. We want disruption to stop and sometimes we have to negotiate among ourselves about how to deal with a problem, so there's still drama. But we should all be acting to reduce it. You don't need to post there except to correct egregious errors of fact, which may come up. Even then you could choose to hope that the error would be seen as one in a litany of grandiose claims made by the other party. It's all up to you, but in cases like these, not entering the discussion keeps the temperature of the room low. Protonk (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You're replying to an old thread. I explained the circumstances and exactly why I was pissed off here. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that. But the advice still holds in the discussion which is live now. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You should not be commenting in the discussion about the person you are in an interaction ban with. You have been posting to the ANI thread and are getting very close to a block for interaction yourself. In this post[6] you are clearly refering to IHTS.

I understand you started the discussion but it is now underway and the continued interaction with IHTS is no longer needed. Just stay away from this person to avoid being blocked. Chillum 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that AN/ANI is a specific exception but I'm done for now. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see one exception that applies: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once)

You have made a post on the noticeboard asking for action to be taken, and action is being strongly considered. It does say not more than once though.

Now that there is a discussion taking place and your concerns are being addressed there is no need for you to continue to comment on IHTS.

The exception talks about you pointing out a violation, it does not talk about you making general comments about the users behavior.

I honestly have no beef with you, but I think that fair is fair. If IHTS is going to be blocked for interacting with you then you should not be interacting with him either. Fairness would dictate that you be treated the same.

The spirit of the interaction ban is to prevent you two from interacting so just move onto some other part of Wikipedia and accept that IHTS is most likely going to be blocked and do your best to not join him. Chillum 00:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fortress in the chess glossary ...[edit]

Hello! I see you undid my edit to the "Fortress" entry in the chess glossary, and I totally understand, my edit may not have been the best. However, I don’t agree that “fortress" has only one specific definition. Fred Reinfeld in The Complete Chess Course (page 93) defines “fortress” in this way: “the castled position is the King’s fortress.” Mikhail Tal on several pages and in a chapter heading (including on page 166) in his book Attack with Mikhail Tal uses “fortress” to mean the castled position. Peter Tamburro in his book Learn Chess from the Greats, also uses “fortress” to mean the castled position. Several online sources, including one example from wikibooks (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory/1._e4/1...e5/2._Nf3/2...d6) describe the first 2 or 3 moves of the Philador opening as creating a “fortress”. The definition that you have in mind is of course significant and may trump all others, even Tall’s, but perhaps we should consider that somebody may come to the glossary after seeing the term used in another way. I'm sure someone can do better than my attempt, but it was at least general enough to include other meanings, except perhaps for the Philador opening use. On the other hand, the glossary can't be expected to be responsible for every shard of "colorful language" that occurs among chess writers. Barklestork (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Presumably Tal's work was in translation, and knowing his writing style he was probably just being figurative. I was thinking about endgame theory, positions like White: Kf2 Qb3 Ph2 Black: Kg7 Pf7 Ph6 Re6 where Black just does nothing, and White can't make any progress despite the large material advantage. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Worst simul[edit]

Thanks, I knew the claim was familiar but I didn't remember the details. I'll defer to your judgment whether it should be in the article. I agree that an unknown 17-year-old losing some games doesn't seem very interesting. Quale (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)