User talk:Ihardlythinkso: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:25, 23 July 2011

chess project

Hello, you might like to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the invite, Bubba! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notability of chess variants

You said that some of the 98 chess variants that have articles are not notable. I agree. I got Pritchard's book a couple of months ago, and if a variant is not in it or some similar source, I think it should be deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree of course. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

variants

To respond to your question at the Dragonchess article, I suspect that other than bughouse and chess960, very few of the variants are played much - especially seriously. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

chess notation

You removed the {chess notation} tag from Scholar's Mate. The convention is that articles that use chess notation for moves have that at the top. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your explain! (I removed it when deleting the static diagram, mistakenly thinking it was part of the diagram.)

The chess notation tag is cool! (Is there a specific spot/link you can give where I can read all about more chess edit conventions like that? Thx for advise.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and its talk page (and archives). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Maack

Oh, it's not a big deal — it's just that when someone's doing a page move in AWB, the only choices of edit summary available in the dropdown menu are "typo in page name" and "reverting page move vandalism". So even though it wasn't really a "typo", as such, that still fit better than the other option did :-)

Anyway, you can view Wikipedia:Article titles if you need assistance in determining the best titles for future articles. I thought it specified the rule for personal names, but I can't find it there — but just so you know, our rule is to use just the name itself, and then disambiguate if necessary by putting the occupation in brackets after the name (i.e. if there were another notable Ferdinand Maack, we'd go with "Ferdinand Maack (doctor)" and "Ferdinand Maack (politician)". Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Illusion

Is Chess Illusion in the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, as the editor claims? (I don't see it in the second edition.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it definitely isn't. (Plus, the inventor on his homepage says he invented Illusion in *2011*.) I think the inventor (Carlos) is maybe too new to understand what "References" section is for, and is simply copying w/o understanding from other variant articles. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's okay if I weigh in on AfD discussion, that it's not just for Admins? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Hey look, there was no need to say what you said in Donald Trump's revision history page. If you didn't like what I did you could have just said so instead of being so rude and insulting me like that. My sources may not have been great but again you could have just said they didn't work. Please take what I said into consideration and think about what you say and how you say it. Thank you. 173.72.93.221 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. And I realize that my edit may have confused you because the vandalism that has happened before. If you would like to help me add the Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell feud to both pages that would be great since that was a big event in Hollywood. Again, thanks. 173.72.93.221 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with your User Page

It doesn't seem to have any of these on it:

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		To Ihardlythinkso for attentive edits to Zaw Htet Ko Ko, Zayar Thaw‎, Filep Karma‎, Nilar Thein‎, and Su Su Nway. -- Khazar (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your articles are fascinating; the governments' responses to protesters are really eye-opening. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and Queen Sacrifice

Thanks, I haven't been editing wikipedia for long and any other comments would be helpful.

Can you assess my work on queen sacrifice I have deleted all of the examples and replaced them with one detailed example. Please Comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaon — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is: Nearly all the changes you've introduced seem very destructive to the article. Please stop! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

float chess notation

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#new "chess notation". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing good work with moving the "chess notation" FYI in the articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! It saves space (vertical dimension) usually, too! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For making the chess notation tag much nicer on many pages. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Bubba. I was trying to undo the damage I had done earlier! ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan Polgar. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You may not settle a dispute by persistently reverting other editors. If you do this again, you will be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of this?: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."

You apparently believe alot in strict policy enforcement, yet you violate WP behavior guide like above! I will complain about you as time permits.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for more eyes on the issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Susan_Polgar_Hiding_in_plain_sight. I am sure you will want to give your opinion --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day, Quick Comments and RfC

The Susan Polgar bit came up at AN/I and I thought to myself, "That name looks familiar". Reading the text, the word "chess" came out, I said, "Oh, yes, I know who she is". I immediately offered to look at the "problem" this editor was having. You'll be pleased to know that I have disagreed with the editor in question. I don't necessarily agree with a couple of your edit summaries (but hey, nobody's perfect, I've done the odd weird one too when someone disagrees with an edit of mine), but I believe your setup is without question the correct one and worthy of my support in the current RfC on the subject of making things like chess problems an exception in the guidelines for WP:COLLAPSE and possibly WP:SPOILER.

Note that as an involved party you may not want to get too involved in that discussion (wouldn't want to be seen as gaming the system), but chess is one of my subject areas and I am able to go to bat on this one. Your method is the best one Wikipedia has available, and it would be remiss if a less ideal method were chosen. Other commenters at AN/I seemed to agree with my opinion, as well, so let's see how the RfC goes. CycloneGU (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I was very impressed by the positive support from you, and many other editors at the AN/I. I agree it wasn't necessary for me to include comments there, but Elen announced to everyone there that my comments were missing. (How can I get that lady off my back? What does she want from me, and how to make her go away?)

The solution of "hide"/"show" for chess problem compositions - someone did it before me, so I can't take credit for the technique, I just copied what they did (I can't recall where I saw it), because I also found it "best". Again I think there was overwhelming support for application of the technique on chess problem compositions at AN/I, and am confused why the editor opened up RfC soliciting input there, which seems redundant and burdensome to me, covering same ground.

User Anthonyhcole suggested that an exception update to WP:COLLAPSE is best, else the debate on use of the technique for chess problem compositions may never go away. I see you closed the issue as resolved on AN/I, which makes perfect logical sense to me too. (But, what do you think of Anthonyhcole's advice?) I agree with you when you also suggest update to WP:SPOILER.

I'm a little at a loss how the controlling editor at RfC has still argued with me that "hide"/"show" on chess problem compositions is precisely the same as WP:SPOILERS, in light of the overwhelming disagreement with that position on AN/I.

I'm also concerned there was been no weighing of opionion from WikiProj Chess members. My guess is (only a guess) the members there don't like the sparks between Admin Elen who threatened me with block, and other aggression, which I spoke up about. Well, I was simply making good-faith improvement to the Polgar chess composition presentation, and was not looking for trouble. She was aggressive and rude and I did nothing to solicit that. But I will speak up if insulted or aggressed. So I did. I have no regret. It is easy to preach total non-responsiveness in response to an irritating, aggressive Admin when one is not the recipient of their abusive behavior.

There are many intelligent comments and editors (including you) who've already weighed in on this in AN/I. So why does the editor open RfC as though the topic is starting from scratch? I really enjoyed the comments from you, Torchiest, Novangelis, Anthonyhcole, DGG, Count Iblis, Swarm, Hullaballoo, Jonathunder, and now Art Lapella and harej on the RfC. But this doesn't seem to be enough for the controlling editor? Even after all their input, and my input on Talk:Susan Polgar, he still is somewhat scratching his head about it. This is very confusing to me, a new Wikipedian never involved in such a process before, because I was thinking consensus was the determinor, not a single editor (currently up for Admin approval) waiting to "be convinced". (Who put him in charge? I don't get it. And that effort seems to require repeated repetition, which has reached a level which tires me. (Another reason I'm happy to be a silent participant.)

Thx again for your message and participation. Apparently (according to Anthonyhcole) the issue has potential to pull off scabs from related debates years ago. However, I totally agree with the comment from Count Iblis, who said one must first think what is best for the article's presentation (and, policies flow from that, not the other way around). Plus as Torchiest pointed out, both SPOILERS and COLLAPSE have big disclaimers on top, saying to deviate when reasonable and best to do so is permitted. (Why is it that the Admin and Admin-wannabe don't see this or understand it? After what seems to me overwhelming consensus? And again, why are they in charge? It's so frustrating.

I only want to improve articles, nothing more. (Speaking of ... you mentioned there were edits of mine you disagreed with. Please tell me, I like to know. Communication is always good and it can only help me understand impact of my changes which am currently unawares. Thanks!)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain the RfC. What Qwyrxian is attempting to do, now that the AN/I has agreed on the presentation (which at this point should remain regardless) is determine whether it is right to actually write in an exception to WP:COLLAPSE based on the result of the AN/I. RfCs are quite common; for instance, I recently participated in one to determine whether bureaucrats should have the technical ability to desysop; this is still a Watchlist notice if that discussion interests you (at my last check, it was 259 support, 29 oppose). So back to this RfC; it's not a questioning of results; it's using those results in a comment discussion at the venue of the policy in question for the exception to determine whether we should write in an exception (that sentence made my head spin). Quite normal. We've determined the presentation that should be used, it's now an opportunity for those at the page where WP:COLLAPSE forms part of their overall guideline to comment on how to accommodate this result. Even if it doesn't sound like it at times.

Also, it's appearing that Qwyrxian will be successful; right now he is 59/6/3, or roughly 87% support with 6 opposes and 3 neutrals all counted against (which I don't think is exactly how they do it, mind). I'll wait a day or two then perhaps post a congratulatory support. CycloneGU (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to comment on the edit summaries bit. I merely meant that a couple of your edit summaries at Susan Polgar were a little less than professional; they weren't downright attacks, but one exception was telling someone blatantly that she knows nothing about chess problems or playing chess. Maybe not with this subject, but with other subjects, such a comment could be taken negatively. Just be careful what you say, especially in edit summaries; they can't be changed at all once saved. CycloneGU (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I read about your disputed with Qwyrxian; I, as you may read, have had bad dealings with him, and I do not think he is qualified to become an administrator; I would like to hear what you have to say about him, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. Diligent007 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 ::Also, it's appearing that Qwyrxian will be successful; right now he is 59/6/3, or roughly 87% support with 6 opposes and 3 neutrals all counted against (which I don't think is exactly how they do it, mind).  I'll wait a day or two then perhaps post a congratulatory support.  [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 14:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 ::I forgot to comment on the edit summaries bit.  I merely meant that a couple of your edit summaries at [[Susan Polgar]] were a little less than professional; they weren't downright attacks, but one exception was telling someone blatantly that she knows nothing about chess problems or playing chess.  Maybe not with this subject, but with other subjects, such a comment could be taken negatively.  Just be careful what you say, especially in edit summaries; they can't be changed at all once saved.  [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
+== Suggest you either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator... ==
+Hi, I read about your disputed with Qwyrxian; I, as you may read, have had bad dealings with him, and I do not think he is qualified to become an administrator; I would like to hear what you have to say about him, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. [[User:Diligent007|Diligent007]] ([[User talk:Diligent007|talk]]) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)