User talk:MaxBrowne2

MaxBrowne2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MaxBrowne2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So...

So I get reported for reverting your edits but the same does not affect you... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We tend to be protective when people repeatedly try to insert trivial poorly sourced crap into one of the most important and best-sourced chess articles on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Mind showing me when and where this "consensus" was established? Use the article talk page where I opened a discussion. Quis separabit? 22:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Try searching the archives. There have been many long and tedious discussions. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Photopia

Hi MaxBrowne2, and thanks for your interest in the article Photopia. I refer to both the plot you've added and the edit summary you used here: [1], where you say "not too many spoilers here I hope".

The problem with the plot you have added, and why I have added the 'more plot' tag to the section, is that you don't have enough spoilers. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that is supposed to inform the reader of the entire plot, from beginning to end. Thus, it must contain as many 'spoilers' as possible. It should not contain teasers, like the kind that are typically found on the back of DVD and book covers. Your plot ends with "The narratives are gradually woven together, revealing a tragedy". This is not OK; you can't tell the reader there is a tragedy and then not explain what it is. Please read MOS:PLOT for further information. Freikorp (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Since you can't be arsed fixing it yourself, I have removed the entire paragraph. Well done, you've put me off ever editing that article again. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't fix it myself without playing the entire game again. The tag is supposed to be a friendly way of letting someone who is more knowledgeable about the subject know that the article needs improving. But if that's your attitude to editing Wikipedia I'm glad you won't be editing the article again. Feel free to leave me another hateful message here. I'm taking your talk page off my watchlist as you clearly aren't interested in helping improve the situation. Freikorp (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

First-move advantage in chess

I can live with "weak players." Or "inexperienced" or whatever. I just didn't want to simplify the original wording without justification. I won't complain if you change it. It might be good to get some data as to just for what class of player (USCF or FIDE, technically speaking) the white/black distinction begins to manifest itself. It'll probably be something like "Class C and below", as they don't use descriptive labels any more ... I think. Beyond that, we're just speculating. WHPratt (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Class C" etc is not a terminology used outside of the USA so this should be avoided per WP:WORLDVIEW. If more specific data on when the advantage of the first move becomes more important is available then by all means cite it, probably in the body rather than the lead. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Marcel Sisniega

I notice that you confirmed his birthplace via his daughter and I wonder if she would be able to confirm that he had been a student of Torre. I think chessically a fairly important question. I definitely remember him mentioning the name and I would guess they at least knew each other.