User talk:Ihardlythinkso

“ I was thinking yesterday, in all my life, I have never been so harassed, wantonly smeared, blatantly lied about or otherwise trashed as I've been on this website. Not even nearly. ” — Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

“ The way to avoid 'incivility' is to avoid the triggers for it. ” —  Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fellow workers of INTJs often feel as if the INTJ can see right through them, and often believe that the INTJ finds them wanting. This tendency of people to feel transparent in the presence of the INTJ often results in relationships which have psychological distance. Thus colleagues find the INTJ apparently unemotional and, at times, cold and dispassionate. Because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they do themselves, INTJs often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy. INTJs are high achievers in school and on the job. On the job, they take the goals of an institution seriously and continually strive to respond to these goals. They make dedicated, loyal employees whose loyalties are directed toward the system, rather than toward individuals within the system."
Keirsey, David; Bates, Marilyn (1984). Please Understand Me: Character & Temperament Types (Fifth ed.). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. p. 182. ISBN 0-9606954-0-0.

Userboxes

vn-12This user talk page has been vandalized 12 times.

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

INTJThis user has an INTJ
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

This user has nibbled
The Donut of DOOM

FREE PENYULAP

This user supports the presidency of Donald Trump.

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

No doughnut of doom, but yet and still... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx! Cheers. p.s. Clearly you're not admin, since you're not here to misinterpret, insult, threaten, and block. --IHTS (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You would be right. I appreciated your edit to the Rapid Chess league article (which I got onto the main page as a DYK). And one of my pet peeves about much of Wikipedia is that there are more pokes than strokes. As a group (I know this is a stereotype) there seems to be little appreciation for the power of positive reinforcement. Of course, there are exceptions, and I am living proof. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I also personally created the Dobos Torte trifle, which I bestow upon those I run into who I think are worthy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Danke! --IHTS (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings

Many thanks for fixing the new article Centaur :)

Much appreciated. Sunny3113 (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx for your message. I try to keep in mind that Watson might someday read it. (I.e. got to be clear & logical else Watson will be confused!) ;) Sincere, --IHTS (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

zebra proposed deletion

I'm pretty sure that there must be actual print sources for this and most of the other common fairy pieces, supplementing the CVP; while I've already removed the proposed deletion notice, would you mind searching through your no doubt vast collection of fairy chess literature and adding a few examples, which should not be hard to find? I ask because I don't have access to these at the moment. Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Threeleaper and tripper have also been put under the sword of proposed-deletion (or should that be proposed-Damocles? ^_^); I haven't removed these two notices because (if memory serves) these are far rarer pieces and their names might not be so clear-cut. No doubt you will be able to find adequate sourcing for them as well, and sorry for troubling you with all this. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

These articles are all terrible -- total garbage sourcing, no plausible claims of notability, largely focused on silly questions about what pictures to draw and how strong they are. If the problemist literature (1) is a real literature (with editorial standards of some kind, for example) and (2) contains information that could plausibly lead to actual encyclopedia articles, then I would be happy to withdraw any AfDs or ProDs. But otherwise these should all be culled. --JBL (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I can promise you that the fairy chess literature exists in print, with periodicals like the Fairy Chess Review (offshoot from The Problemist) and the German Feenschach; the FIDE album (FIDE being the international chess federation) also publishes fairies. I would be a poor editor indeed if seven and a half years here had not taught me anything about reliable sources. ^_^ When I get back later today I will look through some of it. Double sharp (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks -- I appreciate that having someone tromp in to an area on which they are not an expert and suggest the deletion of a whole bunch of articles can be kind of irritating, and I'm happy that you and others have been taking it in stride. (Well, mostly.) --JBL (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It is no trouble, JBL; if this is to be a real field, asking for reliable sources is surely among the most reasonable of requests! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Been away. Will need a day to read comments here & elsewhere. p.s. I'm not with the vast ref works you think, only Dickins' book, Pritchard's encyclopedias, VC issues (avail online), Hooper & Whyld OCCs, etc. None of the French or German lang pubs. --IHTS (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

p.p.s. I AfD'd Hawk (chess). --IHTS (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Dickins (Dickins, Anthony (1971) [Corrected repub. of 1969 2nd ed., The Q Press, Richmond, Surrey, England]. A Guide to Fairy Chess. New York: Dover Publications Inc. pp. 51–52. ISBN 0-486-22687-5.) lists numerous books and pamphlets, periodicals, articles and extracts, "exclusively devoted to fairy chess" and "not exclusively devoted to fairy chess", and books, magazines and leaflets "containing fairy chess material". (Perhaps it might be of some value if I copy the lists somewhere. Anyway as mentioned I really only have his book plus the Pritchard encyclopedias.)

It's clear that the camel, zebra, and giraffe (and of course princess, empress, amazon; plus gnu, squirrel and many more) are all established named fairy pieces.

Re centaur, that piece is used in Albers 1821 version of Courier Chess (called "counsellor" per Pritchard ECV and the CVP article by Duniho and Aronson; they elected piece name "centaur").

Re threeleaper, Betza describes a (0,3) piece on CVP of course, there is a dead-link ref to name "threeleaper", there's nothing on it in Dickins, but Dickins defines "fiveleaper" = (0,5).

Re tripper, the Betza ref describes (3,3) "no name" piece but if Double sharp gets "tripper" from other Betza material then of course satisfactory (Betza = fairy expertise).

I don't think "centaur", "threeleaper", or "tripper" warrant their own articles (agreeing w/ Double sharp), but I think "zebra" might (along w/ "camel" and "giraffe", perhaps combine them?).

Re huygens and hawk, I don't see any basis for stand-alones. (The question hasn't been raised whether game trappist-1 added to CVP 28 Feb 2017 by chess enthusiast V. Reinhart warrants a stand-alone, so I won't opine.) Ok, --IHTS (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The empress was the subject of a contest held by Die Schwalbe in 2013 in memory of Werner Speckmann (100th anniversary): link at the Internet Archive.

Noam Elkies taught a course on chess and mathematics, mentioning the leapers as a general class with the camel and zebra as examples; given this I'm inclined to combine wazir (chess), ferz (chess), dabbaba (chess), alfil (chess), threeleaper (chess), camel (chess), zebra (chess), and tripper (chess) into one general article on leapers. Alas it is quite difficult to find any of these online: the closest I've come is the website of Julia Vysotska (one of the selected composers for the FIDE album for fairies), which gives some fairy chess problems as well (hers and others'). In general I think that most of this stuff would be better used to enrich the small article on fairy chess, with the current content in the notable leaper stubs redirected there. The exceptions are probably the princess, empress, and maybe also amazon, since they are so common in both the problemist and the chess-variant traditions. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely support a page for leapers-as-a-group. --JBL (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a brief page on fairies from The Problemist, which reminds me that the nightrider and grasshopper need to be added to the list of clear keeps (very common in compositions). Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Chess

I'm enjoying all the edits you are making to Chess. Lots of opportunities to fix the classic errors!

"Impractical" is not right for the sentence about the 50-move rule. "Practical" was closer, but if it confused even you, it must not have been a good choice either. I'm trying to think of something better (unless you get there first). Bruce leverett (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah I see the problem, but no better expression right now. --IHTS (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I chg'd it to "adequate". (Is that adequate? ;) ) I considered but rejected "satisfactory" (it seemed unsatisfactory ;) ). Let me know what you think. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think "adequate" is a better choice than "practical". But, ruminating about this some more, I wondered if we are being too judgmental here, violating WP:NPOV, etc. Then, it occurred to me to consult the online FIDE rules, and I didn't find any mention of tweaks to the 50-move rule, or the 75-move rule, etc. -- is this an area where the USCF rules are different from the FIDE rules? (Or did I just miss something.) I will look into this some more, probably later tonight. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the USCF rulebook I have at home is the 4th edition, so it is unlikely to be much help. However, I was able to find, in the USCF website, a list of changes to the 5th edition from 2003 to 2014, and a list of changes to the 6th edition since 2014. I can see from these that the USCF has a 75-move draw rule and a 5-time repetition rule. I have not seen anything so far about adjustments to the 50-move rule for particular types of endgames.

I think it's legitimate, in this encyclopedia article, to mention that there are differences between USCF and FIDE rules, and, if appropriate, to spell them out. I would like to help with this, but first I have to get my hands on a 6th edition.

Getting back to the original topic, I am happy with the choice of "adequate" rather than "practical", but I am still considering replacing this part with a bald statement about what's in the rules and what isn't -- once I know what's in the rules and what isn't. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx; logical. I wasn't familiar w/ the 75-move rule, and it still seems confusing to me in relation to 50-move rule. So I'll have to find what you did (on USCF site). Else I've just been manipulating words. --IHTS (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I found this page: [1], which links to the lists of changes I mentioned above.

I think that a handy summary of the 75-move rule is: after 50 moves, either player can claim a draw; after 75 moves, if neither player has claimed a draw, the TD can step in and call it a draw. I think the 5-time repetition rule is analogous.

I know that arguments arise, particularly among U.S. TD's, along the lines of "Why don't we just use FIDE rules?". But there are good reasons for the divergence. Probably at least an order of magnitude more games are played and rated every year under USCF rules than under FIDE rules. The variety of tournament formats and conditions is also much greater. So the existence of (at least) two different sets of English-language rules is probably inevitable. Of course they agree with each other on things like how the pieces move and what is checkmate, stalemate, etc., but beyond that it gets complicated. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Redacted

I redacted the blatant WP:BLP violation that you posted on here. That kind of commentary is way out of bounds.- MrX 11:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You, Mr. X, are one of the most dishonest & underhanded editors I've come across on the WP. You have no basis lecturing me on anything. Get lost and stay off my Talk. --IHTS (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Ummm... yeah. I revdelled your comment. I know things can get heated, especially on political articles, but please don't post stuff like that. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you let others insult/disparage/demonize Trump's character at liberty on that Talk, but stomp down on me only when I contribute equal time? Hypocritical much?? --IHTS (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Ad Orientem?- MrX 18:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand WP indentation, or think I don't. (Or worse, you think I'd ask a Q of someone I asked not to post here. Like I'm an idiot or something. How insulting!) Now beat it. --IHTS (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC

I'm convinced liberals have no ethics. See MrX stalk my edits now! --IHTS (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ihardlythinkso

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ihardlythinkso. - MrX 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

I have moved your response to GoldenRing from the admin-only section. Please tweak as necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American Politics. You may request reconsideration at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard six months after the imposition of this sanction.

You have been sanctioned per this AE thread.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~~~~

Re

"You may request reconsideration at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard six months after the imposition of this sanction."

In your dreams. --IHTS (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but wanted to clarify as another admin has expressed some doubt: the normal avenues to appeal this decision are open to you immediately, if you think the sanction imposed is done wrongly. If you want to have the topic ban reconsidered on the basis of your editing record since it was imposed, you may do so in six months. GoldenRing (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"I'm not quite sure what you mean by that". It obviously means that I'd rather die first than come crawling/begging to appeal. (BTW, I have no understanding of any of what has gone down. If the decision to ban indefinitely was yours, congrats on shedding another productive WP editor.) p.s. Funny how you presume after 6 mos I'll have an "editing record since it was imposed". --IHTS (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Timeless

Raoul - No Reply on YouTube

Topic ban violation

I realized that your edit on my user talk page ([2], [3]) as well as your reverts on Shooting of Kathryn Steinle ([4], [5], [6]) are in violation of your newly imposed topic banned placed by GoldenRing as a result of an WP:AE filing. The topic of undocumented immigrants and the shooting of Kathryn Steinle fall under the topic ban, the latter because Trump used her murder as a talking point in his campaigns as explained in the article's lead. Please be more cautious in the future. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt very much that is correct. And I notice you reverted the Diaz user, and me, not based on content or discussion, on ad hominem false stereotyping of the editor. (I think that's shameful, obviously you don't.) You refused to respond to my simple Q at your Talk, you hypocritcally referred to WP:BRD there, and now you harass me at my Talk. How more unpleasant an editor could you possibly be?? Please don't post here again. --IHTS (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• It's too bad people like us don't get invited to the cocktail party every time they manage to remove a conservative from the American Politics topic area. We really should have learned how to weaponize the Arbcom sanctions the way the 'other side' has. But, until then, liberal admins will continue to ignore the 'civil incivility' and bully behavior as long as it pushes their POV on the project.--v/r - TP 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's abundantly clear what's going on and you are right. What are admins doing about it, or are they (like Drmies) politically inclined to the Left and therefore think this kind of abusive shit is just fine?! Thank you. --IHTS (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yep. The most interesting part is how at least one editor in particular is openly and blatantly committing BLP violations. But, I bet, if I were to bring him up in AE, someone would like to this comment about how I think editors are weaponizing Arb/AP and then accuse us of doing it. You can't even talk about the underhanded tactics of some editors here without being accused of not only doing it, but being the only ones doing it. They harass, hound, gaslight, and bully conservative editors. They claim sources to the right of American center are not RSes and then actively gang up to gaslight conservative editors and claim that policies say something they don't say or ignore policies that don't help them. It's really frustrating. It sucks to see you constantly at the center of it. But, it's like I've told you before. You're not going to win by letting them get under your skin. You have to rise above it. If you want to call someone out, you need to be on your most impeccable behavior. You fell below that standard. Remember, you're always going to have the target on you at AE because you're not a Liberal. You're always going to receive the most critical eye. That's why you have to behave best.--v/r - TP 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop violating your topic ban

Shooting of Kathryn Steinle is clearly within the scope of post-1932 U.S. politics. If you continue editing that article, and especially of you continue to edit war on that article, I will seek for you to be blocked. Feel free to delete this message after you read it.- MrX 17:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Absurd. (I suppose I cannot edit article Taco bowl either, because Trump tweeted an image of himself + taco bowl to demonstrate appreciation of a part of Mexican culture during his campaign!?) Sanctuary cities is a political issue -- the murder of Kathryn Steinle isn't. Your thinking and threat is corrupted and abusive. You were asked to not post here again; you ignore that and post to threaten & intimidate. Fuck off.) --IHTS (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)