User talk:Ihardlythinkso

Archives
A thoughtful, conscientious editor A philosophy of sorts

“ 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)

Userboxes

vn-11This user talk page has been vandalized 11 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.

This user has nibbled
The Donut of DOOM

McDonnell versus De La Bourdonnais, Match 4 (16), London 1834

Hi Hardly.

Thanks for your all your edits at McDonnell versus De La Bourdonnais, Match 4 (16), London 1834 that I started. They were a great improvement and I shall take them as a model.

New to this. It's satisfying but surprisingly time consuming. I think I might be able to do one or two every now and then as time and inclination permits. I started one on Kasparov versus Topalov at Wijk aan Zee 1999 (the famous combination) in my sandbox but I'm not likely to have the time to complete it for a while. Feel free anyone to take over. ChessMinion (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Minion. You added some great content there, it's a wonderful game, so was a pleasure to do some copyedit on it. Remember, it's quality not quantity, and no time factor either since no one is paying WP volunteers! Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP chess piece icons

The WP chess piece icons have a disappointingly low number of fairy pieces. (Is it possible to somehow get the Alfaerie pieces onto Wikipedia? Is that font copyrighted?) Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find as a font. On the CV comments page, David Howe encourages anyone to put the effort in to making it a font on 9-26-2008. (I could see this working good! Pass the graphics to the WP graphics people to vectorize; it s/ be easy matter to make a font then. No doubt David Howe would approve. But one could write him easily enough at CV.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It's in bad taste and discouraged to remove your own comments after posted on someones page. Completely removing others comments is against policy. You can strike the comment using the strike wiki coding but we need that for records. [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Does this apply to desks, not just User talk pages? Because User:Thumperward removed inappropriate and snide comments made at me at Villiage Pump Help desk, he did not strike them: [2]

He is an Administrator, so he should know about the striking guideline, yes? So is he allowed to remove and not strike? He didn't receive any warning, like you gave me. (When I complained about his snide remarks, his response was [paraphrasing], "What are you complaining about, since didn't you see, I removed those comments??".)

I'd like to understand this. Thx for any help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally yes it does the key difference is that he did a self revert before any responses were made, usually and it's not a written in stone policy once the comment is made it isn't reverted or removed unless it's in bad faith or a personal attack. the only reason I templated you is because you added a section which was then commented on by that person and you removed his commen as well. Once it becomes a discussion we need that for the records. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So is removal then considered equivalent to striking? And does removal before a response is made, exempt someone from the responsibility of making comment(s)? That is what Chris Cunningham conveyed to me then, that he needn't be in a position to defend a comment he removed, because "Hey! I deleted it, didn't I?" That doesn't quite make much sense. If I go around leaving incivil remarks on editors' Talk pages, but remove same before the receivers have chances to respond, I don't think I'd be considered exempt from responsibility for said comments. I think I'd be shown the door, fast! But Chris Cunninham thought it exempted him. (How does that work?)

It's a little confusing too regarding "records", since my removing the entire thread doesn't remove the thread from records, the intact thread exists as a restorable historical version of the page. (The record is there in full context should anyone need access or to restore it.) So I don't really understand "needing it for the records", since no records are destroyed or permanently erased as a result of any delete removal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This explains it in it's entirety [[3]] also the next section as well WP:REDACT Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Chess Barnstar
		Thank you for your support for expanding the knowledge of Chess and board games for the safety and expansion of Wikipedia. Please accept this sign of appreciation and goodwill, for your ways of improving tactics and solving sources for the game of Chess; you deserve it. Keep it up. --GoShow (............................) 21:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank u for the barnstar, GoShow! It's very kind of you. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A hyperbolic chess variant

Look at the bottom of User talk:Tamfang#Tri-infinite hyperbolic tilings and let me know what you think. Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked, I saw, I got hypnotized, and woke up on a beach somewhere ... Seriously, I need a primer on hyperbolas, I guess. (BTW, what is a hosohedron -- was it a misspelling?) There are several spherical chesses in Pritchard's ECV, one by Nadvorney mapped to 2D, and even a complete game quoted between Paul Yearout and the inventor. (Don't know why "from behind" attacks should ruin a game concept, afterall that's extension of real life war on the sphere called "earth"! Anyway that was a motive for Raumschach going 3D -- attacks from above/planes & below/subs.) This is kinda funny in ECV under Nadvorney: "An infinite move or one which does not change the position is illegal." That makes sense!) Please explain the concept behind hyperbolic boards!? (What is it about? It distorts cells? Is something added?) They are cool-looking, of course, but ... !?! (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"From behind" attacks are interesting, but using the normal piece set you only have pawns shielding you on one side! Allowing such attacks (e.g. the pieces are not at the back rank) means that you can never actually get your king safe, and while this is certainly an interesting idea, I personally don't really like using it unless you have back-shielding like in Circular Chess. (Perhaps I'm a conservative variantist?!)

It is also interesting to have a very tangled starting position (à la Racing Kings or Torus Peace Bump Chess), where the two sides are too close for comfort. This may work very well on spherical boards, but you may have to subdivide the faces for the simplest polyhedra!

BTW, do we even need the tiling to be regular? A rhombicosidodecahedron might be an interesting idea. Or we could use a Catalan solid. Or, to make a completely crazy game, a uniform star polyhedron! Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For a hosohedron, imagine a featureless sphere. Draw lines along the meridians, making sure that all the lines are equally spaced, cutting the sphere into n equal slices. The slices of the sphere and the faces of the hosohedron are connected the same way.

But I think a bipyramid might be better now. Simply take a hosohedron and make another line across the equator, cutting each slice into two equal slices. An interesting idea might be to take {2,8} (hosohedron with 8 slices) and cut each slice horizontally into eight equal slices, making an 8×8 board connected in a strange way. Unfortunately it seems that this would be identical to vertical Möbius Strip Chess (vertical cylindrical chess with a1 connecting to h8, b1 to g8, c1 to f8, etc.)

Now I'll try to explain the concept behind the hyperbolic board as simply as possible. If you don't understand anything, please tell me!

On a normal board, you have squares, and there are 4 squares to a vertex. A square has 90° angles and so 4 fit snugly round a corner.

On a hyperbolic board, you still have squares (although you can generalise it), but you have more than 4 squares to a vertex – let's say there are q squares at a vertex. q can be any number above 4, but you can't alternate colours if q is odd, so we'll restrict q to be even. Let's let q = 6 for now. (When you understand the rules, you can extend the rules to any even q. The third picture in that link has q = 8.)

There are 6 squares to a vertex, so each square must have 60-degree angles. We can't really show this on a screen as our screens are flat, so we'll need some distortion:

(The squares are really still squares! They just look distorted, but they are square.)

To examine how this board is connected, let's look at a specific square. We'll use the biggest white square, near the middle of the board.

Let's begin with the simplest pieces, and start with the rook. The rook moves orthogonally, and there are still four squares orthogonally adjacent to our squares.

Now let's examine the bishop, which moves diagonally. On the standard chessboard, each square is connected to only one other square at a corner. But now each square is connected to two squares at each corner! The bishop can now choose either path, but once moving, it cannot change its direction. To achieve that, we must add the rule that while moving, it exits a square by the vertex opposite the vertex it entered the square through. Since its paths can still split, it must also keep choosing the same direction every time the path forks at a corner. (For example, if it started by turning left, it must turn left at every corner. If this is confusing, imagine you are the bishop facing towards the corner, and then ask yourself which square you would consider to be on your left. The same applies to the right square, of course.)

The queen must still be a combination of the rook and bishop, and the king must move like the queen, but only one square.

Non-leaping knights usually move orthogonally before diagonally, so we will think of them this way, although you will get the same moves either way. Since you can't really change direction mid-jump, we'll pretend that it casts a short-term flying spell on itself, glides one square orthogonally, and then one square diagonally outwards from its starting position (it cannot go back towards its starting position), where it settles to the ground.

This leaves only the pawn. It must thus move one (two on its first move) square forward (towards the opponent) and capture one square forward diagonally.

Castling and en passant can now be defined straightforwardly. But deciding on a good setup may be harder, as (1) the hyperbolic board has more space than a normal board (the exact amount of extra space varies with q) and (2) in hyperbolic geometry, you can't put squares together to make a bigger square. Could you think of one? :-)

(I will soon add diagrams.) Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The diagrams won't show squares that the piece can move to but are too far away to see clearly. Double sharp (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Notice that straight lines now appear as arcs of circles! Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. This still leaves some adjacent squares of the other colour untouched by either the rook or the bishop. Should I give them to the rook, or leave them untouched by any piece? But then the king's move no longer can be described as quickly as in FIDE chess. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:166.82.205.115

Someone came on IRC to ask for the edit to be revdeleted. It was also reposted on a couple of other high visible pages. The reposting IP have been independently blocked as well. And oh, I'm a her. -- KTC (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the answer. (And sorry about presuming you were male.) Thanks again for your responsiveness! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Mkdw's talk page.
Message added 07:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw^talk 07:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost no presentation stds

I remember those unfortunate edits at QGD. For some reason I didn't revert them. It's a year ago now so I don't remember if maybe there were some edits mixed in that I thought were of some value and I didn't feel like taking the work to disentangle them, or if I was just tired that night. I think it is justified to revert edits like that. Quale (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Try not to take it too seriously. It's easy for me to give this advice, but I have to remember to practice it myself. I don't always succeed, as Talk:List of Internet chess servers shows. I don't really think an extensive amount of chess project standards is really the solution to this issue. My belief is that the formatting choices of the original author or the primary contributors to the page should be respected, and that formatting changes made only because the drive-by tourist prefers his formatting are nearly always inappropriate. These sorts of edits are already barred when they change national variety of English or citation style, and the principal is exactly the same for other worthless edits like the ones here. I don't think editors who insist on making worthless edits would be deterred by Wikiproject chess guidelines. The more present danger is that WT:MOS will someday decide that chess openings must follow MOS rules for capitalization, even though those rules do not have a very complete intersection with reality. This may seem unlikely, but the recent ridiculous flap over capitalization of a movie title is sobering.

The most remarkable experience I had with this personally was several years ago when one member of the chess project decided that References sections should be renamed Footnotes. He argued that either one was equally acceptable, so he was justified in making that change even to well-developed articles to which he had never made any constructive edits. (Or in fact any other edit than changing References to Footnotes.) By his own argument, since either was acceptable then I (or anyone else) would be perfectly justified to revert. Then he would make the change yet again and there would be no way out of an endless revert cycle. The obvious solution chosen by Wikipedia is to not make the initial pointless change since the article was fine the way it was originally and worthless edits should be discouraged. In this instance there was nothing to be gained by trying to explain this to that moron (although I tried), but eventually he desisted anyway. If he hadn't I suppose I would probably have ended up getting blocked, as I was really struggling trying to deal with that level of idiocy. Quale (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Battleship salvo

The Salvo rule was repeated more or less verbatim in the "Variants" section; I thought I'd leave it there and pare down the rules to just the basic ones, but feel free to move it around if the Salvo mechanic has enough historical weight that we should mention it in the main rules. --McGeddon (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now (in the variants section). No, I think the Salvo rules do belong in the variants section, not the main section. When I opened a section on your Talk, I did a search on "Salvo" and found nothing in the article proper, so I mistakenly thought you eliminated it, sorry. The name "Salvo" was eliminated by this edit, and Salvo is identified only as "a traditional variant". I think the variant should be represented by its name, rather than that vague generic reference. (If you do that I'm happy.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've added an explanation of two different ways in which the salvo results can be announced; I'm only working from a single source here, so you may want to take a look if it differs from how you play it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx. I made italic to be consistent w/ earlier. It's not how I play of course but what's in sources ... I have the MB 1990 Salvo rules, but your source is better than mine. Good job. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, is it listed as a variant in modern edition of Battleship? I assumed it was only referring to the 1931 edition, which I was struggling to find completely clear rules for. I'll see what I can dig up. --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Milton Bradley 1990 rules are pretty simplistic, I couldn't find the link where I downloaded the pdf from, so have copied below, here's all they say:

How To Play Salvo

The SALVO variation of this game is recommended for more experienced players who have become familiar with the basic game. Use the same rules as in the basic game of Battleship except:

• On your turn, call out 5 different shots. As you call out each shot, mark it with a white peg in your target grid. At the end of your salvo of 5 shots, your opponent announces which shots were hits and which ships were hit.
• If any of your shots are hits, change their corresponding white pegs to red pegs on your target grid. Your opponent places red pegs in the holes of the ships that were hit.

  Example:
  You call: "E-3, F-3, G-3, H-3, I-3."
  Alex answers: "F-3 is a hit on destroyer. H-3 is a hit on cruiser."

• Whenever any one of your ships has been sunk, you lose one shot when you fire your next salvo. The more ships sunk, the less shots you get.

  For example, if 1 of Alex's 5 ships has been sunk, he must call out only 4 shots on his next turn, instead of 5.

  For a more challenging SALVO game, don't disclose which of your ships have been hit.

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being such a stoic believer in process and procedure. Your love for all things bureaucratic is inspirational. Keep up the great work! Ha ha. Stalwart111 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the good spirit (& humour) clearly intended. I believe in things that work. (WP is too dysfunctional, that when it works, it is accidental & fortunate. Mostly however, the Pedia does not work. Proof is loss [& general pissed-off-ishness] from many content creators, including loss of some of the best, e.g. Malleus, who was even labelled a "non-Wikipedian" by a member of the bereau, which magically turned a Request for Clarification request into a motion to sanction/ban. If I can be considered to be a non-Wikipedian [like him] --- it would be the greatest ongoing compliment I can imagine.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. "Editor Retention project" ... what a joke. (What did they learn, or do different, after the loss of Malleus? Nothing. They are proud to just pontificate there, as though they somehow benefit the Pedia. [Malleus even gave a free "exit interview" there with his recommendations, which were summarily ignored, and everyone went back to their pretend playpen "activities".] Talk-talk-talk. It's one thing to think highly of oneself, and it's quite another to have rational reason to do so. Take a look at some of their content contribution histories. The highschool hallways are filled with civility monitors, and that's all that will be left with the current flight path ... except a lot of gray goo too.) /* End of Rant */ Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The occasional rant is worthwhile. The current ArbCom business is a giant cluster-f*ck that helps no-one, improves WP not at all and just generally makes everyone involved look bad. I wonder if they realise how disappointed usually non-vocal editors (like me) really are? I avoid the "drama" as much as humanly possible and am usually content to watch from the sidelines. I will for this one too (probably) but I can't help feeling like I'm back at high school watching the idiots chant, fight, fight, fight. *Sigh* Stalwart111 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But your User page says you enjoy contributing at ANI. (I haven't looked at any of your contributions there, so I don't know. But note this, by User:SandyGeorgia 31 Jan 2012: "The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized.") If you like to avoid drama you should boycott that place. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A contradiction of sorts, though I'm not sure I've said I "enjoy" it. By "drama", I mean the "politics" of WP; Wikipediocracy, IRC, cabals, ArbCom rubbish (though I voted; actually prompted by the Malleus business). I just see WP:ANI as a bureaucracy-fest. Useful sometimes, often not, but really something not to get all that excited about. ANI is an issue, but it's not the issue. Stalwart111 06:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "bureaucracy-fest" imply structure, order? (It's a chaotic cesspool there. First person to announce "BOOMERANG!" wins. An abusive, dumbing-down mindset.) It's nice to hear you're interested and/or involved in contributing to cleanliness (anti-rubbish), but that job is too big for one human. And "civility" (spotting bad words) is the least problem with civility. (Underhandedness and dishonesty is the true incivility, and that's harder to identify or deal with. So WP doesn't. Here is WP's message: "Wanna lie? Wanna falsely accuse? Go ahead. As long as it doesn't interrupt the building of the encyclopedia, it has no ethical content or weight." A "civil, collaborative environment"? Really? With ethical blindness? Does not compute, Will Robinson!) But I really wish you luck in any/all your reform efforts. (It is a noble cause me thinks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm no reformer! I just have no desire for adminship. Ever. So I can get my hands dirty occasionally fighting the POV-pushers and promo-spammers knowing I won't one day have to account for it answering Q3 at RFA. Agree with your assessment of ANI, for the most part. Stalwart111 12:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. (Who wants to be a hall monitor? The purpose of the encyclopedia is the articles. Content is king.) The best Admins don't let Adminship go to their heads. But that's a tricky business, and takes a superior person to resist the temptation. Take Dennis Brown for e.g. He has constantly reminded us that he is "the last [Admin] to block", which in reality, whether he is conscious of it or not, is a constant reminder [read that threat] that he does have the ability to block, and should he decide to use it, doesn't want to be questioned or countermanded, so the constant reminders are a way to make that bed. But it's so transparent it's silly. The reminders of "I'm the last [Admin] to block" is really waving a club around, indirectly demanding others do as he says, else he will block, and then, what will be left of the poor soul who is blocked, because afterall, he was blocked by "the most lenient Admin of the bunch". Like I said, it takes a superior person to avoid the temptation of power abuse, and not wielding the power, but proclaiming to have it to wield should one decide to wield it is ... less abusive? Aaron Nimzowitsch said "The threat is worse than the execution." I think you're on the right track and wish you luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the good wishes and, of course, the cordial chat. Stalwart111 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. User:Quale is a totally good guy at the ProjChess for many years before I even knew what "Wikipedia" was. (Intelligent, thoughtful, careful, patient, fair-minded.) So when he shows a human side of patience break-down and a bit of incivility, you know something is really bad. As newcomer to ProjChess, you couldn't know that context. I think it is important. (More important than "civility breach", since, it runs deeper and telltales more substance.) I disagree with the artificial enforcement of civility breaches around here ... they are usually just excuses for an Admin to block someone they don't like. Admins seem to have not a clue as to the distaste they generate in content contributors, and many have left as a result. And I know I'm resentful toward a lot of it. (I enjoyed reading Malleus, and now, he's gone. Whoever is even partly is to blame for that, won't find kind words from me.) It's been pleasant meeting you too. Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Hi

Look, there's no need to carry on with this. I just wanted to point something out though - if you don't want me to post at your talk page, that's fine. But you can't unilaterally decide what I may or may not comment on at other venues. If you're going to make sarcy comments on other editors' talk pages you've got to be ready to take a few back. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Basalisk, that is superbly hypocritical, and let me tell you why ... Herostratus was making sarcy comments on Malleus's User talk, and, consistent with your value system, I gave him "a few back". Yet, you took that, as an opportunity to attack me. Pure hypocriticality from you, Basalisk. Regarding my request that you cease interfacing with me, it was totally reasonable, as I do not want any trouble with you. But if you insist to cause me trouble, I'll be in your face, and, I really don't want to do that. (That is why I suggested, that you ignore me and don't put messages to my attention anymore. Your message on Malleus's Talk was to harass me, and nothing more. The content of what you had to say was void.) I know you haven't gotten over my criticism of Dennis Brown, who nominated you at your successful RfA, and feel necessary to be against me whenever possible, as some sort of revenge harassment. It's so shallow. I say: drop it, and please go away. You are an Admin, and should rise above harassing the content contributors. Malleus has already left a sad wake on that end, and, I'm not 1% the contributor he was, I am not comparing myself to him. But the shit flying around this place is the same for everybody, the environment here is full of it (pun intended). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

IHTS, this idea of yours that I have some sort of vendetta against you is absurd: I have interacted with you on a grand total of two occasions; the first time to refute your unreasonable demand that admins be compelled to admonish all bad behaviour they encounter, and the second time now.. I don't know why you keep raising the point of me being an admin; I have never taken an administrative action against you and the A word doesn't need to be an issue in every conversation I have on Wikipedia. I'm still a normal person with an independent opinion, regardless what toolset I have access to. A spade is still a spade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't stick words in my mouth I never said ("vendetta"). You make me out like some kind of paranoid freak. You are human, you butted your nose where it didn't belong and where you were not invited, and seeing that it was in my conversation w/ Dennis Brown where I was being critical of him, and you are a new Admin he nominated at RfA ... well, I'm not stupid. And as human, you're only oh oh so capable of defending the one who carried you to Admin, and of holding a grudge, which explains your unnecessary and tacky attempt to defame me at Malleus's Talk, it is ever so common, and pointless, and needs no "vendetta" dark & scary. I don't see that you and I have anything to talk about really, you have initiated all conversation with me, I find you insulting and harassing at Malleus's Talk, and a nuisance in other places, so, why can't you just leave me alone? You're a mere 34 percent content contributor, and I'm not entertaining any insults from you, such as that I'm inconsistent with my Userbox message, when you yourself have shown big hypocrisy as already pointed out. Is your purpose as an admin to drive me away as content contributor?! Then do me a favor and show me otherwise, by leaving me alone. I don't see any purpose to this conversation, if not to harass me and cause trouble. (What then? We have no business together, do we?) "A spade is a spade" and that has to do with what exactly? I have no need to be lectured with tautologies. "What was, was. What is, is. What's gonna be ... is gonna be." (Archie Bunker.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a hint Basalisk, I asked you on your user Talk to leave me alone period, and what do you do? Open a thread here on my User. GO AWAY. You have no credibility with me, you've earned that. I want nothing to do with you. Go away and don't come back. And address no comments my way either, the last ones were tacky and unnecessary. I have no interest to converse with you about anything. You don't contribute much to articles, but you contribute to the shit environment at WP. Sorry but I have no respect for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. More insulting comments from you: "absurd", "bizarre". Go soak your head, Basalisk, and leave me the hell alone with your harassing, tacky crap. How many times does it take to understand that I'm sick of your harassing comments and want nothing to do with you and want you to leave me alone el permanent-o?!

Having trouble keeping your word and following through? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that's another tacky, shitty thing you did, in your edit summary, falsely accusing me of "following you" as though a stalker. Tacky. Shitty. I gave you a point-blank direct message, to your User talk. Apparently that was too simple for you to understand?! More attempt to manipulatively and dishonestly defame me. You use WP to harass, and you are an Admin. What a shining example of Admin you are! Just go away. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

More of your hypocritical crap, compare:

I have interacted with you on a grand total of two occasions; [...] Basalisk

and:

Another constructive comment from a long line of constructive comments by IHTS right there... Basalisk

Just go away with your manipulative, defaming crap. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of the closet

Just in case you missed it, you have now been accused of racism as well. Welcome to the club! Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And to think, East Indian (food/restaurants) is my favorite! (But I guess, that doesn't get me a free pass from the finger-pointing "Racist!", huh?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Calling people "uneducated" is a personal attack. Comment on articles at AfD, not nominators. Consider this a warning. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, "uneducated" means "ignorant of Wikipedia policies and guidelines". WP:AGF says, "It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules", which is obviously not a personal attack. I don't see a problem there. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You're free to see it any way you please, but he didn't say "ignorant of Wikipedia policies", he said "uneducated", and that's not ok. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Toccata. It's obvious what's going on here, but it's nice to receive supportive comment when being picked out for harassing threats & warning. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Nothing wrong with it in the context it was used. @Basalisk - from the interactions above you are clearly not the most suitable Admin. to offer advice and warnings to this particular editor. You are too WP:INVOLVED. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Leaky. It's clear I've pissed Basalisk off by my past responses to him, and now he's actively looking for anything possible to use as justification for a revenge block. (How shameful.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• No need for tears, I never mentioned a block and obviously wouldn't block an editor I've been in dispute with. Just a reminder about the policy on personal attacks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Go away and leave me alone, Basalisk. You've been continually harassing me here and elsewhere. I want nothing to do with you, as repeatedly told you. Go away forever, please. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

According to you Basalisk, it's "not okay", it's a personal attack, to use word "uneducated" in context of a newbie's knowledge of WP policy, procedure, and practice regarding an unjustified stream of spurious AfD nominations of British chess players; but, apparently, it is okay for him to (in chronological order): state I'm "lazy and pompous" [4], accuse me of masterbating: [5], to comment that my "personality traits" show that I am a "hypocritical blowhard": [6], and to call me an "idiot": [7]. (So, Basalisk, I see you have, on your User talk, assured User:OGBranniff that "Ihardlythinkso" needs "direction"; however, User:OBGranniff's behavior, the personal attacks here and elsewhere, go uncommented on. That's just superb showing of Administrator discretion, that!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I hate to get involved in anything at ANI, and I know you've had some bad experiences there. What I see generally at ANI is that editors who care about WP and actually work to improve it get sanctioned if they slip up, usually for some for ticky-tacky civility breach, while editors who cause nothing but disruption get a free ride seemingly forever. It seems that the supposed ignorance of the rules gives new editors and troublemakers a pass, while those who actually try are punished because they are supposed to know better. Anyway, we'll see if the warning that resulted will lead to any changes in behavior. As much as I really, really dislike going to ANI, I won't hesitate to do it again if he gets out of line in the future. And I won't wait as long. The first problem I see, I will report it. Quale (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Quale. I have observed the same pattern. Admins are extremely conservative to block any newbie troll, allowing vandalisms to continue way beyond the pale before anything is done. On the other hand, if *I* so much as irritate (or annoy) an Admin, out comes the block gun, it gets waved under my nose. Too many Admins have shown me they're totally insensitive (uncongnizant) to the effect their misuse of the strong-arm can do, they apparently think they can do no wrong or their Adminship gives them a free card to forget any responsibility re the damaging effects of threats on a proven content contributor. (Because afterall, they got irritated, didn't they?!?)

Let me tell a quick story because it was extremely instructive to me ... In high school history class, the teacher decided to setup a debate between two students about Julius Caesar, whether his execution was justified, or whether it was murder. I was assigned to support the case it was murder; a fellow student was assigned the side to support the execution was justified. We had a few days to prepare our cases. A moderator was selected too, and given the job to stand in front of the class behind a podium between the two debaters, to control things so each side was given equal time. That was her sole job, to maintain a fair debate. When the debate day came, she had a pretty dress on and looked great, I image because she knew she'd be on display in front of the entire class, and she was entrusted with controlling authority. Okay. The debate proceeded. I guess I was making a pretty effective case, because, 2/3 thru the debate, to my astonishment, the moderator turned to me and said, loud enough for the class to hear it, and shaking her head while she said it: "It *wasn't* murder, [Ihardlythinkso]."

I was floored! (The "objective" moderator, took a side! And announced her opinion to the class! [Who would be the !voters re who won and lost the debate.] She was so overcome by her own feeling and opinion on the matter, she couldn't resist expressing her view! When her single mission was to maintain objectivity and simply control time used so the debate would be fair! I was so stunned, being told in front of the class that my side, my case was "wrong", that to this day I don't even remember what happened next [how the debate continued, and whether I won or lost]. I think I went into "shock" at her abuse of her position. And, the teacher said nothing when it happened, equally stunning.)

Moral: It's no different here at WP. An Administrator is entrusted with certain authority, power, and they often immediately proceed to misuse and abuse it -- just like the pretty debate moderator. (Actually, she lasted thru 2/3 the debate, before succumbing.) Why is this a temptation? Why does power corrupt? Maybe just having power, is pressure. ("Why do I have this power, if I don't use it or threaten to use it?") Or maybe they assert it, to remind themselves, by reminding us, that they have it, because that somehow reminds them they are special to get it, and revisiting their achievement is somehow self-satisfying or at least pleasant. Whatever, I don't know. But this I know: power corrupts not only absolutely, it corrupts quickly. And it takes a superior person to be aware of and resist the urge, the pressure, the tempatation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Monty845's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for the delay in responding Monty₈₄₅ 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies thread

• Ihardlythinkso, you may know that OGBranniff asked for my opinion on some edits of yours pertaining to him. I am going to be brief but to the point, and hopefully clear. Leave him alone. Unless I'm mistaken, he's stayed away from you, and you are going to do the same. It seems to me that you cannot get near his edits without taunting and baiting, and I can tell you that this will not lead to more trouble for him but more trouble for you. Now, if OGBranniff is doing something explicitly directed at you, you may speak your mind in one of two ways: you can drop a note on an admin's page (like mine or Monty's, with whom you seem to get along), or you can start an ANI thread (in which case you'll have to be very careful for that boomerang). I don't want to have to go get an interaction ban for you from the Administrator's Noticeboard, so let this informal note suffice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify what you mean exactly, "leave him alone", because, I've never sought out User:OGBranniff in any way, shape, or form. I have responded to what he has initiated on User Talk, Project talk, and AfDs. He has also lobbed many, many name-calls and personal attacks, against me (including accusing me of masterbating [8] when I disagreed on a point of policy with him, calling me "hypocritical blowhard", "kid", "junior highschooler", "dense" [several times], "stupid", and "idiot"). I have not followed in suit, never returned the insults or names, though, I am resentful of the insults and personal attacks. (Would you like the diffs?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, did you see the riducule of me by User:OGBranniff on User:Basalisk's User talk? (Where he lamented the fact I appeared to be "so stressed", and suggested that I need to take some "anger management" class, or some such insult/ridicule.) Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot, and you have not noticed. No one forced User:OGBranniff to register those ridicules, he chose to. I have never made any riducule in any of my edits toward User:OGBranniff. I have been totally serious in all of my edits regarding or in reference to him. Perhaps you should warn him to quit with the name-calling, quit with the personal attacks, and quit with the riducule of me, rather than what you are doing, which is to somehow protect him, and warn *me*, and, for what exactly? How is it that you accuse me of taunting him, when I only ever asked him dead-serious questions in dialogue with him? How is it that you missed the taunt on User:Basalisk's User Talk he made of me? I would like specific answers please, not more warnings and threats. (Regarding ANI, I despise that place, with good reason. Please don't suggest I will or should go there, because I never will. It is a cesspool of irresponsibility, and I reject it out of hand. Many top editors agree with this view of ANI.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, somehow User:OGBranniff got your sympathy, for you to warn me vaguely, and your warn of me, seems to be a vague warning, that should I reply in any way to any argument User:OGBranniff says in any Talk space, then you will interpret it as "taunting" and "baiting" and since I have been "warned", block me. That is strictly unfair, and absurd, and resembles stuffing a sock in my mouth as far as engaging or offering any argument or discussion contrary to what User:OGBranniff might like. Please look again at your instructions for me. As I already told you, *all* of my edits in reply to what User:OGBranniff has initiated, have been dead-serious (with the one exception, a humorous response on User:Basalisk's page regarding OGBranniff's ridicule of me, that I require "anger management"). I do not taunt or bait. But I do expose false argument as false. If having one's arguments shown false offends User:OGBranniff, where he needs to go crying to an Admin to ask "can't you tell that guy to leave me alone?", then it is in essence his asking you for a free pass to say whatever absurd thing in argumentation at Wikipedia he wants, without any counter or objection. (And just take a look at some of his AfD nomination justifications - most of them contain absurd assertions. For example, a well-respected British professional poker player who has written several books on poker, in the AfD, User:OGBranniff stated the article subject was not notable, and wrote books that "no one has bought". I asked on the AfD, what basis User:OGBranniff had for saying that? [9] Was that question a taunt in your subjective esitimation? Was it a bait? If you have accepted OGBranniff's crying to mommy and want to protect him from further objection to his claims on Wikipedia whatever they may be, then perhaps you will say my question was a taunt and/or bait. Do you? If you do, you are as wrong as you can be. The nominator of an AfD claiming non-notability cannot be questioned for statements like that, that he makes? Since when? Since when is that baiting or taunting, to raise such a question that I did? I don't get you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I for one don't need to go running to mommy, should User:OGBranniff say something to my attention that is harassing, defaming, name-calling, a personal attack, as he has already done numerous times already. Therefore, I won't be running to your User Talk, or Admin Monty's User Talk, to cry and ask you to go do something against that bully who was so mean to me. (And even if I did, I'd have egg on my face, wouldn't I, should the Admin I go to for intervention, decide to do nothing?) Running off to an Admin to cry is nothing more than a mini-ANI, and it seems to me, canvassing also, for a desired agenda. Sorry, but I do not operate like that. I wouldn't do that. I won't do that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd really like answers to all the stuff above. Rather than receive vague threats and warnings. My time has already been stolen from editing and improving articles, or working to create new ones. (How do you define "disruption", BTW? Not this?!) If User:OGBranniff is uncomfortable answering questions or challenges to his statements and claims he has made as a result of questions from me, perhaps he should examine his statements and claims for reasonability, because many of those have been baseless hyperbole and clearly simply inflamatory. Or perhaps he should just respond with not responding, or respond with "Thanks for the question, but I won't be responding." That would be just peachy with me. He has the freedom to do that. I can respect that. But to go off crying to mommy because he looks bad or is made uncomfortable by a reasonable question to some something from him (argument or claim) that was outrageous and indefensible, ... what is it exactly we are protecting here? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute the semantics of "leave him alone" to you--I though it was plain English. If, as you think, a large group of editors at the Chess project have a problem with him (I'll just pick on one item from your extensive messages), start an RfC/U. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But the matter is not whether what you wrote is intelligible, but rather how unassailable it is. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, please stop being crass. 1) I *have* left the trollish newbie alone (previous to, and without requiring, your direction to do so); and 2) I am not the one who would ever start an RfC/U. (I've only looked at one RfC/U, conducted by User:Guy Macon against some engineer editor, and, it wasn't pretty, it looked like a chaotic, abusive pile-on to me. I really don't know RfC/U beyond that look-see, so perhaps am speaking out of school, but really, is it any different from a glorified ANI? [Irresponsibility and abuse. A free-for-all.] I doubt I would ever start one, or particpate much if anyone else did. Maybe 5 words max. Just because Wikipedia has these "venues", does not necessarily impart to them fairness, reasonableness, or acceptability. WP is filled with dumbing-down templates and packaged thinking, cultural replacements for independent reflectivity, and quite frankly, I didn't sign on as WP editor to sacrifice my own healthy thinking and self-respect for the likes of that. [If templated thinking & the virtues of existing venues is a requirement to be a WP editor, then I'll immediately resign. WP needs radical structural change, and for what it's worth, needs to put a collection of the top 10-15 content contributors in charge. Then WP will be a more sane & respectable editing environment, and the best-ever encyclopedia will have no barriers to its growth & maintenance.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. You're probably right about the RfC/U. But I'm just not the person to start it. (I should be probably, but unfortunately, I'm not. It's just the way it is. Thanks for your understanding, truely!)

I don't know where I was crass: I had no intention of crassness. RfC/Us aren't always productive, and they don't by themselves decide on blocks or bans, but they can lead to one. They don't have to be abusive and chaotic. Yesterday I closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Morriswa, both of which went fairly politely. "Templated thinking" and all that is an unfortunate side-effect of our size. Creative solutions are great, but that might well mean that in cases of dispute one single administrator/power player could render verdict: surely you wouldn't want, say, someone like me to creatively intervene here since that might not be in your favor. (Note that I have not blocked anyone.) An RfC/U can be taken to WP:AN and be the next step toward, for instance, a topic ban or even a site ban. They are a much better vehicle for dealing with patterns of disruption, which is what I think you see in your opponent (or vice versa, for all I know), than is ANI: that's for single incidents, or for a very small set of incidents. It's a possibility. I don't encourage you to start one right now: I think (both of) you should (continue to) disengage--the parenthetic modifications are because I do not wish to presume what's going on right now; I got other things on my mind (the kids are fine again, thanks). Best, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll read that RfC you linked. I got my impressions of chaos of RfC/U from reading the one I mentioned, it was nasty, it was abusive. Then, at a later point, User:Guy Macon, who's since been a nice guy and voluntarily disengaged from harassing me, threatened me with RfC/U. And User:OBGranniff went to Admin Basalisk's Talk, and proposed RfC/U against me. I don't like or respect Basalisk. And there are several others I don't like in this big place. There are many I do like. So the only logical conclusion is, Drmies, that RfC/U is BS. All your enemies will show up. Simply and only, because they don't like you. Well, I don't like them. So do I respond tit-for-tat, and threaten them with RfC/U? No. That is participating in the shitty environment that has evolved at WP, which, I reject. So for me, RfC/U is meaningless, and tacky. A ganging-up by people who don't like you, and used as a club to intimidate, when the wielder, full of bs. I can name, I suppose, one dozen editors I don't like, that don't like me. (And that's more than enough to do an RfC/U with, right?) One of them opened an ANI against me once. And who showed up to comment? Who were invited to the abuse-fest? The other distinct editors on the list of those I don't like, who don't like me. But ANI has it's own independent problems (an atmosphere of irresponsibility, where it is a collection magnet to meet editors in future you will not like, e.g. for me most recently, Magog the Ogre). The processes at WP stink. Does an RfC/U have a moderator? No. Does ANI have a moderator? No. Do they have screens to filter out misuse as a retaliatory "I'll-get-you" device? No. (Or even a screen to filter out wrong venue? No. E.g. I've seen numerous Admins say ANI is to be used as last-resort after other DR vehicles have been exhaused, including going to a user's Talk to discuss a complaint with them. But in reality, countless ANIs are opened and processed as first-resort, and again, as a retaliatory club to wield for some perceived offense, often trivial and exaggerated. Even Admins have been guilty of this.) They are abuse-fests, and that is why irresponsbility has grown there like bone cancer. When you say they don't "have to be" that way, I'm sure you're right, but, it isn't any comfort. Thank you for your comments, I know you're trying to be helpful, I appreciate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I read everything at the Darkstar1st RfC/U you linked, including discussion page. It was very unsettling. (Four maybe five users clamoring for a topic ban of Darkstar on all political articles, three editors [you, Collect, & North] drawing conclusion the RfC/U was "narrow, partly malformed or misguided". At one point Darkstar mentioned his experience with contacts having lived in Budapest through WWII, and in response an editor jumped in to unfairly accuse him with [essentially] "See? There he goes again, equating communism with socialism" when Darkstar's statement did nothing of the sort. [Was there a moderator calling an out-of-line low blow? Nope!] There was also a pissing contest about a Checkuser run on Darkstar, whether it was warranted or not, and the credibility of the requests and how they were made, in addition to a suggestion that the Checkuser evidenced an unstated agenda against Darkstar. There was testimony, not refuted or even objected too, that Darkstar had been subjected to lots of nasty stuff at the article Talk, and that he never replied in kind. On the discussion page, Darkstar politely said he would avoid TFD in future, which seemed appropriate due to the entrenched attitude against him by that user.) This is your example of an RfC/U that "doesn't have to be abusive and chaotic", and is an example of one which "went fairly politely"?? Man! If anything this RfC/U bolstered my impression at the drama-filled emotional & psychological violence of that forum. A witch hunt. p.s. I don't understand everything that I read in that RfC/U, which is probably normal for being relatively unacquainted with them, for example, why an editor taking the position of advocating topic ban, would !support/endorse an outside opinion by editor making the case that the RfC/U was a content dispute and didn't belong. (Confusing stuff like that.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

ICCF champion

Hi, I have a quick question. I just wrote this very stubby article on David_Taylor_(Chess_Master). Taylor is a former ICCF champ and the author of the only book on the Ponziani opening that's in print right now. I actually know Taylor personally and have studied under him a bit. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and suggest improvements and how to better source it. I figure an ICCF champion is inherently notable. Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He was the 7th US Correspondence Champ, not "ICCF World Champ" (see ICCF U.S.A.#The US Correspondence Chess Champions). I think it's a significant achievement, but WP notability & RSs are a different matter. You've got "Chess Master" as part of article title, co-author Kieth Hayward is described as FIDE Master and Correspondence IM in the Ponziani book, but no title given for Taylor (other than former US Corr Champ). I haven't done research on Taylor, I'll try a bit time permitting. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Taylor never had a published USCF Masters rating. According to his blog his highest correspondence rating was 2538, but it wasn't permanent ("fixed"!?). I'm not sure what his ICCF title was. Are you still in touch with him? (He might know best sources for RSs after winning the 7th USCCC. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can email him for more information. I thought he had an ICCF title from his days as US Champ. I know that Taylor doesn't have a FIDE or USCF title (he peaked at about USCF 2190 or so) but ICCF titles are still "titles" in the chess world, right? Then again, I really don't have any personal knowledge about ICCF titles. OGBranniff (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, why are the ICCF USA champions not listed by year but rather in numerical order? Any idea? OGBranniff (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He may have had an ICCF title, but I don't see him mentioning it. Terms were different then, you might get a lengthy explanation back. The ICCF-US website isn't very helpful to help understand. (I'll take a guess the reason championships aren't listed by year has something to do with that qualifying matches and their playoffs each take multi years to complete, so they're overlapping. But even then the year qualifying matches start could be a way to identify them, they seem not to choose to do that, I don't know why, I'm sure Taylor could shed some light.) In any event, your article should be moved to "David Taylor (chess player)" to fall in line with other player bios.

p.s. When a postal player I once faced a Ponziani, if I remember right it was in my game with Corky. I had a real hard time with it as Black--tactically complex--and ended up with a lot of respect for it. I see Corky is now a a Director. Too bad the draw in Taylor's 13–½ result was his only Ponziani, but I played over that game, White had chances, players castled 0-0-0 and it was in no way boring. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OGBranniff, I was going to help you work on the David Taylor article, after you had moved it to David Taylor (chess player). I see now that Quale has done that. But now, you're blocked (not banned, there is a difference; you can appeal the block if you satisfy what the Administrators ask of you). I'll putz with the Taylor article, he is a good man & notable player, me thinks. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sluts

[10]--there was a brief edit war over that, followed by an ANI thread and some back-and-forthing. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wait: you know all this. Let's suppose that "hot sluts" means "women". Even if it doesn't, if OGBranniff likes to bang hot men, it's still not OK (though not, as I said at the time, by itself a blockable offense). Drmies (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying or suggesting I wrote or thought it was "OK" for Branniff to write "banging" any gender, then you are wrong, that is explicitly nothing I ever thought and certainly never wrote. You set an impossibly high bar as prerequisite for successful future RfC/U, then when OGBrainiff adds a swastika without explanation on his user Talk, which he later explained reflected his interest in Nazi history articles, apologized for doing it, and more than likely would never have reintroduced it after he was warned, behavior he successfully demonstrated after his warning re term "sluts", My God My God My God the house comes down. Your added drama at the ANI with "shit" and "fucking" were unnecessary and unbecoming of Admin. (I thought you Admins are supposed to calmly carry out your duties, avoid feeding trolls, and carry your conduct at a "higher [CIV] standard"!? Silly me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Chess portal

I don't know. I didn't look at the page history to see who added it. I remember years ago when the chess portal was created I thought it was a good idea, but I didn't have any interest maintaining it and I wondered if it would stagnate. That's basically what's happened. I don't see that it has any real relevance to any chess articles, except maybe chess itself. Quale (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I try to stay out of giving other people advice, especially unsolicited. I respect your work on Wikipedia a lot, as I know you are serious about making it the best encyclopedia it can be. I'm sympathetic to the difficulties you've had with administrators and dealing with the drama, but I think that you generate some of that turbulence yourself. You tend to run hot, and I think you might find it a little easier and less stressful if you could cool down a bit. (This is advice I constantly give myself here, as I am prone to being a bit too zealous as well.) The OGB affair was unpleasant and unfortunate, and it certainly wasn't handled perfectly. However, whenever humans are involved we're not going to get perfection, so we should try to allow for that. I make mistakes too, and although I have high standards for myself I hope that other Wikipedians can understand my failures even as I should permit them some of theirs.

The OGB business is over (except for his socking). It ended with the correct result, and I think it's time to move on and look forward and not back. You attacked admins when they failed to block him and then attacked them again after they did block them. I'm afraid that to an outsider it looks like you will criticize nearly any administrator action no matter what it is, and sometimes it seems that you argue just to be contrarian. I think it's possible that some of the reasoning in the ANI discussion about OGB replacing of the WikiProject Germany flag with the Nazi flag in a user box was imperfect, but the consensus was strong that it was a bannable offence particularly when combined with his earlier behavior. I didn't find out about the discussion until after the ban was enacted, but I would have been comfortable to go along with the consensus as I think the behavior was egregious and deserved a ban. Instead you needed to stir the pot. If you want to reduce drama in your wikilife you should consider leaving some discussions alone, even when you disagree with some of what is being written. Quale (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and I didn't take OGB's defenses at the ANI about the Nazi flag as genuine for a second. But the processes of evaluation here, are inconsistently applied, and dysfunctional. (The bases for sanction or no sanction are based on whim or like/dislike, not anything objective. Who can feel "safe" in such an environment? I certainly don't. My comments provide me some relief: "The King has no clothes." The readiness to do me harm here reveals more about the WP environment than anything about me. If no one says anything when inconsistency or dysfunction shows itself in favor of mob rule or subjective exercise of power based on like/dislike, then how or why would or could it ever change for the better?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) p.s. It's not my purpose to be a martyr, however. I've already had an indefinite block. Quale, you haven't. (So, can you really know what that feels like? To be in position of having been permanently blocked, with Talk page access and WP Email access removed, by an Admin, because he/she doesn't like you? So I've already been abused here. And I don't like seeing others abused. And looking around, there's a lot of that going on here.) When I stir the pot, it is in rememberance of my unjust block, and an Administrator going out of his/her way to bury me six-feet under. I don't think you've had to face that, and cannot therefore really understand what the experience is like, and how it might change someone's relationship to the environment here, which in my view, threatens everyone (except Admins of course, who know their status is safe no matter what they do or say). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have lost motivation recently, it has just evaporated. The drama of facing hostile Admins has taken its toll. (They clic together, and seem to not think twice about making a content contributor's life miserable, if you've annoyed one of them. Their Admin friends will be more than happy to make your life miserable too, given or manufacturing the opportunities. That's abuse of power, as well as nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is not here for Admins to form clics and feel superior taking out grudges against content editors, but, they don't give a heck. So the culture is dysfunctional and sick to that degree. Admins pat themselves on the back if they block an obvious vandal, and somehow that seems to make them feel justified in treat a regular editor like crap if they want to, because of the other good they do or have done. Power goes to people's heads, unless they are thinking types, I don't really mean to stir anything, when I challenge others the purpose is rather to ask them for better thinking, or defend their thinking as already good. People don't like to be challenged. (Is that my short-coming, or theirs? I'm open to anyone at any time challenging my consistency or thinking, if I'm wrong or proven wrong, I'll admit. Just like you, I accept that I do make mistakes. No one is perfect.) The characteristic about ANI is that it has the worse demonstration of thinking and dysfunction, that Man has yet invented, short of mob rule. I continue to avoid anthing to do with it, unless I've been involved and feel compelled. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a thought: ANI is bad. RfC/U is nothing more than ANI in a different form. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a joke. (Too many egotistical volunteers, not there to help the encyclopedia through dispute resolution but for their own egotistical purpose of experiencing the high of believing they have some power and are "in charge". WP:Etiquette has been gotten rid of. The Tea House is for newcomers. Where does that leave regular editors for when they need help? From random Admins? Who exercise their power how they feel and are seldom countered by any other Admin? (Fun for them! Do anything you want to, to whomever you want to!) Where does someone go here who has a legitimate content dispute, or is on the receiving end of behavioral issues? From what I can see: nowhere. It's chaos in RiverCity, and mob rule at ANI seems to be the best there is, and, that's despicable! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In short, my unjust indefinite block changed me. (It's not all negative; I have positive feeling regarding Arbcom, as they lifted the block without condition, so rationality overcame personal prejudice. So I have positive respect for Arbcom in my case, and I don't even know who were the Administrators involved.) But I'm not "living the past", there are currently several Administrators that even recently have shown desire to help do me harm, in some kind of retaliation for hurt egos or whatever. (See OGB's solicitation of two Admins he figured wished me ill, and their cooperation to some degree, although not full degree, since OGB was such a radically obvious troll. [What if he had been more discreet!?]) Fair or unfair is not the question, whatever damage can be imparted to me is good in their minds, smearing someone with unfair and indefensible comments is also "good". This is my reality at WP, a function of the hostile environment and nothing I'm responsible for. Until those Administrators leave, or I leave. But Admin status is for life, and they like that. (Perhaps the current Admin structure should be scrapped. I would leave that decision to the top 10-15 content contributors, who should be put in charge.) Humans are a-moral creatures generally and have a need to punish and abuse one another, because they can, because if feels good to dominate someone you don't like, and even crush them. It's shallow and tacky, but the reality. We are still in Medieval times. With little change or improvement.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OGB's parting comments were correct IMO ... Was there any logical reason the ANI against him failed regarding his "sluts" posts, and the ANI re Nazi flag resulted in swift indef block? (He already had a block for incivility. That could be considered a warning. His sex-basesd offensive posts received only warning. So, his "sluts" posts, and his prior behaviors, were also cumulative, and should have resulted in *something*. But they didn't, beyond a warning. Then the Nazi flag posts, brought the house down.) Is someone supposed to make consistent sense of this? I can't. (Here's another example, I was chastized by Admin for "baiting" when asking OGB for answer why he redacted the Nazi posts, but not the "sluts" posts. Well, one of the participants at the ANI re Nazi flag asked OGB "why do you consider women sluts?", and "why did you create 139 sockpuppets", when there was no factual basis to assert either of those two things. Was that user chastized for baiting? No.) This type of environment is called "crazy-making " by professional psychologists. When it exhibits itself, saying something about it can also be helpful to keeping one's own head straight. (And contra-wise, not saying anything is right down the line what leads to acceptance and resignation. I do not think the environment at WP should be accepted by anyone, and I don't think silence and acceptance have ever been impetus for changing anything anywhere at any time. I'm not the only editor pointing a finger at the inconsistencies of this place. There are several others. I think there needs to be lots more.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a wall of text, something else that I think affects your interactions with some Wikipedians as people can find that taxing to deal with. I won't even try to respond to it all, but just throw out a few final thoughts.

You mention that your comments at ANI provide you some relief. That's actually good. I feared that it mostly caused you stress, but that may just be projection as I don't enjoy those kinds of interactions. Heavy involvement in those forums will lead you into more conflict, however.

Secondly, you point out that administrative decisions are inconsistent. That is certainly true, and although greater consistency should always be a goal, again this is a human enterprise so perfection is not possible. I think it's more productive to accept some inconsistency and focus your energy in other areas. Specifically in the Drmies case you might see it as an overreaction as a kind of CYA given his earlier defense of OGB. But maybe you can look at it in a light more sympathetic to Drmies. A warning instead of a block was well within administrative discretion. You and I both thought a block was justified, but I at least never argued that it was mandated. I did think the reasons Drmies gave stunk—had he instead simply said that OGB's actions were blockable but he was going to try a warning first, I would have accepted that even if I didn't agree with it. It was the lawyerly bs about other infractions weren't recent and generally editing within accepted guidelines that honked me off. Less of an excuse explanation would actually have been better. Anyway, back to the sympathetic view: Isn't it possible that Drmies reacted in a very human way? Having given OGB a second (or third) chance and then having OGB pull the Nazi flag stunt might make one angry, and explain what could otherwise seem to be an overreaction.

Finally, I hope that your experience here never becomes so bad that you leave permanently. You are one of the most productive chess editors active today, and have done a great job on many articles including glossary of chess. Although I think this is one of the most important chess articles, it doesn't get much attention from most of the other chess editors so your work has really helped. I try to keep a close eye on the chess articles, and you are one of about five or six editors whose edits I almost never check because I trust that they will be correct. You should feel free to take time away from Wikipedia whenever you need it. Fairly often I disappear for a week or two, and once I took over a year off. Quale (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thx for your comments, Quale. When I write lengthy Talk text, there is always a reason, and the reason can vary. And I don't take the care to simplify (shorten) it, as I would a text paragraph in a mainspace article. (That takes work, and keeping things short is a talent others sometimes have naturally, I don't, it is work for me.) As you know I despise ANI, and only unusual circumstance will ever produce a post from me there. I don't expect 'perfection' from Admins, but I do expect them to conduct themselves at a higher standard. (It seems the reverse is true many times, they feel a lower standard is their right, because they have power culturally unchallengable due to "the code of the Admin corps", and power corrupts, so they do & say whatever prejudicial thing they want or that pleases them. They have also caused a great divide of resentment between good content contributors, and the tight-knit Admins who are friends. I've been on the tacky side of that, it is part of the shitty environment at WP that makes editing unpleasant. [For proof, see Admin Basalisk's recent bullshit against me.]) I still see the pissy-weak result of the original ANI against OGBranniff as a result that I (Ihardlythinso) was involved with that user, and I'm not liked by the Dennis Brown clique of Admins, which Drmies is part of, so there you go. That is IMO. (Drmies compared me to his toddler children and commanded "Grow up!", direct insults to my personal maturity. How in this universe is that not seen as personal attack according to the definition of personal attack on WP? How? Yet as Admin, it is okay, because he is governed by a different standard than the rest of us, and as Admin, he is incapable of error. [Did you see him admit to any error? I didn't. All I saw was that when OGBranniff affair accumulated an overwhelming community consensus against him at the 2nd ANI, Drmies saved face with those editors to re-dress his previous involvement with hyperbolic ranting over the swastika OGBranniff placed in Userbox without comment, and for which he officially, if in-truth disingenuously, apologized. It was pure ass-covering and he doesn't get my sympathy, especially after threatening to effectively ban me from chess-topic articles over a trolling newbie.])

What perpetuates the bad culture here is that Admins (Admin AGK = exception) do not want to risk their own permanent Admin status or reputation challenging a rogue Admin, and the ineptness of community to implement Wales's "easier to get and easier to lose" proposal. So a great rift has formed even before my time here, as mentioned above. If anyone wants to give me crap, which seems to be the thing to do in this tacky culture, they'll find me reacting accordingly, as someone rejecting this awful environment and unwilling to be tainted by it by adding the dumbed-down shallow "values" (templated thought, e.g. WP:BOOMERANG, WP:TLDR, WP:CIV) here to my value system. "Civility" exists in name-only here -- the searching for "bad words". I'd advise Administrators wanting to exercise their power to intimidate and control others out of their corrupt sick selves to just leave me alone and go join the other crap-fest parties going on at the WP all the time all day long. Then they won't get any flak from me. (An Admin sees a conflict automatically as two people are equally responsible. Even if one of the conficting parties is a WP:Randy. That is the easy route, the one which makes them look "in authority/in charge", the one which takes zero research and sorting out, and afterall, isn't it more fun to chastise and order two people to "knock it off!" or "grow up!" than merely one? [Sure it is.] Or isn't it more fun to sanction the experienced editor with the cliched Wiki-logic "he should know better"? [Yeah right. But Admins are excused.])

I had a stiff cup of Seattle's Best coffee, if this sounds like a rant, I'm blaming that. ;) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion over on Talk:Chess960 starting position

Here's what I wrote to a chess publisher..

First Roll: The King Roll a 1 through 6. In chess960, because a rook needs to be on either side of the King, the King has only 6 possible squares. These squares are B1 through G1. If you rolled a "1" the King goes on B1, a "2", the King goes on C1, and so on, all the way through a "6" representing the King going to G1.

Second Roll: A Rook The efficiency in this method lies in the fact that the piece which we're now placing is determined by where the previous piece (or pieces) have landed. If the King has been placed on B1 or G1 you may now place the Rook in the adjacent corner square, since one Rook must be in the corner now, to make it a legal chess960 position. If the King has been placed on the left side of the board but not on B1, you're now going to roll for the left-most Rook. If the King has been placed on the right side of the board, but not on G2, you're going to roll for the placement of the right-most Rook. You'll notice that the Rook we're rolling for must have either 2 or 3 available squares. If 3, you roll low/middle/high for its placement. If 2, you roll low/high for its placement

Third Roll: The Queen The Queen has 6 available squares at this time, thus you roll 1-6 for its square, each available square representing 1-6 left to right

4th Roll: A Bishop The remaining squares will have a spread of either 1 of 5 squares being dark or light, or 2 of 5 being dark or light. If either color has 1 remaining square, place a bishop on it and go to the 5th roll. If the spread is 2 and 3, Roll high low for the color of square that has 2 remaining. If you roll low, place a Bishop on the left-most of this color. If you roll high, place a bishop on the right-most of this color.

5th Roll: A Bishop or a Rook You now have 4 empty squares and depending on how the previous squares have been filled, the board will now be configured in one of the following 5 ways: the Rook has one legal square; the Bishop has one legal square; the Bishop has two legal squares, the Rook has two legal squares, or at least one of the remaining Rook and Bishop have 3 remaining legal squares. If either piece has 1 legal square, place it, and go to roll 6. If either piece has 2 legal squares, roll high/low for it. If either piece has 3 legal squares, you can roll low/middle/high for either piece and go to the 6th and final roll.

6th Roll: Your final non-Knight and the two Knights are placed You'll have either a Bishop with one or two legal squares or a Rook with one, two, or three legal squares. If either have one legal square, place it and place the two Knights in the remaining squares. If the Bishop is remaining, it has two legal squares; roll low/high for its legal square. If the Rook is remaining, it has two or three legal squares; roll low/high or low/middle/high for its remaining square, and place the two knights in their final squares. Dancindazed (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In Roll 5, I don't see how it's possible, for a rook to have only one legal square. (I believe, at a minimum, it will always have two.) Please give example where the rook has only one legal square.

Maybe I'm getting confused, but ditto in Roll 5 for the bishop. (I don't see how it can have only one legal square.) Please name example of that.

Maybe I'm also getting tired, but I cannot even see how in Roll 5, the bishop will have only two legal squares. (Right now I believe it will always have at least three, sometimes four.) Please give example where the B has only two legal squares. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Okay, forget that one. (I found example, with B having only two squares.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was seeing things. (I still don't see how the B has any less than three available squares.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right actually. The rook Can't have one because there has to be at least 2 squares empty on the opposite side of the king, and the bishop can't have less than 3 squares to place on, because you just placed the bishop that had the fewer squares which leaves only 3 or 4 for the final bishop.

5th Roll could say:

5th Roll: A Bishop or a Rook You now have 4 empty squares and depending on how the previous squares have been filled, the board will now be configured in at least one of the following 3 ways: The Rook has 2 legal squares; The Rook has 3 legal squares; the Bishop has 3 legal squares; (note: both could have three legal squares). If the Rook has 2 legal squares, roll high/low for it. If either piece has 3 legal squares, you can roll low/middle/high for it and go to roll 6.

There that is much more concise. Thank you. I may have done that with some of the other rolls, because again. I was just laboring the point that 1,2,3 or 6 possible squares for a piece can be rolled for. Dancindazed (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay let me analyse your new 5th Roll language. Meantime ... Regarding the case in Roll 5 when there is 3-3 tie, I believe you are right, it doesn't matter which goes first (placing R, or placing B). The deal is though, it is intuitively weird, since (as you say) if the R is placed first, then in 2/3 the cases, it leaves the B with 50-50 chance of landing on c1; but if the B is placed first, it has 1/3 chance of landing there. But my instincts tell that is an illusion. (The big problem is, this hauntingly reminds me of the Monty Hall problem, and, most arguments there are way beyond my probability skills to comprehend. So that leaves me with zero confidence that I can tell you you're right!) What to do? (Maybe a math guy from Monty Hall dialogue could help!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In your new Roll 5 language, you don't have anything mentioning about selecting the piece with fewer options, as you did before. (So, in the case e.g. of Kc1, Ra1, Qe1, Bg1, the B has four legal squares, and the R has three, but you imply in your language the B will not have four legal squares, and as mentioned, you threw the "fewest" compare out.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Right because if there's only 3 possible scenarios to look for, that's probably easier anyways. Rook has 2 squares, Bishop has 3 squares, Rook has 3 squares. Pick one of the three. Doesn't matter. (going to revisit the math on that one scenario, too..) Dancindazed (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So you have 3 squares for a bishop. The rook shares two of the possible squares. You place the rook first and you have a (let's use a common denominator) 4 in 6 chance of landing one of the three squares. so question is, is choosing the rook first increasing the chances of the Bishop going to c1.. hmm.. doesn't the 4 in 6 just get split in half again when you look at the one in two. So if the averages work exact.. 2 out of six times playing the bishop first, it lands on c6. if you play the rook first, 4 of the 6 it lands on g1 or e1, then 2 of those 4 it lands on c1 instead of the remaining black square. so that leaves 2 out of 6. the other 2 out of six you land on h1 with the rook, and then, ahhh, that's where the odds are increased. Because you already have your 2 out of six just if the Bishop land on g1 or e1 with the rook. Then you get another third of the 1/3rd (1/9th) from the times the rook lands on h1. So the chances when playing the rook first that the bishop will end up on c1 are actually 4 in 9 instead of 1/3. Hmmm that's a pickle. The Bishops do need to stay at 1 in 3 odds so I think it's only sound if the Bishop is placed first in the 3 and 3 scenario. That makes it perhaps, too complicated at that point. Dancindazed (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't your first 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 = 33% straightforward? Really though, the Monty Hall problem is so perplexing, and it scares me if it has a presence here. (So I have to bow out giving opinion! It's over my head.)

If you choose to present by listing possible conditions, I guess you need some language naming them the relevant conditions (or something), otherwise it might confuse someone thinking you're listing all possible conditions, and missed one. Anyway, I think the language could be worked on for simplification and clarity. (Are you interested in that?) But I think resolving the potential Monty Hall thing might come first. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 isn't the whole equation. You're forgetting that the other 1/3 (when the rook lands on h1), the bishop has a 1/3 chance of landing on c1 there too. so it's (2/3 * 1/2) + (1/3 * 1/3) basically.. It actually does affect the overall odds of the 960 positions a bit. the bishop is going to end up on c1 or f1 a little bit too often or less often if the rook or the bishop is always done first in the 3 and 3 scenario. If somehow the rook could be rolled for first half the time, and the Bishop could be rolled for first the other half (or selected by a 1 in 2 chance randomly which goes first) then it would recreate the balance. You could say something like if the Rook is on a dark square, roll for the rook now. If it's on a lightsquare, roll for the Bishop now (the two mirrored positions will balance each other out) but it gets messy. The only way this scenario can occur, I believe, is when the first rook got placed on a1 or h1 without a roll, so you could always roll high/low for which gets placed first, bishop or rook, and that will still be 6 rolls. Kind of ruins the beauty though. Will check back tomorrow.. Dancindazed (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What about this analysis? ... The position is Kd1, Ra1, Qb1, Bf1. (Three squares for the B, three squares for the R.) Ok, let's say the R is placed first. Then only these are possibilities: Re1/Bc1, Re1/Bg1, Rg1/Bc1, Rg1/Be1, Rh1/Bc1, Rh1/Be1, Rh1/Bg1. (That's 7 possibilities, and in 3 of them, the B ends up on c1.) Ok, what if the B is placed first? Then only these are possibilities: Bc1/Re1, Bc1/Rg1, Bc1/Rh1, Be1/Rg1, Be1/Rh1, Bg1/Re1, Bg1/Rh1. (That's 7 possibilities, and in 3 of them, the B ends up on c1.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you're right in that scenario; The Rook pretty much has to be in a corner, but the King doesn't have to be on b1 or g1 so you will have taken 4 rolls already by now. But don't focus too much on any given's piece's odds of ending up on any of the squares left available. Alls that matters is that before any piece is placed, do any of the 960 chess positions have equal opportunity to be placed? And now that I've slept on it, they do, even with the 3 and 3 scenario. I think it's fine to say always roll for the Bishop or the Rook first, the fact that one or the other scenario is more likely is simply an outcome of the rolls that got us here, it's not an outcome of any given position being favored by the rolls. Placing the Rook first in that scenario does definitely incease the Bishop's chances of ending up on c1 though. It's 4/9 instead of 1/3, I'm pretty sure of that. Dancindazed (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

{{{1}}}Dancindazed (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I feel like whether or not you roll for the Bishop or the Rook in this scenario needs to be random so as to not skew which starting position will result. The skewed odds of the ending positions possible are only a result of the events that have already occured, so that in itself is not affecting the randomness of the results. But handpicking which piece you now roll for, or always rolling for one piece or the other in this scenario does skew the randomness. I'm inclined to say Roll 5 would need to be modified to where it says something like this.. "a 1, 2 or 3" represents the first second or third square for the bishop, "a 4, 5, 6" represent the first, second, or third for the rook. Or you could say "1,3, and 5" for the Bishope, "2, 4, and 6" for the Rook, if you like odds and evens better.. Dancindazed (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Whelp, it pains me to say this, but our discussion has led me to realize that my entire method is flawed. And the conclusion came from trying to figure out why the bishop3 rook3 scenario occurs. Look at the first 2 placements. In my method, the first two pieces placed MUST be on the same half of the board. This gives a fixed chance that the queen will be on the same side of the King as 2 in 6 or 1 in 3 (there's always 2 squares empty on the same half of the board as the King and 6 total empty squares) after the first rook is placed. However the correct odds should be that the queen has a 3 in 7 chance of being on the same half of the board as the King. The "rule of the fewest" is fundamentally flawed. The Rule of the more needs to be followed to preserve complete randomness. And thus, 5 or 6 possible squares must be a possibility and re-rolls are probably needed with a six sided die. Oh well. I'm glad I figured out I was wrong. Dancindazed (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, this is confusing. Take the case Kb1, Ra1. Time to roll for the Q. You can look at the board and say there are six consecutive available squares, and the Q has equal chance to end up on any one of them. Or you can look at the board and say there is only 1/3 chance the Q will end up on same side of the board as the K. (But somehow I don't think that latter argument makes sense.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It does make sense. The Queen, when she's placed, needs to have all 8 squares as a possibility when she's landed. It's okay to do the bishops before the queen, but you have to do both bishops before the queen. If you went in this order, say DSB, then Q, then LSB, you'd be messing with the Queens chances that the queen will be on a dark square. I thought it was okay to do the King and Rook before the Queen but it's not. If you had equal chance of placing either rook, in random order, then it would be fine; randomness would be restored, and all 960 positions would be equally likely. Or if you did both rooks before the queen. But when you're messing with the symmetry; when you're always placing a piece that's on the same half of the board as the King before the Queen, you're by rule, going to end up with a higher chance that the Queen will be on the opposite half of the board as the King. Dancindazed (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

New Method

Hope you don't mind me spamming your board :) but what about this, in light of the above, since the rule of the most should be followed, you start with King, (still if he lands on b1 or g1, place the rook), but if he lands on any other square, you then go to the bishop that has 3 squares left. Then go to the queen. Then, one of the following scenarios should be true. If: the last bishop has 3 squares available, roll for it. If: a Rook has one or two legal squares, place or roll for it. then roll for the placement of the rooks, which must each be down to 1, 2, or 3 squares on either side of the king at this time, and finally place the two knights. I think this new method works and leaves no choice of piece anywhere. Dancindazed (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem already, KC1, BA1 (Rook must go on B1) you can't do the Queen next, because now it has 5 possible squares. You have to do the other bishop 4th now, then you're left with 4 squares which all the remaining pieces could go and you're stuck. so fooey. I give up. Dancindazed (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Because you deserve it...

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For being ultimately awesome. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel. I think well of you, too. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentoring User:Georgia guy

Hello. I am just here to inform you that after having been contacted by several concerned individuals, I have decided to come out of retirement to "mentor" the troublesome user "Georgia Guy." I have over eight years of experience in successfully mentoring and rehabilitating troubled users on Wikipedia, such as one of my earliest successes with my pupil User:Maoririder. My name is Thorkill, but you can call me Thor. And Georgia Guy is about to say "hello to Thor's Hammer," possibly for years to come... Edits such as this even after my mentorship commenced last week are troublesome at best. Thank you. Roxette Fanatic (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Maoririder is currently indeffed. How is that a claim of "success"?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI page

Ihardlythinkso, I have noticed that you recently posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah. However, your comment has restored comments that have already been archived, re-activated a request for a CU check that has already been performed, and changed one link (which is now a redirect, so that doesn't matter very much). I'm not sure how to deal with this, so I'm just letting you know about it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess. (Was attempting to leave a comment. What to do now? S/ I revert comments and re-do? Is the thread permanently closed?) Won't do anything further unless you say to. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

references

I like the way you separate references into Notes, Citations, and Bibliography. I think someone gave you some heat for doing it. Years ago I used to put footnotes and bibliography in the same section, until someone said that I shouldn't do that. So then I started putting them in separate sections until someone criticized that (or it might have been the other way around). I like the way you do it with the semicolons - sort of in-between, but better than either alternate. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bubba. It's how User:Malleus Fatuorum does it, he's top writer w/ many FAs. I'm taking British Motor Syndicate and Robert Tatton as models to learn from/follow. (But I haven't got down yet some of the citation techniques, a separate but related step really.) Malleus prefers three ticks for bolding the Notes and other parts of Refs section (at first I thought this identical to semi-colon for bolding, but then I discovered a little superior difference, so I use the ticks now). p.s. I think Quale feels the citation style is too fussy for small articles, but as above you can see that Malleus chooses same for even a tiny article like British Motor Syndicate. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles with a lot of references, citations, and notes needs this more than ones with only a few. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I just quoted you, sorry for the trouble — you don't have to comment there.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Solved now. Thanks for your help and friendship. Best wishes, DanielTom (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hi IHTS. Feel free to ignore me or tell me to mind my own business, but if you're in a position to listen to a little well-intentioned advice - please drop it. Yes, the ANI thread was inappropriate. Yes, the link was also inappropriate. Everyone reading the thread can see that you were unfairly accused. The problem is that you now appear, to my eyes at least, to be attempting suicide by admin - the only reason the thread hasn't been closed already is because you keep adding to it, with increasingly angry and vitriolic statements. I'd suggest you just step back, let the matter drop and maybe take a few minutes out from Wikipedia to catch your balance; have a cup of tea or something. You aren't doing yourself any favours by imploding on Wikipedia's most heavily-watched soap opera board.

Like I said, take the advice or discard it; it's meant with the best of intentions. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, "suicide by Admin???????????????? Why do you have to express things that way, so violent, death, suicide, hanging??? It isn't good and you should find some other sort of professional way to express yourself. Next, I didn't ask you to come here, I find your poking me offensive and uncivil. I don't need your advice, anymore than you think you need mine. Your templated thinking, in my view, is a dumbing down, and offensive as well. You have no right to suggest I need "tea". You have no right to suggest I am emotioally out of control. That is presumptuous, and wrong, and uncivil as well. (YOU go have some tea! I think you need to. [There! - How do you like it? Aren't we making progress now? That's the Wiki-way!])

"The only reason the thread hasn't been closed already is because [I] keep adding to it". Bullshit, Yunshui. Total bullshit. (How do you have a truth on that? How do you think you know that, and can tell me it as though fact? It is pure guess, and an extremely poor explanation, one that you have whipped up in order to find a cause to tell me something. I will tell you why that thread has not been closed, I will give you my guess, which I feel is vastly superior to your attempt to shame me, here it is: No one cares. [No one cares, because it isn't them publicly falsely accused on the board. It isn't them with their username in the ANI thread title accusing them falsely of misdeed. It isn't them feeling this. So they don't care. So when there is apathy, there is also inaction. No call to act. So the thread stays open, because it takes work to close it. And humans are generally "lazy" - it is the prime motivator in our world.)

"You keep adding to it, with increasingly angry and vitriolic statements." Hardly, Yunshui. I kept adding to it, with ... questions. And explanations, why I felt it was not cool, and to let people know (apparently they don't think about it) what it feels like to have a completely baseless thread open on ANI about them, and the thread, which should be closed immediately, stays open, with total disregard to the false accusation which took place, with total disregard to the inappropriate use of ANI, with total disregard to the fact opening an ANI thread with no valid basis might be offensive and uncivil.

"Everyone reading the thread can see that you were unfairly accused." I have no idea how you think you know that, or how you think you can say that. There were no words stating that by anyone, and, it would take a small "investigation" to know that or show that, and, that takes at least some amount of "work". (To go through the article edit History, and the user interactions, if any, or to discover there were no user interactions.) Because that stuff takes some amount of effort, Yunshui, and because the world's most powerful motivator is laziness, it is fair for me to assume the vast majority, if not all readers of that ANI, would not do it. And what remains, is the false accusation on my username, without any statement -- by anyone -- that they are unfounded and untrue. (So how you ever reach the conclusion or belief that "everyone reading the thread can see that you were unfairly accused", ... I have no idea how you do that. ANI is a very public board, and as a rule people are lazy, and remember only the surface what they see, and what they saw there was that user Ihardlythinkso was guilty of "persistent" deletes. That is what sticks in this very public and political environment: misnomer, misapprehension, misunderstanding, prejudice, and so on. All of it is a negative for me, and no attempt to correct or fix is present in that thread. Except from me.)

"You aren't doing yourself any favours by impolding on Wikipedia's most heavily-watched soap opera board." I reject your "imploding" comment, Yunshui. It is mischaracterization, it implies emotional-out-of-controlness, rather than reasonable frustration over the things I wrote about in that thread. ANI is a cesspool without my help or encouragement, long before I came along as editor. As a result, I have no desire to be there, or my username appear there, for any reason or context. No desire. But when I'm involuntarily and unfairly and counter-to-policy named there, well, ... it pisses me off. (And Yunshui, my pissed-off-ness is measured, I do not "implode" as much as it services your desire for it to be, so that you can give simple-minded and unsolicited advices and councels.) And regarding my "not doing any favours for [myself]", think about that for a moment. (You think I've done a "misfavour" to myself. In what way? I wrote what I wanted, and expressed what I felt was needing expression and explanation. So for me, I was "favorable" to myself. So what are you referring to then? Is it about what "others might perceive of [me]" that you fear so much for me and need to councel me about? To protect me from others who might take a disliking to me because I said something truthful they didn't like?! Oh my, oh my, yes, I should follow your advice and be totally paranoid, and never speak my mind, because of what others *may* think, and knowing what they think about what I said is always accurate, and their subsequent responses to me always fair. Oh yes. Oh no. The truth is Yunshui, your advices to shut up and never speak what I really think, less others do me harm after misinterpreting it or turning it into something I never said or meant (as Dennis Brown tried to do in an adjacent thread), is not the kind of "advice" that does me any good. (To please you, Yunshui, I should devoid myself of person, become a complete paranoid, never speak my mind, and just ... what? (Shut up forever!? Go back into the womb!?) Please think what you are really advising me to do, and whether any self-respecting person would take your advice, to censor their independence and mind. For me, all this templated thinking of "stop beating a dead horse" and "too long didn't read" and "have a cup of tea" and "BOOMERANG!" and "death by Admin" and "stop digging a hole" and all of the mimes and cliches that have become a standard repertoire in place of thinking, a plastic toy set in place of human interaction and thinking, is nothing more than a laughable dumbing-down of the human mind, and those particpating in it, as though those cliches are a virtue instead, and represent community process that is good and right, is some kind of weird abberation in the development of human societies, and mark my word, someday someone will write a book about it, or more than one will, and show for all of future history how lowly Man can descend into and create for himself a shallow, abusive, secretly and overtly hostile, inherently unfair, and superficial culture and sense of right and wrong community "norms" to judge others by and threaten them with. (I say: Fuck it! And Yunshi, that is not "imploding", that is keeping my thinking unadulterated by the trappings of this place, which I've repeatedly summarized as "dumbing-down", and, I am not wrong about it.) I don't give a shit if you agree with me or not, or what you think of me or not. I already know what I think of you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. You can already see I have a User category: "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian". You should perhaps think about that.

Did it ever occur to you, that maybe I don't want anything to do with the ANI cesspool? And that when a false accusation of persistent deletion behavior with my usrname attached is inappropriately venued at that very public board, I might have a valid grievance!? And then to be threatened on top of it, and insulted, with supposition that my comments were out-of-control emotional implosions and that I was "seeking death by Admin", isn't somehow antagonizing!? (Jesus!) Then after leaving numerous hints at the thread that I would like to see it closed ASAP, I'm told I "only have (myself) to blame" for it remaing open!? (Jesus again!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I fear that you have misinterpreted my message (both in content and intent) but based on the above, I don't think attempting to clarify is going to be a productive exercise for either of us. I wish you all the best, and I'll stay off your talkpage in future. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, I found your messages accusatory and indirectly threatening. Please understand two things: I've been unfairly indef-blocked before, with WP Email unwarrantedly also removed, in attempt by an Admin to bury me 6-feet-under, permanently, out of what I believe was simple egotistical retribution for my responding sassy to his Admin authority. And, there are friends of that Admin, who have already demonstrated to me they would love nothing more than another opportunity to block, or contribute to my block. Ditto my having criticized Dennis Brown, his "Admin-friends-network" has been consistently hostile and threatening to me as well, even though I have done nothing to them, only because I have been critical of Dennis, popping his bubbles on occasion. So they target me with their hostility and threats if given the slightest opportunity to do so -- I am not stupid or paranoid or blind to it. (Dennis, of course, would deny the reality of the existence of this, but that would be total BS, wouldn't it. The Admins-friends-network is as real as it is hostile.)

As a result, my motivation for editing (improving or creating chess-related articles), has taken a huge hit, and I'm sure will continue diving even lower now. (For me and I believe many other editors as well, the great demoralizer to editing isn't the trolls or vandals or Randies, it's the hostile Admin environment and culture. Power-centric Admins who somehow feel the encyclopedia is here for their power-tripped egos. How sick and wrong is that?!.)

I overreacted, and I'm sorry for kicking you off my user Talk. It was an overreaction at the end of a stressful day. You are welcome here. (And you are right -- I need a break from this crazy-making place. Watching my motivation ebb is one way to take that break, when it reaches bottom there is no will to edit anything. [Think of the irony involved: Dennis Brown initiated "Editor Retention Project" to retain editors, yet as a result of his pride and his vengeful friends, they demoralize this editor to nearly the same as quitting. For it has been hostility from two groups of Admins-friend networks, his being the most responsible in my case. And someone can just fuck off if they want to tell me I'm paranoid, or imagining it, or am to blame, or am not "employing AGF", or saying so is an irrational "screed", "rant", "diatribe", or any other similar cliche-word people love to bandy about here irresponsibly in service to their need to maniplate, predjudice, and shut down independent thinking in favor of mob rule. "BOOMERANG!" Got you! And what the fuck is WP:TLDR about?! Illiteracy!? If someone doesn't have time or interest to read something they should just go cuddle up with a comic book, or something, and quit complaining someone isn't spoon-feeding them. Think you're safe?! You, by disagreeing with me about anything Yunshui, have demonstrated clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing behavior. When I'm Admin I will block you and you will never be let out of that cage unless and until you grovel and confess and show us all to see how you understand your sins have have repented. An Admin I'm familiar with calls that "the usual deal". When it is really institutionalized humiliation-abuse.])

To show my thoughts are not completely negative, I'll say again, immediate reform is to do what Jimbo suggested, make the bit "easier to get and easier to lose". And for long-term, the highest-respected content contributors need to be put in charge of WP growth and maintenance. (Only they truly know what is best for articles. The politics would go, or at least be subservient to article quality, and this nutty hostile & abusive Admin environment would be a thing of the past, because most probably that team would elect to disband or radically alter the Admin corps on Day No. 1.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I'm still welcome here, then I'll take the opportunity to offer my sincere apologies if I came across as threatening or accusatory; neither intent could have been further from my mind. I saw an editor that I respect (I don't edit board game articles much nowadays, but when I did, I recall that you always seemed to be doing good work) apparently getting extremely irate - with some justification - and in doing so, perhaps worsening the situation for himself; all I was hoping to do was to ameliorate things somewhat. I'm deeply sorry if I seemed to be threatening you or telling you to shut up and leave the big boys of the admin corps alone, this wasn't what I was trying to say at all, although on re-reading I can see why you might have taken that as the underlying message. My heartfelt apologies for inadvertently worsening the situation for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like this place. I love the articles, and I loved editing chess and boardgame-related articles and creating new ones, and I loved collaborating with other editors with similar and values about article quality being priority. (So, tell me how I benefit from Admins?! I already have experienced numerous times, how I am degraded and demoralized because of Admins' pompous and self-centered power-centric ego-tripping hypocritical behaviors. Tell me how they service the content editors?! Because it is really a mystery to me. Why do I need to be on the bad side of Admin:TParis? Admin:Drmies? Admin:Basalisk? Admin:Bbb23? User:Guy Macon Admin:The Blade of the Northern Lights? Admin:Elen of the Roads? Admin:Magog the Ogre? They have each at times made my life miserable as editor here, and I have initiated nothing uncivil with them. What makes for this lovely environment? It is hostile. It is nasty. It is manipulative. It is mean. It is abusive. It is disingenuous and dishonest. It is tacky. I have no interest in the shit-politics that runs rampant in this place. I'm here for the boardgames articles. I don't care what others think of me, though I would prefer them to think well of me. I would like all the assholes to just leave me be, get out of my Wiki-life, stop with the tacky crap. Yes, I need a break from this God-awful place. It is no fun editing anymore. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Taylor

Nice to hear, Vanilla -- will be great to see Taylor active online. Maybe he is in position to improve ICCF U.S.A. article, too.

I was gonna say, even IP sockpuppet has been nicer to me than have Admins, and not disingenuous. But don't do nasty, it is not my style. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to remarks

On reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toccata_quarta#Edit_war.3F, I found your response most interesting, as I have also run afoul of such an admin, though have collaborated with other, decent ones. Hushpuckena (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hushpuckena, nice to hear from another player. Though WP "rules" are chaos, yes, there are decent Admins. E.g. I had positive experience w/ Admin:AGK, Admin:John, Admin:Courcelles, and complimented here Admin:Reaper Eternal. Recently, Admin:Dennis Brown accused me of having opinion "all admin are scum" -- not only was that a vicious lie, the word "scum", though it is in my recognition vocabularly, is not a word I've ever used toward another person, nor would I. (Because it devalues a human being, to mere matter. Which is about as base a thing to say of another person, or group of persons, as can be imagined.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Board game

My bad. I forgot to paste the content in. I've redone the merge, and actually put the content from the "American board games" article into Board game now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's called being WP:BOLD. If there's no discussion either way, then either just do the merge, or just leave it a separate article. I think it should be merged, but it's clear that no one wants to discuss it either way. Why do you think it should not be merged? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Funny. Not once in the 7 years that I've been here has the "discuss" part been useful. Every time, either no one says a damn word, or everyone says something totally different, and we just go around in circles without anything getting done. And you think now a discussion will magically make anything all better? At least I'm getting shit DONE instead of just jabbering away for ages without anything happening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not responsible for WP protocols that you see as failures. To say "discussions aren't useful" and "discussion = jabbbering" is as far counter to WP philosophy as one can get (so, I can't back you up on that attitude, sorry, IMO you'll have to take out your frustration some other way than how you are doing). I've read over & over on the Wiki "there is no deadline", but you seem to think opposite, or at least you show extreme impatience. And how do you ascribe "getting things done" when what you do is DESTROY CONTENT with your sneaky REDIRECT on ICCF USA and another REDIRECT which did the same today? (If you have a deletionist mission, which I suspect you do after reading your 8 failed RfAs where many editors called you "deletionist", then to you I suppose "getting things done" = content deletion. You could have put your advocacy for merge on the tail of the article Talk discussion, and argued for consensus for your change if no one cared to contend with your plans, and gotten the merge done that way. But you didn't do that, you circumvented process, either out of extreme impatience, or, bullying (not wishing your objective to be contended with in discussion). Not good. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Chess article

Hi! I was just wondering if there was a better way to make the Chess article more gender neutral? I feel that the use of "he" and "him" seems to assume that players are male, which is something that should be avoided according to WP:MOS if possible. I tried to make my edit productive and tidy, and I'm not sure how to improve the article. Also, please ignore my "no apparent reason" editing history--my internet is running quite slowly and I wasn't able to see the editing history thing properly until after I had saved my edit. Sorry about that! Cheers, The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC).

I don't agree with what you are doing (making blind changes of occurrences of "his" to "his and her", and "he played" to "the player played", which are both bad writing). There has been much discussion on this already, at WT:CHESS and Talk:Antichess. (Have you read?) If you want to work collaboratively on a specific instance of "his" at a time, I'd be glad to do it with you. (Here is fine, or article Talk.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't understand how you could do a revert, without seeing an edit sum of the edit you're reverting, for reason "computer slow". (How does slow response time hide the edit sum of an edit you are reverting?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your edit entry was in my notifications (I didn't check--is it a new feature? I don't I've seen it before), but I couldn't see much of the History page and I noticed that my edit had been reverted and got a bit annoyed so I didn't wait for the page to finish loading. Ah, angst. It causes so many awkward moments. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay ... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

...You sound very skeptical, although that might just be your username... Anyway, I might start a new section on the Talk page of the Chess article. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Here it is -- The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course I'm skeptical. (Everybody should be. I prefer it to be called "conscientious editing".) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

A big 'thank you' to all the Admins who might have bothered me recently, but chose to leave me be. (Thank you! [My spirits re WP editing are ... picking up a bit. Much appreciated.]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

More nastiness. Motivation to edit anything = near zero. (Someone called me a "hypocrite", a "mother-fucking asshole", and a "drama whore" in an Email, who's considered 'one of the nicest Admins' around here. Go figure.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't say much about emails, we have to take your word on it - you can always send an email to Arbcom on an issue like that, but I can't help but believe that deep down you would agree that those who have a chip on their shoulders about admins could/should at least comport themselves as they would like the ideal admin to behave - not saying that I am the ideal admin either, and I sometimes lack 100% diplomacy, but I do my best;). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What I think is that your suggestion that a user who's been mistreated by admins as DanielTom has been mistreated, should "comport themselves" more perfectly, in light of certain Admins' aggressive and incivil behaviors (example: Bwilkin's comments against DanielTom at User talk:Bwilkins#DanielTom), is quite absurd to say the least. (Those admins s/ clean up their act, but, that won't be happening under the current WP organizational stucture. I really feel the hypocritical, hostile, abusive culture here is too corrupted to be salvagable, the "community" is too passive to do anything about it. That's fine for them, it is why I have WP category "Wikipedian who is not a Wikipedian" - I reject this place with its dumbed-down double-standards and abusive environment & culture. [You can have it. It sucks big-time.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you reject it, then leave it. That said, you've done an enormous amount of good work here, so why do you keep getting embroiled in this conspiratorial madness against admins - there's no smoke without a fire. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, it all started with being blocked Kudpung, then INDEF'd, by the admin who recently removed DanielTom's user Talk access (same as he did to me, and later removed my *Email* access without justification). (Maybe you didn't know that.) So it wasn't my choice to "get embroiled" and pulled into the muck around here. I was taken into the muck early on outside of my will or desire. [Have you ever been blocked, or INDEF blocked, Kudpung? Didn't think so. It's easy to cook up the Qs you are, when you haven't been there.] When I see others mistreated or unfairly treated at WP, it is a present reminder how I experienced the same, and, I end up not liking it very much. So I might make a comment or two. No one helped me when the blocking admin was attempting to tighten the screws on my coffin and bury me 6-foot under. (Except later two specific Arbcom admins and another admin offering help, and of course whomever unknown Arbcom admins adjudicated my appeal case.) Thanks for the compliment re my contributions to-date, but truthfully?: I feel I was only beginning here. (My editing improved in only 1+ years to the point where I was even disgusted with my first editing work, and have been going backwards to attempt to address those edits even today. I've enjoyed the improvement process, and I can extrapolate that I would continue to improve, and I know I have more articles to contribute. But motivation is required, and at this point I lack any motivation as a result of the hostile environment at this place. [Nasty, hostile, dysfunctional, abusive.] It does make me sick.)

I have no idea what your "no smoke without fire" reference means, but if it is an accusation you want to make, please don't, I have nothing I feel I need to defend again. (That said, I'm not clear why you've come here to my Talk in any event; you know don't you, I did find nearly all your statements to DanielTom's attention both upfront prejudicial and patronising. [Your "bluntness" would be more acceptable, at least to me, if there was a hint you thought the environment deserved some fair criticism, but there doesn't seem to be any of that coming from you, look how you suggest DanielTom "comport himself" with greater perfection, before Admins pay any attention to fact their behavior is supposed to be governed by a "higher standard".] I don't know really what you hoped to accomplish by that. So I can tell by your statements to DanielTom, that I would disagree with you on a great many things. And nothing is likely to change that, since both our value systems were already established long ago.) It doesn't help me to receive an invitation or suggestion to "leave WP" as you have given. Please turn your efforts to something less negative and productive, instead of buzzing around DanielTom's and my head. You apparently support a environment and structure, which I've already made plain I think is diseased and has resulted in a culture of hostility and abusiveness. I don't see you doing anything about it; I have tried to speak out where and when I could in a small way. Hundreds more need to do the same, but that won't happen, at least for many more years.

Take care and good luck, you seem to have a successful and prosperous RL, congrats on that. (WP seems to me, the electronic equivalent of "road rage". In case you wanna understand, I'm not against incivility necessarily, just the hypocriticality of having a CIV policy used only by whim of Admins to block whom they want to block, and a pillar representing that much misaligned policy that is made of salt.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fast heading for the fate of the dinosaurs and the reason is because it's growing so fast and filling up with so much crap content and lousy collaboration that it's hard to keep on top of it, and it's mostly the fault of the WMF who are only interested in stats rather than actual quality and harmony in the (volunteer) workplace. In 10 years, maybe less, people will be saying 'Hey, d'you remember that Wikipedia thing?' We have enough admins but we don't have enough; like soldiers in the numerous support corps and offices (7 to every one combat soldier to be exact), there are many admins who never approach the front line, they do a lot of necessary routine work in the background without ever getting noticed, leaving only a handful of us to tackle the controversial stuff and take the flak, and every kid who gets reprimanded by one of us screams blue murder 'Mommy, Mommy, the teacher yelled at me!' Mommy actually realises that the kid had misbehaved and probably tells him so, so the kid rounds up all his mates in the schoolyard and starts a hate campaign against all teachers. Ironically really - where would we be without schools and teachers? When they have growed up and gotten their own PhDs they neatly forget all that. Has anyone ever spared a thought for all the bullying the admins receive from the 'ranks'? That said, I got interested in admin stuff because I got threatened with a block by a cast-iron prat of a sysop and bullied off everything to do with linguistics (my professional field) by another for ever. There are indeed some badmins, take a look at my RfA, at least the most spiteful liar and obtuse individual I ever came across on Wiki and came out of the woodwork to oppose me there has since been desysoped, and plenty more lose their bit too, but they mostly stem from pre 2007 days where all you needed were 2,000 edits and 30 support votes. That's not the case here in 2013 though. Have faith - what I tried to do about it was to start the biggest ever campaign for RfA reform in the hope of getting more active admins and better ones. Ironically it was torpedoed mainly by the very people you cite in your collection of quotes on your user page - perhaps you should look into the background of those statements more closely and then concentrate more on your excellent contributions to chess matters, it would be more productive and less negative and I doubt anyone would want to bully you away from it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opening up to me, Kudpung. I'm heartened to hear you've had some brushes w/ authority here. (It can be a common point of reference. But I'm relatively new user compared to you.) I need to review your para above again, and read your RfA also. I still think you are prone to collective overgeneralizations (biases, e.g. "every kid who gets reprimanded [...] rounds up all his mates [...]", etc.). The quotes I've collected are more for enjoyment & relaxation (e.g. George Carlin and Archie Bunker didn't torpedo your RfA reform initiative, right?), and also, for inspiration re celebration of the WP that diverse and even sharp opinion is permitted here, and not suppressed as might a more totalitarian community. [Although WP is no democracy, it still needs free flow of ideas if it is to prosper.]). Thanks again for your backstory experiences, I need to go over carefully/thoughtfully and think about. Sincere, & thanks again, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. What do you think of my idea to put the top content editors in charge? (A team of 10-15 top-voted content contributors, to be given responsibility for organization structure to best maintain and grow the WP? [IMO they know what's best for articles, and therefore, the encyclopedia, which is nothing more than the sum of its parts.)

I'm actually quite famous for my collective over-generalisations but I refrain from collective ad hominem attacks. Those who perceive them as such are the ones who read wrongly between the lines and take them out of context in the hope of claiming they have been insulted by an admin ;) Unfortunately, among the top 10 content contributors are some of the top 10 culprits of totally unprovoked incivility, personal attacks, and disruption of some of our most important processes, and sadly, because they are great contributors, they are generally allowed to get away with it which sets a precedent for those who are not so clever with words. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're speaking of Malleus, he is always provoked. (Always.) But I think you miss my point ... If top 10 contributors were put in charge, there would be no basis or motivation to disrupt anything. (It goes without saying this elite bunch love writing and articles. Put them in charge and the collaborative decisions from that body could not harm anything related to article quality nearly by definition.) Radical restructuring might result. (Maybe no CIV policy. Maybe no independent Admin blocks. Maybe no Admins. I don't know what. They would work it out.) I think it is a powerful and positive idea mostly because of its simplicity and tapping fundamental motivation/psychology. (IMO the result would push forward the best possible encyclopedia, whereas all other alternatives would introduce quality-impacting compromises.) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

What I am saying is that some of those top 10 editors with whom I have not exchanged a word in a couple of years (for knowing that it's not worth a bean trying to reason with them) have not ceased, purely unprovoked, to insult me to my face and behind my back with lies and PA. I have shown more intelligence by not responding. I certainly would not relish the though of them being in charge of Wikipedia and if they were, I would rapidly find another hobby in spite of being dedicated and travelling around the world to meet Wiki people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by talk page stalker: Ihardlythinkso, perhaps you may like to join Wikipediocracy or Wikipedia Review. I don't have any experience with those websites, but they show that there is a fair number of editors who share your views. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:UP#POLEMIC

Friendly advice IHTS: WP:UP#POLEMIC (thought you might be interested). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, you've got some implied message for me it seems, but really I don't know what it is. And I've been reading more of your posts, and have grown increasingly uncomfortable with your tendency to form overgernalizations and combine them with accusations. (So, I have no basis for really thinking you wish to be truely "friendly" towards me, about anything.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

David Taylor

Good afternoon, and happy Memorial Day weekend. Sorry I haven't been in touch, I haven't really been on the internets that much in the last few week, plus I am preparing for my seasonal move up to NYC for the summer.

I have news on David Taylor. We have been in contact and when I said we at Wikipedia would like a photo, he took it literally and has assembled something of a package for us, with 2 photographs and a sampling of his "best games." I guess it is my fault that I did not specify "computer picture" or .jpg or whatever. He wants to physically mail this stuff to me. Being the much-despised "troll" that I've been branded I am kind of skittish about giving out a mailing address. What should we do? Do you want me to ask him if it's ok if you take it from here, as a senior Wikiproject member? I can tell Dave is super interested in this and is quite tickled at having a Wikipedia article about him. Regards, Andrea. (that's my real name)Super Snooper77 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Andrea! I see David's already got a digital photo on his Chess.com profile, however he did that, I think he should just be asked to do the same with his preferred WP photo (or two). And ditto his games, should either be loaded on Chessgames.com (I suppose but don't know for sure, that Chess.com might be adequate too.) (Someday I'd like to get his Ponziani book autographed and sent to me paper-mail, but that's a different time & purpose!) So just tell him to get this stuff online (I think). (Then we'll need his SA-CC-3.0 license permission, if he wants us to upload to WP for him.) Best of luck vis-a-vis your migration East. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I was thinking that I couldn't make those major changes to the article myself anyway, since they'd be reverted by Dreims or someone. I told Mr. Taylor someone else with more standing on Wikipedia would contact him concerning the photos and scoresheets he arranged. Could you please contact him at ponz111@aol.com and explain to him what you want to do? I also asked him if a friend (you) could have an autographed copy of his Ponziani book so feel free to ask him about that when you contact him as well. Thanks. Super Snooper77 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll write him soon. (And *pay* for his book on PAYPAL!) ;) Did you get a bite of the Big Apple yet? Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I think everything will work out with David Taylor. And no, I'm halfway there, taking a roadside break somewhere high in the hills of western Virginia. Thanks for asking! Have a good day. Good luck with the article. Super Snooper77 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your excellent (and myriad!) chess articles, I award you this writer's barnstar :). Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you or the compliment and trust (autopatrol), Ironholds! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello (follow up)

Hi there! I hope everything is going well for you. I'm just following up on this David Taylor thing; did he respond to your email? Also, what is going on with this Daniel Tom stuff? What did Daniel Tom "do" to generate all this attention? Is there anything you want me to do? Thank you. Super Snooper77 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been lazy lately, and demotivated (depressed really) due to the usual hostility & passive aggressiveness rampant in this place. But I'll be writing Taylor soon me thinks. DanielTom did nothing wrong what I can tell, except speak his mind. He doesn't even feel good about being here any longer, after an abusive block. How are your travels & adventures going? I will write Taylor soon when my motivation picks up (assuming I'm not lynched & blocked first), sorry, I promise. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC) p.s. Don't you dare do anything. (As I would be prosecuted for it, no doubt.) This place relishes and thrives on unfairness. (The more obvious and absurd, the better.)

Hi, thanks. I'm sorry to hear that. People that have a long track record of making productive content edits like you should be left alone by the admins. Kind of like a "tenure" system. Ok, I won't do anything to inflame the situation, I promise. Although I have already posted a couple responses to your question about SPI's. And as far as the question about multiple Wikipedia accounts in the same household, there is a policy on that already, its WP:SHARE if you want to check that out. And I'm doing well, thanks! Super Snooper77 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mistake

No problem. Given the similarity between my signature and Pedro's, I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  17:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

silly chess variant ideas

Grue Chess: Let @ be the file to the left of a. Black has two extra pawns on @7 and i7 and grues on @8 and i8. Grues move as nightriders and can only capture pieces that are (1) not adjacent to another piece or (2) protected by a lamp. White has two extra pawns on @2 and i2 and lamps on @1 and i1 that move as wazir+alfil. Lamps can only capture grues and grues can only be captured by lamps. Grues cannot capture lamps. Other than that, rules are as normal. Double sharp (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! I need to think about that! (Q, though: Was this inspired by Stealth Chess!? If not, what inspired? [Fess up!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Playing way too many Infocom text adventures, mostly. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Another idea:
Moving Square Chess (I need a better name for this): Instead of moving a piece, you can move a square occupied by your own piece to a square where that piece could go. If more than one square is stacked on a position on the board, ranging pieces passing through that position can go through any one of those squares (but only one). They have this choice at every square-stacking junction. Positions where there are no squares are voids. Ranging pieces cannot attack through voids, but pawns pass right through them (promoting on the last non-void square on each file) and knights can jump over them. Squares can move outside the 8×8 area of the original board; pieces cannot go to voids unless they are riding on a moving square. Double sharp (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Huron

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Huon&diff=564728784&oldid=564701134

Please do not misspell user nicks. Although I hardly can think of it as of a WP:personal attack, it is certainly inappropriate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you would have just corrected the spelling slip, and informed me of having done so, I'd have had no problem with that. If you would have come here and simply informed me that I made a spell error, I'd have simply corrected it no doubt, no problem. But you dropped a blue-linked "WP:personal attack" here as some sort of reminder or indirect threat, and called the simple spell error "inappropriate". I'll tell you what's really inappropriate: your above message. So please go away, and don't come back. (It's editors like you that destroy my motivation to continue adding content creation on the Wikipedia. Too much fucking hostility and threatening behavior. A sick culture. You're part of it. Go away.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Although you insulted me, you was the first person who caused me to meditate about the corrupt ochlocratic governance of this wiki. Now I quit; have a good luck to stay here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If I was a bit harsh, sorry. Please understand, I've had my own problems on this site (including indef block), hostility and abuse abounds, and I've grown pretty much sick of it. Malleus (Eric Corbett) was/is right: "The way to avoid 'incivility' is to avoid the triggers for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)". If you see corruption at WP, it is just evidence that you are smart. Good luck and sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Unachess

Is Unachess a notable variant? I would prod the article, but I thought I should ask your opinion first. I will also ask User:Anthony Appleyard, as he created the page. Quale (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Q. Unachess is covered in:

• Pritchard, D. B. (2007). "§9.4 The initial position is partly or wholly free • Unachess". The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. John Beasley. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-9555168-0-1.

and

• Pritchard, David (1995). "Isolated Pawns • Unachess". Variant Chess. 2 (Issue 17). British Chess Variants Society: p. 151. ISSN 0958-8248. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

... so I'd say yes (notable). (Interesting: "By April 1995 there was a consensus that White should always win with reasonable play."! Pritchard (2007), p. 79.)

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Likely WP:NN here depends on how popular Unachess and its variants prove to be. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks to you both, that's perfect. I personally consider inclusion in Pritchard or Beasely to indicate notability. We should get those refs into the article and I am satisfied. The bit about White having a strong advantage would be good to add too. (I understand that there will be some new variants that won't be in Pritchard but that are still notable.) Quale (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

apology

I was remembered today that I do owe you an apology. I am sorry. The way that I responded to you in email was very very poor. I used vulgar and crude words ... and I should not have done that. I was wrong. I stand by my thoughts, but it was very wrong of me to express those thoughts the way that I did. I am sorry that I spoke to you the way that I did. — Ched :  ?  19:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ched, perhaps you're missing my view, the issue was never about my feelings hurt or not (as my reply Email should have shown). You are Admin, and to vent personal attacks as you did is 100% inconsistent and hypocritical when having the bit. (The point being, to be consistent and not a hypocrite, you either zip your lip of name-calling when you choose to vent, or resign your tools.) Thank you anyway though. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

I wrote Ponz11 on his Talk and also sent a WP Email. (Waiting to hear back.) Re VisualEditor, I turned it off; I have too many years in IT not to recognize poor design & testing. (It s/ have gone thru the fire first; it was rolled out maybe several years ahead of its time. Perhaps WMF marketers couldn't wait. Fine but there's a price [lots of flak] that comes w/ that kind of haste.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Persistent"

I noticed that inconsistency as well. When convenient, he claimed that Houdini is better at this analysis than a former world champion. Later, he claims that he can beat the engine at blitz and had to correct mistakes in its analysis. Those aren't completely in opposition but they do work against each other a bit. Quale (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That IP did make one good point though. If we want to make a well-substantiated statement on the current evaluation of an opening line, Euwe and Schiller are inappropriate authors to quote, generally speaking. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Only "generally speaking" if there's newer analysis available in reliable sources. If we want to make a well-substantiated statement on what Euwe wrote about a line then he's the very best source. Quale (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Standards for chess articles

I really wish we had a guideline for chess players in Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I also wish we had notability criteria for opening lines and analysis. And I wish we had a manual of style for chess articles - I'd like to get rid of a lot of the linkspam we usually see at the end of most articles, for example. Also, I don't like the practice of giving illustrative games (or even just links to games) at the end of an article - either the game's significant enough to be incorporated into the text, or it should be deleted. Just some random thoughts of mine... Cobblet (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of wishes! Thank you. I really do think all those points need collaboration what ProjChess wants, and a consensus formed, *but*, the ProjChess seems to me disinclined to enter same. So what we end up with is a garden with some great plants, but also lots of weeds. (I don't hope things will improve, because I don't allow myself to "hope". [And "wishing" = "hoping".]) I can understand therefore your bold actions to delete stuff, but, will those changes stand? Or will those changes be reverted? And what basis to discuss at that point who is right? It seems ProjChess is trying to float w/o clear standards, and I don't think that logically works, it has demotivated both me & you [but you seem to have got your mo-jo back!?; I'm only 3 years here so don't know you from before].) I think I'm more conservative than you and for me, the more info the better, but again, that aspiration of mine needs to conform to goals and standards for chess articles, and there's no interest to work on what those objectives or standards are exactly. Sometimes there is a precedent, like a predominance of something, but without standards expressed in as kind of guide, it always ends up as locking horns between two editors w/ different views. (And that isn't good because no Project-wide direction can come from that and the situation will repeat another time, another place.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there's reason for hope. I was extremely pleased to see the "Kingston Defence" article finally deleted, for example. And that one had a "source", too. Clearly people at least recognize the weeds for what they are—if we can come to a consensus on a set of guidelines for WP:CHESS articles, at least it'll enable those who have the desire to fix them. I'm also encouraged by the fact we've already got things like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/FAQ/Format. I'd be willing to be the janitor for chess opening articles, but admittedly there are few of those compared to the biographies.

ATM I'm working on the Modern Benoni article, but once I'm done with that, I think I might ask the community if there's any wish to create the chess equivalent of the MoS and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Would you be interested in taking part? Cobblet (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh of course (taking part). But I wouldn't have strong voice re directions, only formatting stuff. There are several members of ProjChess who should need to participate in what you're theorizing, but as mentioned, I'm seeing lack of appetite for that kind of work-thought (and it really is). IMO it is very much needed. I think others like to float w/ only the few ProjChess standards there are (and gosh, it is only a precious few!). (A big undertaking, but isn't "sooner the better" logical? [*I* think so. But it's lonely.])

You're pretty much a "deletionist" and I'm pretty much an "inclusionist", so the sooner you're blocked the happier I'll be. (Kidding!) Anyway, the consensus at the Kingston Defence AfD was 'merge' I think, so as inclusionist I'm not supporting your removal of that Franco-Hiva line or other minor lines, but neither am I going to revert. To be redundant, the standards project you envision is in my thinking a prerequisite to the removals you're making, else it is same old tug-of-war stuff that gets nowhere (but at same time I can understand the boldness of the removals, since I do not believe ProjChess has appetite now for discussions necessary for said project). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. If you think about the concept of "hoping", you'll understand it is the most passive human "activity" imaginable ... even sleeping is more active. (One's subconscious brain is busy solving problems the conscious brain couldn't solve during the day.) IMO, "to hope" always equates to an invitation to shut down one's thinking. (And that, is *never* good. There are always options.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That will be valuable as well—-we could use some good formatting guidelines. I just feel that having some standards would save everyone so much time. We wouldn't be wasting our time arguing with newcomers on writing 0-0-0 or O-O-O. We could send biographies of eight year-old 1900s to AfD without rounding up everyone for consensus first. Perhaps hope is not the right word... let's just say I'm optimistic we can get something done.

If removing non-neutral, unverifiable and original material makes me a deletionist, so be it! But I'm not interested in stirring up trouble. I just wanted to test the water—Wikipedia seems like a different place now, five years later. Also, I wrote most of that French Defence article... Cobblet (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree re "0-0" vs "O-O", but not re your notability assumptions re age and rating (notability isn't a function of those, rather achievement[s]). Of course having standards would save time & effort; but, getting there won't be a picnic (and participation may not be able to be generated at all in fact, sad if true). Hey I never said removing non-neutral, unverifiable, or WP:OR material is deletionistic. Of course I support removing same. What I've seen you remove are rather opening subvariations which you deemed excessive re breadth & depth for openings article coverage, and much if not all those materials had satisfactory RSs and were for completeness and not non-NPOV or WP:UNDUE IMO. I haven't really read the French article completely, but it must have taken a bit of work to write. Congrats! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. "Optimism" is vastly better and truly *different* from the vacuousness of "to hope". I've actually pretty much worked the word "hope" out of my active vocabulary (and that's hard since we are all programmed since birth to buy into it), as mentioned IMO it's never a help and always a potential detriment. Good job!

Thank you for your contributions!

Let me give you a Barnstar-worthy thank you for your contributions. In particular, I like the Trishogi, Hexshogi, Masonic Shogi, Space Shogi, Masonic Chess, Cross Chess, Triangular Chess, Tri-Chess, and Three-Man Chess articles. In terms of capitalization, I really don't care how we capitalize the names of variants. I think naming them with a capital in Chess is better and more consistent with WP:MOS, but it could go the other way. I was annoyed that Embassy chess became a redlink more than anything else, but I've already made the redirect. Samboy (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

30em or 35em

Hi there. I noticed you'd changed a {{reflist}} parameter to 35em on Go (game). Whilst I give you full credit for the edit summary, may I discuss such changes with you? You see, on my screen & resolution, 30em gives 2 columns, but 35 still gives just 1 column. So, people with slightly worse eyesight like me prefer 30em.

Of course, maybe there's no 'one size fits all', but I note that in the template info. it (mostly) refers to 30em, never 35em. It would be nice to have a guideline, I guess. Do you know of any? Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please change back to 30em. (On my screen, 30em makes three columns, 35em makes two. I've "seen 35em around" [didn't make it up!], but yes, the recommendation is 30em, I presumed 35em was equally good and perhaps 30em was a bit out of date. But clearly that's not right, sorry.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As followup am wondering why {{reflist|2}} isn't used more, or can it be? (That way both our screens would show 2 cols. My orig reason for 30em → 35em was that 3 cols looks excessive & silly, at least on my screen it does.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I've reverted it - actually sadly I had to go back a couple of revisions, as User Disori seemed to have mucked up the formatting somehow, in the Tactics section. Interesting that you get 3 cols with 30em. Guess you have a big screen - or very good eyesight? Either way, I envy you :) Good luck with the Chess & Go. Trafford09 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, my understanding is that {{reflist|2}} is deprecated, as it forces any screen-size - even mobile phones, say - to show 2 columns, which renders itself rather poorly on such a small screen. Thus, 30em is preferred, as then the O/S fits in as many columns of 30em as it can, being guided by the actual hardware's screen-width. Not that I'd claim to know all about it! Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explain. (Seems like it s/b made into a preference option somehow, e.g. 30em = good for phones, but the 3 cols it makes on my screen looks a little crazy.) Thx again and sorry for causing the inconvenience. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Me again - not stalking you, but 'Board game' is on my watchlist! Just a thought: in this edit, I suspect it's unwise to change 30em to 2, for reasons as earlier. I.e. it forces every screen - no matter how narrow or wide, and regardless of screen resolution - to have 2 columns. Trafford09 (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trafford. Don't worry about commenting here you can say anything on your mind I won't take it personally. Here's the deal: more than one of the "30 em"s I changed to in articles were changed by other users since we last talked to 2 cols. The first thing I thought was to revert back to 30em, but before doing so I went and re-read the doc at the template we spoke of, to be sure I was right and had basis to revert or and/or to make reference to that doc as part of my reversion. But when I re-read that doc carefully, it seemed to me that doc permits according to personal judgement what seems seems most appropriate for the number of refs involved, and even gives examples where 30em is not used. So that seemed like no basis by which I could revert anyone, so I didn't, and it even led me to considering if cols=2 isn't "more appropriate" than 30em according to the few number of refs involved. The bottom line is that I want to do the right thing, editors seem to do things differently and will revert one another, and the doc isn't clear about anyone being really right or wrong. I'll copy/paste the parts of the doc that I think throw lack of clarity at this if you like, to discuss how I'm interpreting? Bottom line is I don't see any right or wrong vis-a-vis this, and I feel a bit like "damned if I do & damned if I don't", though I know of course you aren't "damning" me. (But you get the idea of my confusion.) OK, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'm having a similar issue with citation techniques as well. I tried to do as Malleus does, then an editor reverted me on the basis of it being inappropriate. So I don't know what is right or wrong, and the whole thing about these markup techniques seems a bit crazy-making to me. I think that both in the citation world and reflist template documenation, there need to be spelled out clearly what to do and what not to do. Else there there seem to be just differening opinions and unending revertsions and disagreement over what is "right".

Infobox Qs

Sorry, did mean to ignore your question. I don't really know. I generally don't have strong feelings about infoboxes, which is probably a surprise since sometimes it seems I express strong opinions about nearly everything else related to Wikipedia. I used to dislike infoboxes a lot. Later I grew to tolerate them, and now I probably mildly like them in many applications. Aside from that I don't have too much to say. Quale (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Szen Variation

I don't think anybody calls the 5.Nb5 Taimanov that anymore. Unless you have strong evidence to the contrary, we probably shouldn't be using that name on Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hooper/Whyld have entry by that name in 1987 Companion. (I don't have the most recent edition.) Seirawan calls the opening by that name in No Regrets (1992; p. 199). Do you have a source that overrides those? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a source that specifically says the term is obsolete, but I will say that I've yet to find a book in my collection that does use that term. It's not in general opening books like the latest edition of MCO (2008), Watson's Mastering the Chess Openings 1 (2006) or Van der Sterren's Fundamental Chess Openings (2009). Nor was I able to find it in books specifically on the Taimanov, namely Burgess's The Taimanov Sicilian (2000), Emms's The Sicilian Taimanov Move by Move (2012) or Starting Out: the Sicilian (2008), Delchev & Semkov's The Safest Sicilian (2008), or Rizzitano's Chess Explained: The Taimanov Sicilian (2006), all of which analyze the variation in some detail. I think I may have seen that name used in print once—the story in the Companion about Szen winning with it does ring a bell—but it's definitely rare these days. I'll leave it for you to decide. Cobblet (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have those books. So ... all of them call the 5.Nb5 line in the Taimanov: "5.Nb5 in the Taimanov"? (Isn't that a bit like naming one's dog: "Dog"?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority of opening variations aren't named. Most of the lines in the Taimanov haven't been given names, for example. Some of the books I mentioned do call 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 the Maróczy Bind Variation, and Rizzitano also calls 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4 the Probing Bishop Variation. It wouldn't surprise me if calling 5.Nb5 the "Szen" was more common in the first half of the 20th century, when this was a popular weapon against the Taimanov; but ever since it was shown to be pretty harmless for Black in the 70s, people have played it less and less, and that may have been why the name fell out of use as well. Cobblet (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But 5.Nb5 line in the Taimanov has a name -- the Szen Variation -- whether or not that name is in popular use. (And, it has no other name, just that one. You wrote "we probably shouldn't be using that name on Wikipedia", but that seems odd to me, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and including the name for the line 5.Nb5 in the encyclopedia seems very encyclopedic to me.) Have you tried Googling "Szen Variation"? There are lots of hits on playsites. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

First, you'll note that virtually all the hits on Google are to databases on game sites. That's not surprising: most databases automatically classify their games by opening, and they usually have at their disposal a long list of opening names not dissimilar to what's given at the end of the Companion. I have in mind a list like this, for example.

But my point is not whether the name exists (it clearly does), but whether the name is in common use, or is deprecated. So I did a search on Google Books for "Szen variation", and I'm not surprised to find that none of the hits actually mention this particular variation of the Taimanov. You can do a search on "Taimanov 5.Nb5" to see the difference in the results.

I agree that Wikipedia has a duty to record the name of the 5.Nb5 Taimanov if it is current or standard usage. However, if the name is obsolete, I don't think Wikipedia should be recording the name without mentioning the fact that it's no longer in use. If we had a specific page on the Taimanov Variation I think such a mention would be worthwhile, but in a general overview of the Sicilian Defence there's neither reason nor space to add all the obsolete variation names in the opening. In that database I linked to above, "Sicilian Defense" returns 259 results, and I think it would be absurd to include all of them into that article. So in the end, I reverted your change to the Sicilian Defence page, but left it on the other two lists.

By the way, I suspect that what actually happened was this: before Taimanov popularized the line in the 70s, there was no name at all for the position after 4...Nc6, so names were necessary for popular subvariations such as 5.Nb5. Once people started calling 4...Nc6 "the Taimanov", it became possible to say "5.Nb5 Taimanov", and so the original name (which may not have been all that common to begin with) fell into disuse, particularly when the variation itself became rarer. Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a search on Google Books for "Szen variation", and I'm not surprised to find that none of the hits actually mention this particular variation of the Taimanov. Isn't that because they mention it in association with the Paulsen? Here is a 2003 example: Beyond Deep Blue; Deep Junior vs. Kasparov. You seem to be a Sicilian guy can you explain that? (I'm honestly confused why Paulsen is associated. And a lot of the playsites make the same connection. With the N already on b5, there is no line of the Paulsen or transposition into the Paulsen that I'm aware of. Are they representing the Paulsen differently than how WP represents it? Or are they just making a mistake?) There are many references to "Paulsen Variation. Szen Variation" including Chessgames.com and other notable sites.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, guess I should've clicked on the first link. But look at who the author is: it's a professor from McGill University—a computer scientist, judging from the subject matter; not an actual chess player. No real analysis is given in the games, for example—just brief colour commentary. And look at the rest of the opening names used in the book—they're also the names one gets from databases. Like in the next two games: "Nimzo-Indian Defense: Normal Variation. Bishop Attack Classical Defense" and "Sicilian Defense: Najdorf. Opocensky Variation Traditional Line." I can assure you'll be unable to find a single book written in the last fifty years that calls the Rubinstein complex in the Nimzo or the 6.Be2 Najdorf by those names. To illustrate what the Companion or the databases won't tell you, 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Ne2 is sometimes called the Modern Variation (that's actually mentioned on our Nimzo page, since I wrote that one) and the 6.Be2 Najdorf is occasionally named after Efim Geller; but both names are far from universally used.

Meanwhile, you've stumbled on the horribly confusing Kan/Paulsen/Taimanov nomenclature issue. To paraphrase Burgess's explanation (The Taimanov Sicilian, 2000) of the modern convention in English: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 is the Kan, while 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 is the Taimanov. Both can lead to what Taimanov himself called the Paulsen, which is when Black plays ...a6, ...Nc6 and ...Qc7 in any order; but the "Paulsen" is sometimes also to describe the same thing as the Kan—not the Taimanov! Taimanov only named the lines where Black plays ...Nge7 after himself, since this was his actual invention; this we sometimes call the "pure" Taimanov. To answer your question, yes, the databases are simply wrong to call the Szen part of the Paulsen. Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC

On page 144 of Yasser Seirawan's 2003 book Winning Chess Openings (Everyman Chess), Yasser calls (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4) 4...a6 the Paulsen Variation, 4...Nc6 the Szen Variation, and 4...Nf6 the Pin Variation. On the same page he further breaks down the Paulsen Variation as follows: 5.Nc3 (Taimanov Variation), 5.c4 (Reti Variation), and 5.Bd3 (Gipslis Variation). I think it's safe to say Seirawan is a reliable source. Your assumption 4...Nc6 carried no name seems to be in contention with Seirawan. Yasser treats the Szen Variation starting on page 146, but page 147 isn't available for "Look Inside" viewing on Amazon, and I don't have the book, but I can see in the search box: "Page 147 ... Black's fourth move distinguishes the Szen Variation, which has its own flavor aft…". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting—I do have that book. But first of all, his definition of the Szen Variation is different from what you, the databases and the Companion were referring to, which is specifically the move 5.Nb5 in response to 4...Nc6, correct? Now, the only line Seirawan gives after 4...Nc6 is 5.Nb5, but in the book he's clearly labelling 4...Nc6 the Szen and not 5.Nb5. And I never said 4...Nc6 had no name: it's the Taimanov, as Burgess and our Sicilian Defence article make clear. I've also already given you the titles of eight books that follow Burgess's convention I quoted above. Please read everything I've written. I have come across no other source in which the Taimanov, "Reti", and "Gipslis" are defined the way Seirawan does. Cobblet (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not contradicting myself. I haven't contended anything personally myself other than these three things: Hooper/Whyld (my 1987 version) puts a footnote on 5.Nb5 corresponding to "Szen Variation", Seirawan (No Regrets, 1992, p. 199) gives annotation after move 5.Nb5 that starts "The Szen variation, [...]", and Seirawan (Winning Chess Openings, 2003) names the lines as I've specified above (you have the book, great). If anyone is "contradicting themselves", it is Seirawan not me. (I put out the Seirawan names in this thread immediately after finding them at the above link, I wasn't knowing that info prior.) Yes I got it wrong saying you said there wasn't a name for 4...Nc6, sorry for that. (You said before Taimanov popularized the line in the 70s, there was no name at all for the position after 4...Nc6. I guess my logic slip-up exists in the supposing that, if Seirawan calls 4...Nc6 "Szen Variation", presumably he knows 4...Nc6 derives from Jozsef Szen, who died in 1857. Or it rather looks like what he intended, which explains his naming conventions, is that 4...Nc6 5.Nb5 is uniquely Szen, whereas 4...Nc6 5.Nc3 will transpose into other lines and *not* the Szen line.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have the Seirawan book, and can see the content continuation after p. 146 that I don't have access to, so your the only line Seirawan gives after 4...Nc6 is 5.Nb5 seems to be key. (Clearly, Seirawan intends 5.Nb5 to be named Szen Variation, and that is just the way he went about getting there, with all other lines going elsewhere.) So the real bottom line is just that I found another reliable source in the Seirawan 2003 book, that calls 5.Nb5 "Szen V." (wouldn't you agree?). (I know in Seirawan's 1992 No Regrets, it looks like he got "Szen" direct from Hooper/Whyld by the context of his other comments. But of course I wouldn't know how he came to calling 5.Nb5 the Szen in his 2003 book. I know Seirawan's reputation for quality chess education materials for several decades, in fact his reputation is tops. I'm not sure about the authors of the books you listed by compare. I don't know but were you suggesting they may all have followed Burgess's lead? Again what are Burgess's qualifications -- he has no WP article.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

On page 144, Seirawan gives three options for Black on move 4. He writes, and I quote:

• "4...a6 (Paulsen Variation)
• 4...Nc6 (Szen Variation)
• 4...Nf6 (Pin Variation)"

The description on page 147 runs, "As seen in Diagram 125, Black develops a Knight (sic) and doesn't waste a tempo for ...a7-a6 yet. As always, the position can allow for a number of transpositions. If White plays 5.Nc3 d6, the game can quickly become a Scheveningen Variation. Black's fourth move distinguishes the Szen Variation, which has its own flavor after 5.Nb5."

It seems pretty clear to me from the above that Seirawan believes 4...Nc6, not 5.Nb5, is the move that defines the Szen Variation. It appears to me that the phrase "its own flavor" only serves to point out that not all lines after 4...Nc6 necessarily transpose other lines like the Scheveningen.

Graham Burgess has been the editor of Gambit Publications since its inception. And yes, all eight books I listed above follow the convention he stated on the Taimanov/Paulsen issue, and none of them call 5.Nb5 the Szen. Yaz's "Winning Chess" book series has a good reputation in general, but this particular volume on openings seems to be full of idiosyncrasies in other places, not just here. He doesn't hesitate to call various lines in different openings the "Seirawan Variation", for example, even though I've never seen anyone else name those lines after him.

In the end, I remain convinced that calling 5.Nb5 the "Szen" is not standard practice these days, and that you found two books by the same author that do so does not contradict my position. Winning Chess Openings is a book aimed at teaching novice players what to do in the opening; it's not meant to be an authoritative reference work, whereas five of the books I cited are specialist guides on this particular variation of the Sicilian, written with a more advanced audience in mind. Go get a copy of Seirawan's book, and go get copies of all the books I mentioned as well. That will help you form your own opinion better than anything I have to say at this point. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this. Cobblet (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be putting money down on those five books, but I'll be researching them as well as I can, and their authors. Ditto for the quality of Seirawan's book. I think your interpretation of "which has its own flavor after 5.Nb5" might be faulty, that sentence seems to me to imply that if White plays other than 5.Nb5, then the line beginning 4...Nc6 will *not* have "its own flavor" (i.e. it will transpose into one of the other named variations). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Self-correction, I found Burgess's WP article: Graham Burgess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Burgess is rated only 2265 according to FIDE. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Seirawan is rated 2620 according to FIDE. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• B44 Sicilian Szen Dely-Kasparov gambit 365chess.com
• B44 Sicilian Szen 'anti-Taimanov' variation 365chess.com
• B44 Sicilian Szen hedgehog variation 365chess.com

Unsolicited comments

Now this is just too funny for me not to respond. We're using Elo ratings to determine the credibility of a source?! By that logic, should we be comparing our own ELO ratings to determine whose opinion has more credibility? But OK, if this is the game you want to play: in Nunn's Chess Openings (1999), Nunn twice mentions the move 5.Nb5 in the Taimanov without referring to it as the Szen. See p. 183 as well as p. 3 in the Table of Contents. In both cases other variations in the surrounding text are explicitly named. John Nunn is a former top 10 player in the world. This is now the ninth example I've provided, from what was regarded as the most authoritative one-volume opening encyclopedia in the world at the time it was published.

Just for good measure, here's a tenth example from last month. A search of ChessPublishing.com, which is a subscription site where titled players present the latest news in opening theory, turns up no hits for "Szen". The site's been around for over 10 years and I'm a subscriber myself. Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Algebraic notation box

Thanks for taking the time to ask. Compared to the main choice of having a notation box compared with a hatnote or passing the problem onto wikibooks, it's quite a trivial matter, so please don't feel obliged to divert from your more important work. However, what I meant by symmetry/order (balance may have been a better word) was the way that the notation box floats somewhere between the contents box and the main info box in most opening articles; nearly in the middle, but not quite and not following any normal rule of alignment like right/left justified. If I put on my graphic designer's hat, it looks ugly/misplaced and I think a more balanced layout would be achieved if we modify the arrangement found in Modern Benoni or Ruy Lopez, where the notation box is tucked under the main info box. Of course, in those two examples, the notation box sticks out strangely, and so the first task would be to make it align with the main info box, or the right margin if it can't be made of identical width. Hard to say if others would like that though. The more ugly, floating off-centre arrangement probably minimizes dead space more efficiently, so the consensus may just be to uphold that principle above all things aesthetic. Anyway, it's not a big deal either way, so I'll stop rambling on. Happy to have your opinion though. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Looking at those two examples again, I can see that they are also competing for the central dead space, but failing because it's not wide enough. Nevertheless, I would say they'd look better under the main info box, by design, rather than by accident. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I understanding right, this seems to be a screen-width issue? (Ruy Lopez and especially Mondern Benoni, have very wide TOCs, wider than all other openings articles. The wide TOCS limit the space between the TOC and the Infobox, where the notation box was intended to go. On my screen there is still room for the notation box to fit between. I'm thinking on your narrower screen, those wide TOCs squeeze out the notation box, causing it to fall downward in search of a space for itself. Over time Bubba & I have efforted to make the Ruy Lopez TOC less wide. But apparently it isn't narrow enough for your screen width to also accomodate the notation box. In that case yes, I agree that right-justified below the Infobox would be a better location for the notation box. But in general I do not like that location for it, esthetically. [I could explain why, but maybe that's off point at the moment.]) Are there any other articles where the notation box is shooting off looking for space for itself, or just those two? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think you are correct. I have a squarer, less elongated screen, so probably the problem is not going to occur for most people, who will have a more fashionable 'widescreen'. In fact, by slimming down my 'favorite links' box, I can now get the Lopez notation box to fall in the slot, but not the one at Modern Benoni. I haven't checked all the other openings, but these were the only two I found on a quick survey. As I've previously said, I'd prefer to get rid of the notation box altogether, as outlined by Cobblet, but I'm sensing some resistance to that idea and seeing as I rarely edit openings, it's probably sensible that I leave the decision to those who do. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad Lopez is working for you now. I'm pretty sure there are no other openings articles you'd have any problems with, except Modern Benoni. (The TOC for Modern Benoni is inordinently wide, unlike any other openings article. I'm sure that TOC width could be reduced through simplification similar to how Bubba & I reduced the Ruy Lopez TOC width. You mentioned you were able to slim down your 'favorite links' box. I guess that means it is a vertical box. There might be an option to make your 'favorite links' box horizontal up on top of your screen instead of to the side, as option on one of the top horizontal toolbars. (That would free up horizontal screen width enough for even the mammothly wide Modern Benoni TOC, I'd guess.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Less Restricted Double Chess

You can ignore check if you have two kings. If you have only one, you must deal with check as usual. No restriction on where you can castle. Everything else as in standard Double Chess. Double sharp (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case there would be "castling long", "castling loong", and "castling looong"!

Seriously, you pointed out something that can't be rectified with the current ruleset in Pritchard: What if a player's two kings are in check simultaneously? (Such as, an enemy rook sliding between the two kings on the same rank.) Your rule mod might be *required* in that case!? I don't have access to the BCM Jan. 1929 issue, I'm wondering if I can find the answer ... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

0-0-0-0-0, indeed!

I suspect standard Double Chess would have you checkmated in such a situation unless you could capture the checking piece. But then again, you only have to checkmate one king, so perhaps you do just ignore one check?! (Though that's a little different from my rule modification, because mine would allow you to not move either king out of check, whereas this means you address one check, but not the other?!) Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another ridiculous chess variant idea

Cuiviénen Chess: 12 (vertically) × 144 (horizontally) board.(!!! the number could be ridiculous) White starts on the east side of the board, with a quadruple Gross Chess set-up (empty spaces filled with commoners, thus 144 pieces). Black has 12 uncapturable queen+nightrider+fire demon+lion (ridiculously overpowered, I know) set up randomly across unoccupied squares (but NOT at the very west end at the board. They cannot go to the a-file.) that can only capture unprotected pieces (but can burn stuff with impunity if they don't endanger themselves by doing so. They don't burn each other.). White's goal is to get at least 52 pieces to the west end of the board (defined as "as far as they can go without being blocked by a wall of friendly pieces on the next rank"). Once they are there, they cannot be captured under any circumstances. Black's goal is to prevent White from achieving his goal. Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

From this you can probably tell what I think of Duniho's statement that "...piece[s that] can force checkmate on [their] own...[are] bad piece[s] to use."! Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wooha! (Quadruple Gross = 128 pieces. Since capturing protected pieces isn't allowed, burning is the primary Black defense -- what is "burning" and how does it work? I read Lord of the Rings decades ago, is the migration goal thematic from the trilogy [can't remember]? Are White pieces safe when they arrive west, or only after migrating "as far as they can go"? Your game falls under Fox & Geese category [unbalanced forces; different objectives] which makes it interesting. Hmm ... a board 12 x 144 squares ... hmm ... that is super long and kills any chance of a commercial success. [Hasbro won't be calling you, he-he!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll fill the missing space from the Gross with commoners to reach 144. That fits the original better. :-) Oh, and all the original kings are commoners too.

Burning – if you move to a square next to enemy pieces, all those pieces are burned and removed from the board. This can quickly result in unprotections! White pieces are safe when they arrive at the a-file. If the a-file is full, safety is at the b-file, and so on. Though I can see how this might not work well. Got any suggestions? ;-)

I should really let Black do more and add a "flee" rule from Nemoroth: when a White piece is within 2 squares of a Black piece – i.e. within a 5×5 square centered on the Black piece – it must move away, in the same way that you must move out of check, no matter what might result. But this might be overpowered...

No, this isn't from LOTR, this is from The Silmarillion (the other one) – see chapter 3. But all those Elves going West, I suppose you could say it's related. :-) I did not implement the island ferry to the west because that would severely nerf Black's pieces... Double sharp (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want the original story where I got the idea for this from, see Elf (Middle-earth)#History. Double sharp (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

*mind explodes* chess

Takes sledgehammer to Betza's statement that nothing new can be derived from Turning Chess

Specifically, it's his suggestion that "the 1/16th turn might make the Q go to a place between two squares, where she can stop on the line between the two squares, thus expanding the board". Since letters are not continuous, while numbers are, we'll have to use coordinates for both...

Irrational-fractions-of-a-circle turns anyone? I like this concept with circular pieces: they then go tantalizingly close to the direction they started with, but can never return to it. To be even more terrible, we could have a Q where the R and the B components turn at different rates. Or maybe split the R and the B both into W's, nD's, nH's,... F's, nA's, nG's... Such things must be allowed to exist with impunity!

And now for something completely different.

Given that each complete circuit of the rose is an octagon, we could therefore have a "starry rose", which would trace out an octagram (goes 3 rose spaces in one move! It's an n[qN]3x, where x is a positive integer.) The same concept can be applied to other circular figures. Or perhaps, perversely, its length of the full move it can go in one step could depend on its current position, what direction it came from, etc.

And now for yet another completely different thing.

Incidentally, who said chess pieces had to be pointlike particles? For a 3D chess, it might be prudent to have chess pieces occupying entire lines. These lines may rotate as well as translate (as pointlike orthodox chess pieces do). Billiards would have them reflect from the edge of the board (or perhaps off each other?) A "spherical" piece would then trace out a polyhedron with its line segments, by rotating and translating. (You can make a tetrahedral piece with just rotation.) Translation of a 1-piece (orthodox pieces are 0-pieces, after their dimensions) should be exact – the image at time t (move) should be parallel to the image at time t − 1 (the previous move). 4D chess could have 2-pieces (planes), with glomical pieces (3-spheres) tracing out polychora (4-polytopes). Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

I have replied to your question on the talk page (in a separate section, for obvious reasons)

Also if I may offer some advice: don't get incited/frustrated by the numerous talk page comments placed by the subject's relatives. Yes, it is a case of COI and sock/meat-puppetry, and the comments are too numerous, ill-indented, and somehow obsequious and insulting at the same time (quite an achievement!). But keep in mind that all that is obvious to neutral talkpage readers, and we can choose to respond to comments that offer useful substance (such as the links to the design applications) and simply ignore the ones that are repetitive or irrelevant to improving the article. Thus I would suggest self-reverting your recent reply, since it will only tend to further personalize the discussion and later be used to claim that the "fault" lay on both sides. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone needed to tell those people of/repudiate their false and baseless accusations and unjustifiable slanderous attacks. No one did so I did. I'm not used to being a pin cushion for false and vile allegations. They should have been sanctioned long ago. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact is at this point I despise their conduct. Now that you are on board I'd like to de-watchlist the article and let you handle things. I was going to invest in pruning the excessive/duplicative citations, but NeilN beat me to it. The only possible interest I'd have in the article any longer is to keep the claim "prodigy/genius" OUT, and the claim "world's youngest disabled/wheel-chaired patent holder" OUT. (If no one is vigilant re those two things, no doubt they would spring up like weeds.) Do you have any suggestions re vigilance who/what/where/when/how? Thanks, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How to reply ::Communication intended for the inventor : Thanks and regards for concern: Yes you were 100% correct in aspects hinted by you.

Respected Sir: I am not eligible to edit the talk section. I really appreciate your concern and initiative. If you wish sir, I can send the detailed work with images to you sir. Though we have mentioned about 12 players circular chess and 60 players circular chess but it is not there in See Also: If you wish sir, please guide me how to email it to you sir. Yes you were 100% correct but we have not disclosed everything on website. We have taken into consideration for every aspect hinted by you. Please guide me how to send my work to you for your kind inspection. Rest is your show sir. Regards 122.161.213.22 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just glad you understand my points and passed them on to Hridayeshwar. I don't think there is any necessity to send your materials to me, I prefer to see the specific info on the Hridayeshwar webiste as time goes on. (If there is important update there, perhaps I can notice it and merge into the WP article to maintain accuracy and completeness.) I believe but do not know, that if 6-player is understood, then 12- & 60-player versions follow suit. I think the 6-player version is complex enough for the WP article, so to get that game right, would surely be an accomplishment. Cheers & good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: I discussed with hridayeshwar regarding Clockwise and Anti Clockwise concept in 6 players circular chess and his rest of invented chess variants and his answer was that He has not kept any constraint for same. His idea was to finish game early so he wanted the same. To further clarify suppose a Bishop is at any place, it can move clockwise or anticlockwise for any move. But for a particular move bishop must move only exactly one of them. I.E That Bishop will not move clockwise as well as anticlockwise in one single move. When I asked how it is possible that both clockwise and anticlockwise are possible in same move? His answer was it is possible while crossing the Center Circle though it is not allowed by him. When i asked him, what will be the status of Bishop if it is right now at the border of the circle. His reply was move clockwise or anticlockwise is still the choice for that perticular move. The conclusion is Whether you move anticlockwise or clock wise is allowed for any different move. But in same move or one move Both the directions in same move is not allowed. He further said he also wanted to keep such rule for giving more powers to all pieces to finish the game early and keep the game simple. Moreover to assess the clockwise or anticlockwise direction of all players might lead to confusion and complication. Respected sir I have discussed lot other issues about 6 players circular chess from him and i will let you know sir, even Victory conditions etc. This is very important to mention that Website is not complete, updated for intellectual property reasons. Some people might take advantage from website and launch his games at their own Regards 106.219.38.133 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: Yes one thing raised by you proves your inventive instinct and highest level of competency for chess. That is colors black and White at center as accepted by Hridayeshwar, when i asked the same question to him. His answer was that, "Yes keeping Center for only two colors is very confusing and difficult for making moves to cross center and unfortunately it struck to him after filing patent of 6 players circular chess. But he has taken care of same in other invented chess variants. Now he has kept multi color center for same. Now it is more simple and easy to play. Further he has taken care of same in his 6 players circular chess game launching and for all purpose whatsoever wheresoever. Evidence Respected Sir: Please go through attached files. Regards 106.219.39.81 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Latest_invented_and_innovated_variant_of_12_Players_Circular_Chess_by_an_amazing_special_kid_Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati_from_India_who_is_also_the_youngest_patent_holder_of_India_for_inventing_circular_chess_for_6_players.jpg , [[File:Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Latest invented and innovated variant of 12 Players Circular Chess by an amazing special kid Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati from India who is also the youngest patent holder of India for inventing circular chess for 6 players.jpg|thumbnail]] Regards. 106.219.38.133 (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Further Sir: 12 players circular chess patent and 60 players circular chess patent has multi color center and it struck to him before file of these patents. Regards.106.219.38.133 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Next point raised by you was about sitting positions while playing in chess variants invented by Hridayeshwar. When i asked him his reply was that In 6 players circular chess following playing possibilities exists 1: 2 Players individual: Sit opposite

2: 3 Players individual: Sit alternate

3: 4 players individual: 2 will sit opposite to 2: Gap A B Gap C D: Yes position of A, B , C, D can be decided on the basis of toss. The dispute could be being adjacent or opposite as proximity to level of strength of player might create dispute

4: 6 players Individual: Only one possibility: Yes position of A, B , C, D, E, F can be decided on the basis of toss. The dispute could arise due to proximity as the level of strength of players might create dispute.

5: 2 teams of 3 each: Alternate Arrangement: F E F E F E

6: 2 teams of 3 each: Opposite arrangement: F F F E E E

7: 3 teams of 2 each: Same teams sitting adjacent: Z Z Y Y X X

8: 3 teams of 2 each: Competitors sit adjacent: Z Y X Z Y X

9: 2 teams of 2 each: Same teams Sit together and they are opposite to competitor team: Gap A A Gap B B

10: 2 teams of 2 each: One member of team and one member of Competitor are sitting adjacent and these 2 are sitting in such a manner to make sure that the same team members are sitting opposite Gap F E Gap F E

11: 2 teams of 2 each: One member of team and one member of Competitor are sitting adjacent and these 2 are sitting in such a manner to make sure that the competitor team members are sitting opposite Gap F E Gap E F

Hridayeshwar further clarified to me that above are 11 possible circular chess variants are possible on 6 players circular chess board. Further Sir the following links will give you an idea about few of your queries and concern sir. I am sorry that that the following links are having an error of uploading. Instead of indexing files 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10....35. It reads invented 6 , 7 , 8, ...35 players circular chess. Moreover these files and links are related to 12 players circular chess but they will be helpful even for 6 players circular chess as the logic remains same as far as moves, center color, sitting position , Non playing zones, etc are concerned. Respected Sir: Please go through the attached files: Regards 106.219.39.81 (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Latest_invented_and_innovated_variant_of_12_Players_Circular_Chess_by_an_amazing_special_kid_Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati_from_India_who_is_also_the_youngest_patent_holder_of_India_for_inventing_circular_chess_for_7_players.jpg Regards 106.219.39.81 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: You rightly raised the point about victory conditions when playing in team as far as moving all pieces out of the team member when he loses his king? When i asked Hridayeshwar his reply was that Whatever is the format of game, Individual or Team, one who loses his king, his all the pieces will be removed from the game (Whether individual or a team member). When i asked him his reply was Suppose 2 teams of 3 players are playing. Then the winner team will be who finishes the three kings of the opposite team. His logic for making this rule was on simple logic that Kings must be most important pieces. Otherwise players will be bothered only for last king. Because as such moves are concerned King has less powers therefore people might be bothered about the last asking only. or try to protect or guard a particular king. After all killing king must give an achievement. Further he cautioned that this rule is very important to understand. Some times who kills others king might enter into a vulnerable situation as the game will be totally changed, once all the pieces will be removed. Players will think many times to kill some one king. This move will take maximum time as it will change the direction of game totally. He further mentioned once he was playing circular chess 6 players and he was into strong position and he killed some ones king and even thought very carefully and observed that once all the pieces will be removed the player having next turn will be able to kill another king. This way he thought 2 players will be out and their pieces will be removed. But he was not able to observe the effect on him when the player having next turn will kill the king of another player. That costed him very dearly and finally his king was killed and the player in weakest situation emerged into the strongest one. Regards 106.219.44.241 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Will need some time to carefully digest all you have written above. So please be patient, etc. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: Kind inspection Please: Regards 106.219.45.132 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: "100 Chess Variants": This following line (Verbatim) is supported by following reliable resources: "Hridyeshwar Singh Bhati, who is wheelchair-bound because of the disease, has three patents for three types of circular chess boards to his name. The three boards collectively make 100 chess variants." Regards 122.161.29.68 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Moreover Sir: Kind Attention for following references: Reliable reference list of article: Kind inspection please. Regards 122.161.29.68 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: I understood points raised by you for "6 players circular chess" and passed it to the inventor. More contribution from him that can be useful for "6 players circular chess" is as followed.

Various Chess Variants possible in 6 players circular chess

How pieces moves in 6 players circular chess

Moreover Sir: He has improved the center of 6 players circular chess for better clarity in passing through it.Initially the center was in 2 colors but now he has improved to multi colors. Regards 122.161.230.64 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Further Sir: In above designs the inventor told me that positioning of King and Queen, in the beginning has not been taken care of properly. The thumb rule for placing Queen and King will be left and right respectively. I.E Queen will be at left and King to Right of the player in the initial arrangement. Regards 122.161.230.64 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

References

The capitalization of honorifics

You wrote:

Q1) Does everyone see and agree then, that as far as cap vs. lower-case goes, we essentially have a critical difference between the following two sentences? "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'", and, "Soviet Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'"? Q2) We've agreed what is correct is "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" OK. But let's modify the sentence a bit. How? By using "GM" instead. So we have: "The Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" Is there anything wrong with that sentence? I presume there isn't. And is "GM" in that sentence "honorific". I presume it is. So if "GM" is honorific in that sentence, how could substitution of the word GM represents, suddenly make the substituted word not honorific (and therefore demand lower-case)?

The quote in bold is where you get confused, because there's a difference between an honorific and an acronym, and the trouble with "GM" is that it's an acronym that can sometimes function as an honorific. Compare the usage of "Dr.", which is used exclusively as an honorific in formal writing, in these two sentences:

• "The patient went to see Dr. Rashmi Patel."
• "The patient went to see the Indian Dr. Rashmi Patel."

The second sentence looks wrong: one would write instead "The patient went to see the Indian doctor Rashmi Patel." Do you agree? So if a sentence began "The Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed", GM is not functioning as an honorific and is just an acronym for "grandmaster", but if the same sentence began "Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed", GM is now functioning as an honorific, and would be capitalized if written out as "Grandmaster". Does this make sense? If it does, I'll answer your other question about what to do when the title is being referred to as a title. Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see the logic ("GM" conveys neither honorific or non-honorific). OK. But I don't like your "Dr. Rshmi Patel" example because I think parallels like that can confuse things in another context like our Grandmaster/grandmaster context. (For example, "John went to see Grandmaster Benjamin." OK. "John went to see the American grandmaster Benjamin." OK. "John went to see American Grandmaster Benjamin." Is it OK? We agreed that without the definite article it is an honorific in that position and so s/b capped. But your "Dr." example doesn't correlate and sort of implies this third option may not be correct. But we agreed at WT:CHESS it is correct. [Do you still think it is correct? And if so, then is "John went to see American grandmaster Benjamin" incorrect? I assume answers must be yes & yes, but let's confirm.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and yes—a more appropriate parallel for your third case could be "The diplomats went to greet Indian President Rashmi Patel."

OK.

Now for your other question. This one has to do with the third bullet point in WP:JOBTITLES, which says to capitalize titles when they're used as proper nouns but not when they're used as common nouns. In all four examples you gave I'm pretty sure "grandmaster" would be considered a common noun (since in those situations it's always taking an indefinite article: proper nouns like "King of Morocco" never take indefinite articles) and would therefore be uncapitalized. Cobblet (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I need to review this more tomorrow. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Different topic here ... We agreed the following is correct: "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" OK. But what if the next sentence was: "The Soviet grandmaster went on further to observe, 'Blah blah blah.'" (Is that followup sentence correct? And would it be correct or incorrect to cap instead: "The Soviet Grandmaster went on further to observe, 'Blah blah blah.'"? [Why can't "The Soviet Grandmaster" be considered as substituting for "Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh", and thereby, "Grandmaster" can be capped just as if the sentence was "Soviet Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh went on further to observe, 'Blah blah blah.'"?])

I think in the second sentence "grandmaster" is still acting as a common noun and should be uncapitalized. Cobblet (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. (I think that's better/consistent also.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I need to point out that I'm not trying to be "difficult" or a trouble-maker or disruptive or anything of that order. I'm just trying to understand, and have most respect for articles and text in practice, since whenever anyone tries to make a convention, they invariably create simplistic examples to support their idea, which faulter and are inadequate come the intricacies and complexities of actual sentences laid out in articles all over the place. (The devil is in the details, and, there are lots of details, i.e. examples, that escape attention usually when we think we are safe forming general rules and using simplistic examples to illustrate them. That is why I'm suspicious of generalities, they are so seductive and easy to make and to want to make, but only really validly formed from compiling lots of examples that make distinct patterns. Going after the generality first and then thinking it will apply without problems, is the opposite way and a precept filled with problems and practically guarantees failure. [I guess the parallel w/ chess is modern theory where "principles" are not respected as much as they once were and positions are now evaluated on their own merits. I remember Solitis writing a column on that very topic, showing examples in games where the classic principles just didn't hold water and counter-intuitive moves were best in certain game positions. One example was where White gained a late middlegame advantage by pushing his pawns to make his bishop bad not good. [The idea wasn't "There are exceptions to the principles", the idea was that thinking in terms of principles closed doors to best moves and how biasing it is to think in terms of principles to begin with.] Somehow I think you know what I'm talking about.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you're acting in good faith, but I moved our discussion to your talk page because we're not really talking about conventions for chess articles anymore. Instead you're basically asking me to explain the difference between a proper noun and a common noun and I don't want people to get too sidetracked by our discussion. Also I'm afraid I can't give you a definitive answer on the distinction between them because I'm not a professional linguist, although I did study the subject briefly. So you'll have to take my answers with a grain of salt. Cobblet (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You were going to reply about titles used not as honorifics but when referred to as titles. (Did you already? If so I missed it.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bolded the place in the thread above where I attempted a reply. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The four examples at WT:CHESS weren't chosen and don't necessarily represent clear examples of title referred to as a title. So that doesn't address the direct example I gave at WT:CHESS:

"FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of Grandmaster." (The other alternative would be: "FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of grandmaster.")

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization is correct here: it's being used as a proper noun. That's all WP:JOBTITLES is about in the end: capitalize whenever it's a proper noun, don't if it isn't. Cobblet (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Btw, you seem a bit bothered lately. What's wrong? We weren't even talking about your fully justified reversion on Talk:Backward pawn. Cobblet (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? (Nothing's wrong. But thx for the [personal] inquiry. I'd like to see decisions added to WP:CHESS accepted Project conventions [along w/ the ambiguous "White/white" convention, plus piece names in lower-case, etc.] But that's really the extent of existing accepted conventons, yes?) I think what's proper noun and what's not is a bit unclear and subject to interpretation of whatever individual sentence/case, so a general rule re [MOS] proper noun will still lead to difference of opinion and subsequent confusion. So examples are "king". That said, I haven't had time to review the examples brought forward [by me & your responses]. A general rule doesn't do much good if inconsistencies [due to differing interpretations] follow. And consistency is the whole point of course.) Are you ready to hang something on WP:CHESS convention standards!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer to leave the MOS the way it is. If I have a really difficult time deciding whether a noun is proper or common (as I did in some of the cases you showed me), I'd rather ask an actual grammarian. Back to the larger discussion of chess conventions, sorry I've been absent from the discussion lately, but I brought up a few more issues to consider at WT:CHESS. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

But I wasn't suggesting or implying any change to MoS. (Only a convention standard, via specific common examples, posted at WP:CHESS.) Those common examples are important (else inconsistencies between articles w/ no idea what editor is "right" [many of the GM articles begin w/ the same sentence structure including "Grandmaster/grandmaster"].) You don't need to apologize for absence, in fact a GREAT WHITE took off my left leg while swimming off the beaches of Amity Island </joke>. We're all here temporarily trying to do the best we can. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

TONNES OF THANKS

Respected Sir: The subject of the article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati has asked me to say "Tonnes of thanks" to you sir for making him realize a very important point about his invention. Pieces will not end their move at the starting point. As it was not clarified by him because this point did not strike to him.Further Sir i have passed the points raised by you to the inventor in the separate section of the talk page of the article,"Communication intended for the inventor Hridayeshwar" and collected his views. Moreover Sir Please go through the points in separate section at your talk page, "How to reply ::Communication intended for the inventor : Thanks and regards for concern: Yes you were 100% correct in aspects hinted by you".Regards122.161.230.64 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found time yet to review your detail feedbacks, but still plan to. Meantime, I've updated the article image per above, and changed text to "queens to left of kings". (Please note in the new illustration, there appear to be 2 red armies, which might be confusing to readers.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job!. (The orange-coloured pieces s/b filled-in, however - i.e. made solid color [w/ either black or white definition lines]. But this was a sufficient fix of yours.) I'm beginning to believe Hridayeshwar is a "brilliant kid" (not "genius", but a brilliant kid nevertheless; the 60-player version is a highly social chess variant innovation, and he s/b commended) -- this is my personal view & nothing offical regarding WP, of course. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This was perfect correction. Good job. (But to include additional diagrams, for how pieces move etc. [i.e. expand article re additional game ruleset/gameplay specifics] would be more appropriate for an article on game "Six-player circular chess" than the BLP [biography of living person], do you agree? And the basis of article on the game itself is subject to WP:GNG criteria, which means there needs to be RLs on the game itself, not just Hridayeshwar inventor [do you agree?]. I would love to help w/ article on Six-player circular chess, but there needs to be RSs on the game itself as mentioned. It will take some time for the game to have attention by itself [on its own merits] from media sources. [See admin Yunshui opinion here. I have already added Bhati's variant as "See also" mention at Circular chess.] When will Six-player circular chess qualify for its own article? I do not know the answer. [The answer is subject to WP:GNG criteria, as mentioned.]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Since I am picky re grahics, and you are responsive, I would recommend yellow queen and rook to have black definition lines (same as the orange queen and rook), for better visability against spaces (especially white spaces). (In addition if you can, you s/ put black definition lines around the yellow pawns, for same reason.) There are some other inconsistencies, but these are the best first changes, if easy for you to do. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir:First of all i appreciate your brain (I.Q as well as E.Q). The photograph of inventor with chess variants is displayed on Wikipedia but the thumb nail photograph is still the older one. I.E Inventor on wheel chair.Please solve this problem. Further Sir (Respected YUNSHUI SIR CONCERN), Inventor with chess variants proves the production. If required i can submit a lot of photographs that proves 6, 12, 60 players is already produced,but not at commercial level. Even i can submit lot of photographs for 6, 12 being played at home, at school, inter school tournaments in the state of the inventor ie Rajasthan. Yes to be very honest: As far as 60 players circular chess is concerned: Inventor believes that it is a very tough challenge to make it playable with convenience.Inventor has asked me to honestly share the situation about, "Production and Playing" of his inventions.Regards.122.161.68.112 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When I go to article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati, I see this photo in the Infobox:

.

(You do not? Then perhaps you need to clear your browser's cache and try again!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: If we pick the inventor link of Wikipedia:And if we post it on facebook: Then it shows 2 thumbnails One is the latest photograph "Starting position" and another is "Inventor on wheel chair". Technically i am incompetent to understand/resolve this problem. Regards 122.161.68.112 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Respected Sir: When i visit Wikipedia i also find "Inventor with chess variants photograph" but when i pick the Wikipedia link of the article, then in 2 thumb nails that photo is replaced by "Inventor on wheel chair". Regards 122.161.68.112 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir:Media is more interested in writing the theme as "Rare achievements despite hardships". Disease, Fatal, Wheel Chair, Kid etc to make there story sensational. They are less interested in writing technical details. Even inventor hates reading news about him as it discourages him..Death, fatal, disease etc stuff. Further Sir the best strength of the inventor is out of box thinking. The key notable aspect about the inventor is "Creativity", "Out of box thinking", "Tangential thinking". Not only he has invented Chess variants but invented 16 x 16 sudoku and applied for patent. Developed economic mobility van ramp modification design , developed a project for disaster free world .Regards 122.161.68.112 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't use Facebook, so I don't know about the problem or solution there. I understand that when you go to the WP article the correct images show, but when you pick the Wikipedia link of the article, then in 2 thumb nails that photo is replaced [...]. What do you mean by "pick the link"? (Do you mean when clicking on the image?)

I understand Hridayeshwar's frustration, it is the nature of the newsmedia. Bobby Fischer had similar experience at age 13:

[...] the press; whenever they did chess stories, reporters would look for a certain amount of aberration among the players. Bobby, therefore, frequently became a victim of a twisted interpretation of his personality. When he was interviewed by a reporter, he was often asked patronizing or offensive questions ("How come you don't have a girlfriend?" ... "Are all chessplayers crazy?"), and it became clear to him that they were going to slant the story to make him appear weird. "Ask me something usual," he once said to a reporter, "instead of making me look unusual." To another he talked about newspapermen in general: "Those guys always write bad stories about me. They say I'm stupid and that I have no talent in anything except for chess. It's not true." Endgame by Brady, 2011, p 71

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: Kind Attention Please: As per your instructions, I have tried my level best, in the direction suggested by you Sir (As suggested by Respected YUNSHUI Sir also).

Six Players Circular Chess:: Attention by itself [Media Resources] Supported by following notable and reliable references:Including Yahoo News, MSN News, The Times of India, The Hindu etc

@1: Six Players circular chess is an invented chess variant.

@2:Six Players Circular Chess is an Chess Variant invention for 2, 3, 4, 6 Players

@3:6 Players Circular Chess invention: Journey and Challenges.

@4: Origin and need for 6 players circular chess invention::

'@5:Technical Information about 6 players Circular Chess'

@6: Six Players Circular Chess is friendly to existing chess lovers:

@7: 6 players Circular chess appreciated by reputed/Expert people

@8: Six Players Circular Chess is Patented

@9:6 players circular chess inventor became "Youngest Patent Holder in India"

@10: 6 players circular chess inventor became "Youngest disabled patent holder of the world"

@11:Similarities and Differences between "Chess" and "6 players circular chess variants

Regards 122.161.53.239 (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of this refbombing, I would be more impressed if you provided three or four sources covering people actually playing the game. Better if these sources were chess journals or magazines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir:Kind Attention Please: Trying my level best to provide resources(People actually playing the game + Coverage about game also:Media:: Video + Photograph).

All the following references , has shown people playing 6 players circular chess together. Further these references has also spoken about 6 players circular chess.

@1: Reference 6 of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati or the following link

@2:Video by News X (Newsxlive):Under the title,"Good News: Physically challenged boy invents chess game for 6 people - NewsX" in all the following links

@3: Yahoo India National News cover story for Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati/6 players circular chess(Following links)

@4:ETV National news cover story for Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati/6 players circular chess(Following links)

@5:Sahara TV national NCR news cover story of Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati/6 players circular chess(Following links)

@6:India News National news live cover story of Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati/6 players circular chess(Following link)

@7: Front page News of Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati @ City Bhaskar(Dainik Bhaskar Jaipur)on 3rd December 2012 A.D ,, has shown people playing 6 players circular chess together.

@8: Three Photographs of Hridayeshwar playing 6 players circular chess with friends in the following links.

Regards122.161.116.90 (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Facebook links are useless. And I'm not going through every link as the first couple only showed friends/family playing the game for a photo op. This is not reliable sources "covering the game". Coverage of the game would be a report and analysis of a serious chess tournament with serious chess players unrelated to Bhati playing the variant. Before you start refbombing with more useless links, remember you are technically blocked from editing Wikipedia. Post two or three good references instead of garbage like this that wastes other editors' time or this account will also be blocked. That's my view anyways. Ihardlythinkso may have more patience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Link of his news for his latest inventions shared at International level by "The U.S Chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center.:: Global IP Center: Evidence in the following reference. Link::http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/11-yr-old-with-fatal-disorder-makes-a-name-in-chess-invention/ 122.161.212.99 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

First Photograph evidence that proves that the Subject "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati" is on Wheel Chair bound with seat belts, and his school is "Delhi Public School" I.E "DPS". Further this reference also mentions the subject as "Youngest Patent holder of India" and "Inventor of 60 players circular chess". The subject was invited as GUEST EDITOR of City Bhaskar (Dainik Bhaskar) Jaipur by Dainik Bhaskar Group for Children's Day 14th November 2013 A.D. and it APPEARED ON FRONT PAGE. Evidence:: Link:: http://epaper.bhaskar.com/detail/?id=435120&boxid=111415519218&ch=0&map=map&currentTab=tabs-1&pagedate=11%2F14%2F2013&editioncode=34&pageno=1&view=image Regards 122.161.212.99 (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Yahoo Chess

Looks like some admin came by and summarily deleted the Chess on Yahoo! article on which we were working. Can we contest this? Fishface gurl (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Now we have this: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Chess_on_Yahoo!_Games Fishface gurl (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Gary Kasparov Article

I just wanted to apologize for coming off as an ass hole through my recent edits on the Gary Kasparov article. I also apologized to User:Toccata quarta for unintentionally re-reverting his edits back to mine. Could you explain to me what I did specifically to upset you so I don't make the same mistake in the future? I found some additional sources for this article and I was simply trying to reorganize it to make it easier to read.

Best,

Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't upset. There was no reason to suppose your revert (edit-war instead of WP:BRD) was done by accident, so your edit sum in that context seemed snarky. (Am curious to understand how TW works re edit sums [I don't use that s/w myself]: how is the edit sum generated, by drop box selection? a programmed default? And does it display each edit for approval such as clicking 'send' or something? Thx for explain.) At any rate, article leads are suscribed to be up to four paras for mature articles, so I don't understand the compulsion to reduce the Kasparov lead to one sentence. Also, a section title "Background" is implicit re lead material, so relocating material to section of that name is redundant and therefore disimprovement. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Boris Katalimov

Hi I see you are interested in chess - could you please take a look at this Boris Katalimov ? Thank you --Itemirus (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I made minor punct. changes, but I don't know how to improve the article further; I lack the research materials. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WTF?

Why did you revert my edit to WP:DIVA? There is no link to any editor for that quote. Please self-revert. Doc talk 05:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even going to wait for a response. You know what to do with your revert. Get used to this attitude. Doc talk 05:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to goad ("bait") me into an edit war will not work. There is no link to any editor with that quote. You are now therefore edit warring in bad faith. And I truly don't give a fuck what your opinion of my edit is. It wasn't meant for you to revert. Doc talk 06:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're full of it. And how stupid do you think I am?

I haven't posted there [Eric Corbett's User talk] since my last post, and I don't plan on it. It seems pretty clear I'd be blocked for "harassment" if I were to ever post there again. Doc talk 06:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have found another venue (DIVA editorial page) to do your harassment on. Please stay off my Talk. (I don't like dishonest, nasty people here. I agree with Drmies. You are a "disruptor".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess Date

Thank you for offering your expertise in my edit, much better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER HEADSHOT (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. (It remains to be seen if other editors agree w/ incorporating place with the 'years' parm, but place & time are always connected really, so for me it does seem a quality improvement.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess Party Tonight!

Hi! I hope all is well. I can gather that you are somewhat interested in the administrative side of this site (like me). I don't know if you care about the supposedly technical aspects of it like "Checkuser" but I have noticed something I would like to share. The checkuser function supposedly just checks IP, user agent, and other technical data that's easily concealed or faked. In practice, however, I think it is being used for political purposes and the data fudged to support a certain goal. I only say this since I've been through checkuser over 200 times, and I know what IPs and user agents I have. I believe what is going on is the checkusers look primarily at behavioral traits between the two accounts. Then if the two IPs are anywhere on the same continent they mark it as "confirmed." Or sometimes they mark it as "likely" and block the account anyway. I came to these conclusions since I use IPs from all over and when I'm "obviously being me" the checkuser comes back "confirmed" even when I know its geographically and technically impossible for anyone short of the NSA to get a positive match, much less a "confirmed" one. Second, I've been "confirmed" as User:Technoquat several times, after I intentionally started mimicing his own traits. So unless the admins or checkusers just decided to start believing that this "Technoquat" just up and moved to South Florida recently those should have been marked as unrelated not confirmed. Thirdly, you remember last spring that checkuser between two of my accounts that came up "possible" in February, but when they wanted to ban me over that Nazi flag thing, they retroactively changed the checkuser result to "confirmed" even though there was no new technical information available. Interesting stuff. Well, I find it interesting, I hope you do somewhat. Take care, Rayray LaBeouf (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do find it interesting, ever since Daniel Tomé was declared a sock of DanielTom by multiple admins when it was a simple public username change with inadvertent half-minute use of the old name (w/ immediate correction) by that user when adjusting to his new name. So that was absurd and abusive and has alerted me to the probability that admin abuse also follows into that hall as well. Your experience seems to put you in a good position to have a grasp of potential abuse through observation of the inconsistencies you named; it seems that info could/would be valuable to WP to reform/tighten its investigative arm, but abuse seems to have unstoppable legs in this place and free reign to abuse is seen as power and users in control positions certainly tend to resist reform and hold onto their power at all costs even though that's counterproductive for the WP. I'm not knowlegable about the SPI technicals as you are and really have no interest in that per se (my interest is simply against abuse/bullying/unfairness in any form). (Get this -- one admin here has repeatedly chanted "no justice, only solutions" but the same admin hypocritically attacked Mother WP with having "systemic problem" when Mom implemented a solution contrary to what that admin felt was fair unto that admin. [Go figure!]) Take care of yourself, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit war?

Please backup your public claim that I like to edit war. Dave3457 (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You reverted Tocatta's revert (you did it twice actually, [11], [12]), trying to conduct discussion in your revert edit sum, rather than using WP:BRD. Since you've been on WP for longer than me, it's safe to assume you know about WP:BRD but preferred to ignore it. (BTW, even though I responded to your query, even administrators that I have had contact with, love to make allegations without any shred of interest in "backing up" their claims. So what you ask of me is way beyond even administrator responsibility, even though their admin duties require them to respond to such queries but they have summarily ignored that in more than three incidents I've had with more than three admins. So your expectations that I respond to you are way beyond what's normal practice on the hostile, rule-less English Wikipedia. Just thought you should know that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So your basing your personal accusation that I “like to edit war” on the following exchange?

Dave3457 >> (Included date of opening ceremony in lede)

revert…Toccata quarta >> (Rv; WP:LEAD; WP:EL.)

revert…‎ Dave3457 >> (Please be more specific)

revert…Toccata quarta >> (WP:LEAD; WP:EL; please see the leads of the articles World Chess Championship 2008, World Chess Championship 2010, etc.)

revert…Dave3457 >> (I'm not trying to be difficult but that is not an answer. Please explain why mine is not better or what rules it breaks.)

Are you actually serious?

The page WP:BRD, which you accuse me of breaking, reads… “When reverting, be clear of your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.”

‎

So you think Toccata quarta was “clear of [his] reasons in the edit summary”?

It is my hope that you one day become a more responsible Wikipedia editor.

Dave3457 (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You were edit-warring, as any competent admin will tell you. Don't play stupid, you know WP:BRD says to go to article Talk rather than what you did twice. (That makes you fucking dishonest, BTW.) 99% of what I do on WP is as serious as serious can be, so thanks for the sarcastic Q. Saying in my edit sum that you prefer to edit-war was an objective description of your behavior, and to call it a personal attack shows the nonsense inside what you call a brain. You included a personal attack in your edit sum to your above edit, so I have a suggestion for you: go fuck yourself and don't come back here until you learn some fucking manners, jerk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I got personal on your personal usage page after you got personal on a public page. (Actually I forgot to remove that comment from the edit summary after I removed it from my statement :) )

You need to understand more clearly what it means to edit war.

WP:EDITWARRING >> “An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.

I was the one asking for an explanation, he was the one just pointing at pages. Things had in no way gotten to the point that we needed to go to the talk page because he had not yet said or done anything but point at pages.

Pointing at pages is not “being clear of ones reasons” as WP:BRD clearly states that he was required to be... in the edit summary. If anything, he was the one edit warring because he was the one not “trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion”

By the way, all of the other points you made in the edit summary, when you reverted my edit on that page, were very sound. That's what he should have done. If you're going to revert someones edits, they deserve an explanation, especially if they ask for one...as I did. Pointing at pages is not an explanation no matter what you may think.

I still think you should apologize, but maybe I shouldn't have brought in your manhood. Sorry about that oversight. :)

Dave3457 (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken, what you s/ have done after Tocatta's first revert, was immediately open an article Talk page thread asking for fuller explanation. Instead you decided to go cross WP:BRD (twice). That's edit-warring; ask any competent admin. (And ipso facto, it's also rude.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD states "When reverting, be clear of your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed."

I was politely asking him to abide by WP:BRD.

Actually, he was not the first editor to confuse pointing at links with being "clear of your reason". Next time I will be sure to sight WP:BRD.

Dave3457 (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Pointing at pages is not “being clear of ones reasons”"—actually, it is. If you fail to understand WP:LEAD, that's not my problem. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You are saying, I was suppose to "understand", what you felt was wrong with my edit in the lead as a result of you simply pointing to the entire article that deals with leads?

That is just ridiculous. Dave3457 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nah

Sorry about that, I was irritated. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've written lots of stuff when I've been irritated too, but I've never vandalized any WP article -- ever. That's a no-no. Please be nice to Toccata, he is a valuable contributor to the project. (Ask around.) Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Would be a lot easier to do that if he could just let things slide instead of inflaming the situation. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You s/ apologize for the "anal" remark. Initiating incivility then expecting the other to "let it slide" is self-centric and doesn't work. The way to avoid 'incivility' is to avoid the triggers for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Let things slide"? My interest is the improvement of Wikipedia, and disregarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines without good reason won't help anyone achieve that goal. As for "inflaming the situation", one might posit that is why you removed a message I left on your talk page with the incivil edit summary "flush" ([13]), as that brought water into the equation. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Max, you just proved yourself a hypocrite. (Proud?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

if you say so MaxBrowne (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a big-big diff between returning incivility for incivility, and the hypocrisy between ("why can't Toccata let it slide" and then your "flush" edit comment). Or do you like to fight dirty with bogus arguments? Please go away and don't come back to this Talk page, Max. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Let's not fight. We both want to improve wikipedia's chess coverage. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello Ihardlythinkso, it seems to me that you misread a diff when doing this revert. Is this right? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got it backwards. (I've corrected.) Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Another question: is "errored" grammatically correct? I found http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3059/is-errored-correct-usage very inconclusive. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my error. ("Error" is only noun; "err" is the verb.) I made the correction. Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chess handicap/GA1

Chess handicap, an article to which you have contributed, has been nominated for Good Article. The review is on hold to allow time for issues raised to be discussed or addressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

been thinking about trying out some CWDA ;-)

I kinda like the clobberers material balance. It's weird, and nearly all the pieces are colourbound, which is an interesting dynamic. Thus bringing the heavy pieces out early (viz. Betza's line in FIDE-clobberers 1.d4 g6 2.e4 Cc6 3.d5 [or perhaps gambit with 3.Nf3] Ca4 4.Bc4 Dxb2 5.Bb3 Dxc1+ [5...Cxb3?!] 6.Qxc1) might not actually be a bad idea. Although it's really easy to get the bedes traded of, and I think I know why: their move allows them to get out into the open easily given their initial position, unlike the rooks. I wonder how they behave if they survive to the endgame like rooks usually do. Double sharp (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Fischer's greatness

Hi Ihardlythinkso. You're encouraged to link me to the discussion where the consensus was reached over using a reference like "considered by many to be the greatest ... who have ever lived" in the article on Bobby Fischer since you mention that there is need of consensus in order to change it. We cannot talk about consensus if there is no previous consensus on the issue and you refuse to face with the sources that I've brought on the discussion page. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:Consensus. You also need to keep discussion on the article Talk (not dialogue content issue here). You also need to give others a chance to reply (you seem to have "haste" - why is that?). You should also stop the "you refuse to face" shit - it's pissing me off. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry and relax! My haste is because our readers are viewing the article and laughing on the fact that two sources are attributed as "many" or that sources are used as references for something which is not written there. We will continue on the discussion page. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

yet another algebraic notation ambiguity

Hi, I saw a post at Talk:Algebraic notation that raised a question I didn't think of:

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Artificial example

If White moves Na3-b5, is the move "Nab5" or just "Nb5"? (Because if White moved the d4-knight instead, it would be check.) Is the presence or absence of a check sufficient for eliminating ambiguity? Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say "Nb5" and "Nb5+" are two different moves (so "+" serves as differentiation/distinction). To not do so seems to me to make confusion. (I.e. "Nab5" implies "Ndb5" was also possible, but in a system using "+" the "+" is required not optional, so "Ndb5" would be an invalidly notated move in that system. [Of course ECO system doesn't employ "+" at all, so "Nab5" distinction is required in that system.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful Chess

No I'm sorry, I didn't mean to intentionally disrupt. Sorry. Happy Thanksgiving though. Perrier Tyson (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

shogi variants: piece values

Added giant honking tables with data from the German Chu Shogi Association to chu shogi, tenjiku shogi, and dai dai shogi. (I never thought I'd ever want to do something like that, but now I seriously want to try dai dai shogi to see if the listed values are right. See you in some months!) ;-)

(As for standard shogi: I think piece values wouldn't mean much, due to drops allowing strategic placement of pieces. A piece is only as strong as its influence!) Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You do excellent work. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. *feels honoured*

I'm wondering now about the variants that are not covered by them. (All OR of course.) In sho shogi (standard shogi without drops and with a drunk elephant) surely the step movers gain in value. Meanwhile in dai shogi, does the bishop get a colourbound penalty? (Because they're both on the same colour, unlike chu. Dai-dai gets around this problem of odd-ranked boards with its asymmetrical setup, but at the cost of a large increase in the number of piece types.) Hmm, a read through Betza's "About the Values of Chess Pieces" is surely going to help here. ;-) If you like, we can discuss it somewhere whenever we need to blow off some steam.

I still like the sho/chu/dai/tenjiku quartet for the consistencies between them, though. In dai-dai and above I think too many things have changed with the promotions (e.g. kirin to great dragon instead of lion, phoenix to golden bird instead of free king etc.) for my love of consistency. Though the promotion by capture rule makes me think of WOTN (yes, teh complicated and kewl one!). Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, OK, I guess shogi still has average values (DK>DH~R>B>G~S>N>L>P). But it has a lot to do with flexibility: unpromoted pieces are more flexible off the board than on it, as they have greater freedom of movement to wherever they please in one step! (Even pawns benefit, although less so with restrictions on where you can drop them.) With this sudden freedom in movement you could well have a knight in hand being more powerful than a dragon king on the board, simply because you can drop the knight to uncork a lethal mating combination... Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Writing a Betza-style userspace article at User:Double sharp/Chu shogi. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

irish gambit comment

no one has a legitimate explanation of where the name comes from, but it seems pretty obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.168.91 (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, what seems pretty obvious is that you have no clue what an "encyclopedia" is, ass-wipe. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

suicide chess

Where do you think would be a good spot for the forced wins against 1.d4, 1.e4, and 1.d3? (The easiest and most readily human-comprehensible ones.) Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In Pritchard, D. B. (2000). "Losing Chess". Popular Chess Variants. B.T. Batsford Ltd. pp. 32–38. ISBN 0-7134-8578-7., after the general description Pritchard has a section named "Openings" followed by a section named "Endings". The section "Openings" starts: "Three opening moves for White lose at once against correct play: 1. e4, 1. d4 and 1. d3. Examples of these games follow." (Followed by all those games then brief discussion of opening, middlegame, and endgame play. The section named "Endings" contains more detail re endings.) Can't beat Pritchard! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found them on Fabrice Liardet's site (under the French name qui perd gagne), but wanted to see if there were any print sources. (You mention games: do you mean he gives the proper Black responses to these three moves?) Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

He gives ...

Openings

Three opening moves for White lose at once against correct play: 1. e4, 1. d4 and 1. d3. Examples of these games follow.

Won by D. Bronstein:

1.e4?? d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qxg2 4.Bxg2 b6 5.Bxa8 Nc6 6.Bxc6 a5 7.Bxe8 Nf6 8.Bxf7 Be6 9.Bxe6 Nd7 10.Bxd7 e6 11.Bxe6 Rg8 12.Bxg8 g6 13.Bxh7 c5 14.Bxg6 a4 15.Nxa4 c4 16.Nxb6 Bc5 17.Nxc4 Bxf2.
Another example: 1.e4?? b5 2.Bxb5 Nf6 3.Bxd7 Nxe4 Here the game divides according to whether White plays Bxc8 or Bxe8. Neither offers salvation:
(a) 4.Bxe8 Qxd2 5.Qxd2 (if 5.Bxf7 Qxc1 6.Qxc1 Nxf2 7.Kxf2 Rg8 etc.) 5...Nxd2 6.Kxd2 Rg8 7.Bxf7 c5 8.Bxg8 g6 9.Bxh7 e5 10.Bxg6 e4 11.Bxe4 Nc6 12.Bxc6 Bb7 13.Bxb7 Rc8 14.Bxc8 a6 15.Bxa6 c4 16.Bxc4 Ba3 17.Nxa3.
(b) Or 4.Bxc8 Nxd2 5.Bxd2 Qxd2 6.Qxd2 Na6 7.Bxa6 Rc8 8.Bxc8 f5 9.Bxf5 Rg8 10.Bxh7 c5 11.Bxg8 e6 12.Bxe6 c4 13.Bxc4 a6 14.Bxa6 g5 15.Qxg5 Kd8 16.Qxd8 Be7 17.Qxe7.

1.d4?? e5 2.dxe5 Qg5 3.Qxd7 Bxd7 4.Bxg5 Kd8 5.Bxd8 a6 6.Bxc7 Ra7 7.Bxb8 b6 8.Bxa7 a5 9.Bxb6 g6 10.Bxa5 Bb4 11.Bxb4 Ne7 12.Bxe7 Rf8 13.Bxf8 h6 14.Bxh6 g5 15.Bxg5 f6 16.Bxf6 Bh3 17.Nxh3.

And finally 1.d3?? g5 2.Bxg5 Bg7 3.Bxe7 Bxb2 4.Bxd8 Bxa1 5.Bxc7 Bc3 6.Bxb8 Rxb8 7.Nxc3 d5 8.Nxd5 Nf6 9.Nxf6 Rg8 10.Nxe8 Rxg2 11.Bxg2 f6 12.Bxb7 Rxb7 13.Nxf6 Rb8 14.Nxh7 Rb1 15.Qxb1 Bb7 16.Qxb7 a6 17.Qxa6.

Black too has to be careful. 1.e3 d6?? 2.Qg4! (notice that now all Black moves are forced) 2...Bxg4 3.Kd1 Bxd1 4.a3 Bxc2 5.Ra2 Bxb1 6.a4 Bxa2 7.b3 Bxb3 8.g3 Bxa4 9.Bb5 Bxb5 10.Ne2 Bxe2 11.Rf1 Bxf1 12.h3 Bxh3 13.g4 Bxg4 14.f3 Bxf3 15.e4 Bxe4 16.d3 Bxd3 17.Bh6 Nxh6.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

He says "won by D. Bronstein" (is that David Bronstein by any chance?); does that refer to just the first game, or to all of them? (Just making the attribution sure.) Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely David Bronstein. (From the Introduction p. 6: "Many of the famous names in chess—Alekhine, Bronstein, Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Keres, Polgar to name just a few—have been attracted to variants and you will find some of their over-the-board games recorded here.")

As far as how many of the example games are by him, it doesn't say, so I guess there's only the page paragraphing/vertical spacing to go by for context. (So I represented same quite accurately above. [Still, I'm not sure from it; what say you?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly make more sense if all of them were his games. Double sharp (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I can buy that. :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I added it (really, copied and pasted your earlier post) to the antichess article (really, is that the most common name?! I've never seen it outside Wikipedia. Could you enlighten me if it actually is the most common name?). Thanks for the info! :-) Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know either where Antichess comes from. Both Pritchard (in ECV, in Classified ECV, and in Popular Chess Variants) and Hooper/Whyld (in The Oxford Companion to Chess 1987) have the game under name Losing Chess. (Although Pritchard thinks Giveaway Chess is "a more logical" & "more descriptive" name.) Pritchard gives add'l synonyms Killer Chess, the Losing Game, Suicide Chess, and Take-all Chess. I don't know where the add'l synonyms in the article come from: (Antichess), Zero Chess, Reverse Chess, Shmess. (Maybe they s/b tagged!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of tagging them, I simply removed them; we have way too many alternative names as it stands! Tomorrow I'll probably file an RM for the article: where do you think it should go? (I'm most in favour of "Suicide chess" for now, though have not checked actually usage frequency.) Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have personal bias favoring "Suicide Chess" as name, since that's what I grew up knowing it as. As above, though, both Pritchard and Hooper/Whyld entries are "Losing Chess". Since you removed the unknown-source synonyms, maybe the remaining synonyms can be bolded now (MoS wants that for article title synonyms; I italicized because there were so many names and all that black bolding was too distracting/dominant IMO). Here FYA (For Your Amusement) from Pritchard's Popular Chess Variants, 2000, p. 32:

Losing chess is what we all suffer from time to time so the name is something of a misnomer. The American title of Giveaway Chess is more descriptive but better still are some foreign names for it—for example, the French 'Qui perd gagne' (Who loses wins). The game has been the subject of serious research in recent years by Fabrice Liardet and John Beasley amongst others.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure why Pritchard likes the French "Qui perd gagne" so much. It rather makes me think of selfmates, specifically that weird Paris–Marseilles 1878 correspondance game where White's queen was removed and in return, Black tries to force White to checkmate him.

Losing chess is indeed not the best title, which for me is another point in favour for suicide chess! ;-) Double sharp (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the word "anal"

Hi, since further discussion would digress from the topic on the ANI thread, I'll respond here. Certainly, if the "anal" term was used as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary that you cited, I would consider that a breach of the NPA and CIV policies. However, when I "acquitted" the term anyway (I didn't really approve using the term) I based it on a definition found in thefreedictionary [14]: "a personality characterized by meticulous neatness and suspicion and reserve". It was at least possible that the term was meant in this manner, and if so it would not clearly be a personal attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read what you wrote above. (You're accepting a definition of anal that describes "a personality" [personal], and the word was used derogatorily, as insult against user Toccata [attack].) An admin can excuse what they want to excuse, or come down on what they want to come down on, but it is exactly that -- wanting to -- and to attempt to rationalize it as anything but leads to this kind of simple refutation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tenjiku shogi

So I looked at the translations of the Shōgi zushiki (a main source for this variant) given in Western sources and I was highly amused (in fact, almost mentally LOL-ing)...

...because the most obvious interpretation of their translations contradict the rules from The Shogi Association (most of which they follow)!!! This might save tenjiku from being a win for the first player!!! (I think it is with modern Western rules; or at least that's what Colin Adams' website on tenjiku said in 2012...)

(Has mixed feelings about TSA now. I mean, I know that I probably wouldn't know anything about these large variants if not for them, but the rules for everything above dai shogi seem to have been horribly lost in translation...) Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

References to an encyclopedia

I noticed that you changed some references in Bare king to the Oxford Companion from the encyclopedia entry to the page number. For encyclopedias, I think it is better to refer to the entry rather than the page number, since the page number varies from edition to edition. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(My presumption was when making the change that the original editor who added the OCC ref did not know the page number!) There are lots of refs to OCC in WP chess articles, I never saw the pageless citation format used before, is the plan to convert them all? I don't think there's any template for such a citation format, have you ever seen a pageless citation format used in any other article? Does MOS support a pageless citation? A pageless citation presumes the entry wasn't dropped between editions, if an editor like me has only one edition not all, I wouldn't really know the other edition contained the entry so a pageless citation would be a guess that it did (probably a correct guess, but possibly not). Aren't these issues problematical for a pageless citation plan for OCC, and shouldn't this be passed by other project members? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Also when you say "for encyclopedias", are you generalizing, for example do you mean also Pritchard's ECV, and the Classified ECV? (Or do you consider those two different, not different editions? [The CECV dropped entries from the ECV, and added new ones. I'm not sure, but would assume, a new edition of OCC would also add entries.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about Pritchard's encyclopedia, but rather ones that have all entries in alphabetical order. Other examples are the ones by Golombek, Sunnucks, and Brace. It might have been me that put in the reference to the topic instead of page numbers - I'm not sure. The idea of giving a reference is so that helps the reader in looking it up in the reference. A page number changes with each edition, the name of the entry generally does not. So it is more helpful to the reader to give the entry name. There is a place for it in the citation format - the "contribution" field, e.g.

• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), "outpost", The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280049-3. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a citation format

I'm familiar w/ the contribution= parm of {{cite book}} etc., but I've never seen anything similar used in abbreviated references (notes), e.g. "Hooper/Whyld (1984), p. 123" that is based on a book source defined in References. (So when I was asking about template for it, I was meaning a template for the abbreviated citation note, not the book definition-template.) I understand your meaning better now, I don't have any objection to replacing a page reference w/ "conribution=" info to an abbreviated citation where the book edition is defined in Refs sec. (Other than what is consistent format for that info?) Looking up by page number is obviously quicker than looking up alphabetically, I'm wondering if dropping the page number is such a great idea since if it's available why not include it since it is already tied to a specific book edition defined in Refs. (So I guess I'm wondering if both the entryname and the page number s/b specified, and as mentioned what consistent format to use?) I'm surprised there isn't something about this already in the MoS (is this a WP:CHESS-developed technique?). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked on several MoS pages and didn't find anything. However, there is no harm in having both the page number and the entry title (for encyclopedias that list all topics alphabetically). And, BTW, I made some edits to bare king, but I didn't put in the entry titles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried something (i.e. put the look-up term in italics, ala terms referred to as terms in the Glossary of chess; that way extended text isn't needed that lengthens the abbreviated citation much, and next to the page it's implicit that the term represented in italics is on that page; anyway a simple mod to the existing citation format, methinks). Let me know what you think. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of the chess variants articles

• Please note, I have removed chess variants articles from Category:Board games and Category:Abstract strategy games per WP:SUBCAT because Category:Chess variants included in Category:Chess, which included in Category:Abstract strategy games and Category:Traditional board games (which included in Category:Board games). NickSt (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  Thx for informing me! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a shogi diagram template?

Might be helpful in my planned expansions for the articles on chu shogi and tenjiku shogi... Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is. Just those internal tables, looks like. I hand-rolled my own images for the Asian games I've done (Masonic Shogi, Game of the Three Kingdoms, etc.). So whattya howwdya gonna wanna do!?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought of using internal tables, but then I need to distinguish between black and white pieces. So, capital/lowercase? Or just hand-roll images? (That would take a while though, though once I get the basic setup it should be trivial. But it might be more efficient to make the template?!) Double sharp (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

AFD

Yes, good find on that WP:POPULARITY citation. There is also WP:RANK which directly applies to the situation. Seems like most of the people recommending (voting?) "keep" are not citing policy, such as "Sun Creator," who then goes on to say that Chess.com is even bigger and more active than Wikipedia itself. Wierd. Also, the claim that the WP:RSN discussions about TechCrunch have held that TechCrunch is reliable is either a baldface lie or the author has dyslexia or something. The good thing is the readers can look that up themselves if they want (which they probably won't).

So is it kosher to point out the policy and reasoning flaws in each "vote" as they come, or just to leave it alone or what ? Bookhound gang (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sun Creator seems to be making an inclusion argument based on "What will the neighbors think?" if we don't include. I don't buy that argument for many reasons. (One is: why not throw GNG away then, and gauge all WP articles inclusion/disclusion based on "what do we think others will think?" -- that's chaos and would garner no respect for WP at all, which is what Sun Creator seems to be concerned about to begin with.) The argument that Chess.com is "more active" than WP is nonsensical, I think he means it has more members than WP has editors!? Even so, so what? (What's the significance? I don't know any.) As far as what's the norm for AfD, I don't know, I don't think there is any norm. (For me I only comment if I have something to say. And I usually have something to say only if something seems really off the rails.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Evenin'

Watch out for the Wiki-mall cops! stifling open discussion. Sachsendork (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MaxBrowne was probably correct in collapsing that dialogue -- it is irrelevant to the AfD per se, and only exhibits Cobblet attempting to justify his fakery impossibly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This may be overpowered

(My Cuiviénen Chess.) My new fairy piece there (Valarauko) has a move that can be described as follows:

• Can move as queen;
• Can move as nightrider;
• Can move as alfil;
• Can move as dabbaba;
• Can pass a turn if and only if at least one of the squares next to it is empty;
• Can make three king moves in a single turn. If capture is made on the first or second move (or both!), the right to make the third move is forfeited;
• Captures by displacement;
• Once its turn is complete, all enemy pieces next to its final location are instantly removed from the board (burnt);
• An enemy piece that lands next to it is instantly burnt (this does not use up your move);
• (doesn't arise, but) If an enemy Valarauko lands next to your Valarauko, all pieces (friend or foe) next to either Valarauko are burnt.

(Betza notation has collapsed by now. Thankfully I made it unable to put itself in danger. But this is terrifyingly overpowered, especially the ability to capture ten pieces at once! How many of these would equal four entire Gross Chess armies?! I think my original twelve was too many. Eight, perhaps?) Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One hellofa piece! Probably radioactive. (Maybe it s/ have a half-life or finite existence, since it burns so brightly!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe it just keeps decaying every time it captures (I think multicaptures should just count as one?): first its burning abilities are lost, then its ability to make the third king move, then its ability to pass a turn, then its doublemoving abilities, then its dabbaba and alfil abilities, then its nightrider abilities, and then at the end it becomes just a stable queen. Given its shooting abilities upon arrival, maybe I should let pieces burnt that could have captured the Valarauko at its final location capture it before dying, à la Autorifle Chess (after 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 g6, 3.Qh5 shoots Pg6?? allows in response Pg6 shoots Qh5 when both pieces die).

(Or maybe I should get rid of most of the overpoweredness and make it just a fire demon from tenjiku shogi: bishop + vertical rook + three king moves, must stop after first capture + burn.) Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

some more article creation plans

I haven't done these fairy piece creations in a while! So I've come to ask you about names.

I think I should do some on the rank-three leapers (H, L, J, G). L = camel, J = zebra, G = tripper. For H, I think "threeleaper" is the right name, right? (Gilman suggested "trébuchet"?)

And also the basic combinations WA (waffle), WF (commoner), WD (woody rook), FD (kylin), FA (falafel), DA (daffy). (All Betza's names, except "kylin" from chu shogi because he didn't name that one. Are there more standard names?!)

I think also many other pieces (especially the rose and circular pieces, the crooked bishop, etc.!) are important enough for their own articles, but I'm still thinking about it. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know those Betza pieces. (Can you recommend a good CV article to read about them?) Me thinks Rose & Zebra ought'a be priorities. (And squirrel!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Betza writes about them on his site: see his index to articles about pieces (near the bottom). They're basically the combination of the simple geometric leapers:

Squirrel is defined on Piececlopedia on chessvariants.org as knight + alfil + dabbaba. Double sharp (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, the simple leapers are done. Next will be the combinations (once I find more standard names for them), then the rose. Given the "once I find more standard names for them" proviso (do you know them?), the rose may well arrive first!

Chess variants I should create pages from: Grande Acedrex (yes, I can't believe I forgot about this!), and Betza's Different Augmented Knights.

(After this is rambling about tenjiku shogi, and a few questions on what you think the clearest interpretation is.)

And yes, I'm going to add more stuff to chu shogi following Western analyses. I'm not so sure if I'm going to do the same to tenjiku shogi, because almost all the material is based on Western (mis)interpretations of the Edo-era sources. I think they're misinterpretations; i.e. the original sources are elliptically worded and quite ambiguous, but I think the Japanese WP's interpretations are far more logical because they don't require as much reading between the lines. The rook general is RpR under Japanese WP rules (well, not exactly; it can jump over an unlimited number of pieces, with some exceptions), and under Western rules from TSA it's mRcpR. The "m" and "c" parts of the Betza notation seem unsupported by the Edo-era sources.

(I'm actually not sure about this part: the Edo-era sources indicate that it "flies over". So does it need to have pieces to jump over? – i.e. does it weaken in the endgame, or not?)

My main motive for asking all of this is that I feel like making some analyses of tenjiku openings. Perhaps the current state in which it is all but a forced win for the first player is because of rule misunderstandings?! Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Double sharp, since most of those piece wouldn't be considered notable I created a list of chess pieces to cover all of them. regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Are the notability concerns for pt.wp, or for en.wp? Because there are certainly quite a few sources: I haven't even made reference to lotsa fairy chess problems in published magazines that use many of those pieces, just creating a base from CVP (still a good source for these). Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I found WD = wazaba, WF = mann, DA = alibaba. Now looking for FD, FA, WA... (FD = kylin and WA = phoenix in Japanese tradition, e.g. chu shogi.) Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

chu shogi

All right, I couldn't resist it any longer: here I come spewing stuff about the game in userspace. (Brain prosthesis was used for analysis.) Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Chessvariants.org always specifies the board size and number of cells for a game: is there a way to search that? (I'm looking for games where at least one of the dimensions is 16.) Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. (Sorry.) I doubt there's a way, but I really don't know. Happy New Year nevertheless! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Happy New Year to you too! (Off the top of my head, the 16×16 games I know of are Betza's two Chess on a Really Big Board variants and tenjiku shogi. 12×16 has Double Chess.) Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking for. Grand Camelot uses (a partial of) a 16×16 board (a variant of chess variant Camelot). And so does Fortress Chess. For non-chess variants, Conspirateurs is played on a 17×17 grid (squares = 16×16), and Halma is played on a 16×16 squares board. There's also a 16×16 variant of Sudoku (Sudoku#Variants). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Shogi rules copyedits

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Marchjuly's talk page.
Message added 21:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shogi talk

Hi, I've added a few more suggestions to the Shogi Talk and am interested in hearing what you think. I'm in no great hurry so just whenever you get the chance. Thanks in advance. --Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:MaxBrowne that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not remove any portion of your comment. I do, however, encourage you to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

See the Qs for you I left about your behavior on your user Talk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to your questions. The note above stands: Please discuss content, not editors. If there are editors or content areas where you find this difficult, I suggest that you avoid those editors and/or content areas. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Please discuss content, not editors admonishment is insulting. (Did you even read that WT:CHESS thread?) Your selective picking on me over responding to a continuous stream of baiting, insults, false accusations, and personal attacks, at the user's Talk, is selective, out-of-context, brittle and shallow. I suggest that you avoid those editors and/or content areas I did not seek that editor out. I did not do anything to deserve the crap he dished. (So therefore, I should run away from the content area? Because he chooses to laugh at WP:CIV by uncorking all kinds of personal crap aimed at me in that thread? What kind of BS logic is that??) Who the H do you think you are? You are boring me and offensive with your admonishments and supposed superior advice re editorship issues. I'm still waiting for something not brittle & shallow from you ... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You made a personal attack. WP:NPA is policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That's so brittle and thoughtless, I don't know how to respond to you. I told you at least twice that your informing me of something I already know, is insulting. Your selective templating is biased, and seems to be based on "bad words", which is an incomplete, shallow, and dysfunctional view of incivility. Your warning me about taking me to ANI is also problematical, since, aggrieved parties go there with their issues, not 3rd-party parties on behalf of aggrieved parties. (Otherwise I've seen the 3rd parties questioned as to their motives from bringing ANIs where they are not involved.) You seem to have a thoughtless and shallow "wiki-cop" mentality of enforcing rules based on brittle and shallow interpretation of incivility, and frankly, that's boring and a waste of time and attention. You go in circles and never discuss anything except your shallow rules interpretation and making threats. All of that behavior is uncivil, I don't suppose you recognize that? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As you have acknowledged, you made a personal attack. Your numerous arguments as to why your breech of our policy is not a problem do not change this. Don't do it again. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I acknowledged that. But, is this a joke? Or simple harassment? I feel like I'm talking to an automaton. This might come as a big shock to you, but this has not been a conversation or discussion. You have nothing important or interesting to say. Your selective interpretation of WP:CIV by willful unrecognition of obvious baiting and construction of unnecessary and out-of-bounds attack page on a WP project thread demands none of my respect. You are not my boss. You seem to have a self-perception of "Wiki-cop", and quite frankly, that's boring and not interesting or a good use of my time paying any attention to you. Please go away and convince others you are as important to WP civility enforcement as you seem to think of yourself. And I don't want you coming to my Talk page anymore. This has not been a conversation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Are you a bot?

Gender Neutral language

Hello, I'm back in the USA after my Christmas/New Year holiday back in Brasil. I noticed the latest unnecessary argument User:MaxBrowne started. Thank heavens we have such a selfless champion of gender equality here lest the internets be overrun by stodgy old unenlightened misogynists from another century indeed (ha!) Of course that Rhodendrites Rhodo-Rhooter guy and Summer PhD jumped in immediately. I wouldn't worry about those two, they both are a couple of flakes drawn to the Chess project last fall by Browne's constant "Defcon One" mentality that a thousand man army of sockpuppets was "campaigning" across the Wikilandscape, laying waste to chess articles much like the Mongol hordes of yore. I only bring this up again since I noticed that neither PhD nor Rhodorooder stuck around to make even one edit to a chess article in the two months they've been around. I guess they just come here for the drama if if Max Browne is running "Monday Night Smackdown". Take care, Holden Caulfield 2000 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Catcher is a favorite book. (I even gave a new copy as a gift to a friend once. [How anti-social is that!?]) Nice hearing from you. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

  — Jess· Δ♥ 16:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN request closed

Hello, I am Jimbo Wales, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled "Antichess". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because there was no substantial discussion on a talk page. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:28, 09 May 2024 This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.

• Additional comments by volunteer: After a good discussion has occurred and you hit a roadblock, 3O is suggested instead of this noticeboard as there are currently only two users in the dispute.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Antichess". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Interaction (2nd request)

Hi Ihardlythinkso. On Talk:Checkmate, I asked that we not interact further, and that you refrain from addressing me. Yet, you've done so 3 times in the past day, including inserting yourself into a conversation between me and Eric. I requested that we not interact further after you indicated you didn't want to waste time responding to my future edits. I was hoping such an agreement would be beneficial to us both. Please respect my request. I don't want to interact with you further, and you've indicated you want the same, so let's part ways amicably, please. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your wiki-behavior is aggressive and bullying, you don't exhibit understanding of policy & guideline, you're personally attacking/insulting without provocation or cause, you move Talk page edits without justification multiple times even after being told to stop, you're all full of false accusations, and you've proved to me on numerous occasions WP:IDHT and dishonesty, and you incessantly file dispute cases in your wiki-history. You're in no position to make any request of me whatsoever. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. And you're a poor copyeditor to boot (e.g. anyone who thinks "The symbol "++" is also, rarely, used, but it can also mean double check." is an improved version of the footnote "The symbol "++" is sometimes used, but rarely. It can also mean double check.") You delete valid content without explanation. You made up facts in your head then add to an article WP:OR-style, then deny and refuse to recognize same seven different ways even though it is clear and plain. You edit-war then say you don't. You have an obviously hypocritical view of edit-warring and WP:BRD (compare User talk:Mann jess#Edit waring? and User talk:Mann jess#Water memory, preaching to others then discounting your own warring before kicking John of your User talk, the same hypocrisy exhibited against me at WP:Antichess and Talk:Checkmate). On Talk pages you don't even understand indenting. You are all full of bad-faith presumptions, where no bad-faith exists. You've practically habitualized admonishing editors for "not working collaboratively" and "being unpleasant" when you run into objections, which amounts to a hypocritical blindess in the face of your own aggressive and rude behaviors that approaches scary and even surreal. I told admin Drmies to please leave me alone, and he told me that I "wasn't important" and to "fuck off". Maybe that's good advice for you as well!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit was a blatant violation of the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, as well as the civility policy. Please review these policies and disengage in further unconstructive interactions with Kevin. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Further warning

IHTS, you can't very well go throwing around accusations of personal attacks an incivility when you're so rankly insulting to other editors. Further to the above, this edit contained many blatant personal attacks.

We've made up a lot of our differences in the past, and I'm not saying this now as an admin, but just an editor on this site. This is the second time you've been warned for personal attacks in a matter of days; if there's more like this I'll open an ANI discussion and let people make up their own minds.

I know you're pissed off about this whole thing with Eric and that's understandable, but it'll actually help everyone to leave the emotion out of the argument and get on with productive editing. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Basalisk, why are you picking on me? That user essentially called me a liar ("dishonest", "disingenuous"). I don't take that. (Not on WP I don't. And not in RL either, unless the person is a policeman or a judge. But those are the only two exceptions.) I didn't sign up to WP to be offended like that. Anyone who insults me like that is going to get a piece of my mind. (Why aren't you warning him about saying what he did? This has nothing to do w/ him & Eric. It has to do with what he said to my face. The fact you're coming here to pick on me is something I don't understand, can you explain yourself please? Do you want me to drop my ethics to please you? Do you want me to drop my ethics to please him? Do you want me to sit and take it like a manikin? Do you want me to take him to the ANI cesspool and be abused there for my complaint? Are you another SummerPhD and look for dirty words and ignore other forms of incivility because it is easier? Are you like SummerPhD and like to chastise one side only, the side that was poked and did not initiate hostility? Please, if you answer, don't give me any of that "two wrongs don't make a right" child-mantra stuff. And please don't quote broken, dysfunctional, ill-defined and unevenly enforced CIV and NPA policies to me. He essentially called me a liar, and I responded back what I thought. I've answered you sincerely. It is unpleasant to receive your post here, given the context and explanation that was clear but I've nevertheless presented to you in full here. If you are concerned about any continuation, you can forget about it, because I have recently come to conclusion that editor has severe competency issues, and any attempt to have reasonable exchange with him is a silly expectation, a waste of time and attention, by anyone. So I have no intention of ever discussing with that user again, about anything, believing as I do now that any such attempt is off-the-cuff illogical and therefore stupid. And I'm not going to voluntarily suddenly become stupid.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck about "foul" language. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't appreciate your inferences here and would appreciate an apology. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

By "look for dirty words" I mean your penchant to go around looking for nouns in name-calls ("you're an asshole" vs. "your behavior is assholish") and only labelling those easy-to-find things as "uncivil". While not recognizing other forms of incivility. This is a clarification only and I have no interest to dialogue with you further about your short-sighted views on civility and elementrary school principles, Summer. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Summer, there's no need for you to come here and stir the pot. We should probably ban people from going around this site demanding apologies, it's pointless. I recommend you go and work on articles.

IHTS - I'm not singling you out. I understand that you didn't like what he said but you hit the nail on the head when you said "[Kevin] essentially called me a liar". All these insults and threats you perceive are all inferences, they are meanings that you derive from the things other people have said that weren't intended in the original statement. On the other hand, there's nothing perceptual about "What a fucker you are". I came here to talk to you about explicit personal attacks. WP:CIV and WP:NPA are policies on this site and whether or not you think they work doesn't really matter - until such a day they are abolished you are bound to abide by them. So, to return to my original point, please don't make personal attacks against other editors. I'm not talking about grey, between-the-lines comments you feel others have made, I'm talking about blatant, unambiguous insults from yourself. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That user is expert at weasel-wording, making denials without denying, making apologies without apologizing. (Another editor called it "mealy-mouthed".) You're essentially asking me to shut up and take it, or to become like him. Those aren't two good options. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You have a third option: do what most people do and forget about it and walk away. You don't need to respond to him at all, and if you can't respond in any other way than the type of example that I linked above then it's definitely best for everyone if you just say nothing and go to work on something else. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote above, about you not having to worry about that. I won't be voluntarily entering any dialogue with that user because I believe he has serious competency issues, and to engage with him knowing that is irrational. I'm not exactly an irrational person. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

[15] [16] [17] [18] Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

berserkishness

Thank you for introducing me to the word "berserkishness."

Google only returns 4 results on it - you'd think that such a cool word would have more usage.

Keep up the good wordsmithing.

Have you ever heard of geolarping (www.geolarping.com)? I know the inventor or geolarping.

99.150.255.75 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's funny! (Geolarpers.) Perhaps "berserkiness" is the correct word. (But it seems to fit less.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct...

...that I blame you for Kaldari's behavior. It may very well be your fault. Your habit of going berserk over the slightest issue is a strong deterrent to conversation. If you can't handle the truth, but instead must resort to juvenile rhetoric, that's your problem, not mine. It's amazing that you don't realize how your rants and insults contribute to ANI's being a "cesspool". Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Northern, you are full of senseless bullshit. (I could explain in detail, but I'm wasting no more time with you.) And all your posts to my attention, with the exception of our exchange on your Talk, have been to bait and badger. That makes you a troll. (Look, leave me alone. I just can't take you seriously, you have no credibility with me. Your arguments and principles seem to come out of the mind of a spoiled 7-yr. old. I think anyone who deals with you is fighting a no-win situation and faces a loss of time and frustration. I wouldn't entertain discussing anything substantive w/ you again unless I see a change in you [already explained to you as liklihood = 0] or a third party moderates. Just to keep things rational. Because I find your discussion style tacky, manipulative and underhanded, with a shallow POV agenda as "Civility Prince", blind to your own incivilities. I think you try others' patience and get on a lot of people's nerves with your silly nonsense. Go waste others' time and attention -- not mine. If you continue to bait and badger my posts at WP pages, I'll continue to provide blow-back that reveals the trolling nature of your ongoing stupid crap. And I really would prefer not to do that. But you are a baiter and a badgerer, and one of the half dozen most uncivil editors I've ever encountered on the WP. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, I just read your short and pathetic RfA 2. (Why didn't somebody "warn" me about you? YOU AIN'T GOT NO SENSE, MAN! You're goofy.) Get out of here and leave me alone. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ihardlythinkso and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's enough

Do not post on Kevin's talk page again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My posts were in good faith. His were not. Did I write something that was unfair? What? In addition, have you barred me from posting to his Talk for the rest of my Wikilife? Or what? And BTW, if there is an objection to use of WP:DICK, first, I don't think I did anything unfair or inappropriate in using it. (I haven't used it for 2 years I don't believe.) And if the very nature of it is considered bad on WP, why is it even there, or allowed to stay there? I know these are several questions. I'm genuinely interested in answers. Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're re-posting snark that is nearly identical to snark he has just removed from his talk page. "My posts were in good faith. His were not." is not an accurate way to describe that behavior. There's a reasonable way to refer to WP:DICK, and an unreasonable way to refer to it; "you enjoy being some kind of WP:DICK" isn't one of the reasonable ways. I tend to not care about occasional snark/rudeness but near-constant snark and rudeness get my attention. And doing so while there's an ArbCom request for a case about your behavior leads me to believe you aren't taking other peoples' concerns about this seriously. Noting that WP:RFCU/Ihardlythinkso is a redlink wasn't a way of sweeping that request under the carpet, it's saying that such an RFC is the next logical step. Kevin did a bad thing. It caused a month of hassle. It's over. So let's say it's for a month; by then, some new thing will be the Outrage Of The Month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Antichess material

I agree the Bronstein analysis should be in the article and I will support that, but it would be best to just cite a source rather than fight about it. Unfortunately I don't have Pritchard's work, so I can't help with the cite. Quale (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you don't cite material like that it is hard to keep it from being deleted. Cite it and it will stay. Unfortunately I'm not as much help with the external links as I could be, because I don't have a very informed opinion about them. I think you really have to try to get others involved, maybe from WP:ELN, and maybe each make your arguments to try to persuade others. Unfortunately I don't think you talking to each other is helping at all. Quale (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I can help the way that you want. You and Mann Jess settled on a solution for the Bronstein analysis that could be considered a good compromise, except that I don't think you had to give anything up because the solution improved the article a little bit.

As far as the external links go, I agree that "the link requires Java" isn't a very serious complaint. I think that at one point he said the links require Flash, and I'm more sympathetic to that concern as I dislike Flash. But I'm not familiar with the details of how external links are evaluated, so I'd rather leave that to someone else.

Finally, although I like you and really appreciate and respect your work on Wikipedia, I've witnessed your unpleasant interactions with many other chess editors. It's hard for me to to be sure that the real issue is that you are dealing with an "aggressive editor", as I would have to rate you as one of the most aggressive editors I've seen, at least in the realm of chess articles. The first interaction I saw you make with this "aggressive editor" started with you trying to rip his head off. You've always treated me with respect, and I wish you could extend that to other editors as well. If you always look to find insult you will always find it, but I think you could get more of what you want if you tried to work with other editors rather than jumping straight into attack mode. Quale (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

at one point he said the links require Flash I'm not aware that they do. (I think they don't. Mann jess could have mentioned Flash because WP:ELNO mentions Flash. You don't think Java is a serious complaint, however Mann jess has been insisting on removal prior to any discussion as though as serious as a BLP violation. He has also proved that he is willing to edit-war over the issue, same time accusing *me* of edit-warring when I tried to follow WP:BRD over the long-standing links. (You don't call that aggressive?)

In every case of unpleasant interactions with several (your "many" is an exaggeration, Quale!) chess editors, the unpleasant interaction has root in unpleasant behavior initiated not by me but by them. (And if you don't believe that, then I challenge you to provide one example--any example, and let's look at it to see if true or untrue.) You say It's hard for me to to be sure that the real issue is that you are dealing with an "aggressive editor", but two things: 1) in this case I referred to Mann jess as aggressive at Talk:Antichess, so please let's not suddenly generalize "an editor", 2) Why is it hard for you, when you can simply read the interactions at the Talk and evaluate them objectively and fairly? No one bars you from doing that. When I called Mann jess "aggressive" at Talk:Antichess and asked your help, please look at what you have done here in this thread as a result of my request: accuse me of being aggressive! Did I ask you to make a personal evaluation such as "Quale, please review Mann jess's current dialogue on Talk, and then compare it to what you think is my entire WP history of interactions, and then let me know who you think is the more aggressive editor." No I didn't. I am not interested in that kind of unproductivity, nor putting any editor against a stake and burning him/her to that stake. Why do you approach this as some sort of ANI comment gallery, rather than approaching it as a specific incident where an editor has come to you asking for assistance for a specific reason at a specific time? By my calling Mann jess "aggressive", that comment is true, and reflects his behavior consistently at Talk:Antichess until the recent compromise which you may have catalyzed. Had I known you would take my request for specific help and turned it into generalized moralizing, I would not have come to your Talk to ask. If you think that my asking you for help then gives you invititation to criticize me generally, then said invitation was something you invented, and it is up to you to realize why you would do that. (If you have done that because you've been itching to get in a moralizing scolding with me, then you should state that is what you really want. Because I respect you, if that is what you want or wanted, then I'd honor it by getting in a discussion with you about your concerns. But what I am not willing to do is ask you for help in good faith, and then receive criticism and moralizing where that is unhelpful and off point to why I initiated thread at your Talk.

Regarding "ripping his head off", that's a pretty violent expression and I wonder why you use it. Because I was so critical of him? OK fine. I believe the criticisms were completely valid and fair. You apparently do not. Read that thread again, because, if you feel the way you do, and I feel the way I do, it simply means that you and I have different value systems. My value system at that thread was the inexcusability of changing content by replacing existing content with what one "thinks is true", in other words, making stuff up. That is not what WP is about. That is not done here. When I objected, Mann jess was evasive, and would not recognize that he did exactly that. The edit was not critical and no one died. In fact that article perhaps even has little traffic. Mann jess excused himself from making up content between his two ears and adding it to the article with the phrase that he was "trying to work with the text". That kind of manipulative denial is not something that causes me to respect an editor. It's dishonest, and circumvents the point. The fact that I take editing seriously, and editing philosophy seriously, and you apparently would like me to roll over in passivity when I'm faced with Wiki editing principles violated in my face, then scold me for holding firm to said principles, well ... I just wonder if you value sucking up and "being nice" more than article integrity in the face of an aggressive editor mowing over valid content. (Where would it logically stop, Quale, with your set of values? If you want to be kind and roll open a carpet for an editor who overrides valid content with his own made-up-in-his-head content, and you compliment him for that and criticize me for interferring, then you encourage that behavior and that editor will likely continue unchecked in that mode and perhaps may be encouraged to do more of it. Until when? The fact I was unable to get that editor to see what he had done for what it was, was troubling in my view, because it is a red flag there can be no honest discussion with said editor. Collaborative discussions on WP do not happen by magic. It takes two, Quale. When one editor refuses to discuss with fairness and some modicum of honesty, the concept of collaborative discussion disintegrates. You yourself were not in that discussion, I was, solo. So you weren't faced with what I was faced with--alone without support. You came into that thread at that point, and chided and criticized me, saying Mann jess was "willing to work with [me]", however I do not understand the basis you could say that, seeing what I've already pointed out. ("Willing to work" and "disintegrated discussion" do not compute.) You will see at that point that I withdrew from the article after receiving your one-sided "support". (And perhaps I should have learned from that, and never approached your Talk for more help later. Because I think it's evident, that you are taking the same approach and attacking me as though you are judge and jury, when I rather wanted and was looking for fair and objective content help with an aggressive editor, out of fair and objective reasoning.

I think I've said enough. My fingers hurt. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. One thing you're missing Quale, is that after my withdraw from that article (I took a break from it after your unhelpful and humiliating chiding), I came back to it with a good-faith, new approach to keep personal conflict out. But that was quickly nixed, by reverts and condescension from Max jess. Instead of getting into a flame war with him to any debilitating degree, I turned to you for help. You decided to judge me from the past--the earlier history of the thread--and dismissed any good-faith second new approach by me. You apparently were unable to be open minded, and let the past rule your thinking and statements, including in the above paragraphs of yours where you want to lambast me further. Had you read my last comments at the article Talk prior to my withdraw from it and taking the break, you would perhaps have been able to deduce that I wouldn't take kindly to more of your chiding and one-sided criticisms here now in this thread.

I did not sign up to be WP editor to receive aggressive and hostile and dishonest treatment at the hands of other editors, and then be chided and scolded for when I object and give criticism back in self-defense. It is all about self-defense, Quale, and if you don't think so, then please pick out any (any at all) exchange with any user at any time in my editing history, and let's go over it in detail and discover true or untrue. But I know that takes a lot of work, and it is much more satisfying to simply spout dislike or distain and criticize, without need to or being able to back up with facts and reasonable argument. It's so much more self-satisfying to just say one is superior and someone else is inferior, without having to prove, show, or demonstrate the basis of it. I'm open to discuss anything specifically with you. What I won't accept is unsubstantiated moralizing and arm-chair critique. That is easy to do and makes one feel superior when they do it. That is an illusion and a trap. I never make an accusation I'm not willing to back up with details and reasoned arguement, should someone call me to the carpet. I don't throw mud. That is why I detest ANI. It is a cesspool of irresponsibility. However it is not only at ANI where irresponsibile comments harbour. It's on article and user Talk pages as well. But at least there is one-to-one on user Talk pages generally. That's not the case at ANI or even RFAR, where a gallery of individuals can gang up to throw mud and lynch. So I will always try and conduct my affiars one-to-one. I reject the culture here, it is filled with hostility and abuse. And I never, ever, ever, ever, ever initiate hostility toward any editor without cause. By cause I mean self-defense where hostility and/or abuse was initiated by the other party. Perhaps there was one exception in my entire WP editing history. One. I do not deserve your scolding and arm-chair critiqing. I only came to you in good-faith for help for a specific situation where I was doing all I could to keep personal stuff out. Instead you concentrated on the personal side, and moralizing, and criticizing, critiquing. That wasn't helpful. (Do you think I will go to you for help anytime in the future again!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Your editsum: I don't think I can help the way you want. My interpretation of your editsum: "I'm not going to help you, I don't want to help you, I have a prejudice against you, and I'm comfortable sitting tight with my prejudice." Why the weasel words, Quale. I hear you loud and clear. You compliment MaxBrowne after despicable personal attacks and intentional smearing tactics at WT:CHESS; you compliment ChessPlayerLev after his vicious attacks at a bogus harrassing ANI he opened against me where he called me a "net negative to the project" and tried his best to attack me and get me blocked or banned and fabricated 100 accusations and gave zero responses to me when I challenged the factual basis and reasonability of same (BTW, where is he? I'm sure his RL interests are keeping his WP activity limited, however I have no doubt you'd probably want to blame me falsely for "chasing him away" or some such irrational blame--you have a tendency to issue false blame, did you know it? Now you do.); you compliment Mann jess and criticize me after obvious and blatant bullying by him (BTW he spelled "chess" as "Chess" in a recent copyedit; he changed the definition of "check" in an incorrect destruction of the correct definition in another copyedit; he makes up content in his head then adds it to articles that he "is working with" and you support him and attack me for objecting and "not working with him".) You like my edits to chess articles? Do you? Get a grip when I tell you that your unfair moralizing and chiding of me has pretty much destroyed any motivation I have to edit any further pure chess topic articles for the forseeable future. Thanks so much for destroying a hobby I loved. I never saw you even once say a critical word to either MaxBrowne, ChessPlayerLev, or Mann jess, who have each been full of all kinds of nastiness towards me, yet, you have all kinds of critisms and moralizing for me. I suppose I'm therefore supposed to put my tail between my legs and say "you must all be right and I am wrong". I say fuck that, Quale. WP draws on editors without screening. Some are very nasty individuals and have displayed low or no ethics. You seem to think your job is to be sure everyone gets positive reenforcement, even when they do not really deserve your compliments. (For example, you essentially equated the value of contributions to chess articles between Mann jess, and me, and equal. My God do you know how utterly offensive to me that was? You don't. I know you don't.) You seem to think I have an unending capacity to receive unfair and critical remarks made from arm-chair. (I don't.) You seem to think your positive reenforcment role for others can't and won't turn off and demotivate me from continuing to contribute my best editing chess articles. (You're wrong.) Or perhaps you do know it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Grow up. I've had cordial dealings with you up to now, and I appreciate your work on chess articles, but I'd be perfectly content to never hear from you again. Your coddling and encouragement of Wiki brah is another problem. Quale (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The lack of cordiality between us can be traced to my specific resentment to your comments toward me, Quale. I've weighed them in comparison to compliments you've bestowed on the likes of ChessplayerLev (attacked me underhandedly in a bogus ANI and in other ways), MaxBrowne (ditto various ways edit sums, WT:CHESS threads, on my user Talk), and the aggressive reverter and overconfident user Mann jess (who seems to know crap as a chessplayer, disimproving most of what he has touched in about three chess-related articles). Meanwhile, all I've gotten from you are sideways shaming comments. Never mind my 32,000+ edits and the chess-related articles I've created, that I've given my best efforts on and tend to think aren't all that bad as I continue improving as a good-faith editor here. (You say you "appreciate [my] work", but Quale, I have never heard this from you. You said in this thread you "like [me]", yet you attack me in this thread and insult me. Simple disconnect between assertion and actual behavior.)

Regarding your accusation I give "encouragement" to Wiki brah, I simply decided at User:Drmies's request and warning, to not enemy with him. (What is gained through that? What is harmed by treating him like a person? [He'll never be stopped from producing socks under current technology.] If you care to read *all* the dialogue I've had with him, you'll see that I discouraged him from doing any harassment of any editors. I've never encouraged him to do any harm here, I've simply dropped the stick with him. I've also tried to collaborate on a chess bio article with him. I just don't see any utility in being an enemy to him. The fact that he feels comfortable chatting with me at my Talk is probably based on only that -- that I had promised on Toddst1's Talk that I'd no longer insult him or be offensive to him. I have only been consistent on that promise. I haven't encouraged him to do bad here; I have encouraged him to do good by collaborating on a chess bio article. (What the hell are you accusing me of, you should be clear on that, because there's nothing here but in your imagination, and you are an SOB for accusing me viciously with a spurious and implicating falsehood, or implying I'm of bad-faith, or whatever the hell it is you think I'm guilty of.

As far as talking to you again, I'm perfectly happy not talking with someone who has demonstrated clear prejudice and dislike toward me, in spite of your words to the contrary without evidence or basis. You accuse me to "grow up"? (Oh! I lack maturity, do I?) My turn: wash out your brain a bit Quale ... it seems to be mucked up with dust and dirt and doesn't function too fairly or objectively or well. At least not with me. (It might be full of prejudice, unfairness, and shit. Duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You compliment the three editors who've thrown the most shit my way (ChessPlayerLev, MaxBrowne, and Mann jess), and only ChessPlayerLev among those three really deserved much of any compliment for their "contributions to chess articles". Meanwhile (back at the ranch) you "stick it to me" at Antichess with your defacing comments toward my integrity, causing me to abandon the article. (Twice!) It's clear to me you have a disliking of me, and want to pump up any editor while degrading me in personal ways. I say fuck that. I say fuck you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of case being declined

The Arbitration Case Request titled Ihardlythinkso has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious

precise praise and consolation
Thank you for quality articles on chess and other boardgames such as Xiangqi, for stressing the importance of reading and writing competence, for "I make it a point in life to not allow myself to 'hope' about anything. It shuts down thinking", for precise praise ("Eric neither minces words, nor wastes them. [Ever!]"), and consolation ("Whatever gets you thru the night, it's alright, it's alright."), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. [*Kiss!*] Since nothing escapes your eagle eye, I'll have to be more careful what I write [sometimes]! ;) p.s. You & Bish are really sumpin'. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Many things escape my eyes, but not someone who consoles me. I really needed it then, inspite of the claim on my user page ("He who speaks a word of consolation ..."). Kiss back, think about an ethics of dissensus and take a stroll in lovely scenery, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you, Gerda, are more consoling than any book ever could be. (And I have no idea at Ewa Ziarek what "intersubjectivity in relation to literary modernism" means!) Have nice vacation, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. As clarification re your nice award to me above, I didn't create article Xiangqi am just a lowly copyeditor there; I did create article Game of the Three Kingdoms however, a xiangqi variant, and am pretty proud of it (the gameboard graphic took a bit of work). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

On vacation, I didn't do as much research as usually, ferry was waiting. I thought you might be interested in the article history of the philosopher, or my DYK nomination diplomacy ;) - On the stroll, you will not find much you wouldn't expect (you probably know that Eric discussed "real name" with me), nor in sorrow (over), "major interest in engaging with other scholars on their own terms - engaging with other scholars on their own terms - engaging with other scholars on their own terms)", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Would you be interested in nominating the "Chess.com" article for deletion? It has no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Even at the last AFD, with most people voting "keep" strictly on sympathy with Max Browne's hysteria, it still only was "no consensus." What do you say? Thanks. RayBo67 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I give you an honest answer ... I agree it has no sufficient RS. I'll vote Delete if one other editor I respect votes Delete. But I don't have the fire in the belly you do on the topic to initiate an AfD. (I've never initiated an AfD in my history, I would have considered initiating one for Beautiful chess, because the users responsible for that article really pissed me off by seeding it all over creation including in article Chess. That's the closest I've ever been to filing an AfD (User talk:Wikijoehead#Beautiful chess). One needs fire in the belly to initiate AfD if one is not a generalized Wikipedia janitor-type, and neither of us is that type. You & I need reason[s] that motivate. And though I have personal issues w/ MaxBrowne, I don't let that translate to something like AfD on an article he authored.) How are your travels? Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles Veniamin Sozin and Fischer–Spassky (1992 match)

Hello. I have restored the articles in both of the cases. Even though you are eligible to nominate the pages for deletion under WP:G7, as you are the author and the sole main contributor to the articles, I believe that the page is notable enough and well sourced to not warrant a deletion. If you believe that the articles should be deleted, please bring up the matter up at WP:AFD. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. KJ ^{click here} 11:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Give me a fucking break. (I'm author. No one gives a shit. The article is poorly prepared. It is bunk. I made it up. All the references are fiction. The article creation was a joke. A hoax. It was all made up, and fiction. No one seemed to notice. It's time a fess up.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that, given that the isbn for the book sources all check out. I believe that the articles are worth saving; can we agree to keep the articles for now? KJ ^{click here} 11:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You invite to "discuss", but only on your own terms (i.e. that your revert stands). A revert is undoing another editor's work. You've undone my edit. You are edit warring. When I undo my own work, that's not edit-warring. You wrote in editsum you're not familiar with policy stating don't revert a revert "even if you think you are right". It's in the edit-warring template itself! Here, read this:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

So stop your edit-warring. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no policy automatically stopping you from reverting on edit. The edit warring policy encourages discussions and discourages reverts, but it doesn't stop such reverts if the users in question have determined it necessary. In any case, the consensus on Wikipedia is to follow the bold, revert, and discuss cycle. After your blanking of the articles, I've reverted the articles and left a message offering to discuss it on your talk page. Since you were the author and the sole contributor to the article, and the discussion concerned several articles, I felt that it would have been more productive to discuss here. I understand your concern about edit warring, but that's why I called for discussion on my version since your version would have been modified further (e.g. be tagged with WP:G7, most likely).

So let's return to the issues at hand. Even though I understand that you wish to delete those articles, I believe that there's enough value to retain and improve them. I stand in opposition to any uncontroversial deletion attempts (CSD, PROD). Why do you want to delete the articles anyway?

Seems to be a definition of terms conflict. (I see your restoration as the "bold change". I see my content removals as the last contribution I've made to artices I've created.) You're concerned about G7 tag, but that has nothing to do with me.

Why do I want to remove my contributions to chess non-variant articles? You wouldn't be puzzled, if you understood that I'm human and have at least some emotional connection to articles I've put good-faith effort into. But that pride has turned sour to pain. I've had it with the insults, false accusations, false blames, attacks, attempts to smear and defame, bullying, and so on. It's a hostile and abusive environment, and an unethical one. User:Quale's accusations and insults are the last straw. The chess non-variant articles can have User:ChessPlayerLev, User:MaxBrowne, and User:Mann jess -- all heros receiving praise from User:Quale, while he reserves snide insult, false accuses, and harassment for me (baiting). In other words, I'm being driven out by him. So be it. (While telling me how he "likes [me]" and "appreciates" my editorship. Go figure.)

Does that possibly answer your curiosity? I want to be a memory of a ghost here, like I never existed. And ghosts don't leave a trail of keyboard strokes, or do they? Association with non-variant chess articles only now gives me pain. Let me die and be a ghost. Quit restoring my contributions that I bury and put to rest. I don't like monuments of work that reflects only a mid-level quality or poorer as I was developing editing skills and was bound to continue to do. So leaving contributions as I gain skills as editor, but not allowing myself to go back and improve on earlier work, is not comfortable. Undoing my presence gives a peace. I want to be a memory and a ghost re chess non-variant articles. (No trail. No impact. Like I never really existed. [Did I?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that way, but please be noted that your contributions are definitely worth keeping. I believe that your articles, or at least those that I have seen, have contributed to make Wikipedia better. Could I suggest a Wikibreak or a semi-retirement to see if things would change over time? In the meantime, please allow me to restore the articles as they were. KJ ^{click here} 08:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. (There is no urgency either. For many years the Fischer-Spassky 1992 article didn't exist. No one cared to create it. So how could this be so urgent to you?!) How would a Wikibreak change anything when my discontent is about other editors? (Do you think I will gain a strength to suffer more abuse? Where would that then lead? [Back here, that's where. Big circle.]) I intended to expand that article in time, as now it is just a skeleton. But now I won't be expanding, ... and get to look at a skeleton for years to come? Do you think that will cause me pleasure or pain? Please don't increase my pain. I've suffered enough already. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I logged in just a few minutes ago and have no idea what has driven you to behave in the way in which you have recently, but in any case, I'm confident that the two aforementioned articles are notable, and may be deleted only as the result of an AfD discussion. If your statement "Why do I want to remove my contributions to chess non-variant articles?" is meant to imply that you're contemplating the possibility of leaving Wikipedia and leaving as few traces of your presence as possible, note that there's the option to WP:VANISH. That being said, I value your work on chess-related articles and feel that the chess WikiProject would suffer a significant loss if you were to leave. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Toccata, I respect you a whole lot, so don't know exactly what to say. I've simply found a big hurt and depression after receiving all I can handle in the way of disparaging remarks, false accuses, false blames. (Quale at Talk:AntiChess → his Talk → my Talk.) I'm sure Quale has been harboring a dislike of me ever since ChessPlayerLev days. But he was never in my shoes then. (Lev, inexperienced then but aggressive as he is, opened a bogus ANI and asked for my ban, calling me "net negative to Wikipedia". His evidence was a string of lies, fabrications, distortions. Quale has never been in my place, so is in no position to judge what that's like, especially when an admin who blocked me goes to that ANI with his buddy admin, and start poking and taunting with bullshit for their amusement and fun. It is not a nice place here at all, and Quale has never gotten that end of the stick.)

I have no need to WP:VANISH, I still want to edit chess variant & games articles. But I can't edit orthochess articles any more. (And not being able to go back and improve on prev copyedits even as I continue to improve my editing skills, will be painful, so, I'd like my contibutions in chess articles to evaporate and float away, so that I can be nothing more than a memory of a ghost.) I think this is a measure of how deeply I'm hurt. But for sure I've had enough. (This has a parallel to real life: Quale with his respected position of leadership at WP:CHESS is like a "boss", and, the boss hates me, so, what is my future at that company? I'd be treated prejudicially and disparagingly, and other assholery employees would get promotions as I sat and watched. That's exactly what's happening here with Quale's compliments for ChessPlayerLev, MaxBrowne, and Mann jess, while he reserves only shit comments for me. [While saying out the other side of his mouth that he "likes [me]" and "appreciates [my editing]" -- yeah right.] I say fuck that, I've had enough.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Blanking articles

By blanking pages you've contributed to, such as here and here you are intentionally making them worse in order to prove a point. When you contribute content to wikipedia, you are releasing it under a free license. You can't "take it back" after it is released. If you want to take these articles to AfD, you can of course do that. However, please stop removing positive contributions to articles. I see other people have tried discussing this with you. If you want to contribute only to chess variation articles from now on, go for it. But if you keep trying to make articles worse in order to make a point, I'll have to take this to ANI. I really don't want to do that. You seem to think we have some feud. We don't. I hope you find an area of wikipedia you enjoy, going forward. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Ba

intentionally making them worse in order to prove a point ? No. That's your interpretation. I simply removed my contributions to those articles. (Whether said contributions improved those articles or not, is matter of opinion. Apparently your opinion was that my edits were improvement. Gee thanks. But it doesn't have to be everyone's opinion, does it? Not even mine sometimes, as my edit history is filled with self-reverts. Telling me what my "intention" is, is out-of-line on your part, you cannot go around assigning motives to people when you don't know what you're talking about. (Not only are you wrong about it, but your assignment is bad-faith, and a personal slight. You are all full of presumption and you are also wrong, Mr. "I-Know-Better-Than-You-So-Listen-Here-And-Let-Me-Tell-You-What-Your-Intention-Was".) You are also wrong about "can't take it back", since any self-revert does just that, and self-reverts are permitted, Mr. Mann jess. Again, it is just a matter of opinion whether my edits were improvements or disimprovements. It isn't an objective thing as you portend to assert. I don't have any "feud" with you, Mann jess. I just can't stand your aggressive bulliness, and overconfidence in the subject matter. And won't go through what is necessary to oppose your disimprovements to articles, because Quale has your back, and has already complimented you, and disparaged me. So go for it. Keep making those improvements to chess articles. (BTW, it's "chess", not "Chess". A check is a condition on the board, not a move. A short sentence should not have three commas. ["The symbol '++' is also, rarely, used, but it can also mean double check."] Proofs are not "sample games" and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Demo programs to aid understanding an article subject that no amount of text can convey, are not "against policy". One doesn't replace existing article text with "fact" one fabricates in one's head, then rationalizes doing so as "working with the text" and denying what they actually did 17 different ways. Some would call that simple dishonesty.) I think you suck as chess editor. But your tramping ground is here at WP to prove your ego. Go tramp on the ground then. Beat your drum. Just stay the hell away from me, you aggressive moron. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's your idea of "discussion" at chess article Talk threads, remember this post?:

Hi Ihardlythinkso. On Talk:Checkmate, I asked that we not interact further, and that you refrain from addressing me. Yet, you've done so 3 times in the past day, including inserting yourself into a conversation between me and Eric. I requested that we not interact further after you indicated you didn't want to waste time responding to my future edits. I was hoping such an agreement would be beneficial to us both. Please respect my request. I don't want to interact with you further, and you've indicated you want the same, so let's part ways amicably, please. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Now you come here playing Wiki-defender, Wiki-cop, when the three articles I removed my contributions from have nothing to do with you. (I see right through your transparent crap, Mann jess. You have a need for dominance and one-upmanship, and have taken the opportunity here to threaten and lecture when has nothing to do with you, just to fluff your obsession and ego. While all the time playing innocent and "collaborative". Dishonest and transparent bullcrap. Deceitful assholery.) Quit harassing me, jerk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just above the 'Save page' button you click every time you edit Wikipedia, including this very talk page, is the following text:

By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.

Note the phrasing "irrevocably". You are not allowed to "remove your contributions". If the articles were recent creations and had not been edited by others, then this could be considered a G7 speedy-deletion request; however, blanking a nearly two-year-old article, especially when accompanied by your comments above, is not a good-faith action which makes the blanking vandalism. In addition, your comments above to User:Mann jess are personal attacks. Personal attacks are a violation of both Wikipedia policy and one of the Five Pillars; consider this a once and only warning that further personal attacks will result in your being blocked from editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You are not allowed to "remove your contributions". User:Resolute, I think, already explained this at the ANI. (He said that an editor may remove his copyedits. Just that the user cannot deny restoration.) p.s. User:Resolute, if that's right, could you please explain the difference to The Bushranger. Thank u. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually he is. [[Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License } CC-BY-SA ]] actually allows an author to withdraw that license. So yes he can, but it's really poor form, especially when others have contributed  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   12:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. The license is perpetual - so long as the terms are not breached by Wikipedia. CC gives the creator the right to stop distributing the content under this license in the future, but that is not something that can be backdated so cannot be applied to contributions made in the past. Otherwise CC would be a meaningless licensing scheme for our purposes. As a matter of practical editing, we add and remove content all the time, so IHhardlythinkso can remove their content - but that does not revoke the license, so anyone else can restore same if they so choose and ultimately let consensus decide if it stays or goes. It also becomes a game of judging whether the removal is justified (or G7 applicable) or not and deciding what to do if the latter case. Resolute 13:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for continuing to make personal attacks on other editors after warnings that continuing to do so would result in a block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger, 1) I did not see any warning prior to your block. I was busy responding to the ANI, and did not go do other things, like read my Talk. 2) I have no idea what personal attack you are referring to that triggered your block. Could you specify please. (And whatever it was, what about the personal attacks User:Maxbrowne made at the ANI, that baited? Are we picking and choosing here, according to ... what standard of fair? It was not my idea to open the ANI. It was not my idea that MaxBrowne would go to it and issue personal attacks. Hello.

"This is classic narcissist / Diva behaviour. [...] MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)"

Apparently you don't think accusing someone of "clasic narcissim" is a personally offensive? Or an offensive bait? Can you explain consistency? Is it OK for me to tell that user he's displaying "classic narcisist behavior" as he told me? Please explain your consistency re your disapproval of personal offensive comments. How is it that you do nothing to an editor issuing "classic narcisist" slander at me, while blocking me for responding with the questions I did? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's borderline, very very borderline and quite mild as personal attacks though. I would describe that comment as describing behaviors and not a person. Tough to say it was a good block..i think you had your bell rung a little and popped off on a comment that might have been phrased differently but I also have the same filter problem too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While it's true that the big orange banner's absence is a problem, you were still notified that there were posts on your talk page; you posted this over an hour after you were warned, hence the block. The "standard of fair" is calling a spade a spade; AGF is not a suicide pact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, Bushranger. Would you stop writing in "code" please, and just answer my clear questions? (Regarding the notice, I'm just saying I wasn't aware of it, that's all. [I saw I had a message at my Talk, I thought it was more Mann jess crap, since he's been posting his usual one-upmanship stuff to my attention where he is in no way involved. I assumed it was more of that. I'm not saying you didn't notice me, just letting you know I was not cognizant of your notice. I was focused on the ANI exclusively then.] What about my other Qs, Bushranger? I appreciate User:Hell in a Bucket's perspective (thank u, H). But, I don't see how others can evaluate if something is personally offensive, and how much or little, to another editor. Because it is subjective and people have different backgrounds and sensibilities. (Accusing someone of "lying" might be water off a duck's back to one person, and the greatest possible offense to the integrity of another. Ditto with "classic narcisist" which MaxBrowne accused. How is it that someone can judge that is "mild" when the POV is subjective. (To me it ain't mild. It is basically saying someone has a psychologically diagnosable mental illness. If that isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is. But that's my POV. Is someone telling me that mine doesn't count? And theirs is better? [Huh?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I've asked clear Qs above, you seem to be ignoring them. Do I have repeat that I didn't understand your cryptic partial response? I see you got a barnstar 16 minutes after my block from User:Go Phightins!, a user who clearly has been IDHT to me and a friend of User:Northern Antarctica whom I've objected to said user's harassment and badgering of me, and you were quick to reply "Thanks!" I'm not stupid Bushranger, I think that is extremely poor form for an admin -- to relish and thank celebration of blocking of a user. (Do you expect that kind of Schaden-freude lessens or contributes to tensions between regular editors and admins that already exists on the WP extensively? Do you think it is behavior becoming of admin? [Because I don't.] I see in your 2011 RfA at least one Opposer noted you have pattern of giving out cryptic snideness or silence as responses to users, is it perhaps the same pattern I've gotten from you already above?

"Oppose. He's prone to resting on his own judgement even when his charges rest on nothing more than the 'obvious meaning' of someone else's unspoken intent, even if that person is a veteran editor who is not likely to take accusations like serious ABF lightly.[19]. He has also sometimes offered short sarcastic one liners rather than a proper reply, or a diplomatic silence.[20][21] [...] MickMacNee (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)"

After my block expires, I think it will be distasteful for me to even try to get a meaningful/fair response from you Bushranger. Looking at your temperament issues at your RfA, and your tendency to give sarcastic cryptic answers, or silent ones, leads me to believe you should have never gotten a club to wield, and SandyGeorgia was right about your lack of qualifications and experience with content (if I'm not mistaken, there was also issue re your honesty). So I doubt I'll want to waste my time or frustrate myself trying to get some logic and fair reasoning from you, as I will probably only receive more of your snipe. You seem to be an element of the WP for all reasons explained above, that puts a sick pit in my stomach. Good day. p.s. What are your recall parameters anyway, Mr. Unaccountable? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC) p.p.s. Oh! And I see User:The ed17 nominated you at your RfA. (Wasn't he also the nominator of User:Kevin Gorman at his RfA!? More pattern here!?)

I seem to recall that you previously indicated that you wanted me to leave you alone. I have done that. Nevertheless, you seized an opportunity above to attempt to smear my name. Please refrain from dragging my name into disputes that don't involve me. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

First, as with Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs), I consider oppositons like that a compliment - you will note that the editor in question wound up banned for having "consistently and egregiously violated Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism", so I believe that speaks for itself. Secondly, the reason I did not respond was because in your set of questions you continued to make further personal attacks on other editors, therefore illustrating that you completely fail to understand why you were blocked in the first place. As for your personal attacks againt me above, I'll leave them to speak for themselves, however as for the barnstar, how do you know it was in regards to you instead of the closing of the "Removal against consensus" thread? And as for "lack of experience with content", 354 articles created put the point to that.

To answer your original question anyway, as long as I;m here, I was not "writing in code", but if you need it clear: once an editor's behavior reaches the point where good faith can no longer be assumed, we are not required to continue extending good faith to them. If someone behaves in a manner that is indistinguishable from a certain sort of behavior - in this case, "classic narcissist/Diva behavior" - then pointing this fact out is calling a spade a spade. Which was, in that case, the fact: your behavior is, again speaking absolutely frankly, exactly that.

Short version: if you want to be part of the Wikipedia community, stop making personal attacks, as your behavior following the block has simply been to make more, which will result in your rapidly being blocked again, for longer. (I considered your past block log irrelevant when setting this block's length: unfortunatly your conduct since the block has proven that judgement to be a mistake.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger, just what I figured from you, baiting, bullshit, assholery: I have no idea what the reference to Baseball Bugs is about, and I have no obligation to research it in order to try to undersand answers to simple Qs. (What an awful way to communicate. Bugs has nothing to do with me, this, my block, nothing.) Your comments re MickMacNee are simple ad hominem. (What? Now I need to research the quality of the ban to please you? The quality of his observations and documented reasons are affected by a later bock? Did you become an administrator by impressing others with such reasoning?) I got a block from you based on your idea that I made a personal attack, I've asked specifically what personal attack you believe I made, and after two exchanges of unpleasant run-around, I still have no answer to my simple and clear question. (Dodge and manipulate much? Are those skills described at WP:ADMINACCT?) Now you like to sidetrack further by referring to what else I don't know, but I know your references are immaterial to the simple Qs I asked. (More dodge.) You're even using language of a context that I have made a block appeal, and I have done no such thing. (What accounts for you, Bushranger? So desperate you have to aggressively seek avenues to obfuscate a simple question posed? Then blame me why you don't answer? Is there any way possible to get answer from you to simple Qs, without you coming up with multi-reasons why you don't answer that seem sensible to you apparently but are really incomprehensible and kicking up as much dust as you can find to obfuscate?) Did I ask you to answer why you haven't responded? No. I asked for answer to my simple Qs. Why are you answering things I didn't ask? The generalized "Thank you for being such a great admin this year" barnstar you got, was from someone I consider antagonistic toward me, as explained, and came 16 minutes after the block. Hello. (If you were responsible as admin you might take prudent steps to be sure you don't leave perceptions of the like for editors you've blocked to pick up on. But you didn't because you aren't. You have conduct obligations and expectations as admin -- you don't seem to think so or give a hoot.) You were "writing in code", because your article-link pseudo answers to me were completely incomprehensible as mentioned. You could answer clear Qs in plain English, and you didn't and you haven't. I have no idea what you are saying about good-faith breach, or how it relates to the Qs I've asked you. (Somehow in your head, there is a connection there. But you aren't communicating what it is. And I think it is probably irrelevant anyway. Why so obfuscating, Bushranger?) Now you'r lecturing me and threatening me ... what does that have to do with the simple Qs I asked about your block? (More obfuscation, Bushranger?) Now you're discussing the length of my block. (Did I ask any Q about that? No I didn't.) Look Bushranger, a) I think you are a terrible admin -- just awful. I have no respect for you -- none. You have been assholish and abusive from my POV. You should never have been made an admin, I think your adminship is shameful. b) Leave me the hell alone -- you aren't work a second of my time for aforementioned reasons. I think you suck as admin, and represent part of the worst that is on the Wikipedia. You have no moral athority to preach to me. You only have a documented sarcastic attitude, a mistaken successful RfA, and now a club to yield. Add it all up and you get a thread just like this one. You've earned my resentment, I didn't have it necessarily because of the block, but you earned it in this thread. You s/ have greater respect for the image you show to others as admin. The fact you don't is severely tacky. You revel in the bait. (Is that what WP:ADMINACCT describes to do? Tell me about it.) According to your Talk, you "don't swear". You just find countless other ways to be uncivil. It shows me you do not understand civil, but pretend to. It's too stupid really, to even talk about. I had three Qs, I got answers to none. My 3rd Q was about your recall parameters. Duh. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I linked you , directly, to the personal attack you made that resulted in the block in my initial reply. I believe the rest of your statement speaks for itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OMG! (A response from you?! And in plain English too?! Without transparent assholery obfuscation?? I almost fell over in dead-shock!) Gee thanks Bushranger, but I didn't see the link and don't know where or when you made it. (I did see a series of irrelevant links about stuff in your head that don't relate to answering my simple Qs -- perhaps it is buried in there and I missed it because of your incomprehensible communication style that fails to communicate? I'm not playing games with you I genuinely saw a lot of irrelevant side-tracking links and put my cursor over a numer of them, I thought all of them, to find said link. No luck. Is this my fault or yours, Bushranger?? Is the length of this thread my fault or yours, Bushranger?) Why don't you do the simple thing and just repeat the link below so there is no further confusion about it? (Duh.) And while you're at it, why don't you take a stab at my other two Qs? Or are you intentionally ignoring them without saying as part of your "silent responses" attribute documented by other observers? In the end I know, as already said, there will be no reasoned logic or fairness forthcoming from you, you've shown me you are far incapable of that already with all your BS above. So I really at this point don't give a damn whether or not you re-provide the link to my Q1, there probably won't be any further dialogue, as I'm not interested to explore the ugly crevices of your mind searching for logic or fairness. Ain't there. That's the long way of telling you to fuck off, I guess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Spite"

User:Dennis Brown, you accused me of "spite" on a public board for removing the article body content at Veniamin Sozin. (You accused of "ownership" as well, but I already explained at ANI how your interpretation of editsum was not correct.) Why I removed body content at Sozin is complex, but it wasn't something as stupid and petty as "spite". It's a big sorrow to me to have to leave ortho chess article editing. (I have loved it. I had no idea, the hostile and ruthless culture at WP, and the editors who revel in that environment to throw lies and smears and do bullying would ruin it for me. But I should have known better. The signs were early and my love of editing made me want to ignore them.) The deal is, Dennis, I regret ever creating that article (and there were only two others) for the orthochess project. I just regret it. And that regret, also somes with pain. And sorrow. But in the end, I wish I never edited for that subproject. I met some nice talented editors doing (e.g. User:Toccata quarta, User:Cobblet whom I learned to understand better and appreciate), but there were some bad apples, and the environment allowed them to make hay with me. That wasn't nice. When defacto subproject leader Quale defamed me consistently by complimenting my detractors, and disparaging my good-faith efforts out of prejudice, well, that's life in the big city, it's political and nasty here, and I'm not willing to suck up to it. I'd rather leave. So I did. Seeing the three articles I left behind I created, that I can no longer expand, made me sick. I began to sincerely wish I never created them. So I made mercy killings of them. (Have you seen One Flew Over? There's a mercy killing in that movie. Was it spite!?) You apparently have no idea what complex emotion caused me to delete those contents, so, a quick & dirty answer you accuse on a public board, is that of "spite". (Why do you jump to suppose bad faith like that? You should think about that. In effect an accusation of "spite" is a dig of my character. I've never toilet-papered a house or lawntree in all my life. Or played a mean trick on anybody for fun. Why should I start now? To accuse me of mere spite is to say I'm no better than a juvenile delinquent. And you don't see the insult value and personal affront in that? You are Mr. Editor Retention. And yet you seem clueless what I as editor have gone through, who has done a partial quit of Wikipedia -- the quit of a subproject [orthochess]. The emotional toil is real and genuine. I know I cannot prove that, only attempt to explain to you. But please note how you jumped to bad faith explanation, and affront, and maybe why you would do that.

Like I mentioned, the emotions were complex. Take one of the other three articles, for example: Paris Defence. Some of the above was at play with the deletion of that artice's body content, but there was something else, too. I had to fight tooth-and-nail, to get that article to 'Keep' status, and a WP:CHESS member also who is a deletionist kept pestering me about why the article couldn't be 'Merged'. The reasoning for 'Delete' and 'Merge' were all faulty, and I painstakingly and patiently tried to reason and explain. To little success. But the article stayed. Only through my perseverance, I guess. I never demanded the article stay -- I don't think I even !voted at the AfD for it. I simply made comments because even then, I had disassociated myself as project member due to already giving up on the level of civility from one editor initials CPL who you favored at your Talk against me, when I went to your Talk in good faith consel session, and there was no counsel discussion, just diaparaging criticisms of me, and I withdrew. That is when I never trusted you again. (Your compatriot Elen of Roads of course came in to render supportive disparaging criticisms of me, there and on her Talk, without end. You see how "friendship" explains all on the Wikipedia. Arguments are for losers, it seems.) The reason I deleted body content of Paris Defence is because I worked so hard, so very very hard, for the good, and consistency, of WP chess articles then, to keep it, and prove it. (CPL was saying the opening didn't even exist. That it was a joke of a 3rd move by Black. Yet he was willing to tell everyone at any opportunity that he's a "chess Expert" rating, in repeated boasting. I worked so very hard hard hard to keep that article, I improved it during the AfD, and it was amazing to me, because those imporovements didn't seem to matter (no one said they did), when they were in fact central and vital and the whole point. So where does the sorrow come in? After working so hard as I did, for the reasons I did, I was alone. Alone alone alone. No support from the "community" of "collaborative editors" -- what a Project is supposed to be all about. Silence. When my arguments to keep were valid, they received silence. The AfD was 'Keep' not 'Delete', but as mentioned, a second round of contending over 'Merge' as another hill for me, as the basis didn't seem consistent or rational to me. (Things might be different now. Smart editor User:Cobblet has ideas that articles s/b slimmed and lesser artricles simplified and merged. It is a valid idea. I could support that idea, if it was a consensus. [Academic now of course; I've quit that project.] But back then Cobblet wasn't around, and there were several comparable lesser stand-alone articles. The point is Dennis, after fighting so hard for my view, all civilly, it was without support, by anyone. (But that is many many times par for the course at the subproject, because the main driving force at WP:CHESS is basically apathy -- 'bout everything, unless something hot perks up. So deleting the body content of that article was essentially giving it back to the user to Merge it if he wanted. A signal I didn't care. And he was very persistent in numerous arguments that didn't service logic I thought, for Merge. Over and over again. I was giving back the article to him. And perhaps to those who wanted to delete it. As there was a rush of support to delete, then when I entered with my comments at the AfD, that went silent. It seems that deleting the article was an exciting thing, but keeping it? Boring! (Apparently.) Lots of participation when 'Delete' is in the air; little when the article subject has a life to protect. I don't get that, but it is the reality. I wanted to signal to others I didn't care anymore, they could have their way to delete, or to merge. I did it by removing the content. (There were other ways to signal same, but I didn't select one.) Was it spite Dennis? No. It was dying, and giving up. It was a gift back. The problem with the WP is there is lack of depth of thought here. Too much to do I guess. So articles get trampled. People get trampled. And now I was just blocked, and I don't know exactly why it makes any sense, or demonstrates any fairness. And I see an editor who doesn't like me, gave a barnstar to the blocking editor thanking them for their "Great work this year". Bullshit. I get the message. Rejoice over someone getting blocked, whom you don't like. Rejoice in blocking! (The blocking admin replied: "Thank you!") What a nasty, nasty environment here. (Do you think that kind of thing fosters collaborativeness? Or do you think that kind of thing fosters a response "Go fuck yourself!" Probably the latter. At least I think so. But I don't feel that. Because the action to rejoice, is so stupid and misguided. That's not how blocking s/b done -- it is nothing to celebrate. But so much has gone wrong here at WP to make a bad culture. It is just one of many things. [And what accounts for that? How about territoriality issues or drunk-with-power issues? Do you think they might possibly play a part. Have those topics been discussed at Editor Retention? BTW, has Editor Retenion ever saved an editor from quitting to speak of? I think User:Joefromrandb was first to ask that Q.] Sorry if I sound down on ET, but really, I think it is just a symbol, and a playground. The real truth is just too ugly and gruesome for such places that you initially described as "It's just nice to have a place for discussing positive ideas for helping editors." [Or some such thing.] After your own depart from WP [now you're back], did you gain any perspective that maybe goes a little deeper? Or no? [Because that was a bit like butterflies and rainbows, at least a little, don't you think?] I'm open to any genuine answer, if you want to give one; it is not a leading or trick Q.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I said that it might be spite hence I said "my guess" not "I'm sure it is..". As for ownership, the comments DID indicate ownership of your previous contributions, as did your action to remove those contributions. Not something I get excited over, but it is what it is. I also said you aren't dumb and are familiar with policy, more so than most editors actually. I also said I wanted to hear your perspective. As for spite, I can't say that I've never done anything spiteful, most of us can't, so obviously it has to be in the realm of the possible. You did blank articles, it was obviously not vandalism, but that is very odd. I get it that you are pissed off, and for all I know you have good reason, but I'm not the one that called you diva, I'm the one that asked for your side of the story. And I get it that we are best off avoiding each other (something we both have been equally kind enough to do), but in this instance, I was only asking for more info because I'm familiar with you. Obviously, you are upset and I'm not dismissing it, quite the contrary. The only reason I opined at all is because blanking articles was really out of character for you. Just as my mention of us "bumping heads" only indicated I was WP:INVOLVED, it wasn't laying blame for previous disagreements. Honestly, I butted in only because I thought I might be able to understand, and maybe cool things down. Then I got dragged away from the computer by real life. If we sat across the table, we would probably understand each other better, not just you and I, but all of us. Communicating through text is suboptimal, yet necessary for a place like Wikipedia. As for your frustrations with Wikipedia, I have my own, including many we would probably agree about. Granted, I'm less vocal about them, but it doesn't mean I overlook or ignore, only that I frequently try to find ways to deal with some of them offwiki. No one here has or will see those efforts. Others, I simply endure as I have no option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"OWN"

Thx for the reply, Dennis. But you're still wrong about ownership. (And so is User:NeilN at the ANI, where I'm blocked from responding.) "I am author" was simply a statement of fact. Any "Gosh, that means you're claiming ownership" is an interpretation that goes beyond, that sticks thoughts in my head I never thought. (I can see how someone might jump to that conclusion, really, but that is after-the-fact.) By saying "I am author", I was cluing in that editor that I had some keen interest and understanding about that article and its background, that he may have not immediately known. A time to pause and ask questions. A time to give a little respect perhaps. And that is exactly what that editor did. (He's a great young editor. [Would someone please nominate him for RfA!?]) NeilN is exactly right -- I do understand WP:OWN. If I had violated OWN, I would have persisted in removal of article contents. I didn't/haven't do/done that. (At least, I quit doing that. And the only reason I had reverted earlier, was part of dialoging with the editor about process -- he seemed to be insisting on delete as a condition of discussion, and those are poor or impossible discussion terms in my view. It wasn't about OWN.) Bottomline is that I think "I am author" should get a wee bit more respect than just any editor coming by and deleting content. There was obviously a deeper reason. "I am author" was intended to signal that. So it served several purposes in my thinking, and not among them was possession of said article, that another editor cannot restore after discussion (there was a discussion in the end), or consensus cannot restore. Those are other processes, ones that I respect. So this was all different from OWN -- I understand OWN as it is perhaps as fundamental to WP philosophy as discussion, consensus, free access, etc. (A statement "I am author" is like a shadow. Putting interpretation on it is telling what the thing is that casts the shadow. But there may be more than one different object that can cast the identical shadow. Assuming there is only one leads to that kind of mistake. The dialogue with that user was too quick paced for me to bother explaining myself in greater detail. And I didn't feel emotionally up to that task then, either.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see some confusion here ... Part of what influenced me was earlier seeing User:MaxBrowne delete a significant chunk of his contributions in an article (I can't remember how much, and I can't locate again so am not sure the article or date, I thought at least it was an article he created or expanded), and that action was questioned (was it me? maybe but I don't think so), and an editor explained that since they were "his" edits, MaxBrowne was free to make the decision to delete them. OK, so what does that mean? I think/thought it means not OWN, but rather, that user could delete the contributions he made, without the usual obligation of providing a rationale. (And I think that is all that it means. For example, could another user restore said contributions. Of course. But just that a restoration with editsum "unexplained content removal" isn't really appropriate, in that circumstance, if the restorer knows the contributor was the editor who deleted.) I think that is all that it means. (In that particular case, no one restored the chunk of content. I guess because no one decided to get involved. [I know I decided not to get involved.] But what if someone had resored it with editsum "I think this material improves the article"? I expect that normal discussion processes would ensue then. Anyway, those are my understandings and assumptions, perhaps I'm wrong.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Kkj11210

User:Kkj11210, would you accept a nomination if I made one for you at RfA? (Because I would. Why? You're very impressive. [Professional, thoughtful, good communicator, of course civil.] I've never nominated before, and it doesn't matter if I'm despised or not; the other editors at RfA will make their own determination, they can be trusted to do that. I have not researched your editing history, you may have skeletons in your closet, but I doubt that very much. My instincts are very OK with you -- I threw some "tests" at you, and for a high-schooler, I'm very impressed. [That's why I treated you with respect in our subsequent dialogue/discussion, inspite of User:MaxBrowne making claim I made "ad hominem" against you.]) I think you'd make an excellent admin. One of the best. Good for WP. You seem to listen and care, besides the other qualities have already named. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. The RfA would be fun to watch for me. I think you would be an outstanding success there! It would be very refreshing, me thinks.

I would be happy to be an administrator, but I'm not sure if I'm experienced enough at this point. I've only been really around for five months, and while the nomination will make me happy, I'm not sure if it will be futile. KJ ^{click here} 22:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you're open to it for future. Because you'll be a great admin. (WP needs your kind of approach. You're already 10 times the admin Bushranger is -- the approach of wielding a bat, followed by sarcasm & condescension -- is destructive to editors and the environment here. [It wouldn't even occur to you to do the same as he does, and that's a big difference.]) Best, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome in pocket

Little user upset. Contributions to Wikipedia underappreciated. :-( Welcome decompress in pocket! Put request for pocketing on this page, little user be ported to pocket. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

A suicide pill!? (Um, thanks!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing a date on a signature

I'm not sure if it is a big deal, but there is a date missing on your lowermost post here. If I shouldn't have notified you of this, I apologize.--Rockfang (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh! (The ANI. I missed your link at first. Date replaced.) Thank you. (Sharp eye!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

AN notice - Interaction ban

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

IBAN

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)

Sorry it turned out like this, IHTS. An IBAN was insisted upon, and the very best deal that could be cut for you was a mutual IBAN. It's much better than a one-way IBAN, you must admit. No "bad guy", just mutual separation.

You're a smart guy. Commenting on only the issue is imperative to avoid further conflict. When an editor (or admin) does something I don't like, I try as hard as I can to focus on what they did and why it was wrong according to policy. Learning civility from "role models" who pull like this is a very bad idea. He truly doesn't give a rat's arse about you in the long run, and you should never be looking to his unusual example for how civility is enforced anyway. Cheers Doc talk 06:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about it, Doc. (Wikipedia has lost an editor [me], for the next 3–5 years [at least].) Eric Corbett is probably jealous that he hasn't had to defend against all the shit that I have had to defend from, it isn't pleasant, he has backers, I don't. But he is right, in the end. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would you quit over this? If you think he would even honor you for defending him, you're sadly mistaken. Come back to the community! There's no overthrowing the civility policy. Doc talk 07:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. (I'm not quitting -- I simply won't be editing articles, or creating new articles, for 3–5 years [or longer]. WP is in the Stone Age re being civilized. It needs time to work itself out. [Or die.] My thought process and decision has nothing to do w/ Eric Corbett -- I respect him greatly [as he is example of editor who can speak truth to power, without repercussion; the world needs more truth -- simple as that.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If 3-5 years is your self-imposed sentence, I wish you luck. ArbCom would have been far more lenient, even with a convicted criminal. Perhaps self-flagellation has its place after all. Cheers ;) Doc talk 07:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I sort-of understand what you mean. I was considering an RfAR over the "classic narcissist" PA by User:MaxBrowne, however -- not re MaxBrowne -- my main complaint to ArbCom would have been re an admin's (User:The Bushranger's) stamp of approval ("calling a spade a spade") re the blatant PA. But I have no desire to consume ArbCom time/attention, when no admin has shown interest to pick up the issue. (I'm not a trouble-maker by nature; the PA was obvious. That's why I say Stone Age culture here. There s/b a Bill of Human Rights re WP editors -- I presupposed WP:NPA was same re "degrogatory comments [re] contributors". But mob rules. [And I have no interest in drama. Unless you think an RfAR would have some a merit. {I was considering at RfAR on basis of fundamental editor right, to encourage editors to stay editing Wikipedia and not driven off via blatant abuse of a pillar -- but I have seriously given up, as obvious. Am I so wrong?}]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. (Sorry.) I say that with Passion. We have too many missed quality users (example pictured), two died recently. I started the "note" column only today, and I would prefer not to have to add you. I support you, because I like your thinking and you are great support for me (forgive selfish reason). I wrote He was despised in 2011, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

My favorite cantata is Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, and it is a credit to WP for having article on it! But I do not know how I am "wrong". (WP is ruled by Neanderthals and needs time to evolve.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong saying that you don't have backers, and I think you are wrong to let others (Arbcom, rulez makers, ...) decide what you do, but that includes me, of course. In case you don't know by watching, I received good advice, and perhaps it could work for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on whomever you want; but don't comment on him again, even here on your talk page. I don't make the rules, but they will be enforced by those who are watching. Move on to bigger and better things. No need to revisit this ever again. Good luck :) Doc talk 09:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You got it. (3–5 years, or later). Cheers and good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

Hi IHTS - I'm not sure if we get along or not, I don't really keep tabs how I feel about people I meet around here, but I do think we've bumped heads before. That aside, I've been reading over your last 50 contribs and it seems to me that Wikipedia hasn't been a source of enjoyment for you for the last few days. Have you considered just taking a break for a little while and getting recharged? Things are moving to a head here, and right or wrong, I think you're about to hit a brick wall on this project. I think some time away would give you a chance to evaluate the importance of the disputes you're involved in right now and determine if they are really worth the long term participation in this project. Not a threat, just advice. Being right hardly ever wins battles here, it's how you express the idea and convince others you're right. Your methodology isn't achieving that right now. Anyway, just wanted to leave a friendly word. I'm not involved in the dispute and not interested in getting involved or arguing points about it. Just wanted to see if I could help you on a more personal level.--v/r - TP 19:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

TP, I respect the fact you are INTJ and have preference to see things logically and dispassionately, although when we bumped heads it was about something you were directly involved in (dispute and/or PAs) and so would be more challenging for you to retain that usual objectivity you customarily show. Also you once came to a User Talk page of a friend of yours whom I was having minor disagreements with re philosophy, and started digging me with unfair and unwarranted slams and insults, just because you didn't like me in dispute with your friend. (So, you lost your objectivity in that incident, too.) But I'm not blaming you all over for these things ... I'm just refreshing your & my history. (The fact you don't get along with Eric, and I admire that editor-writer a great deal, has no bearing re my attitudes re you. Because I only have opinion re an editor based on my own personal contacts with them -- they to me and me to them. For example I have opinion of admin Drmies good or bad depending on how he has treated me good or bad, and that has been uneven over time, and regardless he and Eric seem to be long-lasting friends. Eric is not in my shoes and if he were, I don't know he'd have any different reaction toward Drmies as I have had based on Drmies words sent my way. And the other side is that Drmies also dispenses different behavior to me than an Eric because I am "not important" and Eric is important and a friend. So an editor receiving different behavior from an admin depends entirely on who you are and if the admin has any history of friendship with you. It's all politics.)

That said, you are admin. I would like your assessment of admin Bushranger's proclamation that "classic narcissist" name-call is "not a PA". I don't think any editor should have to endure such a PA as that, and to see two other admins dancing around in various ways to avoid recognition that it is a clear PA that all users should be safe from, doesn't pass any giggle test I'm aware of. The name-call that Bushranger proclaimed to "not be a PA" was wiki-linked to the article Narcissist, and if you read the lede of that article you will see that said reference is to a diagnosable personality disorder. And the WP:NPA text describes "personal attack" as making personally derogatory remarks about an editor. There's no doubt that such a name-call is both personal and degogatory, and I shouldn't have to be pointing out or explaining to anyone what a PA is, and how the wiki-linked name-call is something that no editor s/ have to endure and that NPA policy should obviously protect them from same.

You are accusing me of having a "methodology", but I have no agenda here or about this issue except to seek reasonable responses from admin regarding the PA, which was not only ignored, but justified by Bushranger as "calling a spade a spade" which is the equivalent of issuing the same PA himself against me (and that should not be tolerated on the WP). So other than fundamental editor expectation to be free of being on receiving end of what is obvious PA, and being blocked because I made a baited response to said PA (which seems grossly unfair), I have no agenda and therefore also no "methodology [to achieve]". Can you understand this?

I would like to consult with someone, preferably an admin, preferably an Arbcom admin, about this concern further. It is easy for you or anyone else to say "take a wikibreak" and ignore, when you were not the recipient of said PA. (Remember User:StandingStill and his off-color attempt at humor towards you? You reacted emotionally and continually, until and even after that user was indef-blocked for his remarks. What if someone at that time told or advised you to "take a wikibreak" instead of filing the ANI you filed that resulted in that indef!? The point is that you see things differently when you are in the shoes, you see things differently when you are out of the shoes.)

The PA I received should not be tolerated on the WP by admin and no editor should have to endure said PA under NPA. The fact that an admin ignored the PA, and reinforced and even effectively made the same PA himself against me with "it was not a PA, it was calling a spade a spade" is supportable how under WP policy (NPA)??? To me it is plain abuse, and plain dismissal of responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT. I would like to consult with an admin about it rather than throw up the issue in an RfAR case (because, I don't believe in consuming valuable time of Arbcom, when a straight-forward thing like this could be and should be addressed by other admin when an admin goes bad or abusive). However with admin comments turning a blind eye to what went down, and now you proposing that I essentially forget about it and take a wikibreak, is so much dirt swept under the rug, isn't it. (Have you asked yourself, TP, how an editor might feel regarding editing on this voluntary project, subject to such PAs, where there is not only no protection from it by admins, but admins take pot-shots at both repeating the PA or mocking me over the PA?? No editor should have to face this, and it calls WP:NPA and WP:ADMINACCT admin behavior into question necessarily. I would like some answers and not just threats and admonishment to "take a break" -- I am not the one out of control here -- admins and WP:NPA and WP:ADMINACCT admin behavior are what are out of control. I would like some answers and would rather deal with this discussion off-wiki. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(Shrug) Actually, neither of those spark any memory. I wasn't aware we've ever been in a dispute over Eric. I rarely even comment on stuff about him. About the rest of it, listen, you might be entirely 100% correct and justified. But it won't help. Being right isn't the only thing ANI ever cares about - I know you've seen that for yourself, you know it's true. I'm not saying take a Wikibreak and forget. I'm saying take a Wikibreak for yourself. You sound like you're at the end of your rope and ready to give the whole project the middle finger. You signed up at some point and must have had some good impression of the project then. What would it take to get you back to that point? You bring up StillStanding; actually, I did get a lot of suggestions to take a break and I did. I didn't edit from 6 Oct 2012 to 17 Oct 2012. A few days shy of two weeks. I haven't been the same on here since then. I've really lost a lot of the passion I once had for the project. I'm not saying forget, I'm saying help yourself. You can always email an admin you trust when you get back and ask them to address the issue with Bushranger then.--v/r - TP 04:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We were never in dispute over Eric. (I never said that.) Your wiki-break over StandingStill was only after that user was indef-blocked (or topic banned?) at the ANI you initiated (please correct me if wrong). You signed up at some point and must have had some good impression of the project then. What would it take to get you back to that point? I wasn't congnizant of the long-existing hostile and abusive culture at WP until many months after signing up. What I'm looking for is clear & simple: freedom to edit without facing blatant PAs like the recent "classic narcissist", which was not only overlooked by the admin who blocked me (Bushranger), but reinforced same PA himself by describing it as "calling a spade a spade". (What we have here is an abusive admin supporting blatant PA, and I don't know how more corrupt this editing environment could be than that. No editor should have to face such blatant PA on a public board. [PA = personally derogatory comments about a user, and I should not have to explain the obviousness of that, and how "not a PA" is grossly wrong response by admin, and how "So what if you're a narcissist?" is grossly inappropriate response by admin.] If this PA can go forward, then why not "classic paranoid schizophrenic", "classic bi-polar", and so on and so forth. What is protection for a reg editor when admins support and agree with such PAs, defend users who make them, and chuckle and mock the person attacked. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Why are you saying these things?

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Marchjuly's talk page.
Message added 07:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your interaction ban per this discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Atama頭 16:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to explain this in a way that is more than a block template should convey. Simply put, you were asked at ANI to not indirectly refer to the other editor by complaining about the "classic narcissist" comment. It was very simple, and it was said that the next time you bring it up you will be blocked. You brought it up here, and if I did not block you then the IBAN would have no effect. You should have known full well what the result would be if you continued to bring it up, and you did it anyway, which I feel was a deliberate attempt on your part to test the boundaries of the ban. You've made that exploration and this is the result.

That being said, this is just a 24 hour block. My hope is that it is the last block you receive. Just don't bring up that phrase anymore. You already asked if that phrase was a personal attack and you received replies to the affirmative by multiple people, including myself. So why bring it up again? It is senseless. If you feel that Bushranger was incorrect by not calling it a PA, I support you in that. It's an obvious ad hominem. If you're looking for an answer for that, you have it. But please just move on. It's this very tendentiousness that once led to an indefinite block for you a couple of years ago. You don't need to keep worrying at it.

I could have just blocked you and moved on but I wanted to reach out to you because I wanted you to know that you're not being ignored. But just don't mention "that phrase" again. It's that easy. Your block is only for 24 hours, take a break, and move on to help out with chess articles or whatever else takes your interest. If you want to respond to me I have your page here on watchlist. But know that though I have sympathy for your situation, I have no reservations about this block, I have a firm belief that you've violated your interaction ban and willingly (because you were told unambiguously that it was a violation to repeat it, anywhere, including on your own user talk page). -- Atama頭 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Atama, excuse me, but you are incorrect in nearly everything you've written here.

First, I didn't violate the IBAN since my comments were about admins The Bushranger, DangerousPanda, and Sjakkalle and no other users, and the IBAN did not restrict commenting on the bahaviors of those admins. because you were told unambiguously that it was a violation to repeat it, anywhere, including on your own user talk page. No, that was not my understanding. The IBAN was about interaction about a user, and again, I was careful to comply with that. My comments were about behaviors of three admins, and the phrase was necessary and germane to that complaint. (Barring use of the phrase in reference to those admins, is tantamount to stuffing a sock down my throat to make impossible any complaint about those admins' behaviors.) This block seems to want to gag me from complaining about those three two admins, by gagging use of a phrase which is necessary and germane to my complaint about their behaviors.

Second, I haven't been reading any posts at ANI since my last post there, where I told admin Sjakkalle that his concern about violation of the IBAN belonged at AN not ANI. The reason is the gross irresponsibility of comments there, which are bothersome and unpleasant to either read or consider responding to. (It's not fit for human consumption there -- it is a nasty cesspool of irresponsible and mean-spirited and underhanded comments there and makes me even physically nauseous to even think of going there to read anything more.) So I was not aware of any requests there, there was no deliberate attempt to test teh boundaries of the ban or any exploration made as you contend, as I was conscientious to comply with the IBAN in good faith, and again the request to not use a phrase is effectively surreal 1984 language control since it is both out-of-order with the IBAN and germane and necessary to my complaints about behaviors of the three two admins.

Third, since I haven't been reading the ANI since my last post there, I've been unaware that there have been replies to the affirmative by multiple people, including [Atama] that the phrase is a PA. (That is excellent to hear! That is the first I have heard this from anyone [other than user NE Ent and admin TParis] ... until now I have only heard from two reg users and three two admins, and all but one of those five four have made clear their views it was no PA, and all but one of those five four rubbed the insult in further through various comments, with admin Bushranger stating he agreed with the PA by describing it "not a PA" but "calling a spade a spade". I don't know who the users are who have agreed the phrase was a PA, but again that is nice to hear there are some users who agree. But what good does it do me if admins The Bushranger and DangerousPanda and Skajkalle have a different view? The phrase was blatant PA, and The Bushranger needs to be repudiated based on his responsibilities at WP:ADMINACCT, and redact and apologize for making the same PA himself against me. And admin DangerousPanda needs to be corrected too, since he claimed at the AN that three admins had repudiated my view that the phrase was a PA (but he danced around saying if it was a PA, then it wasn't a serious one, and that "asshole" is example of a much worse PA). And admin Skajkalle needs instruction re WP:NPA as well, that the phrase is PA rather than his dismissal via his sole comment the phrase was "not helpful". Although it is nice to learn that there are some other users who agree the phrase was a PA, what good does it do me when the PAer was not blocked, but I was blocked after my baited response? And what good does it do me when three two admins hold counter views and are not corrected or repudiated or re-educated re WP:NPA and their responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT? And what good does it do me when admin The Bushranger issued the same PA via describing it as "calling a spade a spade", and there is no consequence for him as admin violating both NPA policy and his responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT? Without answers and some plan or movement for correcting these things, what has changed? The threatening and destructive side to this simple issue isn't really addressed and the problem is not cured, so your So why bring it up again? It is senseless. just is not correct. Other users agreeing with me does not offer protection against the blatant PA in the future, anymore than peeing in my pants doesn't accomplish anything than making me feel all warm and comfy. Or if I am wrong please tell me how I am wrong. The Bushranger needs to redact and apologize, and then review why he blocked me and not the PAer, then I will know something is different here for future. Otherwise why is it that you are not essentially asking me to shut up and be happy with warm liquid in my pants. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

IHTS, that is the third or fourth time you have attacked me for not calling the said term a personal attack. It appears that while you replied to this post, that you did not read it fully. In that post I wrote about that term: "I believe it was an attack on the person, and a violation of Wikipedia's behavorial policy. I believe that making such a characterization was utterly stupid of him. I believe he ruined much of the hope I had for reconciliation with that statement. And as I said, I think it is such a severe incident that the interaction ban should go both ways. ". So stop saying that I didn't consider it a personal attack, because that statement is simply false. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sjakkalle, my complaint re you was over this post: calling people narcissists is not helpful. [...] Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC) (I did not find that post in the posts you linked). You are right, I did overlook your later clarification in the AN that the PA was a PA. So, I apologize, and have striken the relevant texts above. The mistake was simple oversight and thanks for pointing it out and allowing me to apologize and correct, but please see it was good faith oversight and not an "attack" as you say. (By way of explanation, I think I stopped reading you after your initial description in that AN, which was our first interface after my giving up communicating with you about any problem issue whatsoever, as made clear on your user Talk long ago.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate and accept that apology. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Stalking

NE Ent and Atama, chess variants and chess problems/problemists are my only niche left (that is, if I edit regularly again). So I've been active editor at article shogi, and have had User:Marchjuly's Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shogi on my watchlist since he created that page. Also please read this short thread to see the participants and their comments (which might be revealing re partricipants and comments elsewhere).

@Atima, that said, is facing false and defaming accusation (WP:Stalking) part of the IBAN logic? (You seem to have some devotion to logic in other comments on my Talk, is permitting bogus and defaming attacks part of the logic of an IBAN? And what more new allegations that have no merit am I expected to continue to face under the same "logic"? [Meanwhile, I can't respond to said accusation even if wanted to, because you blocked me! ... for violating IBAN! ... when I didn't! {Not a big deal my not being able to respond at ANI however, since I wouldn't go near that cesspool even if able.}])

Speaking of, The Bushranger accused me of WP:Stalking, for writing at the Skookum1 ANI "RfC/U is →thataway". (I've often seen a form of that expression used in closing comments for ANIs, didn't know how exactly to construct it, I just knew there was the word "thataway" and an arrow someplace, so constructed that expression in the moment based on my best memory of similar constructions I'd seen in the past, not knowing if mine was different or the same. Now, and I'm not sure what basis, I've been accused by an admin of something serious like WP:Stalking?? [Baseless and untrue. But apparently character-assassinating/defaming accusations can be made against me by an admin without any consequences for admin who is accountable to WP:ADMINACCT, with abandon. Tell me if I've drawn any wrong conclusion!]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Real life demands prohibit me from responding at this time ... NE Ent 11:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand. (And I'm wondering what an IBAN violation concern is doing not at AN for admin evaluation, but at the ANI-cesspool-public-stoning-anyone-can-join-the-lynchmob-!voting board?!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That "thataway" is an overly terse, borderline rude shortcut for "This is not the most appropriate forum for your concern, please move discusion to..."

Kevin Gorman stated on the ANI that you exhibit WP:IDHT behavior. I've come to the conclusion that's true. Not in the sense that don't make a good faith effort to read and take onboard what's being told to you; rather it appears you attempt to apply it to a framework of an ideal Wikipedia-as-it-should-be ... scrupulously fair and just. But that's not reality, that's Wikpedia-as-it-can't-be; as Alexander Pope said, To err is human. That endeavor -- trying to make sense of Wikipedia as a just, deterministic, logical system -- is doomed to failure and you are simply going to continue to be frustrated until either, as in right now change your expectations and approach, or end up being indeffed.

I can't fix this for you. Modeling the situation as a fantasy tale, I'm not the hero who slays the dragon or the magic talisman / sword whatever that allows you to slay the dragon. I'm just the old guy standing at the fork in the road saying, "If you go that way you will get eaten by the dragon." On the other hand, if you go that way, you get to wade through the Swamps of Stupidity etc. etc.

In the end, nothing in the Wikipedia:: space really matters all that much. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia. I appreciate the work you've put into helping create it. If you're willing to go back to that, and just that -- you'll likely be stalked and scrutinized for about one to three months, after which things will blow over. See also the very good advice Doc8971 gave you. The choice is really yours, and yours alone. NE Ent 13:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ent, thank you for your post -- it is nice to get something other than 1) threats, 2) chastizing/lecturing, 3) ANI/AN notices, 4) block/IBAN notices, for once.

Re "thataway", it's terse, but it's used a lot, and it gets to the point with untra expediency. (So I never assumed there was or might be anything offensive about it.)

Re your agreement with Kevin Gorman re WP:IDHT, thanks for the clarification. (I hear you, and will comment next.) But I don't think Kevin Gorman had the exact same idea you did about my WP:IDHT re what it consists of or has been exhibted as being. (So I believe you & he agree but for different reasons/explanations. [And I'm not about to entertain Gorman's, since I'm sure it is both crass and false and vindictive -- I have no faith in his sense of fairness or self-appraisal -- he's in denial and has demonstrated his poison approach to WP for all to see except his most ardent supporters -- and those are probably obsessive Malleus-haters.])

Re your view of my WP:IDHT, point taken. I do not want to be indef'd. I'm not a martyr nor aim to be. (As expressed to admin Drmies already, I feel I've contributed maybe 2/5 what I've wanted to or desired to so far. And, I've gotten better and better in my copyediting skills/language use, I enjoy the improvement, I enjoy working on improving and creating articles [as many other editors do].) But please entertain this appendage to your thought that my view is "perfect Wikipedia NOW!". Well ... it is fair game, and fair knowledge, just how bad the environment is here for editors, namely, a bunch of semi-qualified adims exist here, like Kevin Gorman, whom many whish were never promoted to admin and were promoted to admin in unfortunate error based on their post-promotion behaviors and hostile agendas. Not only that, but according to User:Epipelagic, who is very smart guy, the independent club-swinging block-per-whim admin culture here is a devastating negative for the Wikipedia and has already created a graveyard of excellent content contributors. In short: the system is corrupt here. (What is my point? The view you think I have that Wikipedia must be perfect and just now, isn't really true -- yes I would like it more fair, but I'm not crazy I don't think it can be. [Epipelagic even thinks things are so far gone as to be irrecoverable and uncorrectable at this point.] But here's the deal: If Wikipedia is so corrupt and nasty and hostile an abusive and "one step away from anarchy" [that's from Floquenbeam], how ever [how ever, how ever, how ever, how ever!] will it ever [ever, ever, ever, ever!] change [or have any reason or compulsion to change] if editors like me just 1) put their tail between their lets, and 2) shut up and aren't heard from? [Can you propose or suggest any path or way forard to evolution or civilization of the Wikipedia, if those threated and abused simply shut up? When what is wrong is so hypocritically obvious as to be comic-book "King has no clothes" giggle-test-failure? {In other words are you suggesting to let such obvious and even comical hypocrisy go uncriticized -- even as destructive and chilling it has been and is to reg editors who are not responsible for the abusive and hostile ego-driven corrupt admin system currently in control at the Wikipedia?])

There has to be a middle -- between "it can't be perfect" and "it can't be comically absurdly hypocritical and abusive". Your comments, as nice and smart a guy that you are, seem to overlook that reasonable middle -- which is probably the fact (not anybody's wish or opine or view or philosophy). These are just some of my thoughts ... I might have others ... if you have additional feedback please do. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a middle or not, or whether Wikipedia is in an irreversible decline or not. I spend most of my time at ANI -- what kind of perspective do you think I have? What I try to keep in mind is the scope of it. Specifically:

{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} 122,498

{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} 6,821,576

{{NUMBEROFADMINS}} 859

Most of the users rarely or never encounter admins, and most never end up at ANI. And 4.5 million articles. That's impressive. I think we're the greatest accessible compendium of human knowledge in history, (even though I wouldn't trust articles for detailed medical or technical detail). And obviously Floquenbeam's in a bad spot (being in that committee)), so that's gotta color your perspective. Ironically, it's been folks like Floquenbeam who have given me hope for this place ... as long as there are a few sane voice out there, maybe there's some hope after all.

One outside source recently the situation thus:

"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."
— Tim Simonite, Technology Review [22]

But ultimately, I don't worry about it. I just do what I can do to sometimes make it better for some people some of the time.

We clearly don't have a functional civility policy. The history is littered with past attempts, Wikipedia:Incivility_blocks, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement to move the community towards a consistent consensus but it's all ad hoc and not terribly deterministic.

What is clear to is that, I can do the following.

• Not allow myself to be personally attacked. Not by worrying about what people post about me, but by simply not caring. If I don't care, they have no power. (The thing to understand about a place like ANI is no one with any experience believes any claim not backed by a diff, and veteran dispute resolution folks know to look at the context of the diff. e.g. "Yes, they called you a moron ... do you think maybe the fact that you called them a fucking idiot in the prior post had anything to do with it?"
• Be scrupulous about what I post myself. Focus strictly on content, and let wikilinks be your friend. Call someone an idiot, that's a personal attack. Frame an issue briefly, link to wiki policy and post five diffs showing beyond any reasonable doubt the someone is, in fact, an idiot, that's no a PA, that's ... dispute resolution.)
• When I get totally fed up, there's a magical button that makes all the stupid editors and clueless admins just go away. It's called Log out. Works awesomely!

What I do know, is that trying to fight they way you have been -- too many off hand references to various editors, etc. -- won't make Wikipedia better. Wiki pissing contests are like nuclear war -- and as the computer said at the end of WarGames -- "what a strange game. The only winning move is not to play." NE Ent 02:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Panda

Panda,

1. Earlier you wrote at AN that I had been "repudiated" by consensus regarding PA or not. Now you're saying the opposite in your ANI close -- confusing!
2. I'm not sure why you hedge your language with "some form of [PA]". What's the purpose of that qualification? -- confusing! (Is it back to your argument that "asshole" is a "much worse" PA than the topic PA?!)
3. The block by Atama was unilateral on his part and based on faulty assumption(s) and is disputed (both by me above where Atama has not responded, and by NE Ent at the ANI) as faulty reading of IBAN. It's clear you like to end matter(s) out of frustration, and I like matters ended as well, but haste can make waste and at this point you have me confused (on several things). (Where or with whom can I consult with my Qs?)
4. The Bushranger is an admin, and his last position was not only the PA was "not a PA", but he issued the PA himself against me. If you're now agreeing the PA is a PA without a doubt, then Bushranger needs some remedial education, and under his obligations as admin under WP:ADMINACCT should not only redact but apologize for his obvious PA on my user Talk. (Why do you think he should be exempt from his responsibilities as admin? Why do you think he can take the position "not a PA" without flak back when this is so obviously abusive? Why do you seem to be protecting him from making this right with your "this-is-the-end-we-won't-hear-anymore-about-this-else-Ihardlythinkso-gets-the-shaft" close?)
5. I'm tired of hearing the superficial and shallow cliche "drop the stick" when things have not been made right, the problem has not been addressed other than threats that I shut the hell up, while an abusive admin gets by with a selective and abusive block, waging a clear PA, smarts off with "not a PA" when it is an obvious PA according to WP:NPA that every admin easily knows, ... all guaranteeing and demonstrating he has learned nothing. It's easy to say "drop it" when you are frustrated reading it, but are not in the shoes of the person enduring the obvious crap. (Everyone has advice and rushes to tell in their armchairs how to think and how to feel. I've listed above how and why I feel the problems with Bushranger behavior haven't been addressed. At all. How does "drop the stick" improve the environment with admins and behavior re towing the line re their responsibilities and accountabilities under WP:ADMINACCT? It doesn't. [It kicks the can down the road, or sweeps dirt under the rug -- pick your idiom.] Where is any reasonable assurance won't happen again by Bushranger against me or another user, when that admin is in complete denial for doing anything unbecoming of admin or against policy, and only responds with additional bogus accusations and threats and sarcasm?!)

p.s. Just for clarification (and fairness), I do appreciate your shutting down that thread (which was fraudulently opened and just a magnet for abuse, and I notice there was new abuse for me there). My Qs above relate only to your closing comments (which seem to unilaterally modify the IBAN affecting me -- it's confusing). (If I might opine, I think your close should be extended to a greater scope ... I think *all* ANI threads should be shut down -- pronto. [That nasty venue is a disgrace and embarrassment to twenty-first century humankind. Public stoning in 2014 is back in full force. What's next? Exorcisms?! {Actually I think there was a Catholic exorcism as recently as 2004!?} I think and believe if there was ever a justified and *good* application for lynch mob, it would be a lynch mob focused and determined to burn that horrible cesspool venue down to the ground. {And then, curse and bury the resulting cinders.}])

Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to go line-by-line, in part because I don't think you properly read my close. Previous AN stated that the phrase was indeed a PA. For some unknown reason, you kept bringing it up - even though it had already been stated. It's not a heavy-duty PA, but a form of PA nonetheless - I have personally always said that. You should have shut up about it a week ago when that AN determined that. Bushranger was not going to be sanctioned for it, and hell, they even clarified their statement and apologized - what the hell else do you want (unless you've got more - and if that's the case, there's an RFC/ADMIN somewhere with your signature all over it - but it won't go anywhere, and you'll simply be ostracized). MB was already IBAN'ed in part because of it. A week ago it was done with, closed, dealt with, and water under the bridge. You made the ridiculous decision to bring it up again - your block for violating the IBAN was deserved. Nobody got the shaft. However, you've been advised that any further discussion around the narcissist comment anywhere on the project will be considered to be a violation of your IBAN - yes, that means even here on your talkpage. It's done. It's over. It's over, you won. Congrats. Doesn't feel as good as you thought it would, does it. And no, the end sure didn't justify the means. So yeah, drop the stick before you poke yourself in the eye again the panda ₯’ 22:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring all your other baiting BS for the moment, what apology, Panda? I've asked The Bushranger more than once to redact and apologize for this:

If someone behaves in a manner that is indistinguishable from a certain sort of behavior - in this case, "classic narcissist/Diva behavior" - then pointing this fact out is calling a spade a spade. Which was, in that case, the fact: your behavior is, again speaking absolutely frankly, exactly that. [...] - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

and have received nothing from him except sarcasm, insults, and reverts of my requests. If he's done a 180 and now acknowledges the PA as a PA, then he needs to redact his slanders on my Talk and apologize (to me, duh) for them. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

p.s. clarified their statement and apologized. Apologized for what? Not for making the above PA, but for not clarifying something at the time of his block. You're both full of BS, Panda, and there is so much dishonesty and lying here, it actually makes me light-headed with a sick feeling, to even read and respond to it. (But I would, if the communication venue to go over details were fair and moderated, instead of the shit you guys like to irresponsibly throw.) There are many examples and I can back up what I say. But the WP has no venue for working things out, so irresponsible lies rule the day. I say fuck that, and fuck both of you disgusting admins. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For fine editing among challenges. 75* 17:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Antichess

Hi, I noticed that in late 2012 you added a Variants section to the Antichess article. Could you please add references for each variant you've described? At the moment it appears that you just made them all up. — Smjg (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. (I may have copyedited those variant descriptions to improve clarity/readability, but I never added those variant texts. Could you please look again.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Smjg, you were right, I was wrong: [23]. (Memory failure. Please forgive.) However, if you take a look at that editsum, I gave the source in the editsum. And here's ditto [24]. (Since the article was a short article, and the source was listed in References section, and I gave the source in the editsum, ... I didn't see any great need to reference the new text. [Again, with such a short article, I was editing under the notion the source came from the source listed in References. I put the source in the editsum just for Qs like yours, and preferred to keep the text uncluttered with excessive markup.]) Anyway, that was my reasoning.

Do you still like to see those variants footnoted? (Again, they'd all be the same footnote, which might look a little excessive/redundant!?) Let me know what you think. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh! (and I think this accounts for my memory slip-up), "Variation 4" was not a variant text I added, it was already in the article (source unknown) and I just moved it to a new heading: [25]. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the Loser's chess (ICC) [26], and Kamikazi chess [27] variant texts existed prior to my copyedits. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. (I also ref'd Variant 4, though pre-existing variant in the article.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for repeated breaches of your interaction ban and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This means the attack was both unprovoked in its content, and has the appearance of having been triggered by Ihardlythinkso following MaxBrowne's contributions. So, yes, for me, that is about as clear a case of a ban violation as they come. That's pretty egregious logic. The stalking accusation, by both Max Browne and supposed by you Future Perfect, is wholly untrue and bad faith. (Max Browne has done this before under guise of a previous IBAN breach. How is it that false and defaming accusations of stalking and baiting can be made seeming freely by that editor, under cover of claiming IBAN violation?? [You didn't answer the same query posed in the ANI.] In the OP's previous IBAN violation complaint, he accused of stalking their edits at a Shogi project page, when my edit at Talk:Chess#.22Chess.22_as_.22Chess_variant.22 regarding Shogi's reference as "chess variant" was a topic of my interest and niche, and the OP had contributed to that discussion out-of-character, because Shogi as well as chess variants have never been in that editor's field of interest in his editing history [unless I am mistaken]. Therefore, the fact is I felt stalked at that point, and baited -- with that editor posting contrary opinions re Shogi issues never before in his editing interests. If a case was to be made re stalking and baiting, it would be on the other foot. But I for one don't go around crying and complaining about such things -- even though it was clear to me the charge of stalking and baiting was bogus, and I was the receiver of said behavior not the doer.) We have a similar thing now ... In fact what led me to the Help Desk thread was that I was following edits of user HiLo -- an editor who interests me and for his outspokenness and recognition of certain ills at WP and whom I've come to respect. So the accusations of stalking Max Browne by both him and your suggestion are completely false. (Ditto a similar ridiculous accusation by admin Bushranger.)

Regarding the other accusation re personal attack, I would like to know how it is possible the OP has levied extensive personal attacks against me at ANI, and has never been warned for these, let alone blocked, and they stand as an ongoing outstanding assult, and backed up by two administrators -- The Bushranger and DangeroudPanda -- and I am further not allowed to comment or acquire some form of redress -- as there is now an IBAN effectively a sock stuffed down my throat to gag me from following up?? (Is my only redress to open an RfAR?) {{admin help}} I need an admin to advise me of this, for me the status of things is seriously wrong, and has dramatically affected my motivation as editor & contributor here at the Wikipedia. I'm happy to put my Qs and concerns in Email off-wiki. Thanks for any help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do you still require an administrator or will any editor do? If any editor will do, I'd be happy to discuss things with you. I don't see all too well though, so you'll have to break up your posts into a lot of smaller paragraphs if you want me to be able to read them. If you do still require an administrator, and only an administrator will do, then feel free to reactive the admin-help template and just ignore me. I'll note that it probably would be in your best interest to try and keep CALM and accept whatever help you can get. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for writing me. I don't necessarily need an admin -- the reason I asked for one is because I need someone who knows policy & procedure better than me in order to advise re my needs. Thank you for offering to help. (The admins who responded [not counting from those I deleted responses] were all good-faith, but they do not understand the issue of my real need and didn't offer to help that or ask clarification.)

  I am (and have been) calm. (Jesus I worked 25 years for a major manufacturer in an office environment. The concepts of keeping unemotional and working in a team environment are not foreign to me; but it doesn't mean that such environments are healthy and devoid of backstabbing bullshit. The deal is on the WP there is only text; editors cannot use gestures or convey meaning via facial expression or voice inflection. Everyone knows about that but still everyone assumes an editor using pointed words is "out of control", "going nuclear", "having a meltdown", etc. nonsense. The second deal is, the WP environment, per arb Floquenbeam, is truely "one step from anarchy", and even my business experience wooliest experiences seldom approached this kind of shit which is commmonplace and even the "norm" at the WP. [Hey in a recent ANI a contributor to that cesspool board suggested that I s/b blocked because I was "bragging on my Talk page". That is a measure of how bad what I'm saying. Pointing a finger to the cesspool stuff and how bad and unhealthy it is appears now to be "bragging". {If you spit on me in public and I called your attention to the incivility of doing, apparently then I would be guilty of "bragging" and therefore deserve to be sanctioned/punished. It doesn't take much to see the dysfunctionality and unhealthiness.}])

  I need to write my concerns in WP Email. OK? Thanks again for your offer. (I'm deactivating the admin help template now.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• p.s. How did that get turned off w/o me doing it?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't attempting to imply you weren't being calm, just that reflecting a completely calm appearance is key to getting by here. I've been dragged to and dragged others to all the prevalent dramaboards (and even a few obscure ones) and I've been blocked for being "disruptive" as well. Meh, so be it is all I can say. I've had many administrators and other editors suggest that I run an RfA, and although I believe that there might be enough users that would back me, it would be a close call because I'm a technical editor (templates and scripts mostly) and don't do a whole lot with actual mainspace content. Anyways, I'm quite familiar with a good number of the policies as is required for a template editor, mass message sender,

account creator, etc... So, if you decide you want my advice, I'm open to discussing it here on wiki, off-wiki via email or on irc. Just ping me like you did here and I'll get back to you. Have a great day (night for me, about to go to bed)! (edit conflict) I just wrapped it in a {{Tl}} template... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the issue that concerns me is specific admin misbehaviors. The uninhibited abusiveness from that kills motivation to continue editing. I feel a protest is worthwhile rather than just giving up and quitting. I need guidance re interest to oppose. Relevant policies are surely different from those for tech things. I see that you show interest re editor retention (your Talk). I think it's good you've faced "disruption" accusation since it is one of the most popular brainless clarion calls to initiate/justify lynchings. (Second place might be "[poor_bastard_user] is a net negative to Wikipedia". ("Net negative" sounds so meaurable, statistical, and mathematical! When it is plain manipulation to bias and initiate torch lighting.) I don't do IRC and prefer casual Emails. I'll outline my concerns. No hurry. Thanks for your consider. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Future Prefect

FPS, if you are so insightful and cocky, then why aren't you here responding to my queries of you, now that you've blocked me and am unable to respond elsewhere? (Also, you seem to not understand the crux of the matter. Your technical executions to not interest me. But as admin, they deeply interest you. [How shallow is that? Perhaps you {and low-and-behold golden admin Dennis Brown} ought to get some clue re how abuse {admin or supported bad editors} affects Editor Retention, or at least editor disinclination to edit and contribute at the Wikipedia. {But I guess that larger picture would never occur to the likes of you!?} You are such a great admin. Will you get a promotion?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel badly that you got blocked, but, after a short break, please come back and edit constructively. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Note

Regretfully I have to go real life for a while so please forgive the un-Ent like hasty post: briefly, regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of any current dispute you may find yourself in, continuing to bring past actions of editors not involved in the current discussion (e.g. DangerousPanda and The Bushranger) is not appropriate, and continuing to so just gets you indeffed. Please stop.NE Ent 10:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

But it is all tied together, Ent. (One open wound, unaddressed, and completely and entirely counter WP:ADMINACCT. Admins s/n be issuing blatant PAs with impunity, or mocking them. Why am I to accept slaughter for their right to do so? Will Arbcom kill me if I bring to their attention? Whatever else in this universe would stop those admins? It is nearly impossible to enjoy editing now.) Sincere and thank you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It might feel shitty but it really is this simple. Don't pick fights and give up on finding some bullshit concept of justice. If you try to call people out, right or wrong, it'll be seen as disruptive. There's no way around that. If you don't want people to think you're referring to them, don't ambiguously refer to people just like them. 165.214.12.72 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It does feel shitty Ent-- really shitty. I don't know how "finding [...] concept of [fairness]" equals "picking a fight"!? Things are upside-down. WP is owned by admins wielding threats & clubs many times that make up for their own personal failings in RL. WP is therapy for their need to dominate others. A smart Wiki-friend said a simple true thing to me in private Email: "Admins are the problem." (Meaning abusive admins of course; I agree with him.) Do you think I have much motivation left that has not been poisoned by the abusiveness here? (To tell the truth there are some times I cannnot even logon as the thought of the creepy crap that goes unabated here makes me feel physically light-headed, and sick. [Do you think I'm making it up? Do you think a "wiki-break" can cure that? I don't.]) There are plenty of really intelligent editors here that think the WP environment and structure is corrupt: Epipelagic, Eric Corbett, Intothatdarkness, etc. And many of the intelligent editors with the same message are already gone. With Jimbo Wales pretending things are OK, it is kind of funny in its absurdity/ridiculousness. I want to be an editor here but right now my choices seem to be to be an observer and wait for things to improve (become restructured), or just quit. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No angry wolverines

Hi. I've noticed that, as someone (Floquenbeam?) remarked, you have a tendency to go into Ferocious Wolverine Mode when you feel that someone on Wikipedia has wronged you. For various reasons, this doesn't work well.

Ideally, you wouldn't post to Wikipedia while angry. However, if you feel you must say something while still angry, possibly stating your essential points clearly, without any of the stuff that Wikipedia considers uncivil, and with a minimum of emotion, might work. MastCell is particularly good at this. Doing that well requires a lot of skill at writing, but I suspect you may have that. Also, on Wikipedia, old fights often don't really need to be refought even if you feel that they came out the wrong way; doing so is, among other things, usually not strategic.

I hope this doesn't come across as condescending; I wrote it because I don't want to see you driven off Wikipedia. Cardamon (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cardamon, first, your interpretation that I've recently written in an angry state is not true. (I've sometimes written pointedly, or used the F-word; but that does not translate to "angry" -- for example Eric Corbet has used obsenities in response to incivilities many times and I'm sure he has done so without his temperature having been raised .5 of a degree.) So a misgeneralization and overgeneralization. And even that, Floquenbeam, as an arb with exemplary behavioral expectations according to recent comment by Jimbo Wales, has shown no model of behavior. (A couple "Fuck off" editsums. [28] [29] Plus to me personally, taking a question to admin Kevin Gorman at his Talk [30] as "any more from you like that and you're blocked" [31], while at the same time ignoring Kevin Gorman's incivility and snark in that incident [32] [33], tells me Floq has reached his own personal melt-down limit [34], if you want to talk about "emotional" and "angry" it applies 100% more to that arb than to me. [35] [36] Not only that but the recent complaining by NewYorkBrad [37] and Floquenbeam [38] about the obviously long-term and constant culture on this site where anything one writes will be attacked even if there is no valid basis to do so, as endured by Eric Corbett (You want to blame Eric if he breathes air. And blame him for polluting the environment when he exhales CO2.) for many ages here already, as well as others including me [39], is a bit hard to stomach since I would like to ask those arbs: "How out of touch are you? You're admins and arbs and you seem to have freshly discovered that words don't mean anything on the boards and that they are simply used excuses to launch attacks. Seasoned editors like Eric know that as matter of course; why don't you? Your complaining at this late date 2014 comes off as whining and crying over something that if you paid attention was happening consistently years and years ago. And the further supposition that you as arb have to face such bad-faith incivilities and cry about it as if only you have become aware of it enough to speak out against it, is a real insult to the countless regular editors who have had to face that crap for years before your tears.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies

You are no Eric Corbett, and I'll take this opportunity to kindly ask you to stay away from my talk page. Your prose gives me a headache. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And what does Eric Corbett have to do with this?? I went to your Talk with a good-faith Q as a user. Nothing more. There was no bad-faith assumptions or vitriol on my end at all, but plenty of both from you. (And if you think reading and responding to your over-sensitive, imaginative accusatory bullshit is pleasant reading, then you need to think again.) p.s. If I were you I'd feel very ashamed to publicly behave the way you do, Drmies. Apparently that factor (self-pride) isn't much of a factor for you. It is hard to respect people who do not respect themselves. If I were an admin, I would never ever act the way you act. You're very prickly and accusing of bad-faith and making personal attacking false accusation-type comments all over the place in the thread discussion with you at your Talk, Drmies. All of that was totally unnecessary, and totally unprofessional. I think you should be ashamed, but that is me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

At your Talk you said you "did something for [me]" (and apparently, I should have appreciated that, I guess is your imply). Well, I never asked or wanted you to do anything for me. You made that up. (Perhaps you should have asked: "Are you asking me to do something?" If you had asked I would have corrected your understanding by saying "No. I'm simply looking to understand policy and process, according to my Q, based on a recent post-delete action of yours." I was simply looking to understand your interpretation of policy (which seems perhaps excessive, since by deleting others' posts you're taking away their ability to contribute in discussions ala topic ban effectively, when they are only under IBAN). I wasn't challenging you or suggesting that you go read policy. But you have such a thin skin apparently it prevents you from just answering a good-faith Q with a good-faith answer. You said you refused to give me an answer at length. When a short answer would have been just fine. But instead you tried to make everything personal and also trash me. (Do you know how ridiculous you look? You even went so far as to say use of template {{tq|xxx}}, which produces green text, was "insulting". And that a typo of your username was somehow a secret insult too. Just how bad-faith and imaginary of persecution do you insist on being, Drmies?! (And I notice too, you aren't the only admin hyped up with this kind of behavior. I've seen it in Panda, Bushranger, Kevin Gorman, Basalisk, on and on. You admins are really impressive. [I'm not an admin but would never behave the way you admins do, collectively, if I were. When will you admins realize that your behaviors do not earn respect but the opposite!?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh! One other thing, Drmies. If [my] prose gives [you] a headache, well, I think that's just fine. (You know why? Because it was you, not I, that decided to initiate personal crap upon receiving a good-faith Q that was appropriate to ask you. And the insults. And the false accuses. And the bad-faith. And the vitriolic BS. All I did was respond naturally and with honesty. [Ditto Basalisk.] If that gives you a headache, then you need to look in the fucking mirror and see what kind of shit spewed out of you w/o provocation. You extended my Q text by factor of 10 in-so-doing, then blamed me for it. Besides the other lame blames. You're so fucking touchy. And fictitious. You have only yourself to blame.) p.s. Giving you a "headache" I'm sure is more BS hyperbole. Gather this: you (and Basalisk) gave me a sick feeling in my stomach (as does this place in general when I receive similar unprovoked hostility and abusiveness WP is infamous for), and that's no hyperbole (as mentioned to NE Ent). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

An apology

I know you probably don't want to hear from me, but I feel that I need to say this, so here goes: I would like to apologize for the fact that I have, by my own confession, pursued a bit of a vendetta against you in the past. Regardless of my opinions of your behavior, I was wrong in that I regrettably had a bit of a retaliatory attitude towards you, creating unnecessary drama on several occasions, and even occasionally checking back after my final retirement to see if you were in trouble again yet. I won't get into specific details about incidents that we had – reminding myself won't help me let go of grudges – but you probably know what I'm talking about. To put it plainly, I'm sorry that I held a grudge against you. Even if you refuse to accept my apology, I'll still be sorry. I'm not posting this here to be disingenuous, nor because I'm trying to smooth things over so I can come back without any enemies, but because I think apologizing is the right thing to do. Indeed, I created this account solely for the purpose of making this post (although I had to make a few edits to get it autoconfirmed and avoid an edit filter) and I'll be scrambling the password and logging back out after I've done so (which means that any admin can feel free to apply the same type of block on this account that Dennis Brown put on the AutomaticStrikeout and Northern Antarctica accounts. And, no, in case anyone who sees this is wondering, I'm not engaging in sockpuppetry here. Those accounts were blocked because 1) I scrambled the passwords and 2) I requested the blocks, which were valid for security reasons. If I'm somehow in violation of policy, too bad. IAR, right?). Anyway, this apology should also apply to @Giano:, @Eric Corbett:, and @Kiefer.Wolfowitz:, so I'm pinging them here instead of creating three separate posts. (And in case anyone thinks I am an imposter, checkuser should show otherwise). That's pretty much all I have to say. Northern Strikeout (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I can tell it's you, by your underplaying writing style (e.g. use of word "bit"). My God, a mass apology!? (I'm honored to be among the editors you name, though I don't deserve -- those editors are exceptional writers/content creators.) Northern are you planning a comeback? I was never your "enemy". Anyway I don't know why you disappeared (again), and you have plenty friends in the baseball category, you should return to editing there. Keep your nose clean, and thanks for recognizing there are many more ways to be uncivil than bad words. Sincere and good luck. (p.s. I know Eric doesn't put much stock in apologies, just actions. He's too smart for WP; probably ahead of his time.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for archival

Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. If you need help, just check out the guide over at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There are threads (editors) I haven't replied to, which I intend to, so I don't like to archive Talk before I do reply. I'm concerned you came to my Talk out a technical view re Admin Help template was open status and you liked to see it closed!? Technical does not interest me as my issues are people-oriented re two abusive admins and what I can do re. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused by that statement, #“He” discussion on WIkiProject Chess was answered by you 11 years ago, #Mad pawn chess was answered by you 11 years ago, #A chess question was answered by you 11 years ago, #1950s American automobile culture was answered by you 11 years ago, #Yet another crazy idea was answered by you 11 years ago, #Xiangqi was answered by you 11 years ago, and the list goes one... Surely those can be archived, no? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Those threads I replied to. I said the threads I haven't replied (but intend) to. I don't currently know how to do selective archiving. My two previous archives were in total. I'll have to read about how to do selective (what happens re chronological order and finding things later, etc.). Meanwhile as mentioned I've lost most appetite for editing. (E.g. last I heard Panda claimed I was oh-so-close to being indef'd. WTF?? Can this place be anymore abusive by those that wield bats than it already is!?) Again it seems like your interest is more technical than re people issues. (Do you think I'm interested in technical stuff at this time?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Toccata quarta's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toccata quarta (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

B+N and R+N compounds

Maybe we should use the problemist tradition "princess" and "empress" as opposed to the (current) Capablanca's "archbishop" and "chancellor", because Capablanca's names have been used for lots of different pieces (especially the problemist tradition archbishop), whereas BN seems to be the primary piece called princess. But I could be wrong. Maybe the best names are indeed "bishop+knight compound" and "rook+knight compound"... Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(If it's not clear, this is about the article names.) Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

	R+N	B+N
Capablanca Chess (10x10)	marshall	chancellor
Capablanca Chess (8x8)	chancellor	archbishop
Chesquerque		archbishop
Grand Chess	marshall	cardinal
Quatrochess	chancellor	archbishop
Tri-Chess (3-player)	chancellor	cardinal
Wolf Chess	wolf	fox

Another idea is to assign names from Christian Freeling's GC (i.e. marshall & cardinal), since that game is the most modern one using the compounds and also with a meaningful following/popularity/notoriety. (Those names have other uses too of course, it's just that I can't think of any games offhand that use names princess & empress. [Perhaps there are some.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was why I considered princess and empress: they're game-neutral and are not widely used to mean other things.

I'm not sure which is more common though, the Freeling names (marshall & cardinal) or the Capablanca names (chancellor & archbishop). I have seen both with about the same frequency. Empress and princess I have never seen outside the problemist context. I am beginning to think therefore that there are no primary names and the articles should use descriptive names like "bishop-knight compound" and "rook-knight compound", as the Piececlopedia at CVP does.

As a start, though, all the alternative names you listed in the article's notes should be redirected to the current names: archbishop and chancellor (and I guess also amazon, as it has received many names as well). I'll probably do this myself shortly, assuming you don't get to it first. :-) Double sharp (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the Piececlopedia article at CVP, Dickin's Guide to Fairy Chess and The Oxford Companion to Chess both use "princess" for the NB and "empress" for the RN. Double sharp (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Am convinced it's the scholarly thing to do. T R Dawson called them that. Frank Maus 1924 variations (Empire Chess) used those names acc CECV. The OCC (1984) has entries for those names but not the others. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Given what you say about them being scholarly, I've moved the articles and replaced the names throughout. Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Recommendation

Chrome

Thanks for your comments and copyedits on California Chrome. I only had one reviewer when it was up for PR (though a good one) and I have been desperately hoping for someone to do what you are doing - the copyedit of the stuff I am just too bleary-eyed to see in the article. I didn't want to run it up the FAC flagpole without some extra eyes going over it, so your help is much appreciated. I may occasionally disagree with an edit, but nothing personal, and feel free to take issues to the talk page if you think they are more major than a simple copyedit can fix. Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Montana! I'm really conservative editing others' work (but might get bolder after gaining familiarity). Reverts are really helpful to learn from, so revert even if there is slightest thought to (that way I learn the max). Umm, I never read a racehorse article before so it's quite alien to me (histories, terminology); could you refer me to a GA you feel is one of the best (so I can get a better feel)? Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes you a PERFECT reviewer, as you are in a good position to determine what is understandable from context and wikilinks versus what is utter gibberish. To look at other examples, Oxbow (horse) was TFA on May 17 and was another of "my" articles to pass FAC. He was the horse I was following last year, and then (damn!) he went lame and they retired him. Another, longer work is Mucho Macho Man, another FA of "mine" and the one on which I've most closely modeled 'Chrome's article; it's a good one for seeing a horse who has had a "career" of several seasons and who is still racing (so far). If you want to see someone else's work, check out Ealdgyth's Barbara L or Easy Jet. Another person is the senior guru of WikiProject Horse racing, who kind of sets the status quo for the rest of us, Tigerboy1966. One of his recent efforts (he does tons of DYKs but doesn't seem to do GA stuff) is Australia (horse), kind of the UK equivalent to California Chrome for 2014. My own thing in these horse articles is that I like to tell the human stories too, which are inevitably fascinating. Montanabw^(talk) 00:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thx for those refs. (Exactly what I need!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. Re Chrome "human stories", my favorite has to be: "over 100 people crammed into the area, including one woman dressed entirely in metallic foil." (Too bad there's not a pic for that! [But maybe that's a "guy"-thing!?]) ;)

Heh, I think this lady is more the image you want to have in mind! (or not!) I'm looking at photos from the Santa Anita Derby to see if I can find the tinfoil lady, but so far, I mostly have images like this searing my retinas.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and kudos

Thanks for your support at the recent AN incident. You consistently cut through the BS and tell it like it is -- all without relying on the crutch of picayune wikilawyering or WP memes. Damn, that is so refreshing! Your "deconstruction" of Kevin Gorman's behavior, and his constant WP policy violations that are so conveniently overlooked by his admin-friends, was riotously funny (and sadly true). Were all WP editors / admins as above-board and "shoot from the hip" as you. Kudos and thanks! Memills (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that bit was just parody on WP AN/ANI culture generally (out-of-control meme usage supplanting independent considerations), and I'm glad someone didn't delete it as "irrelevant to topic". (I wouldn't have reinstated. I tried to be nice and thank anyone reading for considering.) There is a divide how admins are treated vs. non- that I think everyone recognizes already. (I just highlighted.) Cheers and good luck. p.s. Unhappy clouds form here. Bursting bubbles is a calculated risk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Chrome

Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. I took some major whacks at the article before the nom, another round of eyballing the changes might be a good thing. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

This is unacceptable. --John (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

John, I make it a policy to never open any thread at AN/ANI, and when I make an exception because I was unfairly threatened with block by a hounding admin, I get chided and scolded and told my life is "sheltered". (Is that "acceptable"?) I specified seriously sincere shortcomings of the ambiguities at WP:IBAN that led to an admin using rope to threaten me, and there was not so far one single reply of any substance to the good-faith effort I put in to document my concern there. ("TL;DR! TL;DR!" I'm supposed to respect that?! Then on that basis people telling me I'm the problem?! In what dumbed-down world do those assessments applyl!?) p.s. I have asked Dennis to leave me alone and not register any comments to my attention, anywhere, ever. (He has a long-standing grudge against me for criticizing his statements and judgement from early on actually years ago now. I have not posted to his attention for a long, long time. He states he "shoudn't get involved", then does. Also, his successful RfA nominees [more than one of them] have been like attack dogs at my heels never-ending, when I have not initiated any dialogue or issues with them. I'd like for this shit to stop; and the way to do it is to do what I already did and ask Dennis to leave me alone permanently. I have no business with him, and there are many other admins around to respond to things.) What more can you ask of me (as a real person behind a keyboard; I brought two valid and clearly defined issues to that AN thread, only to be told by Dennis Browne, w/o responding substantively and w/o reading my simple complaints, that "[*I'm] the problem"!; what would one expect after such cat-fighting mud to a thread he "didn't want to contribute to"?; it's all bullshit, and I'm tired of hearing "enough's enough" mantra when it clearly applies here, but since it applies in my favor not detriment, no one says it; the WP environment is probably the shittiest environment created by Man in the 21st Century -- I firmly believe that, I'm not exaggerating: words and arguments mean nothing here; saying they do is bullshit unless you're updating a NASA-related article on an asteroid or some such hard-science topic; otherwise people simply say "You're wrong" for the hell/spite of it; does anyone ever think this is fooling anyone, I mean, at all??; just how dumbed-down does this "collaborative environment" need to embarass itself by, to be so obviously sick that it is not up for debate!?) p.s. And as long as I'm ranting, why the fuck is Penyulap still in jail?? (Can someone explain please? One of the smartest & funniest & most brilliant editors this place has ever seen [AFAIK]. What's the deal? [And Dennis withdrew from that situation, didn't he!? And Dennis has done the same with Kiefer, and even Eric, when Eric retired once. "We both knew it would come to this." Some "friend"! Dennis blows with the WP political wind -- whatever is in his own interest. He tries to get ahead by being the only one calling Jimbo Wales "Jimmie". How transparent.] I want to be done w/ Dennis and no further interactions. I have not initiated same in any time recent.) Respectfully, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! As a regular ANI/AN stalker, I spent some time reading (and re-reading) that rather heated thread on ANI. I'll say straight up that I have no dog in this fight and although I have followed the previous threads involved yourself and MaxBrowne I have no interest in standing on one side or the other. From what I understand, all you wanted clarified was whether you could work on/comment on/discuss content that may or may not be related to a user that you are interaction banned from. IBAN very explicitly says

For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: edit editor Y's user and user talk space; reply to editor Y in discussions; make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

The bolded part is the important bit. Although from your perspective you are commenting on the content, that is nonetheless considered a form of indirect commentary on the user who wrote that particular bit of content. It is not meant to be fair, nor is it a form of censorship, gagging or any other form of bad faith accusation. An IBAN forbids two editors from interacting in any way and it is harshly interpreted to prevent any sort of wiggle room simply because once any wiggle room is allowed, then the cat is out of the bag and other IBAN'd editors will begin to find ways around their bans leaving the whole policy largely toothless. You made mention of the last point in IBAN particularly with regards to copy editing and whether it is forbidden. This is, under my strictest interpretation of the policy, indeed the case. You might consider it as saying "editor X may not edit, undo or otherwise modify editor Y's edits to any page". If you think of it that way it will be entirely clear. I know it's not worded that way but applying the strictest view of policy is the safest way to minimise friction. This also applies, in my interpretation, to your example which I have hatted below

Here's a pertinent point: the editor I'm in IBAN with contributed to an article Talk discussion that was clearly contradicting or taking issue with a position in that discussion which I previously took. [9] (I have no problem with that. I consider the editor to have been content-focused.) When an admin asked the editor to please stay away from that Talk discussion, the editor strongly disagreed with the admin and stated he had every right to contribute to that discussion and that IBAN did not prevent that. [10](I agree with that position.) How is that editor's commentary of conflicting position on an issue, in any way substantively different, from my commenting on the content of an edit contributed by that editor? (In neither as was there a direct interaction. However for anyone that wants to interpret both as "indirect interaction", again I think that is not the spirit or letter if what IBAN is trying to stop, and effectively muzzles editors from commenting on some content[s]. But even though the editor I am in IBAN with strongly supported his right to make comment in that Talk discussion, my belief is that it is not going both ways here, and Sjakkalle has contacted me and reverted and threatened me with block at the behest of the editor I'm in IBAN with. [That makes sense, since I do not believe Sjakkalle is stalking my edits, after further reflection.])

Although Max argued that their involvement in a discussion contradicting your standpoint is not covered by the IBAN, by my strict interpretation that would be a violation of an IBAN as it is an indirect reference to you. This is the position that the admin took also and at the very least should have merited a warning. In some, if not many, cases, an IBAN does have the side effect of preventing content discussion but this is usually seen as a relatively small price to pay to prevent disruption. These are just my thoughts and interpretations, which I hope will serve as a sufficiently outside opinion that you will heed. Regards. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blackmane, thank u for your followup here, it is clear to me your genuine interest is to help clarify what I was looking for in the two ANs (why didn't you contribute to the ANs at that time?). I read your comments here quickly and I want to do again to be confirm I understand your explain, however the issues here are very simple thus there's little opportunity to "get it wrong" so let me reply here and maybe also ask a Q or make observation and/or request.

Here's the deal: I know what it says at WP:IBAN; however, it seems to me that it is a clear reality that "interaction" is not well defined. Specifically, I don't think there is any ambiguity what is "direct interaction" (I think that's intuitively clear, or clear enough, to everyone). The ambiguity rests with "indirect interaction". (A proof that that ambiguity exists, can be seen simply by the different opinions held by some admins. Your position is clear, contributing in the same Talk thread as in the example I pointed out at Talk:Chess was indirect interaction and thus a violation. However if you go to Fluff's Talk you will see there she is very clear in her position, which is opposite to your position, drawing a distinction between commentary on the quality of an edit, and user Y facing off with user X at an article talk and making opposing content commentary there. [Fluff adamantly feels the two commentaries are "different": the edit commentary is a violation, the article Talk comments are not.] I would go further and say there is a 3rd position as well on the point, a position in-between your position and that of Fluffnutter, expressed by Drmies in his request to user Y at user Y's Talk. [There, Drmies asked user Y to "please" not contribute to that discussion thread, as a "favor" to Drmies. The user was adamant that this was wrong and that he/she had every right to make the commentary and any similar commentary anywhere on the WP, and that WP:IBAN did not prohibit this. To that Drmies essentially put his tail between his legs and did not further contend the point. So it seems reasonable to say that Drmies's view is that user Y's making comment at the article Talk thread was merely something to be discouraged and voluntarily suspended, i.e. an optional not mandatory restriction on user Y.])

So it seems clear there are essentially *three* differently held opinions regarding whether commentary by user Y at the article Talk thread was "indirect interaction" not: yes, no, and in-between. (Or more fairly, since Drmies's position is not really clear, perhaps he feels yes, perhaps he feels no, or perhaps he wasn't sure, or perhaps he felt the violation--if he felt it was a violation--wasn't serious enough to warn of violation, or other possible positions.) No, why are admins not in agreement regarding what is or is not "indirect interaction" as stated at WP:IBAN. I think the answer to that is clear -- they are in disagreement because there is no definition at WP:IBAN, so different admins make their own interpretation whether that commentary at article Talk qualifies, and different admins have drawn different conclusions. So what is the "fix" for this problem? (And it is a problem, since, how do you think I feel when different admins tell me what's what, that they clearly know, and I should accept their view, when other admins thing different about the same issue, and also tell me to accept their view as the correct one for how things are done or s/b done on the WP? [I'd like to point out that I did try to solicit more what Drmies's positino was with more precision, but was unable, because instead of responding to my clarifying Qs at his article Talk, he instead elected to chastise me, make bad-faith comments and insults, and finally to "fuck off".]) Additional thoughts ... First, I would like you to understand, without taking offense, that I cannot logically accept one admin's view that they so helpfully and adamantly spell out to me, without declining to take a second admin's opposite view. And I do not want to be in such a position, for maybe three reasons. (One, it's illogical and crazy-making; two, I tee-off someone that I don't want to; three, I shouldn't have to be in the position to have to make such a choice, because the problem is not mine, the problem stems from incomplete definition what is "indirect interaction" at WP:IBAN, and its various interpretations by admins.) Second, we wouldn't be in this discussion, and Sjakkalle wouldn't have reverted and claimed I was inviolation of IBAN, and threaten to block me, if only the damn policy at WP:IBAN would be more complete by being more specific what is indirect interaction, and what is not. (Why? Because I gave that page more than one good-faith reading, thought I had a reasonable understanding, and then proceeded to stay in complance. Next thing I know I have a hostile admin swooping down on me, and several exasperated admins including Fluff, Drmies, BMK, and you [but you aren't exasperated], and on the verge of screaming "IDHT" at me. I've asked other admins their positions as well regarding the commentary at article Talk and whether it constitutes indirect interaction, for example to Sjakkalle, and never received any response. The point is, that if the policy at WP:IBAN had specificity regarding "indirect interaction" rather than being ambiguous and therefore subject to different interpretations, I wouldn't have gotten in any of these discussions with *any* of the admins names [because, there wouldn't have been any question then re my compliance, because I was making good-faith effort, and everyone would agree, because the specificity would be containd at WP:IBAN for all to see and live by].) Third, I know you or any other admin cannot simply wave their admin wand and correct the problem at WP:IBAN by adding clarifying text what "indirect interaction" is or is not [includes or does not include], however, it s/b clear by now that said clarification should be done. But I know that takes work. But that is the duty of others I think (who are they? policy editors? admins?), not me. And what is most important, until that is done, how does anyone really know what the result would be (since, interetations differ). The result of an effort to add specificity to WP:IBAN to clarify what is or isn't "indirect interaction" is unknown since that result would be the cumulated consensus of policy discussion between whomever is qualified to do or takes on the duty. And since the end result of that effort is unknown, and policy interpretations on-the-ground by different admins vary, then how can I possibly have any comfort of being in compliance under the circumstances? I can't. (You know what steams me? Let's say I quit WP. There would be no possibility of future "violation of IBAN" then. And since there would be no violation of IBAN then, no violation complaint to review and process, everyone thinks the damn policy is "working". That's an invalid conclusion. Now why am I pissed? Because that is what I preceive to be exactly going on at the WP today. [As illusration of this, go see AndyTheGrump's comments at the AN. There he recommended changing the IBAN on me for which I had asked clarification since I didn't think I was out of compliance but Sjakkalle did, to his own invented IBAN, which was draconian and severe. Why do you think he proposed such a solution? I'll tell you: because it would be "easiest" for him! The problem would "go away" for him. And that is all he wanted, was for him to not be bothered by thinking of any solution any longer. Simple solutions to complex problems! Now, to show you that I'm right, he continued to state in the AN, that I as user, if his proposed invented IBAN were to be imposed, might rather decide to simply quit the WP. Now why did he suggest that? Because that would also equally solve his problem. And probably in the back of his mind also, is the invalid perception already explained, that when people quit WP, it is deemed that IBAN is "working", since there were no further complaints of violation to review or decide in specific cases. Therefore I believe that Andy's words at the AN reflect "body language" that is really the thought or wish that IBAN solves interaction problems and is working, when the ground is silent. But, in this case I wasn't silent, so, he wanted to distort IBAN with his own invented modification, to make IBAN effective again for keeping the ground "silent". When a silent ground is an invalid evidence that IBAN is "working". He just wanted silence and no other care. If I quit WP, that would "work too".]) I want you to know that I understand your point that restricting commentary in content discussions is not ideal re idea-generation at the WP, but an unfortunate consequence of being able to have a workable IBAN policy, and can accept it (even though I don't like it or think it healthy for the WP as prev stated elsewhere, I can understand and accept your position). However, my followup to you on that, no offense intended, is that if you feel strongly that that is the right tact, then let's see that clarification put into text at WP:IBAN. (Lack of clarification is at the root of all of what has occurred in this case.) Fourth, I want to tell you my personal position in all of this. First, my requests for clarification at the ANs were sincere (I'm sure you already know that, by your posting here). So I didn't appreciate all the mud and adhominems and bad-faith and so forth. (For example, admin Chillum has recently accused and challenged me about "making a fuss" by opening the original AN, which he closed based on "civility" and no discussion or resolution to my concerns, which were undramatically spelled out, but then shit and drama were the response. I do not need such false characterizations, they are uncivil and bad-faith, and Chillum needs to go soak his head. The issues I brought out at the ANs were not only sincere, they were/are important to me, because I was threatened with block, and that was a surprise and nothing I want or wanted, and had done good-faith effort to avoid. [Again, I know you view my request for clarification as genuine.] The fact that Chillum was not the one threatened with block, puts him in different shoes than the shoes I wear. But editors like him and AndyTheGrump don't give a care about that.) Second, I cannot feel there is really any resolution or clarification (as already explained and outlined in detail why) until WP:IBAN is updated by consensus to clarify. Third, it is not in any of my interest to be WP:POINTy, therefore, amidst all this lack of clarity, no, I won't be re-adding the edit+commentary to my user subpage made by user Y which started the whole thing when Sjakkalle reverted, accused, and threatened. (I feel it's plain he did not have grounded policy basis to do what he did, since there is no consensus re interpretation of "indirect interaction", because WP:IBAN lacks specificity [is ambiguous].) Do I want to restore the edit to my user subpage? Yes. Why? Because it is innocent commentary on content quality of a copyedit, and nothing more, for an article in my field of interest which I'm no longer voluntarily now editing, but like to log and document, for reasons explained at FuturePerfect's MfD. But I won't restore the edit in all of this clamour, since that is POINTy, and that is not my ambition. Fifth, what does the future hold? Well for one, I'm surprised and pleased in your sincerity to come here, and review the AN arguments dispassionately. (You are a good admin. Nice to meet you I don't think we've interfaced before.) By my previous comments it's plain that I think the needed logical step is a discussion by pertinent parties whomever they are, to add clarification at WP:IBAN re "indirect interaction" so subject to varied interpretation when people read it in good-faith. (How or when will that discussion take place or be initiated? I don't know of course, and that is over my head and not in my control. But it is a needed step. But there are many "needed steps" on the WP. [For example, CIV policy is ambiguous and broken generally, everyone knows it, and no one wants to take on the big task of attempting to fix it. The difference here, is that the task of adding specification/clarification to WP:IBAN, and the discussion needed to arrive at consensus what the clarification is, isn't as big a task. But I don't know how big the task would be exactly either, since, that would depend on contributors to that discussion, and the timbre and/or passion of their views what that policy s/ be. And how could I know that from where I sit? I can't.) I don't have "perfect" expectations of the WP. (To do so would be insanity.) But this item happened to affect me directly, with a block threat, and, that involved me, since it was a surprise, since I genuinely tried to be in compliance after good-faith reading of WP:IBAN, and my generation of copyedit list and comments on their quality at my subpage, was not out of any motivation of bad-faith ["shitlist", "POLEMIC"], it was/is a personal notes list that had/has value for me to make, and hasn't/isn't targeting any editor, in IBAN-with-me or not. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I should state that I am not an admin, nor do I have any real ambition or desire to be one. AN and ANI are interesting microcosms, which is why I read it a lot and comment infrequently. I've found over the time I've read ANI and AN is that interaction bans that are levied by the community are usually hashed out properly with appropriate discussion on either board. In such a case the somewhat open nature and ambiguous wording can be helpful in guiding the establishment of conditions for such a ban. If memory serves me correctly, I've proposed some interaction bans in the past (I'd have to search my contribution history to confirm that) and instead of hand waving the IBAN policy, I used it to define a set of proposed IBAN conditions. In the case of your IBAN, it looks like it was levied with a hand waving gesture of "per the IBAN policy you are banned from interaction..." etc etc. The lack of interaction ban condition outlines based on the loose definitions in the IBAN policy is the cause of issues such as the one you have noted. The IBAN policy does work but only when the conditions are strictly defined and agreed upon through consensus. Through this, each interaction ban can be crafted to tailor to the requirements of the situation. In my view, adding in a strict definition of each possible condition would require months of not years of RFC's as each added condition would need broad community input and consensus. Firstly, it is not practical to have such a policy and secondly it becomes a hit list for people to pick and snipe, which policy should not be used for (even though it is).

My opinion is that the interaction ban wasn't levied with appropriate conditions in place and as such has been left in your hands to interpret, which is unfortunate. Thus my advice would be to levy on yourself, in your mind, the absolute strictest interpretation of the policy. Anything that could remotely be viewed as a transgression of the policy should be avoided. If you ever catch yourself thinking "Hmm might this violate the IBAN?" on an action you are about to perform, abort that action and move on to something else. This is as much a self protecting measure as much as a policy abiding one. I firmly believe that in the end, after some time, you may find yourself editing more happily than you are now. Blackmane (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blackmane, the "unfortunate" lack of specificity (tailoring) that the issuers of the IBAN failed to do, was of course unknown to me at the time -- that is why I consulted WP:IBAN in order to understand and be in compliance. (So, the hornet's nest I ran into, and the abusive block theat I faced as a result, was none of my doing or fault. I think you agree with this.)

The fact the issuers failed to quality the conditions, I doubt is a sporadic anomaly. (I bet it is par.) Therefore other conscienscious editors (like me) will also necessarily be confused w/o specificity at the default WP:IBAN page.

In my case the issues were simple and restricted to: 1) commentary on a copyedit, and 2) commentary by user Y at article discussion threads. I do not see how it is so impossible to add specificty to WP:IBAN as to what the default requires, per those two things. (When you say "all possible conditions" you are making it an impossible task to add default specification which wouldn't hurt, since any tailoring by issuers, could construct their tailoring accordingly w/ the default. If WP:IBAN had more specificity re "indirect interaction" re the two basic things listed above [and I don't think there are more than that, basically], then issuers of IBANs would be cognizant of that policy, and more inclined to do their work better, if tailoring is needed, rather than go asleep at the wheel and let an conscientious editor like me fall in a mudpie of bullshit that destroyed an entire day of my life and fucked up the beginning of my week. (That's not your fault and I am not blaming you. But your stamp on the status quo guarantees the same that happened to me will happen to someone else, and wouldn't have happened to me, if WP:IBAN had more specificity. As explained, I do not see how a default specificity hurts anything, it actually helps, encoraging tailoring to occur if needed, rather than falling asleep at the wheel and leaving it to the poor editors involved to "figure it out for yourself". My sincere requests for clarification at ANs were met with indignant BS. My requests for Drmies to explain what was going on so I could understand IBANs was met with "fuck off". Do you think I do not have cause to be angry?! The status quo is for reasons above no good; I do not agree with you that it was "[my] fault" for not taking presumed maximum precautions. (I wanted to create the copyedit subpage list of value to me; and making the presumptions you are asking me to make would have prevented me from creating it.)

Also, your suggestion that I take "maximum precautions" and limit myself, is not equally balanced, since the user Y has staunchly defended his/her right to make content discussion commentary in my face if he wants, any time and any place on the WP. You're asking me to ignore that imbalance. When I went to Drmies to question it, he made polite request to user Y, was told "No way", and Drmies dropped the matter. So user Y at this point has no reason not to be fully ready to make any in-[my]-face indirect interaction at any content discussion, with continued impunity, and you're asking me to shut up and just take it, since, there is no enforcement possible, except by whim and singular interpretation by admins, since there was no specificity laid down at time of the issue of the IBAN, and for me to know which admin would interpret as you do, to see such commentary as a violation, would require admin-shopping, which is a violation of policy itself. (And, nothing I'd like to endeavor to invest my time doing. I expect policy to protect me, not my hoofing it to find a sympathetic admin.)

If you are so sure that the IBAN issued on me disallows comment commentary at discussion threads where the other party is already established and/or has posted opinions, then please to tell user Y in my IBAN to stop doing what he's doing, and like Sjakkale told me, otherwise face a block. (I keep thinking you are admin, sorry 'bout that.) You're fundamentally proposing that I adhere to the strictest interpretation of IBAN, while it's clear user Y in IBAN with me is confident to violate IBAN anytime anywhere by putting comments in my face, which you agree are violation of IBAN, then you leave me without an option after that (except presumably, "admin-shopping"). It's clear to me user Y already has his favorable admin actively supporting he/her. User Y has referred to their activity as "protecting [themselves]". Yet user Y has no problem being aggressive at article Talks to my face. (So what "protection" do you reserve for me, pray tell?! You want me to "suck it up"? Unrealistic; I'm not Jesus. I'd rather quit WP, and as previously explained, that would solve everyone's problem with equity here now, wouldn't it, and WP:IBAN would be held to be adequate. Right.)

I've stated this before, but if "indirect interaction" includes comments on copyedits, and comments in discussion threads where user X has already commented, then WP:IBAN needs to say that. (This whole problem wouldn't be occurring then, and, user Y wouldn't be in the position he/she is now, of feeling complete freedom to oppose me in-my-face with any content comment in anywhere, anytime.)

You see and explain the drawbacks of having more specificty at WP:IBAN, but I don't agree with them, since 1) the issuer's can tailor their conditions on an updated WP:IBAN with defaults -- no big deal, they were going to tailor anyway, right, if they did their jobs properly? and 2) the big and impossibly time-consuming discussion would be required why? Because the result of the specificity add I'm suggesting, is subject to tailoring by issuers. So why is all the deliberation you suggest necessary, to simply specify a more specific default? (It shouldn't affect in-existence IBANs, right, because those are presumed to have their tailoring already specified, so those IBAN requirements are clear. And for IBANs without tailoring, without elimination of the ambiguity at WP:IBAN, how is creating more specificity there now, damaging anything or creating any misalignment?) You see these drawbacks which I do not see, but you fail to see the drawbacks on the other side of the coin -- what I have gone thru for example, to get to this point to discuss with you. (It hasn't been pleasant. It wasted 1.5 days out of my life. It fucked up the beginning of my week. It put a huge distaste in my mouth to go thru the cesspool mud-flinging baits that is AN, though I expect that kind fo thing from this place. It was a single exception for me to open at AN. I asked for clarification there, why didn't you post there. You are not an admin, and your opinion of what is "indirect interaction" is fine with me, because it is consistent [though we both understand not ideal re exchange of ideas]. But it is not the opinion of Fluffnutter, who feels the exact opposite. [So why don't you confer with her, if you feel you are right? That would give me a little extra confidence to accept your view, which you want me to do. And, if I am restricted from commenting on the quailty of a copyedit authored by user Y, then I defintely accept your view, which restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I will be making a post to the ANI that has been opened with regards to this matter and will reference your post here. I may make summaries of your post above with which to make some points. You're obviously welcome to rebut my interpretation of what you are saying should I be interpreting them incorrectly. I feel that doing this way will limit double posting and strike down two birds with one stone. Blackmane (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

Hi IHTS. I'm not sure if you already got a notice about this, so I'm leaving you an explicit one to be extra-sure: your behavior is currently being discussed on ANI in this thread. Since the thread is dealing with your interpretation of i-ban and how you're adhering/not adhering to it, your input would be very useful there(and for the record, you are allowed to participate in an ANI thread about you, even if someone you're i-banned from started it). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter, no, I wasn't aware of the existence of the ANI until picking up your post here. I see your comments at the ANI, and it seems clear to me that you have misconstrued my position. (I was seeking clarification only at any time, and you are portraying me as "fighting the IBAN policy because [I] disagree with it" or some such thing, which is totally not the case. What offense have I committed, that you and others deem blockable? I only referenced the user as you did, in the attempted discussion at your Talk. And with Blackmane. How does one talk about these topics without making any such reference? It is impossible. I deemed the neutral references I made OK in the context of talking to you and Blackmane, when both of you initiated the discourse with me. If I was in violation of IBAN then, why did neither of you advise me of same? Now you want to take away my Talk access?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is Highly Outrageous Treatment

These weird people are obviously stalking your edits and are up to no good. Petty petty behaviour. I shall avenge you. That being said, Mind if I do a J? DorianGray77 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

DorianGray77, no don't do that. Plus stalking itself is harmless. (It's the actions people take, and the absurd shit they say at ANI/AN.) As a socking troll, it's a fact that you've been more recognizing of the ill-intent directed against me, than any WP editor. (What does that say about WP?) It's my belief that w/o radical reform WP will implode by virtue of its own internal rottenness, and that always comes from people, not outer space. About your past history, you've shown you're capable of worthwhile article contributions. You can't tell me that didn't feel good! Have your J and consider editing productively again. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

p.s. "Highly outrageous treatment" is par for the course in this dumbed-down, mob-ruled, might-makes-right hostile & abusive environment. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Good morning

Hey IHTS, I just wanted to let you know that I closed the MfD relating to a subpage of yours. See closure here. Thanks, and have a great day! Go Phightins! 13:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Go Phightins! ! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"cut from the same cloth"

High honour has been bestowed on you, and yes, I am also one of them --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see. (I thanked the editor for that compliment, but suppose a better response was "You say that like it's a bad thing.") The effort to demonize editors one doesn't like who are quite distinct from one another thru the manufacture of little boxes ("from the same cloth", "anti-admin brigade") seems to be a prejudice-generating tactic for the mob. (Embarrassing, one would think.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

look for "prejudice" on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. (It all connects. WP has lost too many valuable editors. "And what is yet to come?" [Saavik, The Search for Spock].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I suggested the image for Featured picture. No, because of the photographer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You asked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't so aware before of that complilation history/tribute. (Thank you.) How sad. (So much lost talent. I see why you started drinking! [I think the only solution is to put the top content contributors in charge. "Community consensus" = mob rule du jour.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

An apology

Hello Ihardlythinkso,

I made an insulting comment about you a few weeks ago. Looking back on my words after some time has passed, I now see clearly that my comment was gratuititous and of no worth. You had every right to be offended. I now wish that I had said nothing. I apologize.

As for my talk page, I withdraw my request for you to stay away. If you ever have anything that you wish to discuss, please let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, I appreciate. (And you are welcome here at my Talk anytime as well.) Happy editing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Peace 1, dispute 0. RWCasinoKid (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Chess problem

Let's see how good you really are.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Can White Checkmate black?

RWCasinoKid (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Too easy! 1.Bxf7+ Kxf7 2.Rf1+ Kg8 3.Rf8+ mate next. (Did you compose it yourself? Good but it's bad idea the key s/b a check.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Take it further — "black to play" captures the Queen and checks. Do you resign or can you counter? RWCasinoKid (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

1... Rxe5+ 2.Resigns (of course). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Words

I saw that you had some words for me on Eric's talk page. I am not going to discuss it there as it is not an appropriate venue. However you are always welcome on my talk page if you have concerns about any of my actions. Chillum 16:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate venue User:Chillum because thanks to you, no one can edit it. Anyhow, don't you think that you've had quite enough mileage out of Eric already? Sorry, to but in Ihardlythinkso, but I'm sure Chillum won't mind the subject being expanded and I'm equally sure he'd just love his page to be the centre of a busy debate on Eric's shortcomings. Giano (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Giano. If you wish to talk to me you are welcome on my talk page. Chillum 17:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I expect all and sundry are welcome on your page Chillum, but there's little point in debating with people who's brains are either fugged by weed or simply destroyed by its affects. Giano (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet here you are talking to me. Chillum 17:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No Chillim, here am I tell you - no debating or discussing. Giano (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your good thoughts and seeing things as they are on here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on closed thread at WP:RETENTION

I don't have any strong opinions about that whole thread; if you want to restore your comment I'm not going to revert back, but basically, I just don't think it's very helpful. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Unhelpful"?! It's not too cool to unexpectedly and falsely be made part of the reason Lightbreather blames for deciding to quit Wikipedia -- her response to a good-faith Q in that Talk thread. (After being on receiving end of false blame for a high-visibiilty user quitting, I'm supposed to be "helpful"?! On what planet??) p.s. Can I go around too deleting your Talk page replies to other editors, if I decide they "aren't helpful"?? (I don't know you from Adam.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to alert you

Because the thread is long and noisy you might overlook a response to something you wrote. Basically, I think you've misunderstood my position. I do not single out bad behavior by non-admin content contributors. I think bad behavior from anyone is something we should be more firm about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)