User talk:Bubba73/Archive 2 (2006)

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


Endgame tablebase

It seems the two of us have been doing most of the recent work on the endgame tablebase article. I am too inexperienced to do some of the more complicated formatting, so thanks for that.

I want to call your attention to the section on endgame tablebases in the article on computer chess. In some places it contradicts or is redundant with the main article on tablebases. I'm not sure what to do about it, so I'm asking you to take a look.

Also, I modified the diagram formatting again. I think it's good now.

Best regards, YechielMan 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC).

OK. I haven't looked at the section under Computer Chess, so I need to do that. I also just added a section under endgame about the effect of tablebases on endgame theory, and I was wondering if that might should be in the tablebase article instead, but there is already some discussion of that there. I will look for redundancy and contradictions in those articles. Bubba73 (talk), 13:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Georgia in Georgia (U.S. state) article

At the top right of Georgia (U.S. state) there is a link to the flag Flag of Georgia which seems that it would take you directly to Flag of Georgia (U.S. state) but instead it goes to the dab page Flag of Georgia. Why doesn't it go to Flag of Georgia (U.S. state)? Bubba73 (talk), 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • the Template:US state is fixed so that it automatically does Flag of (statename). If you want to change it, it would be necessary to change all the other states using the template. PeregrineAY 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • i made a change to the Template:US state....but i have a feeling all the other states have been affected. PeregrineAY 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • never mind, all the other states have the flaglink already in place. PeregrineAY 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that the Georgia flag was the only one with "US state" on it (because of the countntry of Georgia. Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Source for complete Randi quote?

Bubba73, do you have a source for the complete James Randi quote you just added; namely:

Concerning the challenge, I always have an "out": I'm right!

My quick search of the JREF website didn't spot it, but I don't trust its search engine. Nor did I find it through Google. I see that an anonymous editor (you, I presume) just updated Rawlins' version in the Wikiquote article on Randi. I'd like to source the full quotation so we can demonstrate both the actual quote and how it's misused, which is one of the benefits of WQ's sourcing practices. Thanks for any help you can provide. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I updated the one on Wikiquote too. (I went there from WP and forgot to log in.) I don't know of any published source, but I emailed Randi and asked him about it, and that is what he said. So perhaps it should read "According to Randi, he actually said...". Bubba73 (talk), 19:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is a problem with "verifiable source" with that, since his email to me is not verifiable. It is "close to the source", in a sense. Bubba73 (talk), 03:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism.

Thanks for the tip! I'll look into it. KarlBunker 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Bubba73/Archive 2 (2006). I noticed you added an entry to Vandalism in Progress. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Vandalism in Progress are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) --lightdarkness (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I thought "Vandslism in progress" was for vandalism in progress - something that needed to be stopped now. The vandal I reported had done two vandalisms in the last 10 minutes, IIRC. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Randi (and Klass)

I like what you did to James Randi. If you want a similar but even bigger challenge, take a look at Philip J. Klass. Bubba73 (talk), 05:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Christ that looks like a nightmare. I'm admittedly not very good at cutting through and rewriting stuff like that. I also (unfortunately) don't really know a great deal about Klass unlike my knowledge of Randi. I'll try to weed through some books and find some info on him, though ufology's not really one of my strong foci. However, I can promise to continue monitoring any article that is often subject to vandalism/spurious edits (such as James Randi). If you need any help with specific articles, please let me know or add to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism/Skeptic watchlists. If you need (or have) any advice, please don't hesitate to contact me. -- Krash (Talk) 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

82 vs. 83

"The biggest problem is that anyone can edit." :) No harm done.


If you have the time/interest: Glyconutrient. -- Krash (Talk) 14:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

for your generous remarks. Tom Harrison Talk 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

UFO/related articles

If you look at my edit history, you'll find that I inhabit a lot of controversial articles about science-related concepts. I haven't yet breached the UFO issue and this is my first forray. I'm trying to take it slow as I am still occupied with a few cosmology and creationist controversies. I do recognize that the other articles are worse, but from a pure advertisement standpoint, I'm sure many more people see the UFO article than the Majestic 12 article, for example. If things improve enough at UFO that the article is actually NPOV and factual, I may move on to those other problems. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bubba!

I appreciate what you did for the Meier article. It needs balance! (And presentational changes.) And I'm just not willing to put in the time needed for it, I'm sorry to say. Phiwum 16:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if I'm doing this correctly. However, an interesting picture, regarding the MJ12 article, and more specifically, the MJ12 documents claiming a certain James Forrestal's ( involvment with the organization.

You will find that the below linked picture depicts Mr. Forrestal, among other men, all supposedly once beloning to the organization. (note the organizations name written on the picture)

Thank you.


Now dear Bubba, you seem far too accomplished an experienced a wikipedian to be getting into silly edit wars on a velikovsky article. Please curb your enthusiasm. We don't want this to end in tears :)--feline1 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

About the Velikovsky article.....I'm not sure I can be of much use. --JWSchmidt 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't think I'm going to resubmit it, but I think you should. Could be an interesting article. Have to keep it really factual though.

Apollo Hoax

I plan to make major changes. I posted my offering on the Moon Hoax discussion page, under that title. Let me know. The formatting didn't take in the discussion section, but you will get the jist. I wanted to remove the back and forth bickering of whether "it" happened or not and just get to the basics: What is the Moon Hoax. Nothing else. I would like to trim off the Dead Astronauts section, but I feel I am already making a large change. Let me know what you think. DartFrog 01:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Your help on articles where our paths have crossed has been much appreciated. Thanks a lot, and I'll see you 'round. We'll get that UFO article NPOV yet! --ScienceApologist 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

UFO Topics Mediator

Can you link me up with the article and tell me more about what is needed. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)]

Science and pseudoscience

Hejsan Bubba73. Thanks for your referencing of the developments frequently referred to as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific. I have a suggestion for your future supportive efforts. Lilienfeld (2003) is a great book on Science and Pseudoscience in Psychotherapy and includes a lot of interesting stuff. Also, Singer (1996) Crazy Therapies is entertaining (though perhaps troublingly bizarre at times). Lots of scientific studies in both to back it all up. ODIN! Hornyhat Olafsen 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Newsweek13Jan1969.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Newsweek13Jan1969.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Random observations

After seeing your name so often on the Apollo talk page, I finally had to check out your world view.

  • I agree, absolutely and without reservation, that IP addresses should not be allowed to edit. I shudder to think what percentage of wikipedians' time is wasted reverting the nonsense posted by what I call a-nones.
  • The serial comma: My understanding is that the comma was short for "and". So "A, B, and C" means "A and B and and C". However, in our redundant society of redundancy, this is nothing new, with our Automatic Teller Machine machines, and our Personal Identification Number numbers... and of course our operating systems built on New Technology technology (extra credit if you can find all the redundancies in the previous paragraph).
  • Bill O-Really-No-O-Reilly: I confess to watching him, sometimes for the comedic value. I know Stephen Colbert does his best to parody O'Reilly, but there's no improving on the original. O'Reilly occasionally has something to contribute, like the other day when he took apart an ACLU straw man who was defending the right of those nuts from Kansas who go to the funerals of Iraq war victims and celebrate their deaths in the faces of their families. O'Reilly contrasts with the likes of Sean Hannity, for whose self-sanctimonious type there is almost certainly a special place in hell.
  • Religious skepticism: I was an atheist for awhile, but I gave it up. No holidays! (And no special place for Sean Hannity).
  • Wasting too much time on wikipedia? That is not possible. Every line of text we write furthers the intellectual advancement of the hominid carbon-based forms infesting Planet Earth (at least until a-nones revert it). Wahkeenah 03:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Converting chess diagrams

Hi there. Following up a discussion elsewhere, would you be able to point out something explaining what needs to be done with converting chess diagrams. What are these old and new formats you are referring to? Thanks. Carcharoth 09:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at about fifteen chess articles, and I didn't find any diagrams in an old format except Chess strategy and tactics. However, all of those have arrows drawn on them, which can't be done in the new format, as far as I know. So they probably don't need to be changed. So maybe someone has gone through converting them. (I converted several, but when I was doing it there were quite a few I left.) So I don't know of any particular area that is especially in need of help. Just look around where you think you can contribute - openings, middle game strategy and tactics, endgames, player biographies, rules, etc. Welcome aboard. Bubba73 (talk), 15:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet space program conspiracy accusations

I merged these, and tidied it up - take a look and let me know what you think, For great justice. 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Randi quote

I put in "personal communication" but I left in "cite needed".
Some POV-pusher put the original quote "I always have an out." I asked Randi about it, and I got an email from him on 1/2/06 in which he said that Dennis Rawlings left out the "I'm right" part. I put that in back in January, and someone has modified the paragraph since then. I asked Randi about it again yesterday, and he said that he has said that to a lot of people, including some TV interviews, but he doesn't remember any specific instances. He said that Rawlings was the only person who chose to twist it against him.
As far as reliable sources, this is straight from the source. It is "verifiable" - you can ask him. His email address is
The only source for the quote without "I'm right" is Dennis Rawlings, and clearly he isn't reliable. He published it in Fate magazine, which is certainly not a reliable source. Encyclopedia Britannica wouldn't use Fate for a source.
So the actual person's words as a reliable source, we certainly can't use what Dennis Rawlings said in Fate. So either we have to accept that or take the whole thing out. And I don't think the POV-pushers will stand for that.
I've seen "personal commination" used as a reference even in academic journals and textbooks. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. Please understand that Wikipedia has a specific meaning for the word "reliable", which is why I provided the link to the policy page Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Other publications may use whatever sources their editorial boards may deem appropriate, but Wikipedia requires that its sources be, in general, respectable print publications, notable websites, and well-known (and accessible) audiovisual material. The two main reasons are to put the onus of accuracy on publishers with reputations to uphold, and to make it possible for Wikipedians to verify the supposed content of the sources.

Because of this, personal communications are not valid primary sources, although they can be cited if a secondary source (like a magazine or news program) mention them, but in those cases the secondary source is what legitimizes it. I was expecting that there might be some mention in Swift, which qualifies as a notable website. (Note too that discussion boards, even when they belong to notable websites, are not usually considered reliable, as their content is not approved in advance by an editorial board. Thus, the digression on the legitimacy of Randi's response to Kolodzey is likely to be edited out over time, as it's sourced from the JREF Forum.)

By these rules, Randi's quote, "I always have an out — I'm right!", in whatever form, probably should be removed. I'd added it (or readded it, I guess) when I decided to make the "Criticism" section less like one person's crusade against Randi and more like general criticism with cited examples. It's unfortunate that this concise example doesn't appear to have a reliable source, either for its original (mis)use or Randi's response. Unless we can source it properly, it should go. If the "POV-pushers" put it back in, we should treat it as any other unsourced material and re-delete. (Such vigilance is an unfortunate but necessary part of Wikipedia article maintenance.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh! I just noticed that I had a conversation with you about this quote several months ago. My memory is really pathetic. Sorry for the redundancy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
My memory is just as bad because I forgot this too! Unfortunately I don't know of any source for the complete quote, and Randi doesn't seem to know one either - just that he has said it to a lot of people, including some TV interviews. I believe that the selective quote is from an article by Dennis Rawlings in Fate magazine, which is certainly not respected as to being factual (and neither is Rawlings). Last night I did find the entire quote at, but I don't know about their reliability, and they may have gotten it from Wikipedia. I may try to get Randi to go on the record either in Swift or his weekly commentary on his website. Would that help? Bubba73 (talk), 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Getting Randi to say something in the official commentary would definitely help. It's fairly easy to make a case for it being a reliable source, given its 23K Alexa rating and obvious relevance to the subject. There is the question of bias, which may come up in trying to source the misuse, but that's a separate problem. seems a bit obscure (Alexa rating 561K) and not particularly credible, featuring UFO discourses and being created by a 15-year-old (not many of whom are noted for their journalistic or editorial integrity). In all, Randi's official statement would be invaluable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I asked him, and he said that he would do it if he saw a need to do it, but he didn't see a need to do it. So, could the article say "In private, Randi has stated that he actually said ... " ? Bubba73 (talk), 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Private correspondence isn't considered a reliable source. The minimum requirement is that a professional publication do its own editorial thing and stake its reputation on the words it publishes, which can be argued is the case for Swift. Perhaps in the future Randi might find it useful, when addressing another issue in the JREF newsletter, to relate this incident, thereby killing two birds with one stone. Unfortunately, by the WP definition of "reliable", Fate magazine sounds like it might be acceptable. (It is not up to WP editors to judge the merit (or the looniness) of a professional publication; we merely provide the sources to allow readers to decide for themselves.)
It is conceivable that a clever Randi-phobe could cite the specific Fate article, thereby giving a truly verifiable source of the misquotation, while Randi-philes would be unable to counter it with Randi's statement from private correspondence. This would be most unfortunate, but I would expect Randi to understand this, as he has taken great pains to make public and legal his various endeavors (like the Challenge) so they might stand up to the blather from the "woo-woo" crowd. So far, these folks among the WP editors haven't been that smart (not exactly a surprise). But if it happens, perhaps Randi would consider an unassailable Wikipedia citation justification for Swift clarification (pun intended). Meanwhile, all we can do is delete mention of the incident so long as it's not properly sourced (by either side). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It is conceivable that a clever Randi-phobe could cite the specific Fate article, thereby giving a truly verifiable source of the misquotation, while Randi-philes would be unable to counter it with Randi's statement from private correspondence.
That's right. I suspect that the quote is in the sTARBABY article in Fate in 1981, but I don't know for sure. (See CSICOP and its talk page.) Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This would be most unfortunate, but I would expect Randi to understand this,
I tried emphasize that I just needed him a quote from him "on the record" (either where he said it or even said that he said it), and that a mention in the online Swift would be enough. He said that he didn't feel that he needed to respond to "canards". Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose he's right, as long as the statement is only published in the likes of Fate. It may never become an issue in a respectable neo-publication like Wikipedia as long as we do our work to keep unsourced claims out of the articles. This is no doubt a "cross that bridge when you come to it" situation for Randi, who is busy with quite a few active issues (not to mention getting fully healed). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)



Bubba with regards to Philip Klass, Green Fireballs, Roswell UFO Incident, Majestic 12, and Unidentified Flying Object, if you could take the time out to come up with a list of stuff I can go through each one, point and point and see if it violates wiki policy or if anything else can be done to improve the article. I have already visited some of the articles and ask for a proper referencing to take place. I have set up the standard for them to use. (Simonapro 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Image:Ga1879.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Ga1879.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I listed it because Image:Ga1879.svg is a better version. -ReuvenkT C E 06:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Help save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity

Happy Father's Day

Macintosh iBook.jpgI noticed you were a father, so here is something other than a necktie. Happy Father's Day 2006. Smiley-standard.gifLinux|erist 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Williams on pseudoscience

We are discussing the references to Williams on the pseudoscience page; perhaps you'd like to have a look. In particular, do you know Williams' academic credentials?Hgilbert 20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Contract bridge

Hi. You might be interested in participating in new Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge. Regards, Duja 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote against using sleazy tabloids and crackpots' web sites

Hi Bubba, thanks for you good comments on talk:Natasha Demkina However, would you please also indicate your "vote" by adding either:

  • Accept and your signature


  • Reject and your signature

for each of the four proposed "sources." Many thanks, Andrew Askolnick 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't swe4en the Discover show, so I can't comment on that one. Bubba73 (talk), 02:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not important, since no one ever said that the source is not reputable. That's why most people haven't voted. It's entirely unnecessary (in not downright inappropriate). Thanks for adding your vote. Askolnick 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive user page

I never knew it was possible to add all that stuff about playing chess, liking chocolate, being a father, being a skeptic and so forth. I'm with you on all of those. Loved the Asimov quote. Not with you on the Country/Western thing, but your line made me chuckle. A friend of mine who moved from Chicago to Texas had used that line with me ("We've got all kinds of music here. Country AND Western."). I gather that neither he nor you originated that line. Keep up your good work on the chess articles. Krakatoa 17:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Call for vote/input

You suggested that people contact you if something was up for a vote at Talk:Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. I've just added a call for vote/comment on a comparison of two edit versions of the article, and I'd appreciate your input. Thanks! KarlBunker 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object mediation

As a result of you asking for mediation on the article Unidentified flying object I helped the community to push more heavily for WP:CITE and WP:NOR. The article has increased its use of wikipolicy and this should help things more. Good Luck. (Simonapro 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC))


I see that even you, of the normally calm demeanor, are beginning to get riled at that guy. The banter is one thing, but his constant hatchet-job on that page is getting annoying... and to bring some guy, whom we never heard from on that page before, to semi-protect it, really makes us wonder. Wahkeenah 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside comment

Maybe they should have brought along a newspaper to show off on the Moon... or a draft of Kaysing's book, so they could read aloud, from the surface of the Moon, about how this wasn't really happening. Wahkeenah 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


I've posted it. [[1]] and [[2]].

I suspect that Noodleboy is ready to "take over" the gadfly role, if he decides to devote as much time to the page as you and I and Carfiend have. In fact, he was on there awhile back, rabble-rousing, and then disappeared for awhile. Neither one, however, is as obnoxious as For Great Justice was. Reading what I just wrote, I'm thinking I've been involved in this way too long. I'm kind of excited about them looking for the tapes, though, not just for the possible additional info it could uncover, but also because it might mean a serious attempt at returning to the moon... which would squelch this bizarre conspiracy theory once and for all (unless it's true, of course. Right.) Wahkeenah 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


The contradict was a mistake, sorry. I thought I'd reverted myself but clearly I didn't save it properly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Zargulon 16:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I feel quite strongly that omitting the "P" for pawn moves just made things more difficult to read without gaining anything, so perhaps it will always be unclear to me. I am in a minority, though, so you probably shouldn't change anything. Zargulon 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The "P" in pawn moves is omitted in the standard Algebraic chess notation. Bubba73 (talk), 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your fish

At least he (formerly she) had a good life[3] Krakatoa 15:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Apollo "hoax" video

I'll restate what I said on the page, which is bound to provoke some idiotic reaction:

OK, I took a chance. It again "messed with" my PC, probably setting up the flash player, and conked out Windows Explorer eventually, but I didn't have to reboot, so hopefully everything's peachy. I did get to watch it all the way through, and it's a fascinating video. It gives a realistic sense of what it was like to be in that little bitty capsule, tens of thousands of miles from the earth. This could easily go on the Apollo page itself. The hoax commentary should be good for a laugh, as it's a fairy tale. Also, Bubba73 please note, in looking closely at the timestamps, I observed that it's 198, not 190. It's a little fuzzy, but on the first card you can see the difference between the 8 and the 0. It's a little more distinct on the other two cards. The three timestamps given are:

  • 198:01:15 - 198:01:30
  • 198:23:31 - 198:23:54
  • 198:23:54 - 199:00:07

Day 198, leading up to midnight, would be July 17th, the second day of the mission, which they confirm at one point by zooming in on the mission clock, which is at 34 hours and 16 minutes at that point. Everything in this video squares with the conventional Apollo saga. Wahkeenah 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • As an aside to this, I could have explained why the hoaxster commentary is so absurd, but that's probably a waste of energy. As usual, it's based on false assumptions and misinterpretations. I wonder if they know what PTC stands for, for example? (Passive Thermal Control) There's a reference made early on that they can resume PTC now that they are done taking earth videos, to avoid cooking just one side of the capsule. Forgetting the moronic "hoax" commentary and the bogus orange intro card, everything about it has the ring of truth. It's awesome. Wahkeenah 05:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I looked closely to see if it was 198, and it looked like 190 to me. Thank you for correcting me on that. I haven't been following the page for about 3 days, or doing much on Wikipedia. I looked at part of those, and they appear to be the three television transmissions made on the way to the moon, that are on the DVD. I don't see anything in there where they are "faking" it. In fact, you can see things weightless for a long period of time, which can't happen on Earth. The first two segments were not broadcast on the networks at the time. Whenever they were going out to the world, they would give commentary. But, according to the experts at, they were not classified. Bubba73 (talk), 06:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we're both up a little late. I did go back and add some explanation, not that it will matter to the hoaxsters who have blinders on (unlike you and me). I should get that DVD. What's it called, again? These clips are obviously not "classified". Someone with an overactive imagination got hold of them, thought they were seeing some things that weren't there, and relabeled them as "classified" so it would look as if they had discovered something secret. Not that the hoaxsters ever lie, mind you. Really, the one mystery to me is whether it's deliberate prevarication or if they really don't understand what they're looking at. Either way, it's a sad commentary on whatever schools they went to. The most telling thing is how wildly they misinterpreted the images of the earth and the progression of the terminator and so on... along with being ignorant of the construction of the capsule, which has little windows in it (which the astronauts talked about, so I guess the hoaxsters forgot to listen to it). I can understand them mistaking a 198 for a 190 (notice how the 8 is more squared off, the 0 after the colon is more rounded at top and bottom), but it's also a good symbol of how little attention they pay to things. Wahkeenah 06:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was up way too late last night. I had planned some things to do, but someone called me to play bridge, so I went, and tried to do some things afterward.
  • 198:01:15 - 198:01:30
  • 198:23:31 - 198:23:54
  • 198:23:54 - 199:00:07
These times don't corrspond to other sources. The second occurred 20 hours after the first, and the third was 3 hours after the second, according to the DVD. According to that, and the lift off time, it should be:
  • 198:00:04 (10 hours 32 minutes after 13:32 GMT liftoff on day 198, July 17)
  • 199:20:00 (30:28 after liftoff)
  • 199:23:31 (33:59 after liftoff)

But I need to check the readout on their clock in the video to confirm. The DVD is available from SpaceCraft films. It is at Amazon. It is fairly expensive - you can find it a little cheaper. Or you could rent it or see if the library has it. DVD #1 has stuff through the landing, including the three TV transmissions. DVD 2 has the entire moonwalk, but in the form we saw it in originally - not the missin slow-scan version. Disc 3 covers the return trip and has bonus stuff. All TV transmissions and all film is included. At one point, you can watch the flag not waving in a continuous shot of about a half hour. Bubba73 (talk), 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the time the website gives for the second clip is the time of the third clip, but one day off. Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Who knows what the hoaxsters might have spliced together? I am pretty sure the Google version said it was 34:16 into the flight, about five minutes before the third segment, or about 198:23:49 per the reckoning of that video. The video is clearly genuine, anyway. I will look for that DVD. I wonder if it's in stores? FYI, someone unlocked the page. So far there has been little action on it. Maybe they're all tired of it. For now. Wahkeenah 04:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the DVD in some stores, but it was usually full price there ($45). The same company is releasing a different DVD of Apollo 11 DVD set next month. I'm surprized that yuo didn't weight in on [4] Bubba73 (talk), 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I am reluctant to "gang up" on this guy or anyone else, especially as he has almost disappeared now. The one to worry about now is that new guy, Arltomem or some such, who is even more of a flamer. However, I guess I just did weigh in on it. I'll make that point in the writuep. Wahkeenah 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Them French words is tough to spell sometimes. Just don't pronounce it the way Bugs Bunny does: "ren-deez-vooz". I was also wondering if an argument would ensue over that issue, but I expected it to be on some kind of technical grounds, not the lame argument that the Russians "can call it whatever they want to", like Humpty Dumpty. One other thing that's unclear, though maybe not terribly important, is whether those craft got to within 5 miles or 5 kilometers of each other. I've seen it both ways. Either way, it's not much of a rendezvous, although getting the craft in the same orbit was itself an achievement of sorts. And lost in all this is the reason for doing a rendezvous, which is to get close enough to dock, a vital maneuver to moon missions and beyond; not just to wave "dosvedanya" at each other as they go by. I wonder when the first real Russian spacecraft rendezvous occurred. Maybe if that could be determined (if it isn't already there - sorry for being lazy) then it would be worth mentioning somewhere in there. Wahkeenah 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm thinking that since it's a list of firsts, and since there were effectively only two "teams" in the race, maybe the first time each accomplished a particular task could be included, for perspective and comparison: first Russian simultaneous orbit; first American simultaneous orbit AND maneuvering for close approach; first Russian maneuvering for close approach; etc. Wahkeenah 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it got within 5 km, 3 miles, according to most sources. First USSR rendezvous: Soyuz 2 and Soyuz 3, Oct 1968; docking failed. First USSR docking - Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5, Jan 1969. Bubba73 (talk), 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's good stuff, it's all worth noting somehow, to point up how the U.S. caught and passed the Russians (does that mean we "rendezvoused" with them when we passed them?) I don't recall the dates, but I recall a time (maybe the first) that the U.S. tried the docking maneuver between a Gemini craft and an unmanned Agena vehicle, and the Agena's shroud had failed to disengage ("the angry alligator"), so the docking wouldn't work, which of course was a setback. The thing is, all these flights were a few-steps-at-a-time, methodical approach to the primary mission. I know I'm preaching to the choir on these points. The irksome thing is not so much that bean-brains like Kaysing and Sibel write this stuff, but that people believe it, without bothering to do any independent research. Wahkeenah 04:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The one with the "angry alligator" was Gemini 9, which was after the successful docking on Gemini 8. And some people seem to have never heard of "Soviet propeganda".
That's something that's lost on these Gen-X types that find it easy to doubt a historical time period of which they have no personal connection. Wahkeenah 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The point of a rendezvous is so that the astronauts in the LM can get back to the CSM to "return them safely to the Earth". A "rendezvous" within 3 miles isn't good enough!
I would say that putting them in orbit at the same time was an accomplishment in and of itself and worth noting. But calling it a "rendezvous" is Soviet "bluster" (pardon me for borrowing a term that several of those hoaxsters-who-aren't-sockpuppets keep using). Wahkeenah 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've put in some more links to space rendezvous, a quote from Wally Schirra, more links and references, in some places. Bubba73 (talk), 14:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I took away the "disputed" POV garbage and included a link to Project Apollo, which has the hoax link. I fear this could trigger more trouble, and I apologize if it does. What it could mushroom into is an edit war in which they post that stupid link in every Apollo-related article. Oy! Wahkeenah 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I had made some changes earlier that were suggested by the peer review. I did not intend for that page to be a direct offshoot of the hoax article. I put about half of the USSR firsts there and the USA firsts. Someone said that it didn't seem appropriate for the hoax article, and I agree. I thought it should stand on its own, and I trimmed that section in the hoax article down. Bubba73 (talk), 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You mentioned a page showing both country's accomplishments and when they occurred. i.e. first USSR space walk and first US spacewalk. This would be interesting. First woman - US was many years behind, but this isn't significant in going to the moon. First 3-person crew - US was a few years behind. Other than that, I think the US was not more than a year behind on any of the items on the list, and often only weeks behind. On the other hand, the early USSR cosmonauts were little more than passengers. They couldn't control their craft at first. They couldn't change their orbit the way Gemini (and later could), so no capability to rendezvous. The USSR lagged years behind on most of the 1965 and later US accomplishments, speaking off the top of my head. Bubba73 (talk), 04:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Putting a woman in space was not really a technological achievement, it was a stunt (I think you said as much earlier), and if the stories about Valentina Tereshkova losing her cool are true, it was a stunt that set women's lib back a ways. A number of the Russians' firsts were publicity stunts, like stuffing an extra guy in a two-man capsule so they could be the first to put three in orbit. While the Russian "rabbit" was pushing the envelope in certain ways, the American "tortoise" was getting the job done methodically. Realistically, the U.S.S.R. had little likelihood of getting there first, once the U.S. decided to put its vast resources to work... a factor which has often worked in favor of the U.S. The hoaxsters ignorance extends not just to technology, but also to simple economics. The U.S. had the resources (and the will, the "can-do" attitude) to get it done. That's a concept that eludes the European socialists who are apparently the source of the hoax writing on this page. Their soft stance on the realities of the Soviet social system, as well as their ridiculing the "can-do" concept when I bring it up, kind of gives that away. Wahkeenah 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Kruschev (sp?) was very interested in achieving "firsts", for propaganda purposes. Brezhnev (sp?) was not interested in that, and that made a big difference. Also, Korelov (sp?) died somewhere in there. They came close to circling the moon before Apollo 8. but they were years away from a landing.
Those Russian spellings elude me. My wife is a huge figure skating fan, and a lot of the best ones are unspellable. That's why I liked it when Gordeeva and Grinkov ruled the roost in Pairs. I could at least spell those names. It's too bad the Russians didn't get to circle the moon in a manned vehicle. Those Euro-centric hoaxsters would probably give more weight to the moon landing chronicles if the Russians had also accomplished that, i.e. if they had also dealt with the alleged Van Allen belt problem. Wahkeenah 05:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
They were close to doing it about two weels before Apollo 8, but a mission with animals had recently failed. According to this, the cosmonauts even went to the launch site hoping to get last-minute approval.

Due to the pecularities of celestial mechanics the Soviets would have been able to launch a lunar spacecraft two weeks before the 'launch window' opened in the US. The L1 cosmonauts did send a letter to the Politburo asking for permission to launch a manned mission. They even travelled to the Baikonur Cosmodrome in order to be ready to fly at a short notice. But the order never came and two weeks later, Apollo 8...

Bubba73 (talk), 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on finding that clinching (and rather astonishing) admission by the Russian space program official. I wonder if you-know-who will be back tomorrow with some other tack, after having consulted with the Politburo himself. Wahkeenah 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I had ordered a book on the Soviet space program and a book co-written by cosmonaut Lenov to see if they had anything. I found this this book but the single volume edition is expensive. I asked on a newsgroup to find out which of the two smaller volumes had that time period, and someone pointed me to the online PDF. I read the part about Vostok 3 and 4, and there it was! The smoking gun. Someone said that the hoax believers are getting us to do their research. but that's not quite right. I think they may just want us to spend our time and money. I've spent probably about 30 hours researching for the hoax article and bought some books. Bubba73 (talk), 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, one good thing the hoaxsters have done is to get us to learn more about the space program. The Cold War and the Space Race were an amazing time, in both good and bad ways. Wahkeenah 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP without disruption

Bubba, now that disruption has a week off, would you like to join Hob, Mike, and me and perhaps Karl on the CSICOP talk page to finish making agreed upon changes to the CSICOP article? Askolnick 04:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to. I was very busy this past week, but the load has gotten lighter. Bubba73 (talk), 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Great. Askolnick 05:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. C

Kudos. I just saw your message and have not yet seen whatever he was up to during the last 4 or 5 hours. I'm guessing he might not have liked being suggested to be a sockpuppet, but it all looks rather suspicious when a guy has been on the system for months and devotes himself to a single article. Wahkeenah 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I added one more comment that kind of baits him on the sockpuppet issue, which he can answer when he's let out of his "holding cell" tomorrow. I'm thinking that's as far as I should go with that (if not too far already). And I've had it with arguing with him, and don't plan to address him directly anymore. He's a flamer, that's his only purpose in being on here. It reminds me a little bit of For Great Justice, who at least admitted that he didn't believe the hoax and was just trying to "help" with the page. Their tactics are all the same, which doesn't prove they're sockpuppets, but they all "walk like a duck", as the saying goes. Wahkeenah 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I have taken your adivce and introduced myself on the talk page, and have explained where I want the statements. We can move on without that editor. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that Carfiend is the one at odds with most everyone else, I think he should lead off and make his case. Presumably it's got to do with (1) quibbling over the term "rendezvous" and potentially (2) listing the Moon Hoax page as a cross-link (which, if he gets carried away, he could end up doing on every space-program-related page). I also expect him to post his usual complaints about "reverting or changing without discussion", which of course he does himself all the time. Wahkeenah 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Or you could. Meanwhile, yet another new (?) user has arrived on the Moon hoax page claiming it's too heavily weighted against the hoax. Here we go again. Wahkeenah 17:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I persist in falling into Carfiend's little game all the time. He is clearly just a troll, a troublemaker, who enjoys all the banter. Usually the solution for these characters is just to ignore them. But he keeps messing with the page, pushing the buttons. I don't know what to do at this point, except maybe take a vacation. >:( Wahkeenah 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been finding and listing a lot of other pages that mention (or fail to mention) the rendevous. I don't see anyone putting up NPOV on those about rendezvous. Maybe I shouldn't have listed them because he may start disrupting those pages too. Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
My thought exactly. But it's all a valid point, and if he does spread his trolling to a bunch of other sites, it will only hasten a permanent block. So it's a risk worth taking. Wahkeenah 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I wrote my paragraph. I could write a book about this guy. It's been a long two months. But his brazen attempt to twist the RFC to put himself in a good light ought to raise an eyebrow. He must be assuming the mediator won't actually read it. But it's remarkably consistent with his "night is day" view about everything. We'll see. Wahkeenah 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Russian space historians

Oops, I think I stretched the "pravda" a bit. That one guy didn't explicitly say that, it's just that the first mention of any rendezvous in his writeup is with Gemini. He actually kind of skirted the issue of the "first" rendezvous, either intentionally (as face-saving) or by mistake or whatever. I would certainly be interested to see what other Russian historians have to say about it. But Canfield's constant bickering over that term is just part of the game he's playing. Wahkeenah 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it a little bit. It might be a bit weaselly on that point. However, I corrected a spelling error and also made more of a point of what the purpose of a rendezvous is. Not that it matters, because Mr. C will likely revert it all anyway. Wahkeenah 10:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
All of the other articles I linked to and quoted don't go nearly into as much detail about it. I think it should be Vostok 3 and 4 - two spacecraft in orbit at the same time, with a footnote that at the time it was incorrectly claimed or reported to be a rendezvous. Gemini 6 - first rendezvous. Period. That is more in line with the articles, and most of them don't go that far. Bubba73 (talk), 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Notice that I listed Vostok 3 and 4 as a dual flight, but I listed only Gemini 6 in the rendezvous. That is because Gemini 6 played the active role in the rendezvous - Gemini 7 was completely passive. All of the Vostok spacecraft were completely passive. Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
As were the flight crew, I would suspect. Truly "spam in a can". I'm guessing that if the cosmonauts survived the flight, they were given a prize of some kind. I'm picturing a scene from Love and Death: "Ve get medals, Boris! Ve get medals!" Wahkeenah 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, for Gagarin at least (and probably more) the controls were locked. He was just a passenger. Bubba73 (talk), 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Gargarin was the only one whose controls were locked, it seems. Of coourse, the Vostok and Voshod could not change their orbit (except when firing the retro rockets to come back). They could only adjust the direction they were pointing. Bubba73 (talk), 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree it can go away from the Achievements list. I'm just wondering what happened to Carfiend. He got shown up pretty badly, and maybe the fun's over for him, but you never know, he could be lurking. I notice nobody has done much with the Hoax article lately. It has been kind of exhausting. Maybe this weekend. We need to get some consensus on the layout so we can hopefully get rid of the NPOV tag on that article as well. It reads kind of like an article designed by a committee of opposing sides. Wahkeenah 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm exhausted. I've spent way too much time on the hoax article and the milestone articles. Last night I got back to polishing up a chess article I left hanging about six weeks ago or so. You are right about how it reads. Bubba73 (talk), 02:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar-goldrun7.png The Running Man Barnstar
Hi Bubba73! Although I am usually very skeptical of skeptics :-) I liked your article about King and pawn versus king. Thank you for writing it. Ioannes Pragensis 11:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Chess: the athletic activity of the 21st century. :o --jacobolus (t) 05:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


My tastes are more mundane. My favorite car was my 1966 Ford Fairlane which I got from my dad when the time came. I called it my "Sgt. Joe Friday" car, as it was the car of choice in Dragnet. It would start at 20 below, no problem. I liked it, even though it only got 12 miles per gallon on a good day. I drive a Honda now. :) Wahkeenah 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I still have my Bubba '73, although it hasn't run since 1991. I can't part with it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"If you have seven cars in your yard, and none of 'em work..." :) Wahkeenah 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It is in my parent's backyard!! Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There ya go. :) Wahkeenah 03:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

chess templates

Everything about the chess templates as they can be used now is listed at Template_talk:Chess_diagram as far as I know. If you make some additional graphics for numbers, I don't see why you couldn't use them, however. I say go for it. --jacobolus (t) 05:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC) [Note: I'm not ever going to look back at this discussion unless prompted by a "you have new messages" message, so won't ordinarily see responses here]

Notice that there are a series of images of form Image:Chess_nll44.png. The part you care about is nll. If you upload an image (maybe to commons) that renames that to something like 01l instead, and shows a number "1" on a light background, then you can put 01 in your use of the template, and it should do what you want. You might add a note on that talk page as well, so that others can see the work done. It might be a good idea to wait on this and/or message around to see if there's some name preferred to 01. If I feel like it sometime, I'd like to make a set of SVG chess squares, as the current wiki image renderer does a much better job resizing svg images than pngs (which end up fuzzy when you scale them down), and then change the template to use those instead. The nice thing is that as long as the API to the template stays the same, we can do such changes transparently, and all articles which use the template will benefit. --jacobolus (t) 08:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not hard to "make an image", if you are willing to invest some small amount of time. All you need is an image editor. There is a list on Wikipedia, including several free applications. Most of these have some tutorials available online, etc. --jacobolus (t) 21:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Chess x1l44.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Chess x1l44.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Chess diagram template number square images

I created those images (numbers from 1 to 3) and uploaded them to Commons. See, for example, commons:Image:Chess x1d44.png. --ZeroOne 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I now did numbers from 4 to 9 too. :) --ZeroOne 01:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thank you, I really apprecuate it. I had already spent 3 or 4 hours on it, but I thought I was getting close to getting it to work. Bubba73 (talk), 01:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's my first use: Zugzwang, section on mined squares. Bubba73 (talk), 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice. :) For future reference, here is the Photoshop file I used. It's made in Photoshop CS but I'm sure your Elements 2 opens it too.
Here's how I did it — the overall process took some 40 minutes, I believe: I went to Image:Chess_l44.png in commons, copied the image to clipboard (right-click on image, copy to clipboard) and opened Photoshop. Now, when you select File | New, it is already set to the dimensions the image on clipboard has, so click on OK. Hit Ctrl+V to paste. Notice how another layer (Window | Layers, if you don't have that view enabled) is created. Go to the dark square in Commons, copy it and again switch to Photoshop and paste. Another layer is created. Right click the layers and select Layer Properties. Name the layers "light" and "dark". Select the text tool and click on the image. A cursor appears. Adjust font size & stuff if needed. Type "1". Fourth layer, a text layer, is created. Right-click on it, select Duplicate Layer and name the new one "2". Now click the little eye to the left of the "1" layer to toggle it off. It seems that nothing is changed, but that's an illusion. Left-click on "2" layer if it is not yet active, the select the text tool and click next to the number 1 in the image: a text cursor appears and you can wipe out the 1 and replace it with a 2. Now your layer names and contents match. Try toggling layer "1" eye back: a number 1 appears behind the number 2. Duplicate it until you have nine numbers on nine different layers, then start saving them (File | Save for web). Between each save, toggle a different number layer visible and finally repeat the process with the dark layer turned off.
And thanks a lot for the barnstar! :) --ZeroOne 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I should be able to do it if I need more. Here is the second use Corresponding squares. It isn't finished yet, and I will need up to 6 or so. Thanks again. Bubba73 (talk), 13:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

third knight.

can i please know how you can promote a pawn to knight in International chess.nids(♂) 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If a pawn reaches its eighth rank, it can be promoted to a queen, rook, bishop, or knight. See Rules of chess, promotion (chess), and underpromotion. Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

THB and "vandal" edits

It's been a tad more than "twice": See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive conduct. KarlBunker 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence complete?

You wrote "Obvious pseudoscience 15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Is that sentence complete? Bubba73 (talk), 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Fred Bauder 21:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Without any more basis being required. Fred Bauder 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so the sentence was incomplete. Thank you for clearing it up. Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about links to at WikiProject Chess

Hi, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Links to - you are welcomed to contribute. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ruy Lopez opening

Well, after talking with you on this subject, I've decided that it might be worth discussing the Ruy Lopez on its own article, because of the Chess Openings it seems to be both a keepable article, but it, and all of its daughter articles just seem too much in the way of technicality. I can accept the one, but so many others? Something might be wrong. In fact, some of them seem to be close duplicates, like Ruy Lopez, Bird's Defense. I don't know that I know the subject well enough to be sure though, so I figure it would be worth specfically discussing it. FrozenPurpleCube

I agree that almost all of the articles on variations are currently too small to be an article - one or two paragraphs. They either need to be expanded or merged back into the main Ruy Lopez article. Perhaps someone intends to expand them, I don't know. The only exception I saw was Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation, which I think is big enough for its own article and too big to merge back into the main article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Skeptic's dictionary/Robert Todd Carroll

I saw your comment at the Robert Carroll article. The same person put the same thing on Skeptic's Dictionary. Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I'm afraid my assessment at Talk:Skeptic's Dictionary#importance wasn't quite as straightforward. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Bubba73, I moved the disputed paragraph to the talk page per WP:V, please see my comments there. -THB 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi and thank you for the message and for your work on the article. The question of length of the article: I discussed it with the FAR guys here Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chess and they told me that we have plenty of space :-) Greetings --Ioannes Pragensis 08:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi again, Bubba, I rewrote the intro - could you please read it CAREFULLY after me? My English is horrible :-( Thank you! --Ioannes Pragensis 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bubba, thanks for adding the citations - I changed your Harvard inline refs to cite.php, just because that was the referencing system already in place, and we need to stick with one system. I wasn't sure if it should have been the 1949 version of the book, though - can you doublecheck what I did? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 03:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have the 1981 edition of the book, but it seems to be the same as the 1949 edition, just in paperback and a different publisher. I don't like the change in the reference system because you can't click on it in the text and go to the book info. See my main user page for additional comments on Harvard referencing. Bubba73 (talk), 04:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
To use Harvard, we'd have to change over the entire article, and I can't do that easily, as I'm not familiar with it <eeek ... > Sandy (Talk) 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Bubba73 (talk), 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Knight (chess)

Hi, Bubba. I don't object to you putting the symbols in. All I saw was the change in formatting. Please feel free to put the symbols back in. - Richardcavell 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a photo, not symbols. I'll give it another try. Bubba73 (talk), 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Botvinnik photos

Hi there - I've re-inserted the original photo later in the article, which seems to work quite well. That photo also appears in the World Championship (history section) - so I was keen to inject some variety with the new previously unused photo. Brittle heaven 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Spurious AfD

Your input is urgently needed on a spurious AfD [5]. -- Fyslee 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi again, Bubba73! Please, did you checked the description of the place of birth of chess in the book? Was it really Italy? Thanks, --Ioannes Pragensis 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

no. I was just about to comment on that in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Zugzwang

Your recent edit to Zugzwang (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You reverted the wrong one. Bubba73 (talk), 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Bubba73, there are still commentaries and questions in the text of the chess article, esp. in the History part. (They are visible only in the edit mode, in the <!-- --> tags.) Could you please clear it with help of your excellent books and your knowledge of English? Thanks,--Ioannes Pragensis 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I had been looking for "cite needed". I think I addressed all of those in the history section. Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! PLease rethink once more the sentence "Computers also enabled the quick growth of popularity of online chess with started with the growth of the Internet starting in the mid 1990s." - it contains 2 x "growth" and 2 x "start" - it does not sound well. Thanks, --Ioannes Pragensis 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be fixed. Bubba73 (talk), 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks much better now, thanks.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For rewriting Chess from a poor "brilliant prose promotion" to a featured article, helping retain its star on review, I award you The Editor’s Barnstar. Nice job, excellent effort, and thankless work! Sandy (Talk) 02:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it seems to me that there is perhaps too much stuff about the old shatranj rules there... Merry Christmas! --Ioannes Pragensis 11:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi, well done fixing ISBNs. Good idea about the edit summary, I will think about it before the next run. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07 27 December 2006 (GMT).


Hi Bubba73,

Admittedly the citation documentation is less than clear. I was sure I read it somewhere, but it took me some time to find it again. Here is a link that claims that The following templates are deprecated. But I may have misinterpreted something, because as said I find it all less than clear. Thanks for bringing the issue up, if you want to respond please leave a note at my talk page. Sander123 16:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)