User talk:Bubba73/Archive 7 (2011)

The Downlink: Issue 0

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 0, December 2010
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below. Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group. A number of issues are still under discussion: Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones Improving the profile and activity of the project Much of the current discussion is taking place on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page, however there is still some discussion on the original proposal page. User Activity Checks A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 1, January 2011
Welcome to The Downlink · Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics · Salyut 2 Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements. Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details. Project News A new working group has been formed. The space stations working group is expected to work towards creating Featured topics related to space stations. It currently has three members. Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal. A discussion regarding opening relations with the Aerospace biography task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation was held, but no conclusions were reached. The Article Alerts bot has resumed operation, and a problem with the information the bot had been delivering was discussed and resolved. New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented. Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it. Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised. One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class. News from Orbit On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article. On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles. On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite. 17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles. Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger on mission STS-51-L. Article News It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight. Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain. Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited. The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts. Missile Range Instrumentation Ship is currently listed at requested moves, with a proposal to rename it tracking ship. The only open good article nomination is of the book Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, which is currently awaiting review. Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic. Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project. One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative. To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN. This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided. I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content. Selected Article – Salyut 2 Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission. The Salyut 2 article describes the station: “ Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyut space stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973. ” The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

AN/I

Hi, Bubba73! Just wanted to give you some advice on this issue as I'm sure you saw that I commented at AN/I. The first thing to do when a new editor is reverting and doing other "bad" things is go to WP:WARN, pick out a nice level one appropriate warning, reference the article (and even add some advice): and then see what happens. If they continue to ignore and/or blank their page and repeat the behavior: step up the warning template and direct them firmly to the talk page. If they still continue after repeated escalating warnings: go to WP:AN3 in the case of edit-warring and file a report. By this time, an admin (or watcher who will alert an admin) might have already blocked the user: not always, but now you've got a "paper trail" of evidence to show you did all you could to stop any possibly disruptive activity. Anyway, I hope I wasn't too "curt" in my AN/I comment, and Cheers :> Doc talk 06:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Bubba73/Archive 7 (2011)! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter UFO incident

This isn't vandalism: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Adambro (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked about this the other day, and they said to revert and warn the editor (see AN/I above). That editor has been disruptive on that article for several days. I made comments in the edit summaries. I wrote on the article's talk page. I left a welcome message on the user's talk page. I left a level-1 warning. I recently left a level-2 warning. How do you suggest it be handled? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Bubba73. You have new messages at Adambro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Was that UFO incident in any way connected with the rabbit incident, or were they independent events? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely independent (Jimmy Carter rabbit incident). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There were a lot of jokes about this at the time, but an animal in the wild doesn't usually approach a person. If an animal acts strangely, they may be rabid. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You bet. Fending it off with an oar was probably a good thing to do, as we didn't need to have our first President ever to die from rabies. And maybe you remember that killer rabbit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

books about chess variants

Yes, our strongest defense against the destruction of most of the material about chess variants on Wikipedia lies in providing "reliable sources" from tangible reference books (such as Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants).

FYI- "9250" announced today that he is working on a book about 3-D chess variants.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/3-d-chess/message/2156

I dearly hope he follows thru.

-DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

I'm confused by this. All books are not created equal. I'd much rather have a book by the likes of Jean-Louis Cazaux. In my opinion '9250' (James Trimm) is not a credible source on anything. Just because someone prints ink on wood pulp does not give credibility. (If it did, the world would be a very fake place indeed.)

There is lots of work by many varied authors, some quite credible, at Zillions and Chessvariants. Why can't they be reliable sources in some cases? Because trees weren't felled? (I don't get it!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have Pritchard's encyclopedia but no others on chess variants. That is a good reliable source but it might not be the only one. All articles need a reliable source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Zugzwang

Works for me. Gut (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Genrikh Kasparyan picture

I just uploaded the file File:Birth Centenary of Henrik Kasparyan.jpg on Commons. I leave it to you to decide if this is a replacement for your fair use file File:Kasparian.jpg, but I thought I should tell you because I don't know much about the fair use laws, so you might have to update the description or something. If you want to reply to me, please also leave me a note on de:Benutzer Diskussion:Conspiration since I'm not often on en-wikipedia. --Con^structor 13:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 2, February 2011
Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · The Charts · Yuri Gagarin Project News A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing. A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles. The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field. Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list. Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved. A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them). Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk · contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project. News from orbit Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article. On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission. The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January. Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit. A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space Shuttle Discovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank. At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February. Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable. Article news Reaction Engines Skylon is currently undergoing peer review, its discussion page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1. A user requested feedback on major changes which had been made to the article, however at the time of writing no responses have been offered. Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria. Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved. A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle Questions surrounding the transliteration of Russian names resurfaced, with a proposal to rename Vladimir Chelomey to Vladimir Chelomei being closed with no consensus, and a proposal to rename Yury Usachov to Yuri Usachev ongoing. Several long-standing merger proposals were closed. A proposal to merge Venera 15 and Venera 16 into Venera 15 and 16 was closed as no consensus, with the combined page being moved to Venera 4V-2 to reduce the overlap in the articles' scopes. Returnable satellite was merged into Fanhui Shi Weixing. Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures was nominated for Good Article reassessment due to concerns over the article's quality. Doubts were also expressed over the thoroughness of the original review conducted upon its nomination for GA status. It was also suggested that the article's title may not be the most common name for the experiment, and that it might be necessary to move the page. Concerns were also raised regarding whether Space Interferometry Mission was up-to-date, however these are being addressed. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet looks likely to be promoted to GA status. Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article. Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight. Stop press: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet has now been promoted to GA status. The Charts There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories. № Article Movement 1 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↑14 (15) 2 Richard Branson ↑5 (7) 3 Neil Armstrong ↑2 (5) 4 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ↑16 (20) 5 Global Positioning System ↓2 (3) 6 Apollo 11 ↑2 (8) 7 Satellite ↑4 (11) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger ↑42 (50) 9 Apollo 13 ↓3 (6) 10 NASA ↓1 (9) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for January). Selected Article: Yuri Gagarin Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968. His article describes him and his spaceflight experience: “ Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Russian: Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́рин, Russian pronunciation: [ˈjurʲɪj ɐlʲɪˈksʲeɪvʲɪtɕ ɡɐˈɡarʲɪn]; 9 March 1934 – 27 March 1968), Hero of the Soviet Union, was a Soviet cosmonaut who on 12 April 1961 became the first human to journey into outer space. On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky. ” The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

response

Bubba73 most humble apologies - i should put my bloody glasses on before diving in. sorry and go with pencil in hand. cheers keith nunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith nunes (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SusanPolgar10b.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SusanPolgar10b.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations Bubba73, your image Image:FortSumter2009.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina.

Image credit: Bubba73 (talk · contribs)

- Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of =[Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate]]

The article Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nczempin (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I notified you because the link "Contributors" said that you were the most active contributor on that page. I may be that the script got confused. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Tom_Clancy%27s_Splinter_Cell:_Checkmate Nczempin (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - it does show that, but on the page history of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate, I've never edited it. But I have edited checkmate. I noticed other top editors of checkmate also being listed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pritchard's ECV

Thx for your note re non-notables, Bubba. (And I see Mr. Kaufmann is cleaning up the variants article!)

Curious. Did you get the ECV (1994), or the Classified (2007)? (I have both. But I much more enjoy the 1994 orig - for many reasons!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have the new edition. I got it a few months ago because I wanted to be able to check new variants to see if they are notable. I got tired of seeing variants that they just made up at school two days ago. I haven't gotten to cleaning out old ones though.

Just yesterday two kids at my daugheter's school chess club (which I coach) made up a variant. They put the pieces on the third and sixth ranks; and and pieces are pawns and pawns are pieces. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing the first edition, but the second edition is a really nice production, in my opinion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, I could go on & on how/why I feel the 1994 ed. is more enjoyable & easier to use! Not only that, but Beasley points out he dropped certain things from the 1st edition (like sample games), thinking readers of 2nd ed. will already own 1st ed. (!). Also, *all* of the 1st ed. artwork/graphics/diagrams/photos were lost or misplaced and only a partial of that was recreated for the 2nd ed. (and more crudely, me thinks!). As mentioned I could go on & on, but I'll stop here.  :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I've never seen the first edition. I did read in the second edition about them not having the original artwork. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can ever get your hands on 1st ed., I highly recommend. (Granted, 2nd ed. has some updated Pritchard file info on some vars. But a lot was dropped, too. But there are other significant diffs between the editions. (You'll know what I mean, when you *own* 1st ed.! Soooo much more an enjoyable read!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TalVisitByFischer.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:TalVisitByFischer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PaulKeres47.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PaulKeres47.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SovietTeam1954.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SovietTeam1954.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this from David Bronstein and put more justification for its use in 11th Chess Olympiad. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bronstein2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bronstein2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:LStein.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:LStein.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is not needed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 3, March 2011
Project News News from Orbit Article News Direction of the Project The Charts Europa Project News There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger. An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project. User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation. News from orbit Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites. A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space Shuttle Discovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not. Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed. 4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data System communications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew. A Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle is expected to deploy the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft during a launch in March. The flight has been delayed several times, and was expected to have launched last month, however it is currently scheduled to occur no earlier than 20 March. On 29 March, an Ariane 5ECA will launch the Yahsat 1A and New Dawn communications satellites. Both currently require articles. On 30 March, a Soyuz-FG will launch the manned Soyuz TMA-21 mission to the International Space Station carrying three Expedition 27 crewmembers. On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear. Article news Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities. Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected. It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user. Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed. A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy. A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain. A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions. It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested. Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list. Editorial: Direction of the Project Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project. Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far. Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch‎, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks. Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated. In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-) The Charts Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off. Satellite was the most popular article of February, up six places from seventh in December. STS-133 was the highest climber in the top 10, up 78 places from 88th. January's most popular article, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, dropped seven places to eighth. Moon landing remains ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories for the second month in a row. Of the top ten, two articles are featured content, two are listed as Good Articles, and the remaining six are assessed as C-class. № Article Movement 1 Satellite ↑6 (7) 2 Space Shuttle ↑11 (13) 3 NASA ↑7 (10) 4 Neil Armstrong ↓1 (4) 5 Apollo 13 ↑4 (9) 6 Global Positioning System ↓1 (5) 7 International Space Station ↑5 (12) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↓7 (1) 9 Apollo 11 ↓3 (6) 10 STS-133 ↑78 (88) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for February). Selected Article: Europa Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it: “ The Europa rocket was an early expendable launch system of the European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO), which was the precursor to the European Space Agency and its Ariane family of launchers. The programme was initiated by the UK and the first launch occurred in August 1967. Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage. The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects : Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed. ” The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

B & W

Hi Bubba; Personally, I prefer "Black" and "White" over "black" and "white" when referring to the players. (It's how I grew up.) But, I notice in lots and lots of WP articles, smalls are used instead. (So, I have tried to stay consistent w/ that apparent convention, when making an edit.)

I don't mind smalls too much, but it seems to me consistency should be the thing. That said, is this a "bigger" issue - e.g., should all WP chess articles be either one way [caps], or the other [smalls], for consistency? (Is there any consensus on it; has it ever been discussed?)

p.s. I'm also don't prefer "bishop", "king", etc., preferring instead "Bishop", "King". (Because again, I grew up that way. And, I think caps for piece names is more logical as well, since the caps correspond better to their single letter abbrevs in algebraic: Bg2, Kh1, etc.) But again, I've used smalls on piece names since that is what I've been seeing on WP.

Let me know your thoughts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the Chess Project, and the consensus is to use "Black" and "White" when it stands in for a person, but lower case when referring to pieces (e.g. "the black rook"). They are caps when used to stand for a person because it is sort of like a proper noun. I think the articles are mostly consistent, and I change them when I see an inconsistency. I see almost all lower case for the pieces, and I think that is the preference of of the members of the chess project. I see them uppercase mostly in old literature. (They are not proper nouns.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx for the clarification! I do think the consensus to use smalls has a weird effect though ... the phrase "the black rook" can only mean one thing in chess: the rook owned by Black. (So "black rook" is synonymous to "Black's rook".) If that weren't the case, then "the black rook" means "the rook colored black color", and I don't think color is really being referred to per se (probably a bad idea anyway since FIDE mandates only "dark"). So to me "Black rook" always means "Black's rook", so my vote would have been for caps, even though the word itself is holding the spot of an adjective in the sentence, when really it's like an implied & abbrev'd possessive.

Anyway, that's my analysis. (... I "resign".)  :) I'm glad to know what the WP convention is! Thx.

BTW could you let me know if I got any of these wrong? (Thx again!)

• 1) "Who is playing the black pieces in this game?"
• 2) "Did you say Browne is playing the black side?"
• 3) "Did you say Browne is playing Black?"
• 4) "If Browne is Black, who is White?"
• 5) "Who was the White player for that game?"
• 6) "Did Browne have White?"

p.s. No pun intended on name "Browne" (Walter Browne).  :)

p.p.s. Did any make you "think"?  ;)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think those all agree with the convention. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, #6 - maybe not. "Did Browne have black?" Seems the same as "Did Browne have the black pieces?" But "Was Browne Black?". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "have" changes everything in #6. I missed it. Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Found one that's even harder! Are pieces being referred to, or the players?:

A) "... similar to Chess960, but the opening white and black positions do not mirror each other."

B) "... similar to Chess960, but the opening White and Black positions do not mirror each other."

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, these two (phrase conditions) keep throwing me:

1) "A brilliant White move" vs. "A brilliant white move".
2) "The Black position is weak" vs. "The black position is weak".

Since "move" and "position" don't refer to pieces, I've preferred CAP on White & Black in those cases. (But! There are other phrase conditions not related to pieces which are clear, e.g. "the black square a1", etc., so, I have doubt.)

Your eval? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC) p.s. Is it a gray area? (Pun intended!) ;)

That is a close call, but I think it should be caps, since it is equivalent to "a brilliant move by Black". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, we agree, but the reason is maybe confused (e.g. if "a weak black pawn move" can be rewritten "a weak pawn move by Black", is there a difference w/ your "brilliant move by Black" example?). After thinking some more on it, I'm thinking now the division line is probably implied to be about actual color (i.e. a "piece" can have actual color, so can a square; but not a "move", or a "position"). How's does that analysis sit w/ you? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"... black pawn move" could be either way. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

letters on diagram squares

Hi Bubba, I put up a Parton var I've always been fascinated by (2000 A.D. – whaddya think?). I see you coded the chess diag templates, they allow #s to be put on sqrs but not letters (if I read it right), so I created a graphic instead, making look like a template diag, to accomodate all the letters I needed, since iconics of course aren't avail. Has any thought been given for adding ability to place letters in sqrs, not only #s? Thx for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it - a good start. I didn't have anything to do with writing the template and I don't know anything about how to do it. What I did is write a program that runs under Windows that lets you enter a position graphically (also with numbers, black dots, white dots, and Xs on the squares) and it will generate the WP diagram for it. It works for 8x8 with regular pieces only. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Shuttle question

The misc ref desk has a question about the shuttle. It occurred to me that if anyone knows the answer, it might well be you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Supermoon

My bad, thank you :) - Jessiessica (talk · contribs)

No probs. I am new to editing Wiki and didn't realise such a thing could happen. Thanks for letting me know. - Jessiessica (talk · contribs)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't change anything, but I did update Template:Service Awards so you jumped a level, and will again shortly. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:NOAD.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NOAD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Damiens.rf 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Value of chess pieces.

Hello there, I am the user with IP 189.79.206.127 and I did the change that was erroneously identified as vandalism. The original text said that a good bishop values 10% of a bad bishop or more, and that's ridiculous. It implies that you would need up to 10 good bishops to match a bad one. The author wanted to say that a good bishop is worthy 10 percent more than a bad bishop or even more, which is pretty much the same thing of saying it values 110% of a bad one or more. That's the change I made. You're mistaking your ignorance of simple math for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel dCF (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the sentence was ambiguous. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

do you play chess?

when I write about chess I use the descriptive notation, not the short notation. I lot of books write move using descriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

	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

A position like this is not illegal. The king is safe from attack.

	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

But if you castle queenside then it's not okay.

Wikipedia uses algebraic notation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I bet that none of your books using descriptive notation were written in the last 25 years. Descriptive notation has been obsolete for more than 25 years. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I have a book called "The Chess Doctor" which uses both notations, so writing with discriptive wouldn't hurt in wikipedia at all. You just have to know how to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Pages of that book are available online and every page I looked at uses only algebraic notation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of pages use descriptive. Even if most pages are short algebraic notation so there is nothing wrong with descriptive. In fact some write moves like this: 1 e2-e4, e7-e5, etc. So there's no one right way to write moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is something wrong with descriptive notation - it has been obsolete for more than 25 years. Wikipedia doesn't use it. FIDE doesn't accept it, and I don't think the US Chess Federation does either. I don't know of any major chess organization that accepts it and no recent publications use it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Castling

Don't worry, the world won't cave in because we disagree with such a rule. 64.134.67.201 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is about what the actual rule is, not what you want it to be. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Queen versus pawn endgame

It appears you have done a lot of work on this article, with very nice results. I want to mention a key position which is not included in the article. It is the position White: Ke5, Qd5; Black: Kd2, Pc2; Black to move. We know it’s a draw, because the white king can’t reach b3 or e2 in two moves. But out of Black’s five legal moves, four of them lose, and the one drawing move may not be easy to find in actual play.

After each of Black’s losing moves, White has only one move to win. White must reply to Kc3 with Qd4+, to Kc1 or Ke2 with Qa2, and to Ke3 with Qg2. The last of these is probably White’s hardest winning move to find.

After the correct 1…Ke1, Black must still play accurately to draw. Play might continue 2 Qa5+ Kd1 3 Qa4 Kd2 4 Qa2. Now we have the position of Trap #2, when Black must play Kc3! to hold the draw.

Do you think it would be worthwhile to include this position in the article? Several endgame books fail to mention it, but I think it should be learned by anyone who claims to know the queen vs. pawn endgame. I learned it from Horowitz, I. A. (1957), How to Win in the Chess Endings, David McKay Company, Inc., ISBN 978-0679140153, p. 178. N9531l (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick answer - it sounds good. I have that book; I'll look it up. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I made a mistake in reverting something you edited on that page, about what square the king needs to get to and in how many moves. I was looking at the text above the diagram in question instead of below. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And interestingly, I was talking about queen vs. pawn on seventh rank to my daughter's chess club yesterday. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Searching for Bobby Fisher accusations of vandalism

You know, adding unsourced, but accurate, information has never been considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Did you bother to check before you accused me of it? It's a sad state of affairs where accurate corrections are reverted as vandalism and the contributor reprimanded. [1], [2], [3], also the commentary in Chessmaster 11. Now, I know that I don't have a perfect source here, since Waitzkin can't be considered a 100% reliable source about himself. But I think it suffices for something like this and the information in the article right now isn't sourced to anything. But hey, you're the boss. If you want to keep bad info in Wikipedia, that's your call. -67.180.254.114 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up in the book and gave the page numbers. And the first reference you give confirms what I said. It says that a draw would give him first place on tiebreakers, which means that their actual score was tied. In those cases, they are declared co-champions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll take your word for it, though I don't really understand what a tiebreaker is, if not to break ties. But I don't play tournament chess. The first refence specifically says "Josh knew that he only needed a draw to win the Championship on tie-breaks" - so he won the Championship, but they were co-champions? I don't understand that.

I apologize for my tone, but I made a good faith contribution and being accused of vandalism is just irksome. You didn't engage me in discussion at all, just a revert and a vandalism warning. Don't we use WP:AGF anymore? Try to be more considerate of your fellow contributors in the future. 208.97.245.131 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to take my word for it - read the account in the book (I added the page numbers). Both players won the first six games. They played a draw in the seventh/final game, which gave them equal scores (6.5 points each). Now such ties are often broken by playing more games, but in the past Tie-breaking in Swiss-system tournaments were used. These are numerical tie-breakers based on games already played - not additional games. (These tie-breakers can be partially calculated before the last round, which is how Josh could know he would be in first place if he drew the last game with Jeff.) The tiebreaker would be to give the first place trophy to one and the second place trophy to the other. But titles (and cash prizes, if applicable) were awarded equally, making them co-champions.

Yes, now I believe your edit was in good faith, and I removed the warning from your talk page. But I have approximately 100 pages on my watchlist, and I have to revert vandalism several times a week (sometimes several times a day). Putting incorrect information into chess articles is one of their favorite things to do. Most of the vandals are anons, without a history of good edits to chess articles. Your one previous edit was blanking someone's user page. So I jumped to conclusions a little quickly, I apologize for that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:FilipAndTal.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FilipAndTal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Damiens.rf 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Reshevsky1960.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Reshevsky1960.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Reshevsky&Fischer.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Reshevsky&Fischer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ReginaFischer.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ReginaFischer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpasskyFischer1972color.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SpasskyFischer1972color.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason it is not used in any articles is that you removed it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PetrosianFischer1971cropped.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PetrosianFischer1971cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FischerSpasskyShakeHands.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FischerSpasskyShakeHands.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpasskyFisher1972b.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SpasskyFisher1972b.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:KaspyKarpov.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:KaspyKarpov.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fischer vs Spassky photo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SpasskyFischer1972color.jpg

Bubba, help! I don't understand the legalise. ("Market role"? "Rationale"? Does rationale have two diff defs? The justification to use in Bobby Fischer article doesn't need a defense. So I don't get the bad that's happening.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:PetrosianFischer1958.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:PetrosianFischer1958.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TalBot1960.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:TalBot1960.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

what it looked like is important. Contrast these conditions with the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match - the plain wooden chairs versus th Eanes executive chairs, the table, etc. It shows how much the conditions for chessplayers changed as a result of the Fischer-Spassky match. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SpasskyFischer1972.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SpasskyFischer1972.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tal1971.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Tal1971.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:EuweBotvinnik.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:EuweBotvinnik.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:what chess matches looked like

If you want to include some discussion of the change in the way chess players were treated, sourced to reliable sources, then go ahead. However, you can't try to justify blanket use of non-free images of chess matches based on your claims about how important it is to see how the players were treated... J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There was some of that in a photo at World Chess Championship 1972, with a reference, but someone removed it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Centipede floor.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Centipede floor.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

replaced by File:Millipede on floor.jpg. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A minor vandal

I have a relatively puckish bent to my personality, that combined with some impulse control issues tends to have me change some things for purposes of entertainment rather than education. But this impulse is very rare and I find has dwindled as I have matured. I am an avid user of Wikipedia and very much appreciate the work you fine people do. And so while I have done some minor acts of mischief in the past I hope to in the future redeem myself. To become a sort of Wikipedia Eugène François Vidocq, the french father of criminology, who was himself once a criminal.

But I digress. I hope my suggestion on how to deal with the Palin/ Revere Problem is helpful. Good night to you and as a resident of Arkansas, I hope the heat breaks soon. If you wish to respond please do it on my talk page, I am new to conversing via this method and it has a bit of a learning curve. ForeverZero (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverZero (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But if you change something for your entertainment, if no one catches that, it will misinform someone else. What if you go to Wikipedia to learn something, but someone has put in false information? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really positive about life, but from time to time I seem to like to set my flesh on fire.  ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:FilipAndTal.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:FilipAndTal.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Chess Life DVDs

Yes, the Chess Life DVD set includes all pages of the magazines including ads, announcements and rating lists. They are scanned images collected into PDFs, typically a single PDF for a year's worth of magazines. Unfortunately there's no OCR or electronic index, so you have to search them visually unless you know where to look. Quale (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Award

	The Order of Apollo
	For defending the honor of US history and our brave astronauts. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

hey, thanks, I have a print of that photo on my office wall. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wide TOCs

Hi Bubba. You mentioned a TOC is too wide, if it can't fit the notation tag. And I see you slendered a TOC on one of the articles (can't remember which one at the moment!). Ok, now I have done it too (my first): Ruy Lopez. (How did I do?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I had no similar issue, when adapting notation tag–TOC to: Hedgehog, Hungarian Defense, Keres Defense, Modern Defense, Scotch Game, Staunton Gambit, Symmetrical Defence, Three Knights Opening, Maroczy Bind, Baltic Defense, Torre Attack, Marshall Defense, Sicilian Defence, Overloading (chess), Sicilian Defence, Accelerated Dragon, Poisoned Pawn Variation, Queen's Gambit, Queen's Gambit Declined, Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense, Joel Lautier, and Queen's Gambit Declined, Rubinstein Trap. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the width of the TOC depends on the length of the longest section title and the size of the font you use. I use large fonts so one was too wide to display well on my screen. One section title was much too long anyway, so I shortened it.

On Ruy Lopez on my screen, it puts the notation box above the TOC, left of the info box. The section titles must be too long. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, shortened Ruy Lopez section title further (by removing word "the"). Also shortened the notation Side box itself. (How does Ruy Lopez appear on your screen now?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. Remembered the article! (It was Susan Polgar.)

It depends on how wide I have my browser window. I have a 16:9 screen. I usually have the browser windowed to about what it would be with a 4:3 screen. With that, the TOC and info box together are wider than the window would be, so it places the TOC entirely below the info box and the notation box above the TOC, which actually isn't too bad. If I widen my browser window enough, the TOC and info box will fit side-by-side, and it changes to do that and then the notation box is to the right of the TOC. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx. Ruy Lopez has the widest section titles I've run into to-date. Don't see any practical way to shorten further. I guess one exception ain't so bad!? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't very bad, just isn't optimal. It is good enough as it is. But I think the moves could be taken out of the two long section titles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! But I'll leave that up to you to do, if you like. (With more than 11,000 views of Ruy Lopez in last 30 days, I'm afraid to do myself!) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Unknown guitarist.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Unknown guitarist.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Chess Attack

Hi! Would you mind taking a look at that article's talk page, where I responded to your tagging it. As I say there, I don't have any strong feelings about it, so if you want to nominate it for deletion, that's ok with me, even though the last edition of Pritchard's was published before this variant came to be. But I feel it should either be AfD'ed or the tag removed. Cheers! Asav (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Central Georgia Task Force

Suggest you add your name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/Task forces and work groups for the Central Georgia Task Force. Please help find others who are interested. Tamer_of_Hope talk 00:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No 'pos=section'

Hi Bubba, I think the current options (left–right, and artcile/section/diagram levels) gives notation tag the flexibility for perfect & appropriate application to any article. (I don't see how it could be better. What do you think?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, 'pos=secright' (Carlos Torre), not 'pos=sectright'. FYI. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:CapaPortrait.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CapaPortrait.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Vssun (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Capablanca2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Capablanca2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Vssun (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Apollo Hoax in Popular Culture

An article that you have been involved in editing, Apollo hoax in popular culture, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo hoax in popular culture (2nd nomination). Thank you. Senior Trend (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

hello,

can you provide the name of the sculptor on File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg? This issue was mentioned on Talk:Otis Redding/GA1. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 15:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Cooley, http://bronzebycooley.com/resume.html Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Dashes"

Hello, Bubba73. You have new messages at Ihardlythinkso's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New tb msg. Let me know if I got it wrong. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Haber Process editorials

Bubba 73,

I am taking this opportunity to express my discontent over your dictatorship regarding my editing powers on wikipedia. After I made an in depth, revolutionary discovery, and posted it on the Haber Process page under catalysts, you completely undermined my work by deleting it.

Furthermore, I do not appreciate warnings whereby you state that I have vandalized, when clearly you are uneducated on the topic.

Best Regard, and Kind Wishes

Donald Frump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.192.238 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know unless the JB Portal was suddenly linked in a lot more places. I added Outline of chess in a few places but I see that you added several more yesterday. That deserves a lot more traffic, and probably the way to do it is list it under "see also" in appropriate articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What I think happened was that the portal box was aleady placed on many James Bond-related pages, and when the movie announcement hit, those pages got more traffic, and so the portal box naturally got clicked on more. The Transhumanist 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ELO Ratings

As you see, I'm not a mathematician, LOL-just good at arithmetic, if not quite at the level Tal was reputed to be! Hushpuckena (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Queen (chess)

Thanks. I have reached my limit for undoing that edit, so if you or the anon put it in I won't change it back. Although I haven't encountered that phrase it is certainly plausible and I believe that you and others have seen or heard it. The wording currently in the article agrees with my experience, although it isn't referenced. (Something that I or someone else should fix.) Quale (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to put it in. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

PGN

Oh cool, I'm glad you caught that. I didn't notice that was a <pre> block of text or I wouldn't have made the change. Thanks for letting me know, I'll be more careful.—Chowbok ☠ 04:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In chess, a draw is indicated by 1/2-1/2 or ½-½ (since each player gets a half point), see algebraic chess notation. It is probably not a good idea to change them to the fractional representation in other chess articles. Thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Notation box

Hi Bubba, I added two "silent" options (because of tendency – I do it too! – to type "section" instead of "secright", etc.):

• 'pos=section' (defaults to 'pos=secright')
• 'pos=example' (defaults to 'pos=egright')

(But am thinking of keeping them *out* of the Doc file, because not really necessary, and could make the Doc seem even more complex. Let me know what you think.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't used the "example" form. I think the new "section" is a good idea because I use "secright" a lot and I mistype it sometimes. I think it would be good to have in the documentation. I've been making changes to the notation box as I come across them, but I haven't been seeking them out. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done. (I updated the Doc file: Template:Algebraic notation.) I also added option 'pos=toc' for shorter typing (defaults to 'pos=tocleft'). Good? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Alan Sheppard statue.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan Sheppard statue.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. I'm glad you find the Outline of chess informative and useful.

By the way, what do you like about it? How do you make use of it? The Transhumanist 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really use it, but it is a great way to organize the chess knowledge. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

2005 YU55

Hi Bubba, I noticed that we were editing the same page at the same time and wanted to avoid editing conflicts. I don't mind personally whether the dates are in date month year format or month date, year but please ensure that all of the dates on the same page are consistent. You might want to address the kilometers/miles conversions, too, if you have the time. Again we should aim for consistency, in my opinion. At the moment some use or, some use a semicolon, some are linked, others are not. I think the first instance might be appropriate to link. I'll leave the fine details to you. Thank you. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't changing the format on any. I just inserted a needed comma in the first one I changed and the other one was something like "16 November 16 2011" so I had to eliminate one of the dates and pick a format. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I gave it half an hour and looked back to see what you'd done, at which point I realised that it had previously said '16 November 16 2011'. I then altered your correction to favour the date month year format, as per the rest of the article. I began altering your first edit as you were making your second, so afterwards it looked to me like you were perhaps going to make a few more. My mistake. No worries, eh? Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

1.e4 test

Hi Bubba, I was curious to try out OCTAVIO's idea of "1.e4" instead of chessboard symbol (an idea he proposed after Adpete expressed view that any symbol would be distracting and inconsistent w/ hatnote). Testcases. (What do you think?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is good. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Better than the chessboard symbol? (And if so do you think I s/ change the template over to it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yrs, I think the move is better than the board because the notation is explaining the move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I updated Template talk:Algebraic notation about the change. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 17

This ref desk question[4] is already answered, or I would have asked you to comment. However, it's an interesting discussion, to me anyway, as it explains something I also wondered about when I had seen that picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is distortion from the camera angle, but I'm not sure. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really, it's just a hill in background, as the wider angles show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I didn't read down far enough. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thx for past yr.

Hi Bubba, thx for your mentorship since I signed on ... I do think I've improved over the last year (that wasn't difficult!). Anyway, I especially like the challenge of transforming dysfunction into something more readable. That said, if there's ever an article you specially like me to "naw on" (and u trust me w/ it) be sure to let me know. (I learn by doing.) Happy holiday, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Esserman

Hey Bubba, I really appreciate all you do for chess articles on Wikipedia, but I think that this AfD for Esserman is going a bit too far. I see lots of other IMs on here, and this Esserman article is extremely well-sourced! Tfine80 (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If you give me a list I will try to work on getting them deleted, if I have time. But you can help by putting them up under AfD. I'll probably work on Murray Turnbull next.

This didn't just come out of the blue - I asked at the chess project first (on November 8):

• talk:WikiProject Chess#Marc Esserman

I got support for deleting it before I started the AfD.

As far as sources, there are references to games in local newspapers. If he is a notable chess player, how about some references to his games in Chess Informant or New in Chess? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You know what is on Wikipedia far better than I do. Please don't be coy... I still don't understand how Esserman could possibly be the most appropriate target. Read through the articles. These games received major international attention... Tfine80 (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are others. But I spend part of my time looking at recent changes to chess articles and I noticed it. If you put Abby Marshall on AfD, I certainly won't oppose it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I was also considering Jordy Mont-Reynaud, but he did hold the record for being the youngest master in the US ever. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Chess aesthetics

Why did you undo my last edit? What did you mean by this: "Edit to make consistent with Chess aesthetics, as rewue"? Azlan Iqbal 05:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

That was a typo. "Rewue" should be "request". In the edit comment to your edit to chess at Dec. 27, 19:32, you said "If you are going to do this (COI), then I insist you also delete the entire entry on chess aesthetics. Or keep both. Be consistent." The entry on chess aesthetics was deleted so I deleted it at chess, as you wanted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My "request" was that you delete the whole chess aesthetics page if you think there is a COI from my single sentence at the "chess" page because I essentially wrote that whole "chess aesthetics" page. By the way, that single sentence at "chess" has been edited so there is no reference whatsoever to my own publication. Azlan Iqbal 05:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

The chess article is for a very general audience - it is not an academic paper. What you added is inappropriate. Read what people are telling you in the edit summaries and on your talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I *have* read them and have made appropriate changes. Some (including you) have even made changes to the "chess aesthetics" page with no objections from me. Why is my one line on the "chess" page still inappropriate? I provided a dozen references (that are not my own) to illustrate the relevance of computational chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition. The section on the "chess" page otherwise makes no mention of this. The general audience will be (wrongly) inclined to think that computer scientists over the decades have accomplished nothing more than making computers *play* chess.--Azlan Iqbal 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

What Bubba73 means is the way you wrote it. See our manual of style.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So why don't one of you rewrite it instead of just throwing everything out?--Azlan Iqbal 06:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

Let's be civil please. Given your close connection with the subject (a COI), I'd highly advise that you do not try to do this directly, but suggest on the talk page only. This part of chess is very non-notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Right - I was just about to say that. Putting it in the chess article would not be balanced, compared to the rest of the article. Also, it is your (Azlan Iqbal) opinion that it is so important, and your original research. Wikipedia mainly relies on secondary sources, not primary sources, so it would be better if a book or periodical written by someone else examined the issue. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources (e.g. reputable publications on the subject); otherwise, the material is going to be out-of-date (decades out of date, even). It could take years before "someone else" bothers to write on Wikipedia about it. I have presented you with many reliable references on the subject that span decades. I have removed my own (latest) reference on the subject. I have even welcomed what I think are reasonable changes to "my" chess aesthetics page. I don't know what else to do to convince you all that all this is worth one line of mention on the "chess" page.--Azlan Iqbal 06:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

You have no right to act like you own a page you create. My issue is the undue weight you are putting on this part of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Azlan, you need to put this on the chess talk page. The other editors involved may not see it here.

As far as "other writers", that doesn't mean other Wikipedia editors, it means secondary sources. The opinion of five neutral editors seems to be that it isn't important enough to be included in the chess article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided a dozen references (excluding my own) to back my claim of the subject's "weight" (to justify its one line, that is). Can any of you explain why you think it's still not relevant? (By the way, can someone with more experience move this to the proper talk page? Thanks).--Azlan Iqbal 06:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The reference count simply doesn't matter when you consider that there are probably thousands of references on the other parts of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, this is a general article, not academic research. The references you gave appear to be primary sources, not secondary sources. I see four problem areas:

1. wp:COI a conflict of interest - you are talking about your research
2. wp:OR this is related to #1, but Wikipecia is not a publisher of original research, and what you have done is original research
3. wp:secondary the sources need to be independent secondary sources.
4. WP:UNDUE undue weight on such a specialized topic in a general article.

I'm going to bed.Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I have removed any references to my original research, as requested. I cited only work that came before what I did (we're talking about the one line on the "chess" page here, not the "chess aesthetics" page). So the first two problem areas are not relevant. I don't understand the third one. You mean I cannot cite other peoples research? As for the number of references, it does not matter if there is just one or a thousand reputable references for the subject. It has been documented and belongs (i.e. worth a mention) in the "mathematics and computers" section.--Azlan Iqbal 06:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

It's original research for you to be making the claim of advances in chess aesthetics. For secondary sources, you must get sources from people who are generally outside this field. It hasn't been documented enough. Simple as that. WP:IDHTJasper Deng (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Those other references deal with aesthetics as well as problem composition. My paper is not even in the references. For the second point, you are saying that as a researcher in this field, I am not fit to even write what others have done in it? What do you mean by "documented enough"? Does Wikipedia have a specific number of references required for every claim in a sentence or is this just your view? I have seen pages on medical subjects with just one reference in a line. You're making such a big deal and crying about standards over a small section on chess??--Azlan Iqbal 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

Exactly. It's a small section. It's not a big 2000KB section. It's not that your reference is in there, it's that the other references are still too close to this subject. It's not the reference count that's the problem, it's the reference type, the amount of weight you are giving it, your conflict of interest. One good reference suffices, and the question here is the quality of your references. Also, SineBot labels your comments unsigned because you did not link to your contributions (Special:Contributions/Azlan Iqbal), your userpage, nor your user talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, if one of you were to do exactly what I have done on the "chess" page, it would be okay?--Azlan Iqbal 07:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Every point raised by Bubba73 except COI would still be valid.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how. Point (2) does not apply because I never referenced my "original research" nor is the subject new. Point (3) would be remedied if one of you wrote on the page exactly what I did. Or would a "reference" such as this or "Emil Vlasák (2009). Computer Recognition of Beauty in Chess, Computer News, EG, Alexander Rueb Vereniging voor Schaakeindspelstudie (ARVES), The Netherlands, No. 175, Vol. XV, Jan, pp. 31-36. ISSN 0012-7671" be required? Point (4) can be remedied with a warning like at the top of the "chess aesthetics" page, which I already invited Bubba73 to also place on the "chess" page, if he think necessary.--Azlan Iqbal 07:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)