User talk:Ihardlythinkso/Archive 1

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

Contents

chess project

Hello, you might like to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thx for the invite, Bubba! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

notability of chess variants

You said that some of the 98 chess variants that have articles are not notable. I agree. I got Pritchard's book a couple of months ago, and if a variant is not in it or some similar source, I think it should be deleted. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree of course. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

variants

To respond to your question at the Dragonchess article, I suspect that other than bughouse and chess960, very few of the variants are played much - especially seriously. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

chess notation

You removed the {chess notation} tag from Scholar's Mate. The convention is that articles that use chess notation for moves have that at the top. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx for your explain! (I removed it when deleting the static diagram, mistakenly thinking it was part of the diagram.)
The chess notation tag is cool! (Is there a specific spot/link you can give where I can read all about more chess edit conventions like that? Thx for advise.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and its talk page (and archives). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand Maack

Oh, it's not a big deal — it's just that when someone's doing a page move in AWB, the only choices of edit summary available in the dropdown menu are "typo in page name" and "reverting page move vandalism". So even though it wasn't really a "typo", as such, that still fit better than the other option did :-)

Anyway, you can view Wikipedia:Article titles if you need assistance in determining the best titles for future articles. I thought it specified the rule for personal names, but I can't find it there — but just so you know, our rule is to use just the name itself, and then disambiguate if necessary by putting the occupation in brackets after the name (i.e. if there were another notable Ferdinand Maack, we'd go with "Ferdinand Maack (doctor)" and "Ferdinand Maack (politician)". Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chess Illusion

Is Chess Illusion in the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, as the editor claims? (I don't see it in the second edition.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it definitely isn't. (Plus, the inventor on his homepage says he invented Illusion in *2011*.) I think the inventor (Carlos) is maybe too new to understand what "References" section is for, and is simply copying w/o understanding from other variant articles. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I assume it's okay if I weigh in on AfD discussion, that it's not just for Admins? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Hey look, there was no need to say what you said in Donald Trump's revision history page. If you didn't like what I did you could have just said so instead of being so rude and insulting me like that. My sources may not have been great but again you could have just said they didn't work. Please take what I said into consideration and think about what you say and how you say it. Thank you. 173.72.93.221 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. And I realize that my edit may have confused you because the vandalism that has happened before. If you would like to help me add the Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell feud to both pages that would be great since that was a big event in Hollywood. Again, thanks. 173.72.93.221 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with your User Page

It doesn't seem to have any of these on it:

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
To Ihardlythinkso for attentive edits to Zaw Htet Ko Ko, Zayar Thaw‎, Filep Karma‎, Nilar Thein‎, and Su Su Nway. -- Khazar (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Your articles are fascinating; the governments' responses to protesters are really eye-opening. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing and Queen Sacrifice

Thanks, I haven't been editing wikipedia for long and any other comments would be helpful.

Can you assess my work on queen sacrifice I have deleted all of the examples and replaced them with one detailed example. Please Comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talkcontribs) 16:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Gaon — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talkcontribs) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment is: Nearly all the changes you've introduced seem very destructive to the article. Please stop! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

float chess notation

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#new "chess notation". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You are doing good work with moving the "chess notation" FYI in the articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx! It saves space (vertical dimension) usually, too! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For making the chess notation tag much nicer on many pages. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thx, Bubba. I was trying to undo the damage I had done earlier! ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan Polgar. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You may not settle a dispute by persistently reverting other editors. If you do this again, you will be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of this?: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."
You apparently believe alot in strict policy enforcement, yet you violate WP behavior guide like above! I will complain about you as time permits.
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


I have asked for more eyes on the issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Susan_Polgar_Hiding_in_plain_sight. I am sure you will want to give your opinion --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, there was no need for me to post opinion there – I already spilled my guts on the topic at Talk:Susan Polgar. However, I did end up posting there, unnecessarily, after you drew attention about my absense there to everyone, along with baiting me again. ("Would be nice if the other editor involved could actually come and discuss this, rather than just continuing to post personal attacks.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Day, Quick Comments and RfC

The Susan Polgar bit came up at AN/I and I thought to myself, "That name looks familiar". Reading the text, the word "chess" came out, I said, "Oh, yes, I know who she is". I immediately offered to look at the "problem" this editor was having. You'll be pleased to know that I have disagreed with the editor in question. I don't necessarily agree with a couple of your edit summaries (but hey, nobody's perfect, I've done the odd weird one too when someone disagrees with an edit of mine), but I believe your setup is without question the correct one and worthy of my support in the current RfC on the subject of making things like chess problems an exception in the guidelines for WP:COLLAPSE and possibly WP:SPOILER.

Note that as an involved party you may not want to get too involved in that discussion (wouldn't want to be seen as gaming the system), but chess is one of my subject areas and I am able to go to bat on this one. Your method is the best one Wikipedia has available, and it would be remiss if a less ideal method were chosen. Other commenters at AN/I seemed to agree with my opinion, as well, so let's see how the RfC goes. CycloneGU (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was very impressed by the positive support from you, and many other editors at the AN/I. I agree it wasn't necessary for me to include comments there, but Elen announced to everyone there that my comments were missing. (How can I get that lady off my back? What does she want from me, and how to make her go away?)
The solution of "hide"/"show" for chess problem compositions - someone did it before me, so I can't take credit for the technique, I just copied what they did (I can't recall where I saw it), because I also found it "best". Again I think there was overwhelming support for application of the technique on chess problem compositions at AN/I, and am confused why the editor opened up RfC soliciting input there, which seems redundant and burdensome to me, covering same ground.
User Anthonyhcole suggested that an exception update to WP:COLLAPSE is best, else the debate on use of the technique for chess problem compositions may never go away. I see you closed the issue as resolved on AN/I, which makes perfect logical sense to me too. (But, what do you think of Anthonyhcole's advice?) I agree with you when you also suggest update to WP:SPOILER.
I'm a little at a loss how the controlling editor at RfC has still argued with me that "hide"/"show" on chess problem compositions is precisely the same as WP:SPOILERS, in light of the overwhelming disagreement with that position on AN/I.
I'm also concerned there was been no weighing of opionion from WikiProj Chess members. My guess is (only a guess) the members there don't like the sparks between Admin Elen who threatened me with block, and other aggression, which I spoke up about. Well, I was simply making good-faith improvement to the Polgar chess composition presentation, and was not looking for trouble. She was aggressive and rude and I did nothing to solicit that. But I will speak up if insulted or aggressed. So I did. I have no regret. It is easy to preach total non-responsiveness in response to an irritating, aggressive Admin when one is not the recipient of their abusive behavior.
There are many intelligent comments and editors (including you) who've already weighed in on this in AN/I. So why does the editor open RfC as though the topic is starting from scratch? I really enjoyed the comments from you, Torchiest, Novangelis, Anthonyhcole, DGG, Count Iblis, Swarm, Hullaballoo, Jonathunder, and now Art Lapella and harej on the RfC. But this doesn't seem to be enough for the controlling editor? Even after all their input, and my input on Talk:Susan Polgar, he still is somewhat scratching his head about it. This is very confusing to me, a new Wikipedian never involved in such a process before, because I was thinking consensus was the determinor, not a single editor (currently up for Admin approval) waiting to "be convinced". (Who put him in charge? I don't get it. And that effort seems to require repeated repetition, which has reached a level which tires me. (Another reason I'm happy to be a silent participant.)
Thx again for your message and participation. Apparently (according to Anthonyhcole) the issue has potential to pull off scabs from related debates years ago. However, I totally agree with the comment from Count Iblis, who said one must first think what is best for the article's presentation (and, policies flow from that, not the other way around). Plus as Torchiest pointed out, both SPOILERS and COLLAPSE have big disclaimers on top, saying to deviate when reasonable and best to do so is permitted. (Why is it that the Admin and Admin-wannabe don't see this or understand it? After what seems to me overwhelming consensus? And again, why are they in charge? It's so frustrating.
I only want to improve articles, nothing more. (Speaking of ... you mentioned there were edits of mine you disagreed with. Please tell me, I like to know. Communication is always good and it can only help me understand impact of my changes which am currently unawares. Thanks!)
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I can explain the RfC. What Qwyrxian is attempting to do, now that the AN/I has agreed on the presentation (which at this point should remain regardless) is determine whether it is right to actually write in an exception to WP:COLLAPSE based on the result of the AN/I. RfCs are quite common; for instance, I recently participated in one to determine whether bureaucrats should have the technical ability to desysop; this is still a Watchlist notice if that discussion interests you (at my last check, it was 259 support, 29 oppose). So back to this RfC; it's not a questioning of results; it's using those results in a comment discussion at the venue of the policy in question for the exception to determine whether we should write in an exception (that sentence made my head spin). Quite normal. We've determined the presentation that should be used, it's now an opportunity for those at the page where WP:COLLAPSE forms part of their overall guideline to comment on how to accommodate this result. Even if it doesn't sound like it at times.
Also, it's appearing that Qwyrxian will be successful; right now he is 59/6/3, or roughly 87% support with 6 opposes and 3 neutrals all counted against (which I don't think is exactly how they do it, mind). I'll wait a day or two then perhaps post a congratulatory support. CycloneGU (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to comment on the edit summaries bit. I merely meant that a couple of your edit summaries at Susan Polgar were a little less than professional; they weren't downright attacks, but one exception was telling someone blatantly that she knows nothing about chess problems or playing chess. Maybe not with this subject, but with other subjects, such a comment could be taken negatively. Just be careful what you say, especially in edit summaries; they can't be changed at all once saved. CycloneGU (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cyclone, thanks for your explain. Again I'm not sure your position, regarding adding exception to WP:COLLAPSE or not. (Again, Anthonyhcole thought it necessary, to preclude future debates. You closed the AN/I as "resolved" w/ no action needed. Does that mean you don't believe COLLAPSE s/b updated?)
Ok, I get it now. (Duh!) And I see you're helping fashion the exception language at RfC. Great. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my edits you didn't like, okay, I was thinking you meant ARTICLE edits, not he tifs w/ Elen. I never wrote at any time that she knew nothing about chess problems. (Don't know where you're getting that.) What I supposed or guessed on AN/I, was that perhaps non-players have difficulty understanding what the overwhelming number of other editior contributors saw, that chess problem compositions are "different". So I was guessing that perhaps Elen et al weren't players. I was only supposing it as a thought and possible explanation, not blatently asserting it (or asserting at all).
Regarding Qwyrxian's app for Admin, yes, I see too, he is bound for glory there. I think it's a mistake. I won't be congratulating him as you will, he puts policy before article quality. I've just been asked to voice support or not for his RfA. It's a losing battle to oppose, but I may do it anyway, out of principle. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I read about your disputed with Qwyrxian; I, as you may read, have had bad dealings with him, and I do not think he is qualified to become an administrator; I would like to hear what you have to say about him, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. Diligent007 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your question at Qwyrxian's RfA

I'm copying your most recent questions here, to respond to them away from the RfA page, as User:Diannaa has suggested.First Light (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. You're engaged in fundamentally the same biasing to effective vote count as cavassing – appending comments designed to influence the closer on Opposes, while intentionally ignoring the Supports. What difference between your engagement in that biasing activity from that of canvassing? As far as contributing to bias goes? And the theoretical question ... you seem to admit you might be appending to a vote by someone already planning to vote regardless receiving an invitation from Diligent. But you are relying on the closer to dismiss your comment? Then, why append one? You are relying on the closer to dismiss your comment "sometimes"? On what basis is "sometimes", versus "other times"? That argument makes no sense to me. How is what you are doing any better than canvassing as far as engaging in biasing activity? It is just a different way to engage. (Maybe even worse.) Your comments have the single and only possible purpose of attempting to influence the vote. Against canvassed Opposes, but not applying equally to canvassed Supports. As long as you are in the garden sowing seeds, you might as well sow both rows. You're trying to restore an un-biased vote, yes? By introducing your own pet bias? (That is not hypocritical?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You should not be doing what you're doing, for two reasons: 1) appending to canvassed Opposes but deliberately ignoring canvassed Supports, is obviously unfair and engages in your own kind of biasing activity, 2) you can't know the user wasn't planning to vote regardless getting a canvass from Diligent, and your appends—which have as their only hoped-for intent of that of influencing the closer to discount the vote—if effective (and effectiveness is your wished-for result) then assumes the analogous role of "condeming an innocent man/woman to death.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talkcontribs)
First of all, the disruptive behavior on that RfA was from the canvassing by Diligent007, not by myself. WP:Canvassing states that canvassing "compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." The only way to counterbalance that disruptive attempt to "throw the election" through backdoor means is to point out to the closing admin that half of the people who are opposing were canvassed. Some coincidence, eh? Only one out of the 98 people who are supporting were canvassed. Hmmm.... My notes are a belated attempt to counterbalance the bias caused by the canvassing. One big difference is that my comments were all on the RfA page, for the closing bureaucrat, and everyone else, to see. The canvassing goes on behind their backs. They can't see that. My behavior is transparent to the closer, as I have nothing to hide. Those who close RfAs are presumably smart enough to see what is going on, so there is no harm, only gain, in being transparent about these things.
I also believe that everyone should have a voice, and say what they want. Open discussion should not be stifled—that includes your comments, and that includes my comments. Let the closer of the RfA decide whether you or I are being honest, sneaky, biased, etc. Openness and transparency are the best way to let people decide these things.
I do agree with you that the single canvassed support !vote should have had the same comment added. You and User: Diannaa were both correct in that, and I was wrong.
Now that the closing bureaucrat has seen all sides of these arguments, they will be able to make a more correct decision. That's because all of us were able to speak our mind. I'm not going to apologize for my approach, and I'm not going to ask you to apologize for yours. Nor will I accuse you of wrongdoing, the way you are accusing me. I am assuming good faith on your part, and I hope you assume the same from me. Regards, First Light (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
... the disruptive behavior on that RfA was from the canvassing by Diligent007, not by myself. But you have in response to Diligent, initiated your own version of disruptive behavior.
The only way to counterbalance that disruptive attempt to "throw the election" through backdoor means is to point out to the closing admin that half of the people who are opposing were canvassed. You think so, and you presume there is nothing wrong with your way. That's not the case. Appending your comments was wrong for the two reasons I pointed out.
Only one out of the 98 people who are supporting were canvassed. You should have appended with your comments, to be fair and consistent. It doesn't matter how many.
My notes are a belated attempt to counterbalance the bias caused by the canvassing. I already knew what you were attempting to do. Your actions were wrong for two reasons. You overlooked or ignored and didn't deal with it.
One big difference is that my comments were all on the RfA page, for the closing bureaucrat, and everyone else, to see. My behavior is transparent to the closer, as I have nothing to hide. It doesn't make your actions pristine or "more right". To append was still wrong for two reasons.
Those who close RfAs are presumably smart enough to see what is going on, so there is no harm, only gain. There is potential harm, I already explained it. (Re-read the analogy I gave.) "Only gain"?! From the perspective of someone engaged in their own deliberate bias-generating actions and agenda. (Already explained and described.)
... in being transparent about these things. If you really believed that "transparancy" creates innocence, then there would have been no need to append your comments on my vote, because in acknowledging Diligent's canvass in my vote, I was being transparent, too.
Open discussion should not be stifled—that includes your comments, and that includes my comments. No one can stop you from making the comments you made. I'm just saying it was wrong for you to do what you did. For two reasons.
Let the closer of the RfA decide whether you or I are being honest. The issue isn't one of honesty. The issue is that your actions engage in your own form of attempted bias-generation, to influence the closer, which was wrong for two reasons. (What you are implying, by saying this, is that you can be as underhanded as you want, and that it's irrelevant, because the closer will decide things. I don't buy the ethics of that. There are none.)
Openness and transparency are the best way to let people decide these things. But openness and transparancy, as discussed above, do not eliminate underhandedness, and deliberate attempts to introduce bias, which pleases your agenda.
I do agree with you that the single canvassed support !vote should have had the same comment added. You and User: Diannaa were both correct in that, and I was wrong. I wanted to congratulate you for correcting one of the wrong things you did. But I see you only admit wrong after Diannaa's prompt – not on your own, and not thru our dialogue, even though you now say I was correct. (So, no congrats from me.) Even with your admission of wrong, there remains the second reason what you did was wrong, too. You've not dealt with it and ignored it for your own agenda. But we should end this discussion now, since clearly you don't care – you got the result you were trying to help achieve. I just don't buy anything you've said, for the reasons stated. (IMO, you think the end justifies the means. I don't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do care - more about process than the result. Qwyrxian was going to pass RfA anyway. In fact, the canvassing seemed to attract quite a lot of new support for him. So I didn't even have to bother doing what I did. If I had kept my mouth shut, the !vote results would not have changed one bit. I stuck my neck out, not because of getting any results that I was trying to achieve, but because I saw a key Wikipedia process being screwed with—and that bothered me, to be honest. Obviously, we're going to have to agree to disagree on just about everything here - at least I will cheerfully do that on my part. And we'll hopefully assume good faith - again, which I can only do from my end. regards, First Light (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You made this statement: "The reason I put them here is that traditionally, it only takes about 1/3 oppose !votes to stop an RfA, and so Diligent007's canvassing was effective in that regard, just not widespread enough." This shows you were concerned about he result, as the main motivating factor for what you did. And now you say you "stuck your neck out" in principle, not about potential voting results. You say you reacted to what you saw was bias activity, but your reaction to "counter-balance" was to engage in your own form of the same thing. (Two wrongs to make a right.) As mentioned IMO you believe end justifies the means. The fact that you got the result in your agenda, and subsequently are willing to "cheerfully agree to disagree", does not surprise me in the least. I know what "assume good faith" means. It does *not* mean that anything you might do, is somehow exempt from being inconsistent, unfair, intentionally designed to bias, hypocritical, and wrong. And if I objectively and factually point it out, in spite of all your dodging, it doesn't mean I'm "lacking in "good faith". IMO your thinking, and even ethics, have been very sloppy, and dialoguing with you has not changed my suspicion, it has only confirmed. What possible result did you hope to achieve, by dialoguing with me on it? You already admitted to one of the two wrongs, only after being corrected by Dianna. You apparently aren't interested to look at the other wrong, unless Dianna intervened again. If to "agree to disagree" means honoring the justifications you've tried to give for your posts on the RfA, I see those instead as rationalizations for "end justifies the means", w/ "end" representing your own biased agenda. So no. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qwyrxian

Hello. As the request had been closed, I reverted your edit to the RfA. Please feel free to take up the conversation with whomever you wish on the RfA's talk page or their userpage, but after RfAs have been closed by bureaucrats they are not supposed to be modified. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I missed it. Thx. (Curious: Why isn't the page locked down w/ software, rather than manual monitoring?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There is further clarification of this issue on the RfA talk page, if you have further questions, feel free to ask them there. Dayewalker (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thx for correcting my goof. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem, happens all the time. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Blunder

At first glance I was going to tell you that you should hate in the now not in the past, but then I read your "scientific" definition all the way through and it made me laugh. Thanks. Quale (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I was impressed by its simplicity: "A blunder is a very bad move." (Simple notion, expressed simply! My congrats to whomever had the balls to write that prose!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No 'pos=section'

Hi Bubba, I started off w/ 'pos=section', but then decided it's confusing to remember whether it defaults to right or left, so replaced it with 'pos=secright' & 'pos=secleft'. (FYI) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Complete doc: Template:Algebraic notation/doc

Thanks - I didn't keep up with the changes. I used that in about 3 bios last night. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think I corrected them for u. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS language update

Cyclone, we got the new language for MOS:COLLAPSE recently, simplification worked out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwyrxian#Update_to_MOS_or_no.3F Thanks for your support! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! I believe it was the right call, and I hadn't been checking in on it myself, but I am obviously glad that the change was accepted. BTW, you were welcome to post directly on my talk page as well. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Brownie transparent.png is this roman? Shang2 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Algebraic notation sequence of four

Quale, thought I'd let u know, all the articles where I previously added the sequence of four templates ({{TOC left}} {{break|1}} {{algebraic notation|pos=left}} {{clearleft}}) have finally been converted to the single macro template. (There are about 4 maybe 5 exceptions, where the macro couldn't work due to a right-placed diagram near the lead, and the seq of four was retained, albeit w/ a diagram template inserted in the sequence. [I'll be able to identify the 4 or 5 later; I actually want to keep track of them, understand how they work exactly, and add if any new ones come about too.]) Ok, FYI. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a lot of work. You've been doing more work on chess articles than anyone else the last several months. Quale (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for making me laugh! Bearian (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thx! (It is funny, isn't it! Glad u have sense of humor.) But I only drink dark beers now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your posts on the Donald Trump talk page. I think the situation is corrected now.-- KeithbobTalk 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer! :-) -- KeithbobTalk 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dashes in Reshevsky article

In the Sammy Reshevsky article, in "(+3 =13 −0)" - that is a minus sign and not a dash. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is terminology. (Before I changed it to the math minus sign, it was the keyboard character, which I call "dash" but really don't know what it's supposed to be called since it's used for multi purposes.) Am I understanding correctly your message? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought that the thing on the keyboard was a minus sign. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
A true math minus sign is: &_minus_; which looks like: −
Whereas the keyboard char (whatever it's called) looks like: -
Which doesn't line up in: +/- (whereas a true minus sign does line up: +/−)
Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Becoming a GM

No problem. It was a little unclear I think. It does seem a little odd that GM titles are for life even if you don't attempt to maintain a standard. Of course, if you don't remain competitive, then you won't be able to earn a living! Brittle heaven (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! Like Supreme Court judges (appointed for life). Even colleges are reevaluating their (lifetime) tenure policies. Besides the need to earn a living, I suppose a GM's rating, if goes down too far, might be a personal source of embarrassment!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hope you didn't mind...

... my undo. This was a good one. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if you are right and I can learn something. But I have reviewed both quotes in their source materials, and the sentences in the article containing the quotes, and re-read MOS:LQ carefully, and don't know what you are talking about.
First, here is the basis for my change (which you reverted) from MOS:LQ:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not.

For both quotes, the period is part of the quoted material.
Second, let's take a look at the reason you gave for revert in your edit summary:

no complete sentence: "If the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if is in the middle of a sentence."

You are quoting from MOS:LQ alright, but what part of it am I supposed to think supports your revert? The second part that starts: "The period should be omitted if ..." ? Well for one, your above quote from MOS is not correct. Here is the correct text from MOS: "The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." And if that is the part supporting your revert, it does not apply, since neither of the two quotations are "in the middle of a sentence", both of the quotations are at the end of sentences.
So I have no idea what your argument is for reverting me, it seems to me that you are completely wrong. But I want to be corrected if I am wrong, I want to learn. So please explain, and please be responsive to my points above. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: DVdm go to Talk:Richard Dawkins instead. I'm no longer entertaining your presence here on my Talk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. See talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi ihardlythinkso, Hope everything is swell. My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. Please let me know by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 22:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Matthew thank you for the offer, but I don't feel qualified (I'm too new & inexperienced), and am too reserved for this. I'm curious though – what kind critieria led to me getting on your candidates list for this? Thank you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at NikNaks93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Your name came up in a discussion at ANI so I figured somebody should let you know. It's the "IP abuse" discussion. Cloveapple (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad for the discussion. Can you provide a link to it (can't seem to find it)? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP_abuse should get you to the right section. I often have trouble finding stuff at ANI too. Sometimes once I get there I just use my browser's search feature to seach the page for the name I'm looking for. Cloveapple (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok I got it (thank u). Thx for the reverts to my user page. (Just curious: how does that stuff come up on your, and others', radar?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. :-) There's at least two ways an edit might be on somebody's radar. They might be keeping an eye on Recent changes that shows all the most recent page edits. (You can always get there through the "Recent changes" link in the many links on the left side of every Wikipedia page.) Some people watch that page for vandalism. Another way to notice vandalism is if people have your talk page watch listed. Some people have hundreds or possibly thousands of pages on their watchlists, especially if they have set their preferences to watch every page they have ever edited.
I think in my case I probably watchlisted your page way back when Qwyrxian was up for admin. I remember following some of his discussions (and the discussions about him) very closely trying to sort it all out in my mind. Then I never remembered to unwatch, although I don't generally follow your page. What drew my attention was seeing (-42,962) in big bold red letters on my watchlist with no edit summary. to explain why somebody was deleting so much content.Cloveapple (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thx for explaining. (Wasn't sure what numbers like -42,962 meant; now I do!) Always learning ... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: my excessive commas, and other blunders

Defending my changes:
1. "The ancient migrations have mainly come via two routes: along the Atlantic coast and from Germany/Scandinavia", can be read as,"along the Atlantic coast and from Germany and from Scandinavia", in which case there is some ambiguity about the fact that this defines the two routes as either coming from a)the Atlantic coast, or b)from Germany and Scandinavia. I thought the comma would help clarify this, but I can see how one might think it excessive of me.

2. "The main settlement events came in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods". Your comment: "revert this edit - adding the word "events" changed the meaning of the sentence (singular to plural)". The way it reads to me, it is in fact plural - how can one settlement occur in two periods?

3. "There have been disputes over the sizes of the various immigrations, as well as to whether they occurred peacefully." This is an awkward sentence, and I was trying to resolve its meaning by the redefining it as "integration": are migrations ever not peaceful? The trouble is not the walking from point A to point B, but rather who else is already living at point B when you get there.

4. The other commas may indeed be excessive - thank you for catching them. Caduon (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Palaeolithic & Mesolithic periods are not defined based on migrations. Someone wrote in that article about a singular migration (not plural) spanning both periods. Nothing wrong with that. But unless you know what you're talking about re content, you shouldn't go around arbitrarily changing sentences based on your impressions of "grammer logic", since doing so changes and even erases original meaning. (I know you're going to counter me on it, so I reiterate: I'm done w/ this conversation.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't "grammar-logic", just "logic-logic". I think you'll find that the number agreement issues of #2 are resolved by the sentence to which #3 refers. Caduon (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Good luck, Caduon. You lack logic, or, you would have responded to the "John/Bill" example (which you did not), and the fact I EASILY found instruction on the Net saying short, introductory prepositional phrases do not deserve comma. (You didn't respond to that either, instead withdrawing into your "Purdue defense".) You've already insulted me, but hey, I accomplished my objective - someone ought to tell you to slow down with your "I-know-better" edits for your cherished "flow" (you have good edits under your belt, but also, a lot of arbitrary ones, causing unforseen damage; and you have the gaul to tell me my criticisms are "not well thought-out"). Sorry to hurt your feelings, and I wish you no ill. The goal of WP is to improve articles, I'm sure that's what's in your thought process ... but! - you are not as good an editor as you think you are. (Someone needed to tell you.) Good luck, no offense intended, and try to not be so defensive. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of busiest railway stations in Great Britain

Hello, sorry if my post appeared rude - it wasn't my intention at all but I can see how it could have been taken that way. I meant nothing by it though.

Cheers Pretty Green (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert on Kasparov versus the world

I really enjoyed reading this article, which you've clearly contributed a lot to. However, it's disappointing that my first interaction with another user on Wikipedia is your recent edit summary. Just like it's easy for a new editor to make a mistake in good faith, it's also easy to talk to people more neutrally rather than potentially pushing them away from the project. Isaelie (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Isaelie, thx for the msg. Yes, the K vs. World is a fun article to read (I never contributed any *content*, only some formatting and minor copyedit, but that can contribute to readability too!). Please don't take offense to the "ABCs" remark. (If we had been standing around a chessboard analyzing together and you made the same assertion, I'd probably *actually* push you away [on your shoulder] and exclaim "Hey! - [same comment as edit summary]" all with a friendly smile on my face. So didn't intend to insult. (Impossible to see a *smile* in text however, unless one adds a smiley face. But too late for that, again I apologize.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. If you don't mind (and plz don't be offended by this Q), I'm curious how you messed up mistaking Ne5 for Nd5. Something like that is of course easy to check. And you took deliberate step to make edit-change on it. (Were you playing from a wrong position? Were you visualizing from the diagrams [which can be confusing]? How?) I figure something curious had to occur on your end to cause the error, I'm just curious to understand what! – am not out to criticize any answer you might give.) Thx again for your note, plz continue your good editing for WP.
No offense taken =) Actually at the time I made the edit I was analyzing another game from Judit Polgar in my browser with a similar endgame, and I had the Kasparov game on my chessboard. I must have tired out my brain and confused the two positions. So apologies for not fact-checking my edit, which you caught quickly. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. Isaelie (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I knew something like that must have happened! (Because, you seem like careful person.) "Position transposition." (Say that 10 times fast.) Interesting! Thx for satisfying my curiosity. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unusual

Wow - you don't often see Histories like this one!. Not sure whether to praise your industry (certainly the edit summaries are admirable) or question whether fewer edits might have achieved the same result. But it's impressive! Cheers, --Trafford09 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was motivated that evening! (Plus several cups of black tea.) I'll take words "impressive" & "admirable" as compliment, thx for noticing, and for your message.
I'm sure you're right, the edits could have been consolidated into fewer. I partly blame my ISP (more frequent drops latey), but fewer edits also means harder "work", and if it's not fun am less inclined to edit at all. If excessive edits created a nusance, plz give input, since I rather like to not become a nusance to any innocent editor, too. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah - a dodgy ISP would indeed encourage more & smaller edits, yes, I can see that.

I wouldn't want to discourage your good edits. But yes, I think if people have trustwothy ISPs then they probably make a change or 2, then use the preview button, then more changes, and so on, and then finally hit the Save button. That makes the history pages perhaps easier to follow.

But I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, so not to worry!

Hope your ISP sorts their problems out! Happy editing, --Trafford09 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: as you're open to feedback, maybe you'd want to consider archiving your talk page sometime? Just so all can locate a recent topic without needing to page down to see the bottom of the TOC. --Trafford09 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thx for your feedbacks. Am very acquainted w/ "Preview" button, but yes, I could collect more similar changes before hitting "Save". (Will work on that!) Re archiving, didn't know at what point it is supposed to be archeved, plus didn't know how to do it (where's the button?), plus have wondered if archiving Talks is sometimes interpreted as "hiding" potentially embarrassing discourse, by making it harder to access!? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Plus, I've had difficulty accessing other Talk pages when they're archived, for some reason the revision history has been impossible to display (reverts and so on). And, when Talk is archived, it's my understanding those pages are then not to be modified, so, isn't that sortof a discouragement for someone who wanted to add further comment to a Talk section (making it more difficult by making them go thru add'l steps)!? I know I'll have to archive eventually, but these are aspects that have stoppped me up to now. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed that a WP ProjChess member, User:Krakatoa, has a hugely long (non-archived) Talk page. (I don't know the reason for that, but I do know he's a highly respected editor with a couple FA articles under his belt.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fedora

Your work here[1] was excellent, just what editing is all about... I appreciate the edit summary and read it with interest. Still, you have the thing just right and anyone who edits here, after all, must be ready to be edited with gusto. With my thanks.... I hope you'll drop by and contribute more. May you have a prosperous and peacefuly New Year.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 02:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the comments! I was fully prepared to be reverted (and still am ... you might wake up tomorrow and *hate* the edit - it happens!). I love how editing sharpens one's sensitivity to words and reading for meaning. Cheers & Happy New Year! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

We can have a content dispute, but I don't need your personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right – you don't need that. What you need is to curtail the aggressiveness, and assume a more accurate self-perception everyone has been telling you. You have an "I'm right all the time" attitude that is persistent and predictable.
How does a person go from: "Yes, 1...dxe2 *is* Black's best move." to: "Well, it's not a bad move." ??Huh?? You're full of manipulative weaseling, and don't seem able to see it.
And BTW, how do you justify deleting your responses off the Desperado Talk page, instead of striking? (I'm not a Wikicop or Wikilawyer like you, but my guess is that is not good WP practice. Such hypocrisy!)
If you continue to edit the chess pages, there could be further exchanges between us, but it is really unpleasant engaging with you in content discussion. Because of the incurable attitudes, it is nearly impossible to get it through your head when you've screwed up, even when the facts are laid bare. Especially I don't like treading through all the manipulative b.s. you shoven out as "argument". I know you do this to maintain your "I'm always right" self-view, but it is really unpleasant, and I don't enjoy experiencing how your mind works, so would prefer to minimize any further interface with you, until and unless you can grow up and get a clue. Your mentors haven't given up on you yet, which seems quite amazing to me. So you should count yourself lucky, and start to put on a more accurate self-perception, and gain some humility. Good luck! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't mean to rub anything "in", but it certainly looks now like all your persistent & strongly held assertions on Talk:Desperado (chess) have been negated. (Wouldn't that suggest to you, to perhaps tread a little lighter with assertions, in future?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to your edit summary on your Talk page, the only thing you ever conceded, Jasper, was that 1...dxe2 should not have a "?". Other than that (even after being roundly refuted on your every contention on Talk:Desperado (chess)), you never conceded a thing, including maintaining to the end the move did not deserve the "!" ("I'm still going to eliminate the !, because it's clear that it doesn't deserve it") ascribed by Ludek Pachman. A final word would have been nice from you, given your persistent contrariness given the facts, rather than your selected vanish. There is more than one way an editor can display "incivility", and one of those is extreme and persistent haughtiness on an article Talk page. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Shame there isn't a specific barnstar for boardgamers... Anyway, I just wanted to say: nice work today on Xiangqi and a couple of other board game articles. Keep it up! Yunshui  14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


Thank you! (That was very kind.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lined Seahorse

Thank you for editing the Lined seahorse article. I have been editing it solo for awhile, minus the help of SunCreator. I appreciate it and hope you think well of the article so far. LittleCass 14:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Suncreator made nice discovery for article Desperado (chess) – his history lead me to your article. (Nice little scientific article! Especially impressed by the seahorses, dancing for each other, monogamous, unify their clicking noises when in love. It seems humans have much less matrimonial bliss. We can learn from the little creature!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely! They seem to grasp the concept of monogamy much better than humans, haha. Thanks for taking the time to look at it! LittleCass 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecass (talkcontribs)

Knock it off

You told me you didn't want to interact with Jasper. So don't. 28bytes (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being "contradictory". I meant new, future dispute potential. The Desperado (chess) incidents lacked closure (his selection to "disappear" after a series of contentious points sent my way, all objectively refuted, with none being ceded). I amended the non-closure. (Solo of course.) On a larger issue, collaboration and discussion require a certain amount of etiquette, which I did not find in existence in this user. Good luck with him. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Ihardlythinkso, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Ihardlythinkso/V. R. Parton.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been reported at WP:AN3

Please see WP:AN3#User:ChessPlayerLev and User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: ) for edit warring on Paul Morphy and Efim Geller. You can reply at the noticeboard if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruption

I wasn't kidding when I suggested that you duck. Knock it off. Clearly, editing Wikipedia is causing you a great deal of stress at the moment and you aren't thinking clearly. Why don't you take a break, have a tea, and come back later? If you continue on with your dramatics at WP:ANI and at various talk pages, you'll be taking one whether you want to or not. Danger High voltage! 06:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw the link 'duck', but did not understand it, thinking it was a message to Jasper, certainly not to me. I can certainly understand if you tell me my dissatisfaction re false accusations (fabrications of name-calling) has been noted, and I should lay off now. But by questioning my "clear thinking", what is it you mean? I'll listen to any reasonable answer you give. (BTW, who are you? Apparently someone who can do me damage? I guess!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Right, I should have been clearer, my apologies. Yes, your dissatisfaction was noted and yes, you should lay off, in keeping with the first rule of holes. (Stop digging.) With regards to clear thinking, I can only assume that frantic editing with multiple personal comments, if not outright attacks, in response to such mild provocation is the result of a losing one's head. I gather that you don't like "bad words" and perhaps the misidentification of the precise insults that you've used as curse words has upset you unduly. So, get a grip, have a tea, Wikipedia will be here tomorrow. Bad days happen to everyone, but you will now please stop inflicting yours on the rest of us. It might behoove you to accept the olive branch extended by ChessPlayerLev, even if it was imperfectly phrased.
Are you master of understatement? It was a back-handed gesture, I think that is plain. The only reason he fessed up, is because I complained, and he knew the accusations would be disproven. ("I killed the lady, okay? I made a mistake! Everyone makes mistakes. So let me be and get on with my life!") Yeah, right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for saying "noted" – that helps. But I disagree about "mild provocation" describing clearly fabricated lies and accusations on a Talk page. IMO that is really over-the-line and mean, and not right and should not be tolerated. (Gosh, does this isolate me with my values? Hmm.) I never lose my head, don't worry about that. (Even death could not do that to me; maybe a cataclysmic brain seizure, though.) I have no problem with "bad words" – I am not offended by them in the slightest. (Like "shit". Or worse.) But I do not think they are appropriate on Wikipedia. I would never complain on ANI about such a thing. But I do draw the line with fabricated and false accusations (i.e., fabricated lies); it is just mean, and unethical. I really do not understand what you mean by "the misidentification of the precise insults that you've used as curse words has upset you unduly" (sorry, I just don't understand what is meant). I've never experienced this kind of nasty attack on WP before this, and didn't therefore even know the correct way to bring to the attention of someone in charge. Thx for understanding. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Who am I? The admin who decided to wade into this particular mess. Cheers, Danger High voltage! 07:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have no desire to waste your time. I only object to being accused on article Talk page of using names "Asshat" and "Idiots" directed to Jasper Deng and Elen or Roads. (Never did such a thing, or would I ever.) It seems to me such bald-faced and obvious fabrications are abusive and should not be tolerated on WP. I object to it. End of story. But now I repeat myself. (Sorry.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk)
BTW, I don't accept or like, nor am I fond of, scandalous false accusations being fabricated and accused of me in bad faith, on WP article Talk pages. And that is what has happened here. I suppose by complaining about it, that gives others the "right" to dump on me, threaten me, accuse me further, drag up anything in the past and make implication I "deserve" the abuse. But of course, I do not agree. So, does someone wanna 'block' me for my complaint? I only look for a safe, fair, environment here. Perhaps that is asking or expecting WAY too much. If you want to counter that and somehow contend that I am certainly not fair, and am a hypocrite, go ahead. But be fair and let me engage you, rather than tie a blinder on and put me up against a wall with an armory of loaded guns and a last wish or cigarrette. Is that the kind of Wild West environment we have here? It's very fascinating. (But not the end of the world. The true world is much, much nastier. I speak from experience on that, but, probably you already know.) Treat me like a human being, okay? Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Rule: If someone objects to being falsely accused by a fabricated lie about name-calling, well clearly, that person complaining, is "overly stressed". I hear your point to "knock it off", and, I'll obey since I think you mean I've said enough. Okay. (I really did not mean to overdo it. I have never had reason to complain about anything like this before, on Wikipedia.) And I do like tea, both green & black. (But no sugar, please.) Cheers! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that I'm aware the 'duck' sentence was intended for me, I see answers there too, "Yes, and yes, respectively." My questions were, if the false and fabricated accusations that I called Jasper Deng, and Elen of Roads, "Asshats" and "Idiots", when I never did (nor would do such a thing), is something I'm expected to simply absorb? And that's the norm for WP? Do I understand you, your answers are yes and yes? (This is not a trick question. It is something I really like to know. Because my understanding of WP must have been very wrong, if those are the answers. Perhaps I am really weird, but bald-face fabricated accusations on a Talk page seem way out of line to me, if fact, I don't know anything worse, short of someone making physical threats. *Is* there something worse? What? Incivility doesn't even apply here, in my book. Incivility = rudeness. Fabricating an accusation of indecency about someone, then putting in on a Talk page, is something other, in my book. Are your answers yes and yes telling me WP has an enirely different playbook? I need to know this. Serious-time.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Belligerant = aggressively hostile (according to my dictionary). Is defending oneself, or complaining when someone maliciously fabricates things said of people, which were not said, on a Talk page, being "aggresively hostile"? I'm not getting this! Did you really mean to say I was being belligerant? Could my defense of myself, and objection to the lies spread on the Talk page about name-calling "Asshats" and "Idiots", have been misinterpreted somehow to equal "aggressive hostility"? I really don't get this. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems there's a rule, that if someone is vocal about being mistreated or abused, well by golly, clearly that person has to be at fault, and we must make that person the focus of attention and prod and taunt him until we can make him bust, and have fun ridiculing him, and so on, because my gosh, he vocalized being mistreated! So he deserves guilt. And we can deride him, too.

What kind of Fun-House is this? Please explain. (Oh, it is all my fault. I'm the one. I just don't *see* it. Yeah, yeah.)

If I really listened to that kind of talk, insanity would not be far away. I've a better head than that. I'm not easily manipulated. Accusations (always) need scrutiny. No matter who makes them. Unless he is a god. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't tolerate false accusations; it is mean, nasty, unethical, slanderous. (I said word "slander", which telling malicious lies about someone is, and suddenly Bugs jumps in and asks if I'm threatening a lawsuit. Another trick and trap for the mistreated one? Kick him, prod him, ridicule him. Trick him? Trap him?) Nice community! Not. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Then there's the guy who wants to ridicule chess, and what is that about? (If he ridicules chess, does he think it's a way under my skin? Huh?) Nice "community". Trick, trap, prod, taunt, denegrate. Yessireee! Wikipeeeedia! Where you can be a totally abusive person, without restraint, without consequences. And if anyone complains --- then accuse them!! BOOMERANG (and stuff like that). Just great. Good stuff here. Makes a lot of sense. Very judicial, fair, reasonable, and sane. Yeah. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't like how this has proceeded. And I'm supposed to have a "good attitude" about it? Huh? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But if I say one more word, God will strike me dead. Or at a minimum, put me through Etiquette Rehab. And we don't want that! (Oh, fairness for what happened to you? Gee, you must be in the wrong airport. But fella, I don't think that plane exists anymore – it was retired sometime around ... uh ... the Nixon Administration, I think.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Rule 3: Call the guy who fabricates false and nasty accusations and posts them on a Talk page, "polite" and a "peace-lover". And call the guy he falsely accuses, oh you know, "bad attitude", overly-stressed, not in control of his mind, the normal kitchen-sink stuff we can assert dish out without due process. (Don't forget BOOMERANG! Even the way it *sounds* is cool, "BOOOOOOMERANG". Because it BOOMS someone on the head!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Rule 4: There can't be any "winners" and "losers". In a dispute, *all* are guilty. (Except maybe for the baddest guy, whom we should favor.) So class! Let's illustrate this important concept ... The police are investigating a crime scene, and find a little old lady crumpled over, with a knife in her back. "Let's me guess Teach! She's a guilty party too!" Yes, good work, you got it. Because she was there, she was involved. There are no winners or losers, just guilty parties. Except the bad guy, who's probably at the casino right now, but never matter about THAT. "But Teach, what if the little old lady has some dying breath, and wants to tell the cops what she witnessed?" Easy. Shake a finger at her and warn her it might ... BOOMERANG! That's right, say it loud and talk over her dying breath if you like. It's simpler that way. You see, otherwise, the investigation gets "messy". This keeps things clean and orderly. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, just so long as we fill out reports later do document the killing. Got it? Great. For tomorrow read chapter 2 and do problems 2-10 through 2-18. I hear the bell RIIIIIIIING!!! Ring Ring. Ring. Riiiiiing. Ring. Okay that bell sounds sick. But we still have a test tomorrow, so be prepared. And forget about that bell. Ring. Ring. RIIIIIIING. Go home and have some tea. Study hard. Riiiiiing. Ring. Ri-ing. Ing. Ng! R! riiiiiiiiiiing. Two cups. RING! RING-RING. ring. rrr-r. And don't forget the signed permission slips ... we're going to the ZOO on Thursday! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"I can only assume that frantic editing with multiple personal comments, if not outright attacks, in response to such mild provocation is the result of a losing one's head."

No, you don't (and didn't) have to assume that. Acting immediately does not = "frantic". "Multiple personal comments, if not outright attacks" - I'd like to see exactly the diffs that cause you to say that. "In response to such mild provocation". Mild provocation? Fabricating a lie that I name-called two editors "Asshats" and "Idiots", and putting this slanderous fabrication on a Talk page? I asked you if there is anything 'worse' short of making physical threats on Wikipedia, and I still like to know answer to that question – what's worse? Then your "such mild provocation" can be compared fairly to something. Otherwise, there's no reference point, is there? People love making statements here. Backing them up seems to be much less popular. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the definition of BOOMERANG I've been threatened with:
"There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report."

My complaint was being accused on the Talk page by ChessPlayerLev of "repeatedly" calling either or both Jasper Deng and Elen of Roads names "Asshats" and "Idiots", a fabricated lie, since I never (nor would I ever) use such names against people. BOOMERANG says "yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves". Okay, WHAT "far worse infractions" did I commit, during the "events of that incindent"???

Or are we making up our own definitions of BOOMERANG (unpublished and unauthorized) and then throwing the term around because we like to? Huh? What? Please explain. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because "BOOMERANG" sounds cool, and apparently people like to say it and "whip it out", does not mean the same people have read it, or understand it, or are using it properly. If someone hasn't committed "far worse infractions themselves", then what are you going to do if you feel the itch to whip out BOOMERANG and do so? In the real world, the crime would be manufactured. But in Wikipedia, everthing is recorded, and manufacturing text to attribute to someone would be possible, I suppose, but would spell an end to Wikipedia credibility. So that leaves what? Interpreting BOOMERANG the way we want? Even though there is no definition in it that applies? What "worse infractions" did I commit here than the fabrication by CPL that I used names "Asshats" and "Idiots" against editors? I'd like an answer, and not another generalized fuzzy criticism or disparaging comment. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Danger, I am admittedly PO'd, still, at the fabricated accusations sent my way on the article Talk page. I would like some answers, but frankly, have not seen much out of you in the way of communicating to me about what your involvement is, and what expectations are. I do not need to be chided re "cool down" or "you're losing your mind", or "clearly you're greatly stressed", etc., etc. – it isn't helpful and I'm left with not an idea of what your plan is, other than that you've down-played the offense (calling it "mild provocation") and warned me re BOOMERANG and personal attacks on this user, which I'd like to discuss with you if you believe that, because I do not see any basis for either. (See above re BOOMERANG. I have asked for diffs documenting "personal attacks".) So I have seen nothing from you but caution and warning, and assertions about me that have no basis but assumption ("I can only assume that frantic editing"), and I particularly don't like the swipes regarding "you have a poor attitude, that's for sure" type remarks others have poured in cheaply and freely. (One editor even adding taunts, questioning the triviality of chess in his value system, apparently in attempt to goat me or get a response.) This is all unnecessary and unprofessional, but, I know there is no standard re professionalism in WP at all. Only etiquette and civility. If someone is going to accuse me of something, be specific and provide diffs. Because I vocalized a complaint, of something I find wholly unnacceptable (fabricated false accusations re "Asshats" and "Idiots"), I've become the target for more abuse, as though this is okay to do. I don't know if it violates WP policy, it seems so, but I have no interest to followup, I just consider the unfair digs and slams as unprofessional and tacky and an indication of values of the person making them. But I draw the line with false fabricated specific accusations, and so far the only stance on that specifically from you, is that as WP editor I'm expected to absorb it, and that those false accusations should be considered okay on Wikipedia (unless I've misinterpreted your "yes, and yes, respectively"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The comments directed toward me to "get a life" are in the same boat as already described (cheap and easy digs; abusive, unprofessional). So is free and easy reference to LAME. (It is easy to make those kind of assertions, when you are not the party slandered.) Bugs has gotten involved and jumped on word slander, just itching to file a complaint of legal threat. The only place that exists, is in his mind, and I am the one targeted with digs on my attitude and predisposition? Wonderful. (Should I tell Bugs to "get a life"? I don't do that sort of thing, I've had no direct content dispute with him, I don't go around looking for opportunities to make denegrading comments to make myself feel better.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your other characterization, that CPL offered an "olive branch, poorly worded", hides the fact it was a disingenuous offer (including blaming his "memory" for being wrong about asserting I "repeatedly" called editors "Asshats" – a slur I've never even heard before), and I'm sure that is plain for any reasonable person who reads it. Also, CPL's reverting me six times, claiming he was "protecting important content", then later thanking the ANI editors invovled and reminding them the issue was "very minor!" is also plain disingenuousness. (This is the guy who also has admitted to fabricating lies about me on the Talk page. Duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how you will respond, but do me a favor, be clear and professional. I have endeavored to be that, in spite of the digs and denegration and tacky unfair comments that have come out of the woodwork (not by you, but from others). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Wow. I hope that you feel better having gotten that all out, because it certainly hasn't helped your case. I suggest reading what NellieBly has said, because I think they are quite accurate in their evaluation of the situation and their suggestion is a good one.
Yes, I was blowing off some steam. But I do not think for even an instant, that there was anything possible that could have "helped" my case; I think all decisions were made yesterday by you, and others. I have read and responded to NellieBly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
For my own part, this is how I saw what happened when I reviewed your post (before CPL or Jasper had commented). You've been involved in edit wars and discussions in in the past in which you were free with incivility and mild personal attacks. Another such edit war was occurring. CPL notes your tendency to engage in such behavior. You act scandalized. CPL misremembers the precise insults that you've used against which editors. You characterize this as a malicious and violent act and come to ANI to play the victim. When it's pointed out to you that your own bad behavior is also at issue, you compare this to being executed by firing squad. When you don't get what you want (and I'm still unsure what you wanted, because I would be shocked if anyone blocked CPL over their comment), you post the above screed, further cementing in my mind that you have little self-awareness or sense of perspective in this matter and that perhaps a collaborative project like Wikipedia, where you will not always get your way and where you have to respect others or expect mild disrespect in return, is not the best use of your time.
Wow. (Astonishing.) (1) "Free with incivility." If I violated WP policy, then someone should have charged me with same. I don't know whether you're saying I was in distint violation of policy, but I think you are. "Mild personal attacks." I can acccept that, however. But it is rare that I do that; it takes an editor that really gets under my skin repeatedly, and, that has happened seldom. (2) "CPL notes your tendency to engage in such behavior." You know, CPL has *no credibility* in my book at this point, AT ALL. (He fabricates and accuses falsely. Nothing is more unethical in my book, except physical violence or theft.) (3) "You act scandalized." I wasn't "acting". I draw the line, seriously, to false accusations, most especially fabricated ones. No acting there. (Are you accusing me of fakery? What?) (4) "CPL misremembers the precise insults". It's what he said in defense; but I'm not buying it. (It is unreasonable to buy it. I told NellieBly too.) (5) "You characterize this as a malicious and violent act". Yes I did. To register fabricated false accusations that smear someone on WP artcle Talk ... I really don't know what could be worse than that, save for making a physical threat against someone. (6) "You ... come to ANI to play the victim". Amazing. I wasn't "playing" (nor "acting") – see above. You seem to be accusing me of intentional play-acting, fakery. (Are you?) I went to ANI for the reasons that I stated I went to ANI. Please don't accuse me of disingenuousness, because you would be totally wrong, and you have no basis to think or surmise or conclude that. Unless you want to be totally prejudicially against me and point at shadows and claim they are real objects. (7) "... your own bad behavior". Oh great. You are equating "mild incivility" (or whatever I'm guilty of) with fabricating nasty and mean falsehoods and posting the accusations on article Talk! I do not equate those two. They weigh much differently with me. Apparently, they are "eaually bad" in your book. I disagree with your ethical standard. To smear someone with a fabricated and false accusation, is much different from bumping their feelings because of a word or two. (I need to tell you this!?) (8) "When I don't get what I want". I am not a cry baby – please do not make me out to be one. But I do protest the choice to support an editor who fabricates false accusations and posts them, and swallow his "memory problem" when the name was "Asshats" and the accusation was of using the name "repeatedly", as lack of equity, fairness, reasonability, or what ever other you want to call it. (9) "I'm still unsure what you wanted, because I would be shocked if anyone blocked CPL over their comment". It as not a "comment" – why are magically and suddenly changing what it was, to a "comment"? (It was an accusation, a false one, and I sincerely believe also fabricated, for reasons stated that I believe are plain and reasonable.) Your point that I never specified what I wanted is correct. (Is that my job? To tell Admins what they must do? I only know, that I was violated. I don't know what you guys do, or even don't do. I don't think a "block" would do anything, unless it was extensive. But I did not ask that. I do not know what is appripriate here – I did not think about it. I guess I assumed there would be zero tolerance for baseless slanderous accusations on Wikipedia. Somehow. If there isn't, maybe there should be.) (10) "you have little self-awareness or sense of perspective in this matter" Wrong. It is just that my value system is different than yours, or different than Wikipedia's as a whole – I don't know. (I draw the line with false accusations, especially fabricated ones, posted as a permanent record on Wikipedia. You equate the "badness" of that with "mild incivility" if words I use ruffle someone's feathers some. I don't. So please don't insult me by saying I have little self-awareness or sense of perspective. I have plenty of those things. I just don't share the same value system you do, regarding false accusations, versus rudeness or other incivilty. (11) "a collaborative project like Wikipedia, where you will not always get your way". Amazing. Please don't treat me like a child. ("Waaa-waa baby wants his way!!!") No. I've shown legitimate understanding of consensus and compromise, my edit history shows that, and you seem to want to color it extremely as though it doesn't. But I do agree, I wanted something here, in this issue of CPL's false and fabricated accusations. But that is a specific thing, narrow and well defined. Now you try and overgeneralize me and say "Gee that shows he cannot work cooperatively with other people in any context at any time" sort of conclusion or assertion. No way. You make me out like a lunatic, because I draw the line with being falsely accused on a Talk page, by slanderous made-up stuff. Big difference. (12) "respect others or expect mild disrespect in return". You flabberghast me. "Mild disrespect"?? Again, our value systems are totally polar here. A fabricated false accusation posted to article Talk for purposes of maliciousness, to me, is a great ethical wrong, and WP should have a zero-tolerance for it. If I step on your toe while in line with you at Wendy's, I don't expect for you to take out a revolver and shoot me dead because of it. (That is an extreme example of how I view the nature of your uggested "trade" of mild incivility with fabricated false accusation.) Apparently I'm in a world here at WP which values those same offenses the same. I did not know that. (And I don't know if I'm ready to believe you are right about it; I'm in some surprise and shock about hearing you say it. Sincerely.)
In regards to your specific questions, yes, on Wikipedia you are expected to be the better person and ignore provocation. No, false accusations are not acceptable, but that is not what happened in this case. The meat of the accusation (You have called Elen and Jasper names.) is true. The specific epithets you used were misremembered. I'm not going to block CPL over this minor rising to your bait, and since you've mercifully decided to take this to your own talk page and stop antagonizing others, I'm not going to block you either. I warned the folk at ANI, CPL and Jasper included, to stop baiting you and I've warned you to be civil and move on. That's the extent of the action I'm taking, unless something else happens. If another admin wants to do something, I don't particularly mind, but I decline to. Danger High voltage! 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, you are asserting above, that it is true that I "called Elen names". I do not think so. I have no memory of name-calling her. None. (Do you have any fact, to back this up? Or do you just demand to make the accusation, unquestioned? If I am wrong and I have done a name-call to her, I will admit it. But I don't have any recollection of ever having done so.) And the names I called Jasper: I described his constant pointless arguing as "insufferable", and I also used the wlink, "don't be a WP:DICK. (Why is that wlink there, if people may not use it when appropriate? I have seen many other WP editors use it.) So, the only names I used on anyone, have been specified here. (They are not "horrible names" as Nellie characterized them.) You even call the names I used against Elen "epithets". Please show me one of those. To back up what you're asserting. (Again, if I'm wrong, I will admit.) By the way, Elen *did* call me a name, the name was "Pet". I took it as condescending, and when I asked her to stop it, she used the same name again. A wonderful civil community of Admins there is here on Wikipedia!
As told to both you and Nellie, I don't buy the "memory problem" excuse. (It isn't reasonable to buy it.) But I do not claim infallibility, as does the Pope. (For Christ's sake!) :)
You say CPL's false accusations are minor, it is their nature, the fact that he didn't check it out, and the reasonable belief I hold that they were fabricated for the occasion, why I disagree with you. And it is a value difference too, as previously explained. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear: screeds like the one you just posted on ANI in response to NellieBly are not acceptable. If you persist in making them, you will be blocked. Move on. Danger High voltage! 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I responded to her, my response was an honest and sincere one, why would I ever have reason to think that responding to her was in appripriate? (If someone gives evaluation or comments intended for me, and I'm not dead, I will respond. What is it you expect of me? To not be human and enjoy the same rights as others here? Or is there some WP policy I overlooked, barring me from responding to her comments about me on that page? If so please inform.) You keep using the word "screed", and it is not in my Americal Heritage dictionary, so I looked it up online: "a long discourse or essay, especially a diatribe." The word "diatribe" *is* in my dictionary: "a bitter, abusive denunciation". Are you using screed to mean length, or the abuse-stuff? Because my response to NellieBly was a full response to things she said, and nothing more. (The use of word "screed" is potentially untrue, and insulting. Yet you choose to use it, without clarification. Do you really think that is good policy? I don't. Especially when you lecture me about mild incivilities.)

Comments from an uninvolved admin

May I suggest you just take a deep breath and a wikibreak? As it is, the situation is going nowhere unless assisted wikibreaks start getting handed out. Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecture (upon the news of the murder of a long-time acquaintance): "Best thing for him really; his therapy was going nowhere."
Don't worry, I'm quite done. (But thanks for you concern, I appreciate.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. It's confusing, the "rules" here. Nellie posted a response to my response on the ANI incident, and though I don't feel any need to reply (I'd be repeating myself, mostly), I've been warned I'd be blocked if I update there. That seems to violate some fundamental law of fairness and reasonability. (Not allowed to respond? What if a person needed to defend themselves? Does WP mirror a court of law where there can be a gag-order? I would not design a system such as this. It doesn't seem fair or right. I'm accused left-and-right, ask questions for backup of the charges, and then don't hear, but am threatened if I "move". Wow.)
A deep breath, and a wikibreak, is not going to change my value system. I'll still be against bullies, and against fabrications accusing falsely out of maliciousness, and against support of same based on reasoning "well, he deserved it" (blame the victim). I'll still be against mischaracterizations, and any "consensus" of Admins involving mischaracterizations, supporting accusation I called other editors "Asshats" and "Idiots" (a "minor" offense; to whom?). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Danger, you've threatened me with block, if I reply to Nellie's comments meant for me. That's gagging. (No?) Also, I asked you to back up your many many charges and statements above, which of course you know I think are utterly without foundation. You've not responded. All I asked was that you back up with evidence, your deragatory statements. Do you see yourself as a "prision guard", with job to shoot the prisioner, should he try to escape? Just curious. Because that, obviously, it what it seems like with your "final warning", gagging me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If I were allowed to make all the foundationless accusations and blames and statements, about you Admins, that you have done to me, well ... I would be very busy typing for several hours. But, I do not do that. (I consider it tacky, of low ethical grade.) But that is what I've faced here, with free reign from several of you. Because there is "consensus" to accuse baselessly, does not make it right, and does not make me anti-social or unable to work with people, because I disagree. I am not responsible for the exaggerated and baseless claims made against me. (Case in point: "horrible names" I've used. Then when I ask what is "horrible", the answer is quite ridiculous. The fact you say it is true I "called Elen of roads names and epithets", when I cannot recall ever doing any such thing. (What names?) How do you guys go, making unfounded claims like that. (To me, it is an inconceivable way to conduct oneself. Might does not make right.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to block me if you wish. Your careless and unfounded comments, and others', have killed my interest to participate in ProjChess anymore. I don't care what you do. I oppose all the (exaggerated, unfounded) stuff said at me, and now, you gag me. Not acceptable. I oppose this kind of dynamic from its core. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
An abusive environment. I put up with a lot from Deng, before calling him "insufferable". You weren't in my shoes. I put up with a lot from Elen, before kindly insisting she stop harrassing me, even reaching out to her cohort for help, to stop it. And taking her condescension "Pet", meant to irritate. Even taking all that crap, I never called anyone any epithet, or any "horrible name", or any name at all really, with one exception: After much frustration w/ Deng, WP:DICK is presumably a WP-approved message device. So you like to hang me for using it, after my patience was exhausted beyond reason? "Insufferable" was my word, but it is hardly "horrible" or an epithet. High scale exaggeration and manipulation, however, would like to twist it and rename it so. I'm still not dead, and possess still an independent ability to evaluate, with some reasonability. And it isn't hard, either, because, so many things are so wrong here, so dysfunctional. I've loved to edit WP articles too for the same reason. (Why? Because they are so dysfunctional, sometimes, any hand in them immediately improves them. And that's fun.) But it is not my job to improve people, and I know pointless to even try, I am not stupid about it. But I can object. And that is what I have done here. (Thanks at least, for allowing that!) But I don't exist very well with a gun to my head (threat of block), and if faced with that situation, would stare at my captor, until he pulled the trigger. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem there's much point discussing matters with you further. I would however like to point out you've made an inaccurate claim above. Nellie did not respond to you response. A check through their edit history proves that. I did however. If I was Nellie, I could accuse you, as you have done with others, of maliciously making stuff up and making false accusations, for claiming they responded to your response when they did not. Or I could assume you were genuinely mistaken and didn't see the name properly, an unfortunate but not malicious action. I can't speak for Nellie, but for me I'm perfectly willing to assume the later. Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, of course it was an oversight of mine, the similarity of names "Nillie" and "Nil Einne", etc. And where did I ever say I was a computer robot, and incapable of error? The point is, there is plengy of reasonable basis to see and understand that my error was just an oversight, and nothing malicious &nash; I'm sorry I attributed Nellie's response to you, but, even with that, was there anything incendiary in her response which would have defamed you, such as claiming someone called editors names "Asshats" and "Idiots" and did so "repeatedly"? No. The former is an oversight, I'm not perfect, nor claim to be perfect. Other, is intentional malisciousness, at least I believe it is. (Where is CPL, explaining to us how it is that he could have a "memory failure" when asserting I used such an uncommon slur, "Asshats", and did so "repeatedly". Not only is that unreasonable to believe, but he is not even offering how such a mistake could have been made, when it is such a weird mistake to make, if you believe it is such an innocent "mistake". (Contrast that, to the fact I am apologizing to you, and explaining how I confused your i.d. with another, but that really was even unnecessary too I think, because clearly you are smart enough to see there are grounds for a simple confusion, and there was no basis to assume any malicsiousness whatever, as there is in an incendiary name like "Asshats".)
BTW, you and I have not *had* any "discussion" before, ever, have we? So I don't understand saying "not much point is discussing matters with you further", which attributes discussion with you, which has never occurred. But it shows you want to preemt any discussion with me, by calling an end to discussion, which we never had. (I consider "discussion" a two-way thing. You came in from somewhere, like a bird flying in, I've never met you, never had any two-way with you, so have never had any "discussion" with you, I've never had that chance, save for these two paragraphs now.
REASONABILITY. It is all about that. (Look how you came in to pick on me because I was not a perfect robot and made an oversight, then trying to compare it to CPL's "memory lapse". That is not ... a reasonable comparison, for the reasons already given. But, you like to pick on me, so you have used the circumstances as justification to. I noticed the same pattern in your paragraph on the ANI. Saying I did not do something, that was true, but that I indirectly did! That is amazing. ("Sir, you are being arrested for murder." "But officer, I haven't killed anyone!!???!" "Well Sir, that is true, but you kinda sorta indirectly did." Give me a break. When I read your language there, it seemed very weird to me. But it does not seem weird this morning. Why? Because I figured out since last night, the person who wrote that was trying to fit the facts to the crime, rather than picking the crime which fits the facts. (I.e., I believe, you wanted to lay blame and had already made that decision, but the facts weren't there to support it, so by golly, you bend the facts to meet the charge you want to present, and out comes weird language like "you didn't do it, but you indirectly did". A charge levied out of prejudice therefore, not objectivity. That is my opinion about it, I do not mean to upset or make you angry. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I want you to know, I have quoted you above with ticky marks (" "), but I know they probably aren't exact quotations, I did not go back and look up your exact quotations. I did as a matter of expediency, believing the points or messages were the same (if I'm wrong about that, please accept apology, I didn't not mean to take you out of context, etc.).
Another point, this was my first experience going to ANI for this type of assistance. And I got a lot of people who instead liked to kick me and blame me for every possible thing, no matter how baseless, no matter how exaggerated, almost as if it were fun ("Hey! He deserves it!"). I reject wholescale, this 'blame the victim' mentality and culture, where throwing out "BOOMERANG" is done casually and off-the-cuff, because people want it that way from a prejudicial start. The Admin who held a block threat on me on this page, for example, *started* his investigation by calling it a "mess". That type of language also shows a predisposition and prejudgement. (Sorry, but it does.) I have had my ANI experience, and, I do not want another. Why? Because I no longer have faith in the fundamental Wikipedia process of editors chiming in without responsibility or care. (Think about it: Let's say you had a speeding ticket, and wanted to take it to court to argue your case. But instead of our current judicial process, your scheduled court date & time were printed in the newspaper, and any citizen seeing it in the newspaper could show up and render his/her voice to judgement on you and your case. No responsibility. Some people would show up just for the fun of it. And for the imagined power they would feel they had. How safe would you feel about a just decision being rendered on your speeding ticket case? I assume not very. At least I wouldn't. (And if you called to be sure your family and friends would show up to court too, well, that would be "canvassing" now, wouldn't it?) This is Wikipedia, and, I've gotten my foot stuck in the mudpie, once, and once is enough. I reject this environment. It is abusive, and hostile, and irresponsible. User:Danger pointed out something very valuable to me, too ... there is no bar to someone making malicious and false accusations against someone here, no Admin would block for that. I really do not want to be in an environment where false accusations can thrive unimpeeded in soil like that. Because I see false accusations as something akin to violence. It should not be tolerated. But it is. And CPL's slander against my WP userid, is happily and heartily supported and defended. (Because afterall, I called Jasper "insufferable".) Are there adults in the room? Please. The editors playing with those kinds of decisions should go back to gradeschool, where they taught "two wrongs do not make a right". And CPLs "wrong", was much worse than anything I did, but I know, you like to pick on me and stretch things (exaggerate) in order for the facts to fit the crime, not vice versa. I'm just telling you my sincere feelings, I mean no harm or denegration. But the environment is abusive and hostile here, and also irresponsible and prejudicial. But that's what you get, when the public can show up and decide if you speeded or not. This experience has been enough for me, my time and attention are more valuable than to defend against a continuing stream of unreasonable, fact-less accusations and charges and blames and arguments. Goodnight. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent highly confrontational disruptive editing, as you did at User talk:Ihardlythinkso. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


"Persistent" = yes. (Agreed.)
"Highly" = if you say so. (Accepted.)
"Confrontational, disruptive" = do you mean, defending myself against exaggerated and unfair claims? A natural and healthy thing to do? (Then, agreed.) But, what do you mean?
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point you've gone far, far beyond defense and have lashed out at quite a few editors who have tried unsuccessfully to diffuse this situation. It's time this stopped. Toddst1 (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
"you've gone far, far beyond defense" Negative! It has all been defense. (Read what I wrote. It is all defense, against exaggerated, unfair, and baseless stuff thrown at me.)
"Lashing out at quite a few editors". How's that? In a very general way, I've expressed protest, at all of the many unfair, exaggerated, and factless claims and mischaracterizations set against me. How is that "lashing out at quite a few editors", exactly? I protest the culture here, of off-hand, unsupported comments, like darts thrown at me, exaggerated, mischaracterized, and without reasonable fact behind the denegrations. I protest the whole environment here, which supports such bullying. Might does not make right. Consensus does not make right, if the consensus is unfair, exaggerated, baseless claims of "hurt the guy because he deserves it". Many of the claims against me are ridiculous on their face. So those, are impossible to take seriously. (I could get specific, if asked.) Give me a break. If you want to call my expressions of protest at fundamental unfairness and exaggerated claims without fact "lashing out", then, perhaps to lash out, is the proper thing to do. (I know at least, it is healthy for me to do. The king has no clothes. Go read some of the claims against me. I cannot believe, any alert person honest about it, can conclude anything than what I have been saying here, in my protests.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. And what gives, with a block based on my edits to my User page, which does not stop me from editing my User page? (Is that supposed to make sense?) And how is a block for 24 hours, going to address what clearly is a clash of values? (I don't think I have to re-define that, right?)
If I've offended a few egos, well, it wasn't my intention to do so, and, I am not responsible for others' fragile egos. (To make me so, or try to bend my behavior so, would be considered a "crazy-making environment" by pschologists.) This whole discussion is actually pretty boring for me, simply because, I've been pointing out the obvious in almost all my protests. And I suspect but do not know, that brushes egos and enflames them. I am not responsible for the hostility and manipulative nature of this environment. (I can get specific, if asked.) You guys are. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
"after numerous reasonable attempts to stop this user's confrontational tirade only fuel the fire" That only goes to show, that something is very wrong here. (And, sincerely without any intent to mock, it is not *me*.) How many editors question the brutishness of WP accusations and exaggerated denegrations without basis in fact? Many? I'm sure there are some (not only me). But I wouldn't necessarily agree with those editors, either. They might be irrational. But rest assured, I am not. (This is too easy and boring. The things I've been saying are like an open-faced sandwich. Easy to see. I feel like this is some kind of Twilight Zone. Because it is scarcely believable. Sorry if that offends, it's not meant to. It's meant to be supportive of my protestations here. I am not the one who pours forth unsubstantiated charges and accusations. The burden is on the persons doing that, and I for one, like to lighten my load.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
"after numerous reasonable attempts to stop this user's confrontational tirade only fuel the fire" You know (and I *do* feel compelled to share this little bit of joy), that is really funny! (Why? Because it implies like this: "*We* are really reasonable and rational. But this user!??!?!?!??! Oh my gosh!!! *He* is totally off-the-wall *irrational*, and no one can stop him, but this BLOCK will, so you see, we need this block." Really funny! :) (Does anyone take this seriously? Actually, the block of 24 hours, is so-so-so mild and kind, it forces me to respect Wikipedia, for its gentleness. [I do give credit where it's due. I also give criticism where it's due. The former makes me liked. The latter makes me hated. So be it! But don't hit me, if you have a fragile ego. Your problems are not my responsibility.]) Take care, and thanks for the gentle block. (It gives a kind of credulity to this whole ridiculous mess, and gives some closure or fullness, to the points I've been trying to make. But ... WP:IDONTHEARTHAT seems to rule.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, BTW! There is a really easy formula for shutting me up, and making me a happy camper. (And what is that? Simple: Get off my back. Stop the unfair, exaggerated, foundless accusations.) You see, *then* I don't have anything to complain about. Simple. (And, a real promise. But, that sort of thing, starts with "you". [The Admin community, who decided to render said attacks.] Isn't there a song w/ that theme? Bugs!?) I couldn't be more serious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User page editing revoked

Since you've chosen to continue your confrontational tirade, now against yet another editor Nil Einne (talk · contribs) whom you state you "have not *had* any "discussion" before" with, I have revoked your talk page privileges for the duration of this block.

I fail to see how my sincere response to Nil Einne can be fairly characterized as a "confrontational tirade" outside of a totalitarian society.
That is correct, I had not had any discussion before with the user. So how does my sincere reply to the user's comments on my Talk, constitute "confrontational tirade against yet another editor"? Sorry, but that doesn't pass the rationality test. Me thinks this is a highly warped and unsupportable view, explained by a need to manufacture self-justification for a block. I've received no answers ever, only threats ever. (So much for communicating and explaining actions and rationales; it must just feel better to exercise power and associated threats. Certainly more efficient.) The freedoms at WP, without discipline, have led to irresponsibility. Terms like "collaborative environment" and "consensus" are often used manipulatively to color any accompanying assertion or accusation w/ a cloak of unassailable inherent goodness, when the fact is there's plently of downside to group-think, "consensus" is not "the new democracy", and power tends to corrupt (or at least expose weakness, in some more quickly than others). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll warn you now that if this behavior continues after the block expires, you will be re-blocked with a much longer duration.

A behavior of expressing a sincere opinion? How does that make sense? But anyway, you have nothing to worry about, it is immaterial now. (There is no way I would allow myself to be subjected to this kind of abuse again, in the future.)
My "behavior" toward Nil Einne was to give an honest and sincere reply to her comments. By rendering judgement on my "behavior", it implies somehow you are an expert in the field, and also that your own "behavior" is beyond reproach or fault. (Let me get this right ... *You* can comment on *my* behavior, because you are Admin and wield the power to block, while *I* am not allowed to comment on *your* behavior, because I am a lowly editor!? If I would comment, I might say your behavior is thoughtless, rude, bullying, abusive.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll also emplore my fellow editors not to engage in behavior that can be viewed as taunting or otherwise encouraging the continuation of this editor's behavior along these lines. Toddst1 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sincerely. And thank you again, for the gentle block. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I was misinterpreting the block. Clearly it was meant as groundwork-laying prelude for more serious, future block. Something really jucier and more fulfilling. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I missed the "behavior" comment again. What possible definition for "behavior"; what you are referring to are my replies to comments sent my way I didn't ask for, didn't generate. (I guess you won't be happy unless I'm gagged with a sock. Any response = negative "behavior". That must be controlled, threatened, gagged and stopped with block. What country is this? What decade? Germany? Late 1930s?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotes by others

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
*This*, is "lashing out":

So, Jclemens, the pathetic little pussy who probably thinks being a janitor is a step up in life, gets to cast lies against me and get away with it? Then I can't even tell him he's a fucking asshole? Well, how fair is that? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 10:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Orangemarlin has been indeffed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The furthest I personally would ever go is "BS". But this is funny!:

Someone to call bullshit is always a good thing. Someone to actually *say* bullshit (or cunt) is even better. Errant (chat!) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Gosh! The most I would have said is "sometimes dense, unfair, and insulting"!:

Some administrators are people who are vile and despicable individuals, who back stab you, who vary their policy to suit their ends, whose arguments are pathetic self-justifications aimed at serving their own personal needs. Some administrators routinely and habitually break social norms of courtesy in order to abuse other users. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
(Wow! <stunned>):

Unfortunately a kick in the bollocks is an occupational hazard of speaking truth to power. Particularly when it's in the hands, or rather boots, of the infantile. Adminfants are the curse of WP. Writegeist (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[...] the Civility pillar of Wikipedia [] is poorly and chaotically defined. The problem is Wikipedia is unprincipled: there are far more editors willing to jump in an ANI or talk page kerfuffle to talk about a specific incident than discuss underlying principles on the WP:Civility talk page and actually come to a consensus. It's choosing drama over hard work. Gerardw (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a clear and evident danger that the present civility policy can be and has been used to stifle dissent, not to prevent disruption. There is also clear evidence that some administrators focus on the perceived incivility of those they are hostile to while ignoring it in their friends and colleagues []. Malleus Fatuorum

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocking policy, or more precisely what has become the practice for blocking, treats non-admin editors like naughty children. Which is quite simply insulting, and in itself a violation of the civility policy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Good one, Sandy.

The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

...the problem with the culture at ANI, where legitimate grievances are sometimes ignored, messengers are sometimes shot, and enforcement is unequal depending on who you are and who your friends are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The truth is that I would be embarrassed to be held to the same standard that administrators are held to, which is basically no standard at all. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Terms like "disruption" and "battlefield mentality" can be tossed around and used by some with as much pretense at fairness as in civility cases. Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
(Wow!):

How have we come to this place, where most of the civility police are constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between polite cruelty and genuine civility, and between bullying and frankness? Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In what way is "sycophantic" or "wikilaywer", the use of both of which resulted in blocks, "foul language"? [...] What's going on here has absolutely nothing to do with "foul language". It's an opportunity for revenge, pure and simple. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
(Wow!):

So long as it pretends to be a rational, process-driven, consensus-based system it will attract editors who expect that kind of a system, and all sorts of crap will happen as they each in turn learn the hard way that it isn't. It is just creating endless headaches out of misguided loyalty to ideals it doesn't practice. Ludwigs2 05:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Personal attack" is simply a euphemism for anything that someone with more guns than you have takes exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I loathe ANI and avoid it all costs, only coming here [AN] if I find it necessary, and even then I feel like my time is wasted. I cannot ever remember leaving a thread in which something productive came of it. Most often, if I have a problem and I come here, it's likely I'll be blamed for whatever problem I have by editors who have no idea what they're talking about. Very serious problems get sidetracked by pointless banter, engaged by chronic posters whose time is spent primarily here. It frustrates people who come here looking for help. Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of reading thousands of posts about incivility written by people who don't seem to grasp a basic truth obvious even to an intuitive 5-year-old: incivility springs from frustration. There's no interest in understanding why constructive editors routinely end up so frustrated that they snap (the answer is obvious to anyone who's edited in the trenches, but such experience is increasingly rare these days). Incivility is viewed as a personal failing, rather than a symptom of serious underlying systemic problems. So there's an obsessive interest in "enforcing" civility as an end unto itself, by penalizing individual acts of incivility with blocks. That's a superficial and counterproductive approach, yet everyone seems baffled that the more we do to "enforce" civility, the more toxic this site's atmosphere becomes. MastCell Talk 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(Funny!)

[Re WP:ANI] Nothing good ever comes from that place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree. It can be like a public swimming(cess)pool here at WP. Freedom w/o discipline has led to irresponsibility. People all full of themselves, especially Admins whose power to block has gone to their heads. This quote is an honest and decent reflection which puts a revealing light on the reality of culture that has evolved here.

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

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

[...] "disruptive", which seems to have become a synonym for "anything I don't like". Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that so many administrators lace their admonitions with threats? Because they can? Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Delivering petty threats on talk pages while threatening further action if I respond is OK on Wikipedia. Fabricating accusations of name-calling against me without producing any diffs is OK on Wikipedia. Excruciatingly lame incivility in an edit summary after I call you out for breaking a guideline is OK on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A-holes are ten a penny around here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Name six ways we're better than chickens. See? No one can do it. You know why? Because chickens are decent people. You don't see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No. You don't see chickens strappin' someone to a chair and hookin' up their nuts to a car battery. And when's the last time you heard about a chicken who came home from work and beat the shit out of his hen? Huh? It doesn't happen. You know why? Because chickens are decent people. —George Carlin, Napalm and Silly Putty

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Persons who faint when they hear disagreement can host tea parties in Stockholm. Some discussions and debates take time to resolve, and free discussion is better than more authoritarianism. Wikipedia has enough apparently authoritarian personalities clamoring for topic bans and blocks whenever there is conflict, and they should be repudiated.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chess

May I ask why are you leaving chess project? That's so sad! Just when I was thinking to ask for your help. I hope you will keep editing wikipedia. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Otavio. It's sad for me too. False accusations cross a line w/ me, and I'm the one who's blamed. I no longer feel safe here. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Christian Freeling.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Christian Freeling.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting others

Hi Ihardlythinkso, I agree that was a silly threat, but please reformat your examples on Moni3's talk page. Right now it looks like Fifelfoo and Writegeist are commenting in that thread, and they aren't. You can make it clearer with diffs and quotation marks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I could do it for you, but I don't want to look like I'm stepping on your toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I put the ending quotes at the end of the user source/timestamp. (I'm thinking that is sufficient!? Anyway, I can look up diffs tomorrow if necessary, I have to get some sleep now.) p.s. I say "poop" and I get threat of block, even though other senior editors can say many much more awful things, without recourse. That was the point to Moni, and now it is even displayed in the actual thread. Amazing. What is with these Admins? Don't they have anything to do? I've already experienced a similar block. I need to talk with someone experienced. I was reaching out to Moni. I need to consult a mentor. Off-wiki. Please volunteer. Thank you again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm not really interested in being anyone's "mentor" (i.e. a long-term go-to person), I'm happy to provide feedback or advice or a second opinion on something. Via email is OK if you want it off-wiki. Obviously no guarantees I'm going to agree with you. Also, no guarantees of a quick response, although I'll promise to eventually respond. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it's the most anyone could reasonably offer, I appreciate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your help desk question

I replied to your help desk question regarding {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} at the help desk. Best. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 14:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholar's Mate

Regarding Black's defense in Scholar's mate. Please explain how Qxf7 is possible if 3. g6 previously occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.195.19.47 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Because in the line being referred to, the Q is on f3, not h5.
Here's the text I think you're having a problem with: "If White renews the Qxf7 threat after 3... g6 4. Qf3".
Okay, so the position after (1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4) 3...g6 4.Qf3 is this:
a b c d e f g h
8
Chessboard480.svg
a8 black rook
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
e8 black king
f8 black bishop
g8 black knight
h8 black rook
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
d7 black pawn
f7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
c6 black knight
g6 black pawn
e5 black pawn
c4 white bishop
e4 white pawn
f3 white queen
a2 white pawn
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
d2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
e1 white king
g1 white knight
h1 white rook
8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
a b c d e f g h
(So you see, White is threatening Qxf7 again, "renewing the Qxf7 threat".)
Is clear? (Let me know, and if clear, please let know what caused initial confusion – maybe there's something the way it is written which triggered your confusion, which could be rewritten etc.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

ThreeChess

Since you're so good and persistent at copy-editing, why don't you do so on this article? I tried formalizing as much as I could, but I think you still have something to contribute to it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. (My first impression was, it was a translation from Russian. A look at History shows was written by Rumen Rachkov, one of the three Bulgarian developers.) I was gonna say "the article doesn't need a copyedit, it needs a psychologist", but I'll pass on that. And you deleted my favorite line!: "[NOTE: A common misconception is that pawns may only be exchanged for a piece that has been captured. That is NOT true.]"
Anyway I'll tinker w/ it as time permits. (I do enjoy the challenge of taking apart a ball of worms without damaging the poor critters.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I loved that line too. Perhaps if I find a source it'll be back better than ever!Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, this one made me laugh.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah (and there wasn't a better CV entry either). ;) (BTW most in the list link directly to Chess Variants – that's not proper, right?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I think this is using the needle-tip of that source to support the brick of much of the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a game, not an argument

I spend more time playing chess (& other games) these days than editing on Wikipedia.
So I was reading Millennium 3D Chess and thinking I have enough chess boards to play it, but I don't know anyone who would,
and it occured to me that with the chess diagram template we could try a game, in a sandbox or my talkpage. Let me know. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Ihardlythinkso and I would love to play, but not on Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thx for the invite. I know I created that article (it deserved one), but it isn't really "my game". (The 3D chess I like to play is Star Trek Chess, Meder rules. It's ... "fascinating" ... and terribly complex! There is a small cadre of players in the Meder Email club who play; we even do Chess960 Star Trek Chess there.) If you like to play Millennium, I'm sure you can get into a game (even probably w/ D'Agostino himself!) by joining the Millennium 3D Chess Yahoo Group and posting msg there asking for opponent. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. As for the Star Trek Chess, the article section is missing the attack board movement. I added it along time ago and now again, and I'm sure I read it correctly, but I don't know why it keeps getting removed. I think it's unique and important enough that it should be mentioned, off hand even, in the section. It definately isn't common knowledge that Star Trek Chess is so far from any generic 3D chess variation that even parts of the board are moveable. I am personally facinated by the geometric extention of chess moves into a third dimension so Star Trek chess is the last variant I would want to play. I don't think you can take full advantage of all the new versatility of the pieces on that board, and the moving board parts as a move is too unconventional for me. I read "not on Wikipedia" just now, though I'd have to guess which category applies ("providing a foundation for effective collaboration"), I really don't see the harm in using a sandbox (good editing practice & idea inspiring) and then erasing it after; but that's me. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "movable attack boards" text being removed from the article, I checked the article history, you added mention of this on Nov 3, 2011. I removed it Dec 5, 2011, but not for the reason you think. (I agree with you, the fact the attack boards are movable in Tri-D, is an important thing to mention, and s/b included in the article - a good observation & addition by you! The reason I removed it, was that the text addition completed a sentence intended to describe Charles Roth's clarifications on his site of "omissions and ambiguities" contained in the Bartmess Standard Rules, and, the movability of attack boards wasn't part of that - wasn't part of any omission or ambiguity in the Standard Rules. So the reason I deleted your add, wasn't anything to do about including or not including fact of movability of the attack boards, rather to keep the topic of the sentence, omissions & ambiguities, on-topic, and avoid implying there might be something omitted or ambiguous about attack board movement in Standard Rules, which there isn't. [To be fair to you, your text actually contained a comma, allowing the sentence to be interpreted as saying Roth's website clarifies omissions & ambiguities, AND IN ADDITION describes moves of the movable attack boards. But that wasn't how I interpreted your add, when I read it back then. And I see the reason now why I wasn't likely to interpret it the way you intended, and that is, Roth's clarifications of omissions & ambiguities in Standard Rules, is really all about moves over or using the attack boards.])
So as you see there never was any issue about to include/not include mention that attack boards are movable. I agree w/ you it needed to be mentioned, and the article overlooked it. It is just that the text where you included it, got mixed up with another meaning going on in that sentence, and the meaning of the sentence was taken off-course incidentally or accidentally, and that's what I corrected when removing your text. (It didn't occur to me then, your right thought that the fact ABs are movable needed to be included in the article. I quite agree.)
You mentioned your add "keeps getting removed", but (if I'm not mistaken) it was really only the one time, so "keeps getting" is exaggeration. And likewise your edit sum recently, "the deletion is like possessive vandalism" was really untrue. But I can see how you might have thought that, even tho I did try to explain the reason in the Dec 5 edit summary. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.7.19 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Jasper Deng's talk page.
Message added 01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's rude for him to quote you but not prohibited. I really hope this does not have to result in another trip to ANI or AN. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Deng, please don't post here anymore. Go away. (Why? See your Talk.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone is allowed to post to your talk page as long as they remain civil. You cannot forbid them. You can remove the comments. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course anyone is allowed. However, if someone has been reasonably asked not to post on a user's talk page, as IHTS has, it may be considered harassment for someone to continue posting there. Toddst1 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Point well taken. One must avoid all actions detailed in Wikipedia:Harassment. This is an absolute rule. Thanks for the clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

After taking a look at the conflict you have engaged in and fueled at both User talk:Jasper Deng and Talk:Three-dimensional chess and in the context of your last block for "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing," it is clear to me that you do not have the necessary skills to interact constructively with others here on Wikipedia. Your repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict are just not acceptable. Of course you are free to appeal this block using the {{unblock}} template, but I strongly encourage you to follow the guidance at WP:GAB, specifically, WP:NOTTHEM if you choose to appeal. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ihardlythinkso (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I've been advised to humiliate myself by apologizing to the charges made by Toddst1, as the only way to be unblocked. Sorry but, this block sucks "donkey balls". I won't feed in to the abusive WP environment that has evolved and festered way before my arrival here 1+ years ago. And I have no additional words for the likes of Toddst1, Jasper Deng, ChessPlayerLev, IP 24.79.40.48, or Guy Macon, for reasons explained to others privately. (They can collectively "rule" WP as far as I'm concerned.) Good luck with the encyclopedia, I've enjoyed the editing experience and contributions I've made here, other than what's been referred to above. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Insulting others isn't the way to get unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

I have to say that this block comes to me as a surprise. I have interacted with this person and I don't think he should have received this, given his/her experiance. At the same time, I strongly discourage Ihardlythinkso from interacting with JD. If there is a conflict the fist thing you should do is request mediation. If you still can resolve the conflict either walk away or open an arbitration case. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk page privileges revoked

Since you've chosen to use your talk page to discuss sucking donkey balls instead of an earnest unblock request, you have lost the privilege to edit this page. And since it sounds as if you are using email to continue your "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive" interactions, I've disabled that as well.

If you wish to mount an earnest appeal of this block, you may use the UTRS. Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Per discussion with AGK, I have restored your email and talk page privileges. Toddst1 (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom unblock appeal

Following review of an unblock appeal and after consultation with the blocking admin the Arbitration Committee have agreed to unblock Ihardlythinkso. For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad you made it out okay.  :) –BuickCenturyDriver 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Buick. And thanks too, for your previous supportive comments. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
A conflict of interest is never pretty. The best thing for you to do is walk away and ignore the other person's taunts and harassments. Eventually you'll come out the winner and he'll be the one dealing with the block. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
There wasn't COI, just conflict. I'm wondering what the CIV policy is for, if clear incivility is ignored? (Doesn't that give free license to the offender, to continue his incivilities, against the same person or against someone else?) If CIV is *sometimes* enforced, isn't that a trap whereby blocking Admins will use when they "want" to, and a chaotic non-uniformity of enforcement results like a Wild West of favoritism and prejudice gone berzerk? I think the level of incivility at WP is astonishing, what people get by with here is incredulous, and the fact they engage the way they do even more amazing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL should be equally applied. That being said, it looks like you are making a "he was uncivil and got away with it so its OK for me to be uncivil" argument. No. You are not allowed to be uncivil no matter what other editors do. If someone is getting away with something, report them. Do not respond with incivility.
Although arbcom lifted the indefinite block (and I agree; a 48 hour block would have been more appropriate) nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again. If, on the other hand, you start taking WP:CIVIL seriously you will be in a good position to report anyone who isn't civil without fear of WP:BOOMERANG and they will get blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Guy Macon, please stay off my user Talk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
No. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
"However, if someone has been reasonably asked not to post on a user's talk page, as IHTS has, it may be considered harassment for someone to continue posting there." --Toddst1
"Point well taken. One must avoid all actions detailed in Wikipedia:Harassment. This is an absolute rule. Thanks for the clarification." --Guy Macon
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:HA#NOT. -Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
For the second time, please stay off my user Talk. (You're not welcome here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Chess notation

Thanks for your note. I saw the problems easily when I looked, and went to the sources with the help of a friend who has them.

  • Pitman (in Modern Chess Openings): proper symbol (×) and en dash
  • Bell: proper symbol (but uses a kind of em dash, it seems: certainly not a hyphen)
  • Penguin: proper symbol and en dash
  • Chess Digest: proper symbol and en dash
  • Batsford: proper symbol (but uses hyphen, not en dash)
  • Arco: proper symbol and en dash
  • Imprint Capablanca (heavy-duty chess publishers): proper symbol and en dash
  • Digest: proper symbol and en dash

I see your point about thousands of article, but the changes are relatively subtle to the eye, so could not be very disruptive if done in a piecemeal fashion. I wonder whether a script could do it. Tony (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Choco chip cookie.png This cookie is for your excellent suggestions at MOS. Good work! Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's all for naught unless sufficient participation is present to determine a valid consensus. I'd like to see at least some of the items make it to documented ProjChess conventions, or new MOS speciality section, or both, but don't have the experience to carry from discussion to those result(s). Someone experienced needs to come in before the thing gets archived! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Excellent point. Let me see what I can do about that. I know we had a bit of a bumpy start (sorry about that) but once we started focusing on the task at hand I found it to be very pleasant working with you -- I really like your eye for detail. Your comment above is a good example; unlike some, you "get it" that our real goal is improving ProjChess and/or MOS. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)