User talk:Ihardlythinkso/Archive 2

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


I am very gald to see you back to Wikpedia and be ready to read more your chess variant article. I am a chess variant and abstract strategy games fan and often write and translate releated article from En Wikpedia into Zh Wikpedia, like Racing Kings...etc. -- (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome back – you are so kind! I don't know Chinese language of course, but clicked on some of the links starting at Racing Kings and saw several of your work there on Zh WP – good job! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


I saw you reverted some changes citing MOS:LQ. The same editor made similar changes to chess and pawn (chess). Should these be reverted? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I corrected article Chess; looks like you got Pawn (chess). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I'm happy to see you are editing regulary and I hope the past is in the past. So, let's keep moving forward to improve chess articles! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar & comment, OTAVIO! (I'm especially happy Quale is back again, too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairy chess pieces

I created articles about the archbishop and chancellor, but which fairy chess pieces deserve their own articles? Double sharp (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The amazon (RNB) is now available. An idea for fairy chess pieces which don't have standardised notation is to use Betza's funny notation: an amazon moving from d5 to f5 would be notated as (RNB)d5-f5 or (RNB)f5. (Of course, we can use QN instead of Betza's RNB.) Double sharp (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Double. Was gonna say, perhaps "rose as bookend to nightrider, amazon as bookend to archbishop & chancellor". You're fast! Good work. (It's your specialty more than mine, so you know better. One thing I'd like to see sometime, are articles on Ralph Betza, George Dekle, R. Wayne Schmittberger, and Tony Paletta. But bio writing is definitely not my forte. Nevertheless I might try and start one on Dekle in future.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)p.s. How 'bout an article on the camel!? (A popular and classic piece, e.g. Wildebeest, janggi elephant. Maybe janggi elephant pattern is close association!?)
The rose is my next target. The janggi elephant is really a non-jumping zebra (J in Betza notation, (2,3) leaper), so I'd probably cover it in the same article as the zebra. Camel is definitely a must, and I think I could (soon!) create articles on all the (m,n) leapers with m ≤ n ≤ 3. (That would be wazir, ferz, dabbaba, alfil, threeleaper, camel, zebra and tripper).
The wildebeest is the NL, right? (This makes me start thinking about one article for all of Betza's augmented knights, and the wildebeest is one of them.)
Others: omega chess champion (WAD) and wizard (FL), perhaps? Crooked bishop (zB) and related crooked rook (zR) in one article? Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I'll have to start using Betza notation in the algebraic notation. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
A Betza general leaper article seems very logical! If fuzzy could be described clear & easy, that'd be good, too. Yes on NL for wildebeest (was that piece a creation of Schmittberger?).
Argh! I can't draw the full rose (qN) move on boards smaller than 13 × 13! qK (the circular king) would fit on 8 × 8: see below. Double sharp (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the rose will not be the next target after all. I'll write on the leapers first. They have much richer history anyway. (BTW, is it spelt ferz or fers?) Double sharp (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Pritchard uses "firzan (fers)", so I presume the single occurrence of "ferz" in Fairy chess piece is a typo. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
All right, I've used fers in the article, although having a redirect from the ferz spelling. (And is the (2,0) leaper dabaaba or dabbaba?) Double sharp (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's back up ... I'm not anything close to etymologist/historian, so would be prone to error re this. For e.g. re my "misprint" comment, in Murray's A History of Chess, it says: "A number of the mediaeval European chess terms can be traced back by way of Arabic to Middle Persian. Thus we have ferz = Ar. firz, firzān = Per. farzī. [...]"
Also: "Farzīn (later in Ar. as firzān, firz, and firza) is connected with the adjective farzāna, 'wise', 'learned', and means literally 'a wise man', 'a counsellor'." (A History of Chess, p. 159.)
Pritchard (2004) and Parton both use "dabbaba". Ihardlythinkso Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

a b c d e f g h
d7 black cross
e7 black cross
f7 black cross
c6 black cross
d6 black cross
f6 black cross
g6 black cross
b5 black cross
c5 black cross
d5 black cross
e5 black cross
f5 black cross
g5 black cross
h5 black cross
b4 black cross
d4 black cross
e4 white upside-down king
f4 black cross
h4 black cross
b3 black cross
c3 black cross
d3 black cross
e3 black cross
f3 black cross
g3 black cross
h3 black cross
c2 black cross
d2 black cross
f2 black cross
g2 black cross
d1 black cross
e1 black cross
f1 black cross
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
a b c d e f g h
qK (circular king). How should we make the circular pieces easier to understand?

Advice & requests

Please don't break other editor's comments when replying like you did here -- it makes the thread hard to follow. Wikipedia is dysfunctional in many ways but somehow works overall, but ANI is not a forum for improving it. Forget the WP-this and WP-that stuff -- the real unwritten rule is don't annoy the other editors. Continuing to pursue issues after the rest of the community has lost interest affects your long term Wiki-reputation. Like every other organization on Earth, Wikipedia has double standards, so long term editors and administrators often go unsanctioned for edits that get lesser status editors in hot water. I strongly suggest you just drop all the discussion about Toddst1 and The Blade of Northern Lights, stay off their talk pages, and get back to editing. This is not a threat (I'm not an admin and I very very rarely report editors to the noticeboards) -- this is sincere advice from an old guy whose been around a long time and seen how these things work. Nobody Ent 12:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments User:Nobody Ent. For the record, I had no interest whatever to continue the ANI thread; Toddst1 & Macon were continuing to add accusatory posts to my attention, I responded rather than not. I have no reason to go to any of the editors' Talk pages; the reason I posted at User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights was because I had genuine issue regarding his summary remarks and the ANI was closed to further adds at that point. My comments about WP at the ANI came out of complete dismay at the conditions there, not any notion of campaign to improve things, which I see as impossible, and leave to good people like Dennis Brown. My main concern with continuing to edit normally at WP, is the inherent hostility and abusiveness in the environment that has struck at me when attempting to discuss and improve the quality of an article in my niche. The user has continued a campaign of harassment and baiting at every opportunity, doesn't hide his incivilities toward me in the slightest, as though presuming he has free reign to attack and be disruptive, as though WP goals re collegiate atmosphere are a complete joke for his amusement. (How the hell am I supposed to respond to a user such as this? He is not interested in my editorship value, only to continue to harass and disrupt. I'm completely nonplussed why this user gets away with his behavior and has not been already blocked.) Also it seems there is accepted acknowledgment, that to be an annoyance to an admin, can get one blocked. But, to block on the basis of "being annoyed", is itself an offense of incivility and abuse of admin tools, and should result in sanctions and/or de-sysop. If the state of affairs at WP is really that users must cower to the mood of admins, less they use their tools to block, what kind of fear-chaos-cesspool environment is that, in the name of "collegiate environment/community of editors"? Why don't experienced editors call a spade a spade, rather than allow the reign of terror and driving away editors at WP, who decide to be abusive and use WP as a playpen for their own amusement and sadistic entertainment? This is very confusing to an editor as myself with 1+ years experience. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I entertained not even going to the ANI at all. The accusations by User:ChessPlayerLev were baseless, exaggerated, distorted, falsified. I really already learned that ANI is not any decent place to be. (An environment of complete irresponsibility.) May I ask, with a list of false accuses left by the complainant, had I not gone to ANI at all, not responded at all, ... what would have been the likely result? (I would really like to know this. It is not knowing this, that led me to decide to respond at the ANI at all.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what would have happened, but this I do know: The best way to respond to an ANI complaint naming you is not to respond to the initial post but rather to wait to see how (relatively) neutral third party editors respond. In the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_Abusive_Behavior_from_Ihardlythinkso the first editor in was Jasper Deng, who addressed critical remarks to the poster, with somewhat of a sideways swipe at yourself "which never ends well with Ihardlythinkso." After another brief exchange with JD, you and the poster went back and forth until The Blade Of Northern Lights made his statement. You absolutely would have been better off not responding at all until another party directly commented about your behavior or addressed a question to you. There's no justice system on Wikipedia, dispute resolution is all about resolving conflicts as quickly and simply as possible so editors can get back to editing. So a statement like the one Blade made is not a ruling both of you guys were equally culpable -- it's more like no one on Wikipedia really wants to expend energy parsing out which of two editors in a conflict is more "at fault." Nobody Ent 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I get it. (Sit until third party comments or queries.) Had there been no third party responders after JD's last remark, there would have been nothing for me to respond to or answer, and, that is the way it looked like it was going, and, I was concerned what my complete silence might yield at closing time. (A sanction because of my disinterest to respond? Then I would have had that to deal with!?) A different point, I still don't understand why the venue wasn't questioned; I've read numerous times ANI is to be used only as last resort after all other options are exhausted. Even the opener sugggested Wikiquette seemed like a more appropriate venue, and tried to justify why he didn't. I don't buy his experience or WP knowledge on it. I understand the closing motive, if Blade decides to leave an unnecessary insulting comment, I don't see why he can't take an objection on his Talk after the thread was closed. (IMO, that would be an example of "taking responsibility". Why does an admin feel inherent right to insult a voluntary editor without comment? And if one objects, the block weapon comes out of holster, immediately. I do think this is a terribly abusive & hostile environment, but have no interest to play martyr as Dennis supposed. Yet, if *no one* ever objects or says anything or demonstrates any resistance in any way [about incivilities, inconsistencies, hypocrisies, abuses], how ever in any universe could or would there be even possibility of improvement or change?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, there is a contradiction present ... If the purpose is to close the ANI as efficiently as possible, so editors can get back to editing, then, wouldn't the most efficient thing for Blade to do, after I registered my view of his summary comments on his Talk after the close, would be a one-liner with me, accepting or disagreeing, which would have been a logical end of the exchange? (Instead, he opened the thread again, proposed a block, and then sat back as the piling-on occurred, with plenty of time and disruption and drama, all a waste, all irrational, all non-productive.) Is it fair for me to conclude then, that his decision to reopen the thread, was for purpose of punishment (a punishing block), in retaliation for registering my view on his Talk? (And if true, isn't that agaist policy admins supposedly are here to enforce, and weren't his decisions and actions sanctionable? Although I don't expect anything like that would really happen, the scenario at least has more logic and consistency and fairness attached to it IMO, than the chaotic & hypocritical wilderness that was the reality of what unfolded.) It was like: "Hm, come to my Talk and complain, huh? Ok ... TAKE THIS!" (Block-time and pile-on time and insult-time opens wide and gushes forth.) I think that whole scenario, besides contradictory, is entirely abusive and punishing and BATTLEGROUND mentality. Yet no sanctions. No challenges. Nothing. (But I did see you had words w/ Blade, which I appreciate very much. Thank you!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
For me, the miracle of Wikipedia is not that it works so well but rather that it works at all given how dysfunctional it is. There's vast gray areas of behavior. There lot's that messed up and I know I can't fix it, but I don't get paid to fix Jimbo's mess. What I can, and try to do, is just make it a little better, whether that's politely asking an admin to tone it down a bit, or encouraging a new editor who's stumbled in the the ANI shark tank to persevere.
We don't get paid for doing this, so it should be fun. BNL and Todd are not going to get reprimanded or desysoped or otherwise sanctioned (beyond someone like me bitchin' at them a little bit). All in all they're good admins regardless of the fact I think they are a little too harsh with their words sometimes. And Todd is not your "nemesis," he's just someone trying to do a thankless job the best they can. If your enjoyment of a webspace requires it to be Lawful Good instead of Chaotic Good you're highly unlikely to find it an enjoyable experience longterm. This is not a "you're not welcome here" message, it's a "this is the way the place is" message. Life is too short to waste time on Wikipedia unless you enjoy the experience. Nobody Ent 12:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for answers. I respect your experience and wisdom. For clarification, Toddst1 has gone out of his way several times, to try and end my WP life here (using admin powers, not words). That kind of targeting is the basis I chose the word I did. A non-admin editor has gone out of his way several times, to try and make my WP life as unpleasant as possible (words). He has followed me around to do so, and that is a targeting, too. Both experiences run deliberately counter to "collaborative, collegiate editing environment" making mine a hostile, abusive one instead. (These are "good" editors?! How can I possibly agree? Perhaps it is difficult or even impossible for you to know the feeling on my end, because you have not been in the editors' crosshairs, I have.)
I'll continue to read and reflect on your thoughts above. Thank you again for your involvements and counsel, I sincerely appreciate. (In fact, your involvements here, plus Dennis's, is the only thing that's given me any feeling of encouragement to return to editing. Your "go back to editing now" was uplifing, as though I needn't worry so much about the safety of the environment here. But, my instincts aren't convinced. As a result, my ambition to edit anything is way down. [Perhaps without your encouragements, there wouldn't be any.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
"Life is too short to waste time on Wikipedia unless you enjoy the experience." You're a true "WP philosopher", Nobody Ent! (And, I think I enjoy reading WP articles, more than editing them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


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

Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for welcoming me back five weeks ago, although I'm not really back as you might guess by this long delayed ping back. Real life has taken me away from Wikipedia for the last couple years and now I mostly edit in small fits and starts. I haven't done any real article work in years and mostly wikignome trivial bits. But I appreciate the large amount of work you've done improving chess articles. Quale (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't disappear for good--I was wondering! I think you contribute important wisdom/guidance to ProjChess (random example: policy interpretation re admissability of computer analysis to game articles). The fact you stay on project as wikignome is a great assurance to me personally, and makes me feel more encouraged to make contributions. (It can be a zoo here, your eyes lend needed rationality.)
Re the cats, it didn't occur to me that the WP software, wouldn't automatically *skip* looking in User:Talk spaces when hunting down catagory identifiers. (Now I know. Thanks!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dawn Marie Psaltis

I don't have any objection per se to talking with another editor on my talk page, but if it's a discussion on a matter in which other editors want to participate, we cannot simply exclude them. If another editor is violating WP:AGF by attacking you ad hominen (and I believe me, I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks), then please alert me, and link me to the diffs in question, and I will inform the offending editor that that behavior is not permitted. But if there's something you want to discuss that you think does not involve other editors, then sure, feel free to discuss it on my talk page. Nightscream (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is *less chance* of the user continuing the ad hominmen personal attacks against me at your User talk, than at the article Talk, where the user already levied attacks. I have updated your User talk. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


I wasn't able to directly address the issue that you linked to because I've voluntarily accepted some limitations. Please see my user page for an explanation. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh God you got it! (So jealous!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that mutual agreement and a willing admin are the sole requirements. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This, like everything else here, has no rules, so I'm not sure it (or anything else) can be "understood". (My guess is you were specially treated ... "considering". You got lucky.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
If Wikipedia were sane, then my treatment would be a precedent that others could follow. Whether this is true remains to be determined, but betting on the sanity of Wikipedia is not guaranteed to yield returns. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Right. (And keep in mind, it's novel, young; might generate conditions/eyes that are different than its counterpart. [If worked specially against you, that would be bad.] I have a feel they don't wanna make precedent -- else long lines at the box office.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe I can comment on this. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. (Keep your nose clean!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


I'm glad you brought this up. It's definitely something that needs to stop being used as a "reliable source" in so many Wikipedia chess articles, especially in the incorrect manner it presently is. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You've taken it upon yourself to remove the source from several articles, undoing the work of other editors, without any consensus for proceeding in that direction at Proj Chess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not really. I wrote a reply just now on the Project Page about it, but the only thing I did in those articles was to get rid of statements that used Chessmetrics ratings interchangeably with Elo ratings (factually wrong), statements using Chessmetrics ratings to make arguments about someone being "GM strength" (factually wrong again; the GM title is awarded based on norms, and not any any type of rating, even Elo), or used Chessmetrics to make statements about "world rankings", as if they were some official tracker. (factually wrong a third time)
No "consensus" is needed for these things any more than any other factual error. If an article states that the Declaration of Independence was written in 1780, I would hope I don't need to get "consensus" to fix an objective error.
By the way dude, if you spent even half as much effort on editing Wikipedia Chess Articles (many of which are in an absolutely horrible state) as you do arguing with me, the encyclopedia would be vastly better off for it. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
CPL, I'd like to review the Chessmetrics discussion at Proj Chess page, you're making several assertions, and not knowing the background vis-a-vis Chessmetrics, can't form an opinion whether I think you're right or not. But I do think at this point you are incorrect in what you state about some of the content you've been removing from articles (more than what you said). Also, I don't understand why you are removing content, like matches and match records, based on "I can't find it and it wasn't sourced". (You should be using {{citation needed}} tag for that, rather than wholescale immediate deletion.) How do you suppose that content got there in the first place? (It seems there are three possibilities: 1) someone had a source they didn't identify, 2) someone had a source but got something mixed up, or 3) they invented it out of their head.) In any case, the thing to do is tag it and give the editor time to source it.
I have no interest or desire to "argue" with you, CPL. But when I see what are IMO bogus arguments intended to be the basis for removal of contents (be they article content, categories, whole articles via AfD), then I'm bound to express my thought which might counter your opinions. When you tried to stick words in Fischer's mouth at Paul Morphy that he never said regarding his strength compared to Morphy's, an effort which ended up opposed by me & Quale and which you proved by contacting the author was taken out of context by you, you had initially challenged my revert, re-adding with edit summary asking why I would "nit-pick even the slightest of [your] edits". I ended up protecting the article, didn't I? (And, you violated policy of WP:BRD also by reverting without discussion, a mistake unacknowleged by you.) When you tried to insist an incendiary, accusatory Youtube video should be included in Dawn Marie Psaltis BLP, in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE, you reverted an IP user who removed the material calling the IP's removal an act of vandalism, and you reverted me (edit-warred) even though you were in the wrong about BLP policy, and again dismissed the Talk section I opened after my edit summary explaining the material was a violation of BLP policy and please see Talk -- you reverted me without first going to Talk. Once again I helped protect that article (and Wikipedia since it was a BLP) over your efforts to compromise it.
So you see, CPL, I have no interest in "arguing" with you or even engaging in debate with you. I've seen how you argue your points, and I thoroughly disagree with your tactics, and many times your logic. You want me to go into a corner and not speak up when I see you violating policy and compromising articles? If you find that a nuisance, then, good.
No one on Wikipedia has called me anything other than my username, or abbreviation IHTS. What makes you think I'm gonna receive your informal "dude" anything but insulting? I do. (And you linked to your posts here to show example of your level of collaboration with me and avoidance of "personal squabbles"?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I really resent how you tried to smear my reputation at Talk:Dawn Marie Psaltis with all your ad hominem fictional garbage. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This is your problem. I write you a friendly message on your page. You respond in a rude, insulting manner. I ignore it, and answer your points in a cogent manner. You then respond in the insanely over-the-top, insulting manner seen above. (By the way, "dude" is an expression I frequently use in informal conversation with people, especially friends) Your "Wikipedia is a battleground" mentality never seems to change, no matter how many warnings or second chances you get from admins. Fine.
But let me say this. I'm here to edit and improve the chess articles on Wikipedia. I enjoy that. I don't enjoy the endless objections and insults you write to me in response to my edits. I get tired of it very quickly. When I informed you of this the last time, you ignored it and continued to mock me. I then took it to the ANI and no fewer than 3 different admins wanted you blocked indefinitely. Do you want to go through this same song and dance again? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I think the shoe's on the other foot re nearly everything you wrote. (You lace your text with personal attacks, twist and distort in attempt to smear me, try to get me thrown off the mountain based on the same. That as background context is hardly a friendly one whereby I'd be able to interpret calling me "dude" as anything other than condescending. So count that another bogus and twisted argument from you.)
The "all those warnings and second chances you've gotten from admins" attempt to smear, is complete exaggeration, and CPL, I've noticed you frequently exaggerate and resort to hyperbole in your arguments. (There are numerous diffs if I had a mind to quote them.) I have a hard time w/ that, too.
"Endless objections and insults you write to me in response to my edits." More exaggeration and hyperbole. Are you including the Paul Morphy false interpretation you tried to force in the article? Are you including the incendiary, accusatory Youtube video you tried to instill in the Dawn Marie Psaltis BLP counter to BLP policy? You objected to my nit-picking at Paul Morphy and don't seem to understand WP:BRD, you reverted me without discussion at Psaltis and called an IP's removal of the material "vandalism". Have you learned anything by these experiences? Is that why I got an apologies from you how you treated me at Talk:Psaltis and Talk:Morphy? I object to you, CPL. (Your bullying tactics.)
If you take a peek at my unblock request, CPL, then perhaps you can gain an idea about the objectivity of the "no fewer than three different admins". (BTW, there was admin user:Toddst1, who blocked me, the admin IMO he pals with at WP, and who else are you referring? User:28bytes? He did not register opinion about my being blocked. He evidently was responding to a request from User:Jasper Deng. And again, to judge objectivity of these editors, including Deng, go see my unblock request.)
IMO your opening ANI against me was both inappropriate (ANI is to be used as "last resort" after all other dispute resolution venues have been exhausted, or so I read all time from comments by admins), aggressive, unnecessary, and twisted/distorted. Your "second chances" thing is completely made up, CPL.
Now you appear to be trying to intimidate by threatening to open another ANI. Based on what, CPL? I know you have extreme difficulty when someone objects with you about ... nearly anything.
The WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is all yours, CPL, it always has been. For me, editors like you make Wikipedia an extremely hostile and unpleasant place. You're attempting to make my User Talk an ANI or RfC/U, and throw fictional mud at me (e.g., mock you? I've never done that) again. I find it WP:BAITING. How can you possibly be surprised to hear now: CPL, please stay off my User talk. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Why don't we all have a general conversation on my talk page. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. I'm game, since I know you will control the incivilities. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I misunderstood. (I thought you proposed a discussion as mediator, Dennis. I was wrong. You dropped your note after CPL opened a section on your User talk, with my username as title. Apparently in search of someone to *complain to*, and asserting you, Dennis, are "responsible" for me! Amazing. [And, amusing or insulting -- I'm confused which.]) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The failed discussion with Dennis

I've been busy with my own distractions, but I noticed the discussion on Dennis' page. If you don't mind, I'd like to comment. If you do mind, just delete this and I'll forget about it.

You ascribed some negative motivates to CPL. Let's say for the sake of argument that they're true. If CPL came to Dennis' talk page with the goal of hurting you, as opposed to resolving problems, didn't he succeed? Dennis, for all of his neutrality, has helped you in the past. Now you've alienated him, and that's one less person who might help when CPL files an ANI, RFC/U or whatever. Again, I'm not stating anything about CPL's motives -- I don't know anything about him -- just working within your own arguments.

I have some sympathy for your frustration with Wikipedia, and even with Dennis. When he spoke about how some people find abuse and some find better things, I wanted to interject that some people find abuse because abuse is what other people give them. It's not all in your head and it's not all your fault. I suspect that Dennis isn't actually trying to blame the victim here, but it can come off that way because he's offering you advice about what you can do, and that means focusing on your actions, not CPL's.

I don't think you're "intense", but I do recognize in you something I've seen in myself; a strong sense of justice which recoils and rebels in the face of injustice. What I've learned about Wikipedia is that justice is not highly valued and calls for justice are frequently treated as mere drama. It doesn't value long, valid, persuasive arguments. It values diffs and smears.

None of this is good, but Dennis is right about you having only the power to change how you react. As a writer and communicator, I would advise you say less and say it less sharply. Nobody here has the patience to read the whole thing or the good sense to recognize the difference between accuracy and incivility, so don't give them any ammo. Write what you must, then cut it back down to the very bare bone. Usually, wait a little bit and cut it more.

I hope you take this in the spirit of advice given genuinely. Hang in there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Still*, thanks for your encouragement. I'd like to respond, but not here. (Is your Email on?) Thank you.
I will answer one question here, however.
Dennis, [...] has helped you in the past. Now you've alienated him.
It works both ways. He has alientated me, as well! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
My email is on, but I warn you: I only read the letters from Nigerian princes selling viagra! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I sent you mail, but I must apologize for all the typos and misspellings. (Many. I think I spelled "success" as "sucess" four consecutive times; I spilled coffee in my keyboard some weeks ago, and the keys are sticking.) Maybe you can get the meaning of my sentences, regardless. Thanks for suffering thru it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I put it through a spell-checker, and it appears to be offering viagra from a Nigerian prince. I replied with my full name, address, credit card number, social security number and a scan of my house keys. I'm sure it'll help Nigeria recover its true king. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourced details

I left a few more notes in the thread on my talkpage. Just a ping, in case you're not watchlisting it anymore. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Betza

Apparently, he is (was?) on WP: User:Gnohmon. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Have been thinking of "doing" some articles on some of his games. A nice selection to choose!
Here's work list (anyone can help with) ...
  • Multiplayer Chess (date unknown)
  • Inverter Chess (1963) aka Switch Chess
  • Strange Relay Chess (1970s)
  • Coordinate Chess (Co-Chess) (1973)
  • Conversion Chess (1973)
  • Co-Relay Chess (1973)
  • Double Conversion Chess (1973)
  • Metamorphosis (c. 1973)
  • Pinwheel Chess (1973)
  • Transportation Chess (Transchess) (1973)
  • Watergate Chess (1973)
  • Weak! (1973)
  • Biflux Chess (1974) a Co-Chess variant
  • Brownian Motion Chess (1974)
  • Cassandra Chess (1974)
  • Orbital Chess (1974)
  • Overloader/Restorer Chess (O/R Chess) (1974)
  • Put-back Transchess (1974)
  • Almost Chess (1977)
  • Ambition Chess (1977)
  • Autorifle Chess (1977) after Bill Rawlings
  • Avalanche Chess (1977)
  • Blizzard Chess (1977)
  • Buzzard Chess (1977)
  • List Chess (1977)
  • Plague Chess (1977) after S. Walker
  • Twinkle Chess (1977)
  • Very Scottish Chess (1977)
  • Ghostrider Chess (1978)
  • Incognito Chess (1978)
  • Liars' Chess (1978)
  • Tutti-Frutti Chess (1978) with Philip Cohen
  • Suction Chess (1979)
  • Betza's Chess (1980)
  • One-Shot Chess (1980)
  • Swarm Chess (1980)
  • Way Of The Knight (WOTN) (1992)

I could see a bio article too, if enough material could be gotten. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
He has sense of humor, see at end of this book review. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


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

WER logo and reaching out.

You may always reach out and ask me questions about any concern you have. The logo is what it is, but need not be the only one used if the "Ick" factor is overwhelming you. The fact is, there are very few images that encompass what I see as WER's goals, but if you have a suggestion I am willing to make something for you to use as an "alternative". Make a suggestion and lets see if we can collaborate on some alternatives.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Amadscientist, I was just tinkering w/ your existing logo, made three simple changes, maybe I can send it to you to see what you think. (When you're back from Wiki-break maybe Email me? Then I could forward the draft to you for consider.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess you're not interested. Ok. BTW, I wasn't "overwhelmed" with the ickiness of the logo. It's not that important to me. (That's why the comments "gives me the creeps" and "ick". Had I been "overwhelmed" in any sort of way, my comments wouldn't have been of that lighter nature, but heavier. One thing I don't like about WP is mischaracterizations, distortions, false accuses. It makes WP an unfriendly and uncivil place.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


IP contribution. Iverymuchagreeso! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:33, 14 September 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, 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

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. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I abandoned you...

Sorry I abandoned you at Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Can_I_ask_permission-use_questions_here.3F. I worked hard at writing up answers to some of your questions, and you didn't apear to like the way I answered. That may well be my fault for writing too much, but they were not simple questions, and I didn't want to give you incomplete answers. In any event, it became clear that my style of answering wasn't working. I should have said I was dropping out of the conversation, so you wouldn't be waiting for something that wasn't going to appear. Sorry about that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this an apology for having dropped out? Or for not informing me when you decided to drop out? I didn't mind at all about a long answer, in fact I appreciate detail even though I hadn't asked for it. But it wasn't a matter of my "not liking" your answer about not using the form, it was rather that I was confused by the logic of your answer (namely, if the copyright holder provides the required minimum information without using the form, that it could be problematical still and that the application could be rejected, if you didn't happen to be the receiving agent). This caused me some surprise alarm. In the end I think it was a miscommunication (that, you were attempting to advise me that when the form is not utilized, even when intention is to provide all required minimum informations, sometimes despite the effort the permissions Email fails to do that; I can appreciate that every much, however, the assumption in my Q was that the required minimum informations would be provided without fault or error by the copyright holder; and I think that your answer did not make the same presumption, thus the logic-confusion in our back-and-forth). Regards, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nina Burleigh

hi, i'm new to wikipedia and i'd like to make an addition to the nina burleigh article but for some reason i can't edit the page. could you please help me with this? thank you. Vivian Vianna (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What trouble are you having? (Describe w/ some detail.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

what i'm confused about is normally i notice that semi-protected pages have a small lock icon at the top right of the page, but this nina burleigh article has no icon. is there something else going on as to why the page can't be edited, or do i have to wait until i'm autoconfirmed to edit it? please get back to me, thanks. Vivian Vianna (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vivian, I see you're getting good answers at your User talk. Those editors know more than me about it. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


You have been meantioned in an SPI here. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To which it was immediately blown out of the water as clearly being not the case. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
What does "SPI" stand for? ("Severely Paranoid Illusion"?) Maybe it should be renamed to "ODBF"!? ("Overt Demonstration of Bad Faith".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
You have to admit, the system works. It only took a few minutes for several editors and admins to chime in and call it absurd, and for the page to be deleted outright. The new case (which is named the same, thus the link above works for it) is a completely different one, and of course, doesn't mention you. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Never questioned about the system working or not. Rather the obvious breach of WP:AGF necessary to open the case in the first place. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
There is an expression, often credited to Napoleon Bonaparte, that might fit here, but I won't quote it as a few might mistakenly take it too literal, thus as incivil. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi I thought I'd follow up on the FIDE rating automation. For Polgar I was fairly sure her rating wasn't the 2698 that the automation was giving. Her performance rating in the Olympics was 2744 [1] so I didn't see how it would go down. I notice FIDE's website was giving one rating on the women's table and another on the top 100, both October. Im unaware of FideID on Proj Chess. Any idea what FideID= is drawing from? Thanks. BashBrannigan (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but have asked User:DrTrigon to help answer. The Proj discuss re FideID implementation is located here. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The data are located at
So first - in order to use this feature - the parameter 'FideID' has to be set in {{Infobox chess player}} on Judit Polgár - as you can see from this diff that was not the case. Second - even when done, Polgars rating stays at 2705 ... I am not an expert in this, but when looking at the Polgars FIDE page there is the same value given. So the bot works and if you use 'FideID' you get the actual value from FIDE page. Now the question is; why the value on the FIDE page does not match - but this seams strange... are you really sure about your calculation? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
When looking at your link [2], I realized that everything is ok; Polgar has there Rtg=2698 and Rp=2744, if you look at the very useful FIDE graph you can see in Aug and Sep a value of 2698 (which is Rtg and not Rp) and actually in Oct it raised to 2705. She has never reached a rating of 2744 so far, peak was 2735 (as correctly stated on her page her in enwiki). So everything is fine, except the irrelevant question what 'Rp' is... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Another talkback

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

Double sharp (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fischer's nationality

Why do you object to Fischer being called "American-Icelandic"? The article itself says, "Iceland's parliament voted in March 2005 to give him full citizenship." If having full Icelandic citizenship does not make him one an Icelander, then what does? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't just me. It was discussed at length in article Talk, here. (In fact I don't think I participated in that discussion, but, several members of ProjChess did.) After reviewing, and if you still don't agree, then it is probably appropriate if you re-opened the issue on the article Talk. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
And also in an older Talk archive here, including comments by veteran ProjChess member Krakatoa. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
In my edit sum I wrote "no consensus for this on Talk". What I really meant was that consensus was decidedly against it (not that there wasn't a consensus). Sorry if that caused any confusion. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dawn Marie Psaltis

I have not been mute on anything. I participated in the discussion in question, offered my viewpoint, answered your questions and eventually accepted that my understanding of using primary sources in matters of controversy in BLP matters had been wrong, owing to not having participated in that many instances of that particular permutation. Since that matter seemed to be resolved, and the tone of some of the messages seemed to be getting rather gratuitously hostile, I decided that further participation by me was pointless. Since the last post in that discussion was almost 2 months ago, your out-of-the-blue rehashing of it now seems to me to smack of an obsessive inability to let things go. Looking over the messages posted to that discussion after I left it, I see you asserted that WP:CIV is solely about ideas and not tone (wrong), that I owed you an "apology" (for what?), and a childish-sounding schoolyard taunt that you "spanked" me, which cause me to believe that I was right to walk away from the discussion when I did. I suggest you learn to do the same. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. The thing that sparked my recent message to you, was something currently discovered, the Jimbo quote on your User page (I hadn't seen it before). I notice you have avoided my good-faith question to you about your consistency regarding that quote entirely, and chose to attack me here. Good going. You put me through a lot of unnecessary work to get rid of your BLP-violating adds and arguments on the Dawn Marie page, and you are an Admin, and BLP policy is something very basic to WP, so, it was logical and fair (I think) to expect an apology from you for putting me through all the crap you put me through unnecessarily. I don't recall seeing you write at any time that you were "wrong". (Where did you write that? Did I miss it? Please provide a diff saying that.) For being an Admin that doesn't know the basics regarding adding a Youtube video attacking the BLP article subject, without any other supporting refs, it seems mild what I said at the article Talk, and now you like to make an issue out of that, so, who is obsessed with old issues, me? Or you? The fact is, you never said you were wrong, you just excused yourself with complex language that seemed to attempt to save face for not knowing fundamental WP policy on protecting BLP subjects from claims which could ruin their reputations in unaccountable Youtube videos, and, you supported doing so to the hilt. You are an Admin and should have known better, and it was pointed out to you by even me, a newbie, that you were in violation of BLP policy.
I'm still left wondering how you square the quote by Jimbo on your User page, with your actions to argue forcefully to retain a smearing Youtube video on a BLP subject, totally against policy, which nearly everyone is aware of, especially Admins should be aware of. Again, I'm not aware you ever said you were "wrong" (where?), and your Jimbo quote on your User page seems to be totally inconsistent with your actions, I was wondering how you resolved that quote with your actions at Dawn Marie? (Do I get an answer, or like earlier, do you like to leave the room and avoid answering?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As an uninvolved editor, I'd like to suggest that perhaps taking Avanu's advice and dropping this, might be a good idea for everyone at this point. - jc37 06:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I hear you, Jc37. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Med Com

Greetings IHTS, since I'm sure Steven Zhang and Guy and MedCom are discussing us behind closed doors I thought we should chat. It's interesting how Blade of the Northern Lights pops up again. He banned a respected pro-Rawat editor for six months for describing an edit as "extremely stupid" and yet when an anti-Rawat editor PatW called me "ridiculous" he did nothing. In fact, he offered to help PatW report me. Steve Zhang, who has already botched a mediation on Prem Rawat, closed a Dispute Resolution before it started and announced his presence at Prem Rawat by replacing a photo that had been in the info box for months. And then he awarded Guy and Blade barnstars for "Thanks for all your tireless work at AE - too few admins work at AE and I appreciate your efforts there". Perhaps we should award each other a barnstar!Momento (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the image I reinserted had been in the article from May 26, 2008 until June 22, 2012, and was one that was selected after a discussion on the talk page at the time of its initial insertion. Momento, I have no problems with criticism, but please present facts correctly. Thank you. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Introductions cat

Briefly, it's subjective. I'm not sure why it was removed - I'd be curious to know. That being said, I do tend to be a bit of an over-categorizer sometimes; take that for what you will. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Any time - happy to be of help. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Right again

Editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions).Momento (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

When I suggested to Magog there was some amount of obligation that he explain his rationales used at the ANI, I meant expectations the community has for Administrators when asked, as above. (So of course, Macon jumps on my ass re word "obligation", and attacks as "badgering" my query to the Admin re his rationales.) This place is a nuthouse of hypocritical dysfunction, not to leave out rudeness and nastiness. The hall monitors who attack and upset content conributors are the worst of all, IMO, they are here for themeselves (their own egos) and roles as hall monitors, and not the encyclopedia, which they could give a flying rip about. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Your comment on Ed's talk page "I want peaceful co-existence on the Wiki w/ TParis and you as well" - that's pretty much what I want with most people. So I'm going to back off for awhile.--v/r - TP 13:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood. And you're welcome here for anything. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On sex-neutral language

In case you weren’t aware, the discussion at Talk:Antichess inspired a thread at Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language about the necessity of counterexamples. —Frungi (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. (Apparently it spilled unrelatedly into a hip-shot at changing the Antichess text again, too.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

“He” discussion on WIkiProject Chess

I don’t know if you still care, but in case you do and didn’t know, it looks like the discussion’s moved to WikiProject Chess. Right now it mostly seems to be people trying to explain to Georgia guy why it’s not a problem, and he missing the point. —Frungi (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx, but I won't be participating anymore due to the nastiness involved, including blatant mischaracterizations what I've written, and repeated no-consensus bullying reverts. The attempts to gender-neutralize "A player wins by losing all his pieces" have been amusing -- they've all compromised the text to one degree or another, and some tries have been downright absurd. The changers are nonetheless undisuaded, as though it is somehow *unthinkable* to allow the simplest and best text to stand. (Evidence to me, there is something much more sinister at play than simply "not getting it" -- i.e., an extremist social/political/language-changing POV agenda. So no matter how many good faith explanations ChessPlayerLev offers, he cannot win that debate, it isn't consistent with the POV pushers' agenda and aims.)
We simply *must* find a way to not disclude the egg-bearing side of the human race in the chess variant article rules text, no matter what. (No matter what!) Otherwise ... otherwise ... otherwise ... ... otherwise someone might just pee in their pants! (Too funny.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
p.s. If I'm pissed off from being misrepresented (again) though, I might speak up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mad pawn chess

What happens to promotion? A mad pawn cannot find itself in a position where it would have no legal moves on an empty board, unlike the FIDE pawn. So am I correct in assuming that promotion is optional? (Might be useful.) Double sharp (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking ... ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Problem is, I don't know what a true arrow pawn is like re promotion (wasn't able to get add'l info thought I might in a copy of World Game Review. Arrow Pawn Chess, Pritcard ECV, taken from Fairy Chess Review (1938): "An arrow pawn moves one or two squares orthogonally in any direction and captures one square diagonally, also in any direction, but does not promote. [...] E.P. capture may occur on any two-step move." George R. Dekle's Three-Man Chess, using arrow pawn, has these rules: "After moving to the 5th rank, the Pawn becomes an Arrow Pawn and may move one square orthogonally in any direction or capture one square diagonally in any direction, with the exception that it cannot reenter its home 1/3 of the board. Upon moving either to the far side of the board or to either enemy's back rank, the Pawn may promote normally."
My guess is Dekle wanted to keep things as much like ortho chess as possible (and so included promotion).
Don't know what about this. (Lack of info on def.) If I were a game inventor, I'd play-test all of the forms until able to draw conclusion which played best (no promotion, promotion optional, promotion mandatory). Since "Mad Pawn Chess" was semi-serious, we co-inventors can do anything. (How about, a mad pawn "self-destructing" upon entering the far rank, destroying everything in a 3x3 area it is at the middle-top of, including any friendly pieces!? [Because madness seldom leads to happy endings. And "Watch out! -- It's mad!"] Or maybe mad pawns should just stay mad -- like an asylum with all patients escaped, no care facilities or treatment available, in that case the pawns wouldn't understand the benefits of promotion or know what to do if promoted!?) Okay, clearly I'm having too much fun with this (he-he). What do u think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer mad pawns staying mad. We might want to try playtesting this! Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they're already quite powerful. (And once mad, usually no turning back, right? No mad soldier has probably ever been promoted to queen, bishop, or knight!) What about double-steps, Double sharp? ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer them being only legal on each mad pawn's first move (not capture), just like orthodox pawns. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And only straight forward, yes?, not sideways (as in Arrow Pawn Chess). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Allowing sideways movement seems more consistent logically, but I wouldn't mind either alternative. What's the value of a mad pawn, BTW? I would guess about 1.5 to 2 normal pawns, but I could be wrong. Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I was gonna guess 2.5! (It's basically subset of a king, with initial double-step, en passant, and immunity from check capabilities. The king is assigned 4 of course.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to be sure we're on same page above, I was referring to initial two-step option only. (I.e., first-move two-step option is only orghogonally forward, not sideways?) I could see logic either way. (The logic of extending orthogonal two-step to additional orthogonal directions the pawn has possible for the two-step. And the logic of adding to the ortho pawn, only single-step orthogonal move in any direction, plus single-step diagonal capture in any direction.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Playtest!? My MPs (Military Poice?! No! -- Mad Pawns, or, Mutated Pirhanas) can beat up your MPs "any day of the week". ('Cause those things are *cray-zee*. And they want to eat you alive!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A chess question

Hello Ihardlythinkso.
I noticed you were a chess player and I always wanted to find a chess player to ask this:
On the board the white queen faces (is in a column with) the black queen, the white king faces the black king.
How would the game change if this was reversed, i.e. if the white queen faced the black king, the black queen the white king
(or "vice versa": there's two ways to do this, white king to the right, etc., or white king to the left, etc. but it should lead to similar results).

Yeah, it doesn't matter, it's just a reflection (difference). The difference to play is that (1) openings would all be trashed, and (2) games would probably be more exciting, because, castling short (0-0) is done much more frequently than castling long (0-0-0), because it is quicker to accomplish, and safer (no unprotected pawn). So with both players castling short, they are free to pawn-storm on the opposite wing. (Mutual pawn storms on opposite wings is always exciting play. "Who will get there first?") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any simulation of such "central reflection" symmetric chess, as opposed to the "horizontal reflection" symmetric chess that it is within the usual rules of chess?

The idea to "central reflect" the royalty has been around a long. long time (more on that later), but am not aware of any testing (but who knows?). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any sequence of permitted moves that could bring the normal "horizontal reflection" starting pattern to this "central reflection" starting pattern?
(I suppose not, since pawns would have to be moved that could never be brought back to the 2nd line, but I thought I'd ask since I'm not au fait of all the more obscure rules)

Your supposition is correct. (Not possible.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note the (naked) chess board is "central reflection" symmetric, not "horizontal reflection" symmetric.

Interesting point. (And I never heard of "naked" board before, only an empty one!) One thing though, that's only true if the squares are checkered. The earliest chessboards were uni-color. Square colors are really meaningless - there just as visual aid to pick out bishop/queen diagonals. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Naked board. Hmm. At first I thought it might've come from French since that's the language I speak most of the time. But no, a Google search confirmed in French it's an empty board too ("échiquier vide") and naked board ("échiquier nu") is just as unknown. I'm worried. I'll have to see a shrink about this. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 14:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There is such thing as naked king (only the king left, or sometimes, king stripped of protective pawn cover). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if you, for fun, ever experiment with a friend with this kind of chess for a few games, tell me what happened and what was different about it.
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 00:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The first variation in Displacement chess#Variations seems to be what I've described above. Transposing black's (instead of white's) king and queen would lead to similar results. Any of this incorrect? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You found it! (That's it.) Here's what the CECV (Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants) has to say (p. 73, §9.2, "The opposing arrays mirror each other diametrally"):

An alternative to vertical mirroring is provided by diametral mirroring, where like men are at opposite ends of an imaginary line through the centre of the board. An example is given by White King and Queen Interchanged, which has been suggested many times (e.g. in the Chess Amateur, December 1916). A correspondence tournament started in 1935 was won by E. Ancsin of Budapest (+10 −1 =0) with P. Keres and H. Muller as joint runners-up (+9 −1 =1) (Fernschach 12/1937, quoted in Chess Notes). Lord Brabazon subsequently suggested that it be officially adopted for a trial period (Chess, April 1944), but readers' letters (17 published) were predictably conservative.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Pritchard published two of the top games from that 1935 tournament in ECV (Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, p. 88). It's interesting ... in both games, White castled long (king ending on f1)! Black won both games. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Varianti scacchi wild

Accidently ran across this on Commons! (More later ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between what you have above and this?
I don't see any, either! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Varianti scacchi wild
Both are used on this Italian page. According to this page the name of these variants is Wild 1 and Wild 6 resp. but uses another terminology so I couldn't find them there
Eagerly waiting for more...
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Found them ( I think :-) here
You can tell I'm not a chess player since I don't quite understand the difference between these three sets of instructions.
All I could tell is that besides flipping king and queen, castling rules are a bit modified (in all three!)
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
What does it mean that a chess variant has "no opening theory"? If I had to venture a guess, I would say that what is meant is that the variant does not need an opening theory distinct from that of regular chess, so that opening theory for regular chess can still be used for the variant as well. But is this correct? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it means there is not enough experience with the variant (games, results) to form or crystalize any theory. (Theory grows out of practice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Several earlier or regional forms of chess have the royalty reversed (queens were ferzan though, diagonal single-steppers). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
8 a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8 8
7 a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7 7
6 a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6 6
5 a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5 5
4 a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 4
3 a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 3
2 a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 2
1 a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 1
Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg

Quick mate patterns such as the Fool's Mate or the Scholar's Mate don't seem to be available in this variant, or are they? (I have only looked at this superficially, since I'm talking to a chess player, who'll be able to answer this easily anyway:-) On the other hand can you see, without thinking too hard (I'm not expecting you to come up with an opening theory on the fly of course:-) any quick mate pattern that this variant would give rise to and that wouldn't be available in the regular kind? Or quick mate patterns that would be available in both variants? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 13:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Without diagonal sliders, I don't see either Fool's or Scholar's. Those games are slow-moving. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
What are the foolsmates in chaturanga and senterej? (I'm defining "foolsmate" not as something which looks like the FIDE fool's mate, but, following Ralph Betza, as the quickest possible mate in a chess variant.) Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't know for sure but found this mate in three: 1.g3 Nc6 2.e3 Ne5 3.Ne2 Nf3#. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait, are you talking about the two historical variants shown here (Chaturanga and Senterej) or the variant I asked about in the very beginning? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh. In the gray diag there's a Fool's (1.d3 c5 2.Bd2 b5 3.Ba5#) and White could play for a Scholar's at c7 with N & B. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
A FIDE-like Scholar's with B & Q would be something like 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Bf5 3.Qd2 Nf6 4.Qa5 Nc6 5.Qxc7#. I don't think you can do a Scholar's with N & B, as if Black starts 1.d4 d5 or 1.d4 e5 (both logical adaptations of the sequence of moves in the FIDE Scholar's mate to this variant) he opens a flight square for his king at d7 or e7 which the N & B (I think you mean a set up like Nb5, Bc7) can't reach. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, but not sure the pawn move is required to be a Scholar's. (No real definition other than quick mate on the weakest point.) But I think you're right, Q & B is more apt, since with more chances to occur it would be the most frequent/common. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In the usual setup, the king's bishop and the queen are on the same colour as the enemy king. Changing that makes it harder to have early mating attacks. Another factor to consider is that when the two kings face each other, the open e-file is dangerous to both due to pins and discovered attacks (e.g. the famous trick in Petrov's Defence – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4?! 4.Qe2 Nf6?? 5.Nc6+ and Black loses his queen). If the two kings are not on the same file, this isn't possible. Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of displacement chess, what happens when the knights and bishops are transposed from the ordinary starting position (so that White's bishops are on b1 and g1 and his knights are on c1 and f1)? Betza wrote about the six possible arrangements of the rooks, knights, and bishops in FIDE chess. What's the history of this version? Besides being a separate chess variant in itself, it's also a common mistake in setting up the initial position of FIDE chess. Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Found this (Pritchard CECV, p. 71):

Knights and Bishops (suggested by 'R' in a letter to the Illustrated London News, 11 April 1857). Baseline RBNQKNBR. Used in a game between Blackburne and Potter in 1875 (City of London Chess Magazine 1876) and in a tournament in 1879 (Chess Monthly, September 1879). Editorial comment in the latter (Zukertort's?) was hostile: 'We cannot approve of any kind of displacement. The beaten tracks of known openings are, of course, thereby avoided, but this small advantage is purchased at the price of destroying the spirit of the game. However, this particular displacement is vicious in principle ... the first player has such a great advantage that it simply upsets the basis of a fair game'. Regrettably, this great advantage was not revealed. The arrangement was subsequently used in a six-game match between Showalter and Leman, at least one game of which was reproduced in La Stratégie in 1890.

1950s American automobile culture

You're doing great work with that article, keep it up. Malleus Fatuorum 08:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Danke! (Coming from you, it is a great compliment.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. Quality help is always appreciated. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I recognise quality when I see it. Sadly I don't see it often enough. Malleus Fatuorum 09:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No writing background (or education!) at all, only interest in the language & enjoy learning by doing.
Malleus, am concerned about future of WP vis-a-vis true comment you made re articles eventually turning to gray goo. The open editing policy was the founder's fresh idea, but it seems it is already outmoded (especially re FAs). What is the solution, and, is anyone listening to same? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Nobody's listening, and grey goo is where we're headed. One very simple thing would be to semi-protect all articles at GA level and beyond. But as I said, nobody with the clout to do it cares. Editors are, after all, easily replaceable units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 10:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've pondered that very same idea, and even asked it of others in my editor reviews. Like most things here, there appears to be no consensus on the issue. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As per Malleus's comment, I'm wondering if that section on unions needs removing. I expect to try to tie it more into auto culture today or remove it. It is a bit off of the main topic. I was going to yesterday, sinuses killing me so I've been distracted. But it needs tying in to be kept, a mistake I should have remedied earlier. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood. (It's just target practice for me -- the dysfunctional text. Editing it doesn't mean I've entered evaluative process and determined the text is appropriate for article. That sculpting is best left to the artists. I just like shooting bad text dead, it's fun [and don't care if it goes away]. It's just practice and a diversion.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. Chris Evert was once asked why she bothered to return back over the net, out-of-bound tennis shots from her opponent. Her answer: "Practice!"

Yet another crazy idea

Diagrams for 3D chess (I used Ralph Betza's 8×8×8 Mixed 3D chess variant, because he'd already made up a sample game for it). Although they do take a lot of space, I think this is a reasonably good 2D representation of a 3D board (if we're not going to use separate images). Double sharp (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Permanent link: [3]. Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

8×8×8×8 4D chess, anyone? :-) Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Why not? How about chess on various 2d/3d/4d manifolds; e.g. in 2d (surfaces): chess on non orientable surfaces (projective plane, Möbius strip, Klein bottle), chess on a cylinder, chess on a sphere, chess on an orientable closed surface of genus n (doughnut with n holes). I don't know which of these surfaces can be covered by squares in a more or less regular way. But who cares. If they're not squares, let them be triangles, or pentagons, or whatever. The whites and the blacks could be arranged in... But but wait! Why only whites and blacks? How about 3 colors (3 players), 4 colors (4 players). Etc. Etc. The sky's the limit :-) Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
You're an excellent source of inspiration. :-)
Gaussian Integer Chess: Each coordinate is now a complex number of the form a + bi, where a and b range from 1 to 8. Thus you can have squares like (4+3i, 7+6i). Other rules not worked out yet. (This is similar to 4D chess, so we'll need some rules to make it behave differently. For example, movement could be different in the imaginary direction.) Double sharp (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Non-orientable surface chesses are easier to invent (although I think they work better with xiangqi). Just connect the board. The main problem is deciding how the board wraps around at the boundaries for non-orientable variants (orientable boundaries are easy, as in cylindrical chess). Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's how I see the wrapping in Projective Plane Chess:

                          __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 | a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8 | a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1
a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 | a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7 | a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2
a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 | a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6 | a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3
a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 | a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5 | a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4
a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5 | a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 | a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5
a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6 | a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 | a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6
a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7 | a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 | a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7
a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8 | a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 | a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __   ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯   __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
                etc.    | h8 g8 f8 e8 d8 c8 b8 a8 | h1 etc.
                          h7 g7 f7 e7 d7 c7 b7 a7 | h2
                          h6 g6 f6 e6 d6 c6 b6 a6
                          h5 g5 f5 e5 d5 c5 b5 a5
                          h4 g4 f4 e4 d4 c4 b4 a4
                          h3 g3 f3 e3 d3 c3 b3 a3
                          h2 g2 f2 e2 d2 c2 b2 a2
                          h1 g1 f1 e1 d1 c1 b1 a1

Boards without borders are on the opposite side: the square b1 on a board without a border is directly behind the square b1 on a board with a border. Double sharp (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if a1 is black, then a1* (the square behind a1) must be white. This is so that Bishops don't change colours (a round trip from c1 would be Bc1-d2-e3-f4-g5-h6-a2*-b1*-f8-e7-d6-c5-b4-a3-h7*-g8*-c1).
Unfortunately, using the FIDE setup, the Qd8 checks the Ke1 (Qd8-e7-f6-g5-h4-a6*-b7*-c8*-e1). Betza's "Torus Peace Bump" idea should work – if your move passes backwards across your own baseline (from rank 8 to rank 1 for Black, or rank 1 to rank 8 for White), it cannot be a capture.
Extra credit may be awarded if you play using the pieces from Betza's Punch Chess (rook becomes gryphon (FtR), knight becomes nightrider (NN), bishop becomes aanca (WtB), and queen becomes amazon (RNB)), as the nightrider's movement is now even crazier (NNb1-c3-d5-e7-c1*-b3*-a5*-h2-b8*-c6*-d4*-e2*-c8-b6-a4-h7*-b1) than on a torus. Double sharp (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a completely unrelated chess variant idea, but placed here because I couldn't find a better place: if you can give check (or mate), you must. Checkmate is a loss to the checkmating player. Stalemate is a draw. 1.e4?? loses immediately: 1...f5! (exposing the king to checks) 2.Qh5+ g6! 3.Q:g6+ h:g6 and White has lost his queen. 1.d4 seems to be a reasonable first move, similarly to 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3, but 1.c4?? loses to 1...d5! 2.Qa4+ c6! 3.Q:c6+ b:c6. (Has anyone thought of this before?) Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I found two that are close (not exact):

Patzer Chess (Tony Paletta, 1980). A player must check if it is possible to do so but may choose if more than one check is available. A player may win by 'decimation' -- 10 consecutive checks. Hence perpetual check is a win for the player giving it. (Pritchard ECV, 1994, p. 222.)


Simpleton Chess (V. R. Parton, 1961). Checks are mandatory (can choose if more than one possible); captures are mandatory (can choose if more than one possible; checks take precedence); if a player has neither a check or capture possible, he must move a pawn; getting out of check takes top precedence. (Parton Curiouser and Curiouser, 1961, p. 8, paraphrased.)


Hey there. I finished my copy edit of the article, and hopefully I didn't mess anything up, but if I did, feel free to fix it or let me know. I found it to be a pretty interesting article. I've never played Chinese chess before, but have some skill with the international version, and now I'm looking to buy a xiangqi set. :) This is going on my long list of potential GA targets, but not necessarily soon. If you'd like to collaborate on it sometime in the future, though, I'd be happy to do so. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Festivus

Festivus Pole.jpg Happy Festivus!
Here's wishing you a happy Festivus!
May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength,
may your list of Grievances be short,
and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles.
Torchiest talkedits 14:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


MF can confirm the email if he wishes. This edit summary suggests at least a change of mind, if not annoyance with it [4]. The facts are easily confirmed I think, either way. Don't worry about it. Best. Leaky Caldron 13:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Leaky. And I've been gaining more (& more) respect for Bwilkins as the months pass, surprising myself. Truely, Merry Xmas. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


...for your intellectual honesty. I appreciate that. Happy New Year to you, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx, ditto. Happy New Year also! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'll be reading your stuff. I assume OK to put any Qs on your Talk!?
Absolutely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Chess in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chess for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello Ihardlythinkso, I have noticed that you have recently initiated a large-scale cleanup of articles using the word "Grandmaster/grandmaster". I have to admit I'm somewhat confused by that; what do you mean by "cap when title to a name, or referring to the title itself"? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In chess articles generally, both Grandmaster and grandmaster are used, but there's typically no consistency (it is usually just haphazard, and inconsistent). So to bring some consistency, and (cross-fingers) correctness too, I vote leave all the "grandmasters" alone, but cap them under two circumstances: 1) used as title to a name (e.g. "Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura"), or used to specifically refer to the title given by FIDE (e.g. "There are several requirements to obtain the title of Grandmaster."). What do you think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The same is true for "World Champion", and (gulp!) even "Master". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have looked at FIDE's web site, and capitalisation is more common than a lack thereof; "Latvian Grandmaster", "Grandmaster title", "a Grandmaster and International Master in their ranks" and "FIDE World Champion (2005)" are some of the things that I found there. I suppose dictionaries might be worth consulting on this matter as well. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The example you found, "Grandmaster title", specifically refers to the title. The example "a Grandmaster and International Master in their ranks", the context is a little absent, but if "ranks" is referring to those titles, then same again. The example "Latvian Grandmaster" lacks context (in a sentence), so I can't form opinion about it. In the Bobby Fischer article, you will find all of these: "Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh", "Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman", "Canadian grandmaster Peter Biyiasas", "Filipino grandmaster Eugenio Torre", "American grandmaster Arthur Bisguier", "Serbian grandmaster Ljubomir Ljubojević", and "German grandmaster Karsten Müller". They are all used in precisely the same way (so should be treated the same), and they were mostly all small "g" grandmaster, before I changed the couple or few to match. Without context for the FIDE example "Latvian" I can't tell, but in all the Fischer article examples, I'd vote small "g" is correct, since "grandmaster" is not being used as a salutation title in them, the word grandmaster is modified by the country name, which makes it a descriptive clause in front of the name, and not part of a title-name combination ("Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura").
The ProjChess "should" pinpoint the standard convention for articles, but that is unlikely. Meantime, there is haphazard inconsistency. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Here you go—[5], [6] and [7]. I've crossed out the third quote, as I did not really like the source. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure which exact examples in those articles. In the first link, "... and is a current World Champion among women", I would agree w/ the cap since it refers to the specific title/person holding it. In the third link, "... playing a former World Champion Veselin Topalov" I would agree w/ the cap as it's a title to a name. The second link: "... congratulated the Argentine Grandmaster Miguel Quinteros" is different from my edits, where I used small "g". But! (I used small "g", because that was the majority convention in those articles as far as I could make out. As mentioned, I can see some logic in that convention, for consistent application using small "g". However, for me personally, I don't really care which it is in articles, "Argentine Grandmaster Miguel Quinteros" or "Argentine grandmaster Miguel Quinteros", just as long as there is consistency. There are many times where "grandmaster" is used not in context of any named individuals, and I don't know but assume you agree with that convention. When "Grandmaster" is title to a name, it is for sure cap'd. When there is a country modifier preceding, does it change things? That would have to be decided so it could consistently be applied or not. Again, I found most use already in articles with small "g" when there is a country modifier, and I can see some logic in that. I could also see some logic in cap "G" when there is a country modifier. Perhaps there is a "correct" and "incorrect" here re English capitalization rules, but I don't know what it is. The FIDE examples should not be taken as a bible though, for example, even the sentence with the first example is grammatically flawed: "The Chinese has already clinched the first place in the overall Grand Prix cycle and is a current World Champion among women." (Already demonstrates poor editorship.) Even if there is a FIDE consistent practice, I'm not sure copying and applying that practice to WP articles is the way to go, if it counters what is generally currently done in WP articles, unless there is a ProjChess adoption of the convention. But ProjChess is not apt to adopt any convention any time soon re this, there is little care about capitalization "g" or "G" in different contexts, or "World Champion" or "world champion". There is apathy on anything like this. [If one were to open a thread at ProjChess asking "When do we use 'Grandmaster' and when 'grandmaster'? When do we use 'World Champion' and when 'world champion'?", I doubt there would be much interest and certainly no consensus to establish a Project convention. If you think there might be some potential to do it, good luck.] So there is a lot of haphazard inconsistency in articles. What I have been doing with my edits, is attempt to fit in to current general use, what I can make of it in articles, and apply consistenly, when there is some logic in the use, needed for a guide.) Ok, let me know what you think. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fischer article

I don't think I've ever seen such misuse of the policies WP:NPV and WP:PEA in all the time I've been editing this site. What's the deal with this guy? Toccata quarta (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunno for sure, but it's scary, he's got a long list of words on his User, which he seems to think denote POV. (So I'm guessing use of any of those words, triggers & drives his aggressiveness. Imagine. POV at an individual *word* level! Oh boy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


This one shows "Garry Kasparov" and looks like the one on my desk in front of me. (I didn't take the picture on Amazon.) It's well known that Kasparov prefers "Garry", apparently so that his name has 13 letters which he considers his lucky number. Quale (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Two diff covers for the same book edition! (I wonder how that came about.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Different ISBN, different year, different publisher! World cat lists 12 different issues of BCO 2. Two are used as a reference in the Ponziani Opening. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I think the books are the same except for publisher and obviously the title page. I consolidated the cites to use the edition cited most often. Quale (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of Betza's chess variants

How are my new article creations? Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see that. Not too shabby! (OMG! WOTN! Compleekated and kewl! [But we must remember, nothing can hold a candle to MPC, natürlich.]) I'll probably attack your articles w/ some editorial reefinemonts and stuph licke dat -- thyme permeddling. I'm shure you donut and wonut mind atoll cuz I kan sea uh lot ov improovmunt in the grammer and miner arraignments, and so froth and sew on. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
MPC? Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"Metropolitan Police Commission". (No wait! ... "Mad Pawn Chess".) ; Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi Hardly.

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

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

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

WP chess piece icons

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

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

January 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It's in bad taste and discouraged to remove your own comments after posted on someones page. Completely removing others comments is against policy. You can strike the comment using the strike wiki coding but we need that for records. [[8]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Does this apply to desks, not just User talk pages? Because User:Thumperward removed inappropriate and snide comments made at me at Villiage Pump Help desk, he did not strike them: [9]
He is an Administrator, so he should know about the striking guideline, yes? So is he allowed to remove and not strike? He didn't receive any warning, like you gave me. (When I complained about his snide remarks, his response was [paraphrasing], "What are you complaining about, since didn't you see, I removed those comments??".)
I'd like to understand this. Thx for any help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Generally yes it does the key difference is that he did a self revert before any responses were made, usually and it's not a written in stone policy once the comment is made it isn't reverted or removed unless it's in bad faith or a personal attack. the only reason I templated you is because you added a section which was then commented on by that person and you removed his commen as well. Once it becomes a discussion we need that for the records. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. So is removal then considered equivalent to striking? And does removal before a response is made, exempt someone from the responsibility of making comment(s)? That is what Chris Cunningham conveyed to me then, that he needn't be in a position to defend a comment he removed, because "Hey! I deleted it, didn't I?" That doesn't quite make much sense. If I go around leaving incivil remarks on editors' Talk pages, but remove same before the receivers have chances to respond, I don't think I'd be considered exempt from responsibility for said comments. I think I'd be shown the door, fast! But Chris Cunninham thought it exempted him. (How does that work?)
It's a little confusing too regarding "records", since my removing the entire thread doesn't remove the thread from records, the intact thread exists as a restorable historical version of the page. (The record is there in full context should anyone need access or to restore it.) So I don't really understand "needing it for the records", since no records are destroyed or permanently erased as a result of any delete removal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This explains it in it's entirety [[10]] also the next section as well WP:REDACT Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar for Chess.png The Chess Barnstar
Thank you for your support for expanding the knowledge of Chess and board games for the safety and expansion of Wikipedia. Please accept this sign of appreciation and goodwill, for your ways of improving tactics and solving sources for the game of Chess; you deserve it. Keep it up. --GoShow (............................) 21:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank u for the barnstar, GoShow! It's very kind of you. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A hyperbolic chess variant

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

I looked, I saw, I got hypnotized, and woke up on a beach somewhere ... Seriously, I need a primer on hyperbolas, I guess. (BTW, what is a hosohedron -- was it a misspelling?) There are several spherical chesses in Pritchard's ECV, one by Nadvorney mapped to 2D, and even a complete game quoted between Paul Yearout and the inventor. (Don't know why "from behind" attacks should ruin a game concept, afterall that's extension of real life war on the sphere called "earth"! Anyway that was a motive for Raumschach going 3D -- attacks from above/planes & below/subs.) This is kinda funny in ECV under Nadvorney: "An infinite move or one which does not change the position is illegal." That makes sense!) Please explain the concept behind hyperbolic boards!? (What is it about? It distorts cells? Is something added?) They are cool-looking, of course, but ... !?![clarification needed] (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
"From behind" attacks are interesting, but using the normal piece set you only have pawns shielding you on one side! Allowing such attacks (e.g. the pieces are not at the back rank) means that you can never actually get your king safe, and while this is certainly an interesting idea, I personally don't really like using it unless you have back-shielding like in Circular Chess. (Perhaps I'm a conservative variantist?!)
It is also interesting to have a very tangled starting position (à la Racing Kings or Torus Peace Bump Chess), where the two sides are too close for comfort. This may work very well on spherical boards, but you may have to subdivide the faces for the simplest polyhedra!
BTW, do we even need the tiling to be regular? A rhombicosidodecahedron might be an interesting idea. Or we could use a Catalan solid. Or, to make a completely crazy game, a uniform star polyhedron! Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
For a hosohedron, imagine a featureless sphere. Draw lines along the meridians, making sure that all the lines are equally spaced, cutting the sphere into n equal slices. The slices of the sphere and the faces of the hosohedron are connected the same way.
But I think a bipyramid might be better now. Simply take a hosohedron and make another line across the equator, cutting each slice into two equal slices. An interesting idea might be to take {2,8} (hosohedron with 8 slices) and cut each slice horizontally into eight equal slices, making an 8×8 board connected in a strange way. Unfortunately it seems that this would be identical to vertical Möbius Strip Chess (vertical cylindrical chess with a1 connecting to h8, b1 to g8, c1 to f8, etc.)
Now I'll try to explain the concept behind the hyperbolic board as simply as possible. If you don't understand anything, please tell me!
On a normal board, you have squares, and there are 4 squares to a vertex. A square has 90° angles and so 4 fit snugly round a corner.
Order-4 square tiling checkerboard.png
On a hyperbolic board, you still have squares (although you can generalise it), but you have more than 4 squares to a vertex – let's say there are q squares at a vertex. q can be any number above 4, but you can't alternate colours if q is odd, so we'll restrict q to be even. Let's let q = 6 for now. (When you understand the rules, you can extend the rules to any even q. The third picture in that link has q = 8.)
There are 6 squares to a vertex, so each square must have 60-degree angles. We can't really show this on a screen as our screens are flat, so we'll need some distortion:
Order-6 square tiling checkerboard.png
(The squares are really still squares! They just look distorted, but they are square.)
To examine how this board is connected, let's look at a specific square. We'll use the biggest white square, near the middle of the board.
Let's begin with the simplest pieces, and start with the rook. The rook moves orthogonally, and there are still four squares orthogonally adjacent to our squares.
Now let's examine the bishop, which moves diagonally. On the standard chessboard, each square is connected to only one other square at a corner. But now each square is connected to two squares at each corner! The bishop can now choose either path, but once moving, it cannot change its direction. To achieve that, we must add the rule that while moving, it exits a square by the vertex opposite the vertex it entered the square through. Since its paths can still split, it must also keep choosing the same direction every time the path forks at a corner. (For example, if it started by turning left, it must turn left at every corner. If this is confusing, imagine you are the bishop facing towards the corner, and then ask yourself which square you would consider to be on your left. The same applies to the right square, of course.)
The queen must still be a combination of the rook and bishop, and the king must move like the queen, but only one square.
Non-leaping knights usually move orthogonally before diagonally, so we will think of them this way, although you will get the same moves either way. Since you can't really change direction mid-jump, we'll pretend that it casts a short-term flying spell on itself, glides one square orthogonally, and then one square diagonally outwards from its starting position (it cannot go back towards its starting position), where it settles to the ground.
This leaves only the pawn. It must thus move one (two on its first move) square forward (towards the opponent) and capture one square forward diagonally.
Castling and en passant can now be defined straightforwardly. But deciding on a good setup may be harder, as (1) the hyperbolic board has more space than a normal board (the exact amount of extra space varies with q) and (2) in hyperbolic geometry, you can't put squares together to make a bigger square. Could you think of one? :-)
(I will soon add diagrams.) Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The diagrams won't show squares that the piece can move to but are too far away to see clearly. Double sharp (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Notice that straight lines now appear as arcs of circles! Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
P.P.S. This still leaves some adjacent squares of the other colour untouched by either the rook or the bishop. Should I give them to the rook, or leave them untouched by any piece? But then the king's move no longer can be described as quickly as in FIDE chess. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:

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

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


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

Mkdwtalk 07:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost no presentation stds

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

Try not to take it too seriously. It's easy for me to give this advice, but I have to remember to practice it myself. I don't always succeed, as Talk:List of Internet chess servers shows. I don't really think an extensive amount of chess project standards is really the solution to this issue. My belief is that the formatting choices of the original author or the primary contributors to the page should be respected, and that formatting changes made only because the drive-by tourist prefers his formatting are nearly always inappropriate. These sorts of edits are already barred when they change national variety of English or citation style, and the principal is exactly the same for other worthless edits like the ones here. I don't think editors who insist on making worthless edits would be deterred by Wikiproject chess guidelines. The more present danger is that WT:MOS will someday decide that chess openings must follow MOS rules for capitalization, even though those rules do not have a very complete intersection with reality. This may seem unlikely, but the recent ridiculous flap over capitalization of a movie title is sobering.
The most remarkable experience I had with this personally was several years ago when one member of the chess project decided that References sections should be renamed Footnotes. He argued that either one was equally acceptable, so he was justified in making that change even to well-developed articles to which he had never made any constructive edits. (Or in fact any other edit than changing References to Footnotes.) By his own argument, since either was acceptable then I (or anyone else) would be perfectly justified to revert. Then he would make the change yet again and there would be no way out of an endless revert cycle. The obvious solution chosen by Wikipedia is to not make the initial pointless change since the article was fine the way it was originally and worthless edits should be discouraged. In this instance there was nothing to be gained by trying to explain this to that moron (although I tried), but eventually he desisted anyway. If he hadn't I suppose I would probably have ended up getting blocked, as I was really struggling trying to deal with that level of idiocy. Quale (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Battleship salvo

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

Oh, I see that now (in the variants section). No, I think the Salvo rules do belong in the variants section, not the main section. When I opened a section on your Talk, I did a search on "Salvo" and found nothing in the article proper, so I mistakenly thought you eliminated it, sorry. The name "Salvo" was eliminated by this edit, and Salvo is identified only as "a traditional variant". I think the variant should be represented by its name, rather than that vague generic reference. (If you do that I'm happy.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. I've added an explanation of two different ways in which the salvo results can be announced; I'm only working from a single source here, so you may want to take a look if it differs from how you play it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thx. I made italic to be consistent w/ earlier. It's not how I play of course but what's in sources ... I have the MB 1990 Salvo rules, but your source is better than mine. Good job. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, is it listed as a variant in modern edition of Battleship? I assumed it was only referring to the 1931 edition, which I was struggling to find completely clear rules for. I'll see what I can dig up. --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

How To Play Salvo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The occasional rant is worthwhile. The current ArbCom business is a giant cluster-f*ck that helps no-one, improves WP not at all and just generally makes everyone involved look bad. I wonder if they realise how disappointed usually non-vocal editors (like me) really are? I avoid the "drama" as much as humanly possible and am usually content to watch from the sidelines. I will for this one too (probably) but I can't help feeling like I'm back at high school watching the idiots chant, fight, fight, fight. *Sigh* Stalwart111 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
But your User page says you enjoy contributing at ANI. (I haven't looked at any of your contributions there, so I don't know. But note this, by User:SandyGeorgia 31 Jan 2012: "The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized.") If you like to avoid drama you should boycott that place. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A contradiction of sorts, though I'm not sure I've said I "enjoy" it. By "drama", I mean the "politics" of WP; Wikipediocracy, IRC, cabals, ArbCom rubbish (though I voted; actually prompted by the Malleus business). I just see WP:ANI as a bureaucracy-fest. Useful sometimes, often not, but really something not to get all that excited about. ANI is an issue, but it's not the issue. Stalwart111 06:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't "bureaucracy-fest" imply structure, order? (It's a chaotic cesspool there. First person to announce "BOOMERANG!" wins. An abusive, dumbing-down mindset.) It's nice to hear you're interested and/or involved in contributing to cleanliness (anti-rubbish), but that job is too big for one human. And "civility" (spotting bad words) is the least problem with civility. (Underhandedness and dishonesty is the true incivility, and that's harder to identify or deal with. So WP doesn't. Here is WP's message: "Wanna lie? Wanna falsely accuse? Go ahead. As long as it doesn't interrupt the building of the encyclopedia, it has no ethical content or weight." A "civil, collaborative environment"? Really? With ethical blindness? Does not compute, Will Robinson!) But I really wish you luck in any/all your reform efforts. (It is a noble cause me thinks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm no reformer! I just have no desire for adminship. Ever. So I can get my hands dirty occasionally fighting the POV-pushers and promo-spammers knowing I won't one day have to account for it answering Q3 at RFA. Agree with your assessment of ANI, for the most part. Stalwart111 12:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Me neither. (Who wants to be a hall monitor? The purpose of the encyclopedia is the articles. Content is king.) The best Admins don't let Adminship go to their heads. But that's a tricky business, and takes a superior person to resist the temptation. Take Dennis Brown for e.g. He has constantly reminded us that he is "the last [Admin] to block", which in reality, whether he is conscious of it or not, is a constant reminder [read that threat] that he does have the ability to block, and should he decide to use it, doesn't want to be questioned or countermanded, so the constant reminders are a way to make that bed. But it's so transparent it's silly. The reminders of "I'm the last [Admin] to block" is really waving a club around, indirectly demanding others do as he says, else he will block, and then, what will be left of the poor soul who is blocked, because afterall, he was blocked by "the most lenient Admin of the bunch". Like I said, it takes a superior person to avoid the temptation of power abuse, and not wielding the power, but proclaiming to have it to wield should one decide to wield it is ... less abusive? Aaron Nimzowitsch said "The threat is worse than the execution." I think you're on the right track and wish you luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the good wishes and, of course, the cordial chat. Stalwart111 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. User:Quale is a totally good guy at the ProjChess for many years before I even knew what "Wikipedia" was. (Intelligent, thoughtful, careful, patient, fair-minded.) So when he shows a human side of patience break-down and a bit of incivility, you know something is really bad. As newcomer to ProjChess, you couldn't know that context. I think it is important. (More important than "civility breach", since, it runs deeper and telltales more substance.) I disagree with the artificial enforcement of civility breaches around here ... they are usually just excuses for an Admin to block someone they don't like. Admins seem to have not a clue as to the distaste they generate in content contributors, and many have left as a result. And I know I'm resentful toward a lot of it. (I enjoyed reading Malleus, and now, he's gone. Whoever is even partly is to blame for that, won't find kind words from me.) It's been pleasant meeting you too. Ihardlythinkso (talk)


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

Basalisk, that is superbly hypocritical, and let me tell you why ... Herostratus was making sarcy comments on Malleus's User talk, and, consistent with your value system, I gave him "a few back". Yet, you took that, as an opportunity to attack me. Pure hypocriticality from you, Basalisk. Regarding my request that you cease interfacing with me, it was totally reasonable, as I do not want any trouble with you. But if you insist to cause me trouble, I'll be in your face, and, I really don't want to do that. (That is why I suggested, that you ignore me and don't put messages to my attention anymore. Your message on Malleus's Talk was to harass me, and nothing more. The content of what you had to say was void.) I know you haven't gotten over my criticism of Dennis Brown, who nominated you at your successful RfA, and feel necessary to be against me whenever possible, as some sort of revenge harassment. It's so shallow. I say: drop it, and please go away. You are an Admin, and should rise above harassing the content contributors. Malleus has already left a sad wake on that end, and, I'm not 1% the contributor he was, I am not comparing myself to him. But the shit flying around this place is the same for everybody, the environment here is full of it (pun intended). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
IHTS, this idea of yours that I have some sort of vendetta against you is absurd: I have interacted with you on a grand total of two occasions; the first time to refute your unreasonable demand that admins be compelled to admonish all bad behaviour they encounter, and the second time now.. I don't know why you keep raising the point of me being an admin; I have never taken an administrative action against you and the A word doesn't need to be an issue in every conversation I have on Wikipedia. I'm still a normal person with an independent opinion, regardless what toolset I have access to. A spade is still a spade. Basalisk inspect damageberate 01:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't stick words in my mouth I never said ("vendetta"). You make me out like some kind of paranoid freak. You are human, you butted your nose where it didn't belong and where you were not invited, and seeing that it was in my conversation w/ Dennis Brown where I was being critical of him, and you are a new Admin he nominated at RfA ... well, I'm not stupid. And as human, you're only oh oh so capable of defending the one who carried you to Admin, and of holding a grudge, which explains your unnecessary and tacky attempt to defame me at Malleus's Talk, it is ever so common, and pointless, and needs no "vendetta" dark & scary. I don't see that you and I have anything to talk about really, you have initiated all conversation with me, I find you insulting and harassing at Malleus's Talk, and a nuisance in other places, so, why can't you just leave me alone? You're a mere 34 percent content contributor, and I'm not entertaining any insults from you, such as that I'm inconsistent with my Userbox message, when you yourself have shown big hypocrisy as already pointed out. Is your purpose as an admin to drive me away as content contributor?! Then do me a favor and show me otherwise, by leaving me alone. I don't see any purpose to this conversation, if not to harass me and cause trouble. (What then? We have no business together, do we?) "A spade is a spade" and that has to do with what exactly? I have no need to be lectured with tautologies. "What was, was. What is, is. What's gonna be ... is gonna be." (Archie Bunker.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Take a hint Basalisk, I asked you on your user Talk to leave me alone period, and what do you do? Open a thread here on my User. GO AWAY. You have no credibility with me, you've earned that. I want nothing to do with you. Go away and don't come back. And address no comments my way either, the last ones were tacky and unnecessary. I have no interest to converse with you about anything. You don't contribute much to articles, but you contribute to the shit environment at WP. Sorry but I have no respect for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. More insulting comments from you: "absurd", "bizarre". Go soak your head, Basalisk, and leave me the hell alone with your harassing, tacky crap. How many times does it take to understand that I'm sick of your harassing comments and want nothing to do with you and want you to leave me alone el permanent-o?!
Having trouble keeping your word and following through? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW, that's another tacky, shitty thing you did, in your edit summary, falsely accusing me of "following you" as though a stalker. Tacky. Shitty. I gave you a point-blank direct message, to your User talk. Apparently that was too simple for you to understand?! More attempt to manipulatively and dishonestly defame me. You use WP to harass, and you are an Admin. What a shining example of Admin you are! Just go away. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
More of your hypocritical crap, compare:

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


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

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

Out of the closet

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

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


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

The way I see it, "uneducated" means "ignorant of Wikipedia policies and guidelines". WP:AGF says, "It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules", which is obviously not a personal attack. I don't see a problem there. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You're free to see it any way you please, but he didn't say "ignorant of Wikipedia policies", he said "uneducated", and that's not ok. Basalisk inspect damageberate 10:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Toccata. It's obvious what's going on here, but it's nice to receive supportive comment when being picked out for harassing threats & warning. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Thanks, Leaky. It's clear I've pissed Basalisk off by my past responses to him, and now he's actively looking for anything possible to use as justification for a revenge block. (How shameful.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No need for tears, I never mentioned a block and obviously wouldn't block an editor I've been in dispute with. Just a reminder about the policy on personal attacks. Basalisk inspect damageberate 11:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Go away and leave me alone, Basalisk. You've been continually harassing me here and elsewhere. I want nothing to do with you, as repeatedly told you. Go away forever, please. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
According to you Basalisk, it's "not okay", it's a personal attack, to use word "uneducated" in context of a newbie's knowledge of WP policy, procedure, and practice regarding an unjustified stream of spurious AfD nominations of British chess players; but, apparently, it is okay for him to (in chronological order): state I'm "lazy and pompous" [11], accuse me of masterbating: [12], to comment that my "personality traits" show that I am a "hypocritical blowhard": [13], and to call me an "idiot": [14]. (So, Basalisk, I see you have, on your User talk, assured User:OGBranniff that "Ihardlythinkso" needs "direction"; however, User:OBGranniff's behavior, the personal attacks here and elsewhere, go uncommented on. That's just superb showing of Administrator discretion, that!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Thanks for your message Quale. I have observed the same pattern. Admins are extremely conservative to block any newbie troll, allowing vandalisms to continue way beyond the pale before anything is done. On the other hand, if *I* so much as irritate (or annoy) an Admin, out comes the block gun, it gets waved under my nose. Too many Admins have shown me they're totally insensitive (uncongnizant) to the effect their misuse of the strong-arm can do, they apparently think they can do no wrong or their Adminship gives them a free card to forget any responsibility re the damaging effects of threats on a proven content contributor. (Because afterall, they got irritated, didn't they?!?)
Let me tell a quick story because it was extremely instructive to me ... In high school history class, the teacher decided to setup a debate between two students about Julius Caesar, whether his execution was justified, or whether it was murder. I was assigned to support the case it was murder; a fellow student was assigned the side to support the execution was justified. We had a few days to prepare our cases. A moderator was selected too, and given the job to stand in front of the class behind a podium between the two debaters, to control things so each side was given equal time. That was her sole job, to maintain a fair debate. When the debate day came, she had a pretty dress on and looked great, I image because she knew she'd be on display in front of the entire class, and she was entrusted with controlling authority. Okay. The debate proceeded. I guess I was making a pretty effective case, because, 2/3 thru the debate, to my astonishment, the moderator turned to me and said, loud enough for the class to hear it, and shaking her head while she said it: "It *wasn't* murder, [Ihardlythinkso]."
I was floored! (The "objective" moderator, took a side! And announced her opinion to the class! [Who would be the !voters re who won and lost the debate.] She was so overcome by her own feeling and opinion on the matter, she couldn't resist expressing her view! When her single mission was to maintain objectivity and simply control time used so the debate would be fair! I was so stunned, being told in front of the class that my side, my case was "wrong", that to this day I don't even remember what happened next [how the debate continued, and whether I won or lost]. I think I went into "shock" at her abuse of her position. And, the teacher said nothing when it happened, equally stunning.)
Moral: It's no different here at WP. An Administrator is entrusted with certain authority, power, and they often immediately proceed to misuse and abuse it -- just like the pretty debate moderator. (Actually, she lasted thru 2/3 the debate, before succumbing.) Why is this a temptation? Why does power corrupt? Maybe just having power, is pressure. ("Why do I have this power, if I don't use it or threaten to use it?") Or maybe they assert it, to remind themselves, by reminding us, that they have it, because that somehow reminds them they are special to get it, and revisiting their achievement is somehow self-satisfying or at least pleasant. Whatever, I don't know. But this I know: power corrupts not only absolutely, it corrupts quickly. And it takes a superior person to be aware of and resist the urge, the pressure, the tempatation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


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

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

Drmies thread

  • Ihardlythinkso, you may know that OGBranniff asked for my opinion on some edits of yours pertaining to him. I am going to be brief but to the point, and hopefully clear. Leave him alone. Unless I'm mistaken, he's stayed away from you, and you are going to do the same. It seems to me that you cannot get near his edits without taunting and baiting, and I can tell you that this will not lead to more trouble for him but more trouble for you. Now, if OGBranniff is doing something explicitly directed at you, you may speak your mind in one of two ways: you can drop a note on an admin's page (like mine or Monty's, with whom you seem to get along), or you can start an ANI thread (in which case you'll have to be very careful for that boomerang). I don't want to have to go get an interaction ban for you from the Administrator's Noticeboard, so let this informal note suffice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you specify what you mean exactly, "leave him alone", because, I've never sought out User:OGBranniff in any way, shape, or form. I have responded to what he has initiated on User Talk, Project talk, and AfDs. He has also lobbed many, many name-calls and personal attacks, against me (including accusing me of masterbating [15] when I disagreed on a point of policy with him, calling me "hypocritical blowhard", "kid", "junior highschooler", "dense" [several times], "stupid", and "idiot"). I have not followed in suit, never returned the insults or names, though, I am resentful of the insults and personal attacks. (Would you like the diffs?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, did you see the riducule of me by User:OGBranniff on User:Basalisk's User talk? (Where he lamented the fact I appeared to be "so stressed", and suggested that I need to take some "anger management" class, or some such insult/ridicule.) Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot, and you have not noticed. No one forced User:OGBranniff to register those ridicules, he chose to. I have never made any riducule in any of my edits toward User:OGBranniff. I have been totally serious in all of my edits regarding or in reference to him. Perhaps you should warn him to quit with the name-calling, quit with the personal attacks, and quit with the riducule of me, rather than what you are doing, which is to somehow protect him, and warn *me*, and, for what exactly? How is it that you accuse me of taunting him, when I only ever asked him dead-serious questions in dialogue with him? How is it that you missed the taunt on User:Basalisk's User Talk he made of me? I would like specific answers please, not more warnings and threats. (Regarding ANI, I despise that place, with good reason. Please don't suggest I will or should go there, because I never will. It is a cesspool of irresponsibility, and I reject it out of hand. Many top editors agree with this view of ANI.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, somehow User:OGBranniff got your sympathy, for you to warn me vaguely, and your warn of me, seems to be a vague warning, that should I reply in any way to any argument User:OGBranniff says in any Talk space, then you will interpret it as "taunting" and "baiting" and since I have been "warned", block me. That is strictly unfair, and absurd, and resembles stuffing a sock in my mouth as far as engaging or offering any argument or discussion contrary to what User:OGBranniff might like. Please look again at your instructions for me. As I already told you, *all* of my edits in reply to what User:OGBranniff has initiated, have been dead-serious (with the one exception, a humorous response on User:Basalisk's page regarding OGBranniff's ridicule of me, that I require "anger management"). I do not taunt or bait. But I do expose false argument as false. If having one's arguments shown false offends User:OGBranniff, where he needs to go crying to an Admin to ask "can't you tell that guy to leave me alone?", then it is in essence his asking you for a free pass to say whatever absurd thing in argumentation at Wikipedia he wants, without any counter or objection. (And just take a look at some of his AfD nomination justifications - most of them contain absurd assertions. For example, a well-respected British professional poker player who has written several books on poker, in the AfD, User:OGBranniff stated the article subject was not notable, and wrote books that "no one has bought". I asked on the AfD, what basis User:OGBranniff had for saying that? [16] Was that question a taunt in your subjective esitimation? Was it a bait? If you have accepted OGBranniff's crying to mommy and want to protect him from further objection to his claims on Wikipedia whatever they may be, then perhaps you will say my question was a taunt and/or bait. Do you? If you do, you are as wrong as you can be. The nominator of an AfD claiming non-notability cannot be questioned for statements like that, that he makes? Since when? Since when is that baiting or taunting, to raise such a question that I did? I don't get you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, I for one don't need to go running to mommy, should User:OGBranniff say something to my attention that is harassing, defaming, name-calling, a personal attack, as he has already done numerous times already. Therefore, I won't be running to your User Talk, or Admin Monty's User Talk, to cry and ask you to go do something against that bully who was so mean to me. (And even if I did, I'd have egg on my face, wouldn't I, should the Admin I go to for intervention, decide to do nothing?) Running off to an Admin to cry is nothing more than a mini-ANI, and it seems to me, canvassing also, for a desired agenda. Sorry, but I do not operate like that. I wouldn't do that. I won't do that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd really like answers to all the stuff above. Rather than receive vague threats and warnings. My time has already been stolen from editing and improving articles, or working to create new ones. (How do you define "disruption", BTW? Not this?!) If User:OGBranniff is uncomfortable answering questions or challenges to his statements and claims he has made as a result of questions from me, perhaps he should examine his statements and claims for reasonability, because many of those have been baseless hyperbole and clearly simply inflamatory. Or perhaps he should just respond with not responding, or respond with "Thanks for the question, but I won't be responding." That would be just peachy with me. He has the freedom to do that. I can respect that. But to go off crying to mommy because he looks bad or is made uncomfortable by a reasonable question to some something from him (argument or claim) that was outrageous and indefensible, ... what is it exactly we are protecting here? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to dispute the semantics of "leave him alone" to you--I though it was plain English. If, as you think, a large group of editors at the Chess project have a problem with him (I'll just pick on one item from your extensive messages), start an RfC/U. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
But the matter is not whether what you wrote is intelligible, but rather how unassailable it is. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, please stop being crass. 1) I *have* left the trollish newbie alone (previous to, and without requiring, your direction to do so); and 2) I am not the one who would ever start an RfC/U. (I've only looked at one RfC/U, conducted by User:Guy Macon against some engineer editor, and, it wasn't pretty, it looked like a chaotic, abusive pile-on to me. I really don't know RfC/U beyond that look-see, so perhaps am speaking out of school, but really, is it any different from a glorified ANI? [Irresponsibility and abuse. A free-for-all.] I doubt I would ever start one, or particpate much if anyone else did. Maybe 5 words max. Just because Wikipedia has these "venues", does not necessarily impart to them fairness, reasonableness, or acceptability. WP is filled with dumbing-down templates and packaged thinking, cultural replacements for independent reflectivity, and quite frankly, I didn't sign on as WP editor to sacrifice my own healthy thinking and self-respect for the likes of that. [If templated thinking & the virtues of existing venues is a requirement to be a WP editor, then I'll immediately resign. WP needs radical structural change, and for what it's worth, needs to put a collection of the top 10-15 content contributors in charge. Then WP will be a more sane & respectable editing environment, and the best-ever encyclopedia will have no barriers to its growth & maintenance.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. You're probably right about the RfC/U. But I'm just not the person to start it. (I should be probably, but unfortunately, I'm not. It's just the way it is. Thanks for your understanding, truely!)
I don't know where I was crass: I had no intention of crassness. RfC/Us aren't always productive, and they don't by themselves decide on blocks or bans, but they can lead to one. They don't have to be abusive and chaotic. Yesterday I closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Morriswa, both of which went fairly politely. "Templated thinking" and all that is an unfortunate side-effect of our size. Creative solutions are great, but that might well mean that in cases of dispute one single administrator/power player could render verdict: surely you wouldn't want, say, someone like me to creatively intervene here since that might not be in your favor. (Note that I have not blocked anyone.) An RfC/U can be taken to WP:AN and be the next step toward, for instance, a topic ban or even a site ban. They are a much better vehicle for dealing with patterns of disruption, which is what I think you see in your opponent (or vice versa, for all I know), than is ANI: that's for single incidents, or for a very small set of incidents. It's a possibility. I don't encourage you to start one right now: I think (both of) you should (continue to) disengage--the parenthetic modifications are because I do not wish to presume what's going on right now; I got other things on my mind (the kids are fine again, thanks). Best, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll read that RfC you linked. I got my impressions of chaos of RfC/U from reading the one I mentioned, it was nasty, it was abusive. Then, at a later point, User:Guy Macon, who's since been a nice guy and voluntarily disengaged from harassing me, threatened me with RfC/U. And User:OBGranniff went to Admin Basalisk's Talk, and proposed RfC/U against me. I don't like or respect Basalisk. And there are several others I don't like in this big place. There are many I do like. So the only logical conclusion is, Drmies, that RfC/U is BS. All your enemies will show up. Simply and only, because they don't like you. Well, I don't like them. So do I respond tit-for-tat, and threaten them with RfC/U? No. That is participating in the shitty environment that has evolved at WP, which, I reject. So for me, RfC/U is meaningless, and tacky. A ganging-up by people who don't like you, and used as a club to intimidate, when the wielder, full of bs. I can name, I suppose, one dozen editors I don't like, that don't like me. (And that's more than enough to do an RfC/U with, right?) One of them opened an ANI against me once. And who showed up to comment? Who were invited to the abuse-fest? The other distinct editors on the list of those I don't like, who don't like me. But ANI has it's own independent problems (an atmosphere of irresponsibility, where it is a collection magnet to meet editors in future you will not like, e.g. for me most recently, Magog the Ogre). The processes at WP stink. Does an RfC/U have a moderator? No. Does ANI have a moderator? No. Do they have screens to filter out misuse as a retaliatory "I'll-get-you" device? No. (Or even a screen to filter out wrong venue? No. E.g. I've seen numerous Admins say ANI is to be used as last-resort after other DR vehicles have been exhaused, including going to a user's Talk to discuss a complaint with them. But in reality, countless ANIs are opened and processed as first-resort, and again, as a retaliatory club to wield for some perceived offense, often trivial and exaggerated. Even Admins have been guilty of this.) They are abuse-fests, and that is why irresponsbility has grown there like bone cancer. When you say they don't "have to be" that way, I'm sure you're right, but, it isn't any comfort. Thank you for your comments, I know you're trying to be helpful, I appreciate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, I read everything at the Darkstar1st RfC/U you linked, including discussion page. It was very unsettling. (Four maybe five users clamoring for a topic ban of Darkstar on all political articles, three editors [you, Collect, & North] drawing conclusion the RfC/U was "narrow, partly malformed or misguided". At one point Darkstar mentioned his experience with contacts having lived in Budapest through WWII, and in response an editor jumped in to unfairly accuse him with [essentially] "See? There he goes again, equating communism with socialism" when Darkstar's statement did nothing of the sort. [Was there a moderator calling an out-of-line low blow? Nope!] There was also a pissing contest about a Checkuser run on Darkstar, whether it was warranted or not, and the credibility of the requests and how they were made, in addition to a suggestion that the Checkuser evidenced an unstated agenda against Darkstar. There was testimony, not refuted or even objected too, that Darkstar had been subjected to lots of nasty stuff at the article Talk, and that he never replied in kind. On the discussion page, Darkstar politely said he would avoid TFD in future, which seemed appropriate due to the entrenched attitude against him by that user.) This is your example of an RfC/U that "doesn't have to be abusive and chaotic", and is an example of one which "went fairly politely"?? Man! If anything this RfC/U bolstered my impression at the drama-filled emotional & psychological violence of that forum. A witch hunt. p.s. I don't understand everything that I read in that RfC/U, which is probably normal for being relatively unacquainted with them, for example, why an editor taking the position of advocating topic ban, would !support/endorse an outside opinion by editor making the case that the RfC/U was a content dispute and didn't belong. (Confusing stuff like that.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)