User talk:Ioannes Pragensis/Archive 2

External Links to chessplayers

Juicy Plums + Son of Zeus

Please explain your authority for telling me that I am spamming. External links are what they are, 'External Links' each of the ones I and my fellow administrators has added are links to valuabale chess content for each individual chess player, made freely available by the sites webmaster for anyones perusal. May I also point out, that this includes players that yet have a Biography written on them, surely any content provided should be welcomed and not criticised.

First of all, learn a bit about Wikipedia and its policies - your fellow administrators will help you, I suppose. Everybody has about the same type authority here, but the use of the authority should be measured by the targets of this collaborative project. - Regarding the links, please read WP:EL. --Ioannes Pragensis 17:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't learnt how to sign yet, so apologies, I will when I have the time. I have read the guidelines on External links and as each link we have provided links to a statistical research of each player then it is relevant and available to all which is not available in the wiki featured article. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for me not to continue to provide such research links then I will continue to add links to each and every player that I can. Juicy Plums.

---

Hi there Ionnes

I have viewed the Chessbase video by Seirawan about Bronstein recently. I have great respect for this chess player. Paul Georghiou of my chess club played him and won at the Lloyds bank masters a few years ago.

I am not sure what you know of Bronstein, but I personally find your recent deletion of the link I provided very disrespectful, not only of me, but to the entire Wiki community. I find you personally offensive and disrespectful. You have no place at Wiki to remove important external links. A link I have shared with my own forum earlier in the day on our popular chess forum.

Please do consider reinstating the Bronstein link out of respect to the player. Chessgames is missing many many of his games, and does not have the same information as Chessworld.

Kingscrusher 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand the issues raised by your message:

"Once again: Stop spamming and do not use multiple accounts, pls. --Ioannes Pragensis 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Son_of_Zeus"

Let me emphasise that I am not a multiple account abuser! I am posting the link(s) within my role as a long standing Member of the ChessWorld Site Admin team.

I have read, and re-read, all of the relevant Wiki articles regarding 'spamming' and I fail to understand what the problem is. The link to ChessWorld provides access to publicly available material on that site and does not require the user to either log in, or register, on that site. There is no overt, or indeed covert, advertising nor are there inducements to become a formal Member.

The content which is linked is clearly complementary to, and in addition to, the existing Wiki content. Just one example: details of ECO openings and frequencies for the specific player. The statistical basis for the information is drawn from a range of publicly available sources, and may be considered as factual, neither offering an opinion nor a specific point of view. In short the content may, I would suggest, be classified as 'neutral'.

As far as I can understand, or deduce, from both the relevant pages and the specific Wiki advice this external link is no more to be classed as 'spamming' than other similar entries that appear on many chess-related pages. To quote a few examples of comparable alleged 'spamming'

http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/wcc-indy.htm
http://chess.about.com/library/persons/blp-korc.htm
http://www.wtharvey.com/korc.html
http://www.chessmaniac.com/Games/MyChessViewer/korchnoi.htm

I share your concern over the general and pervasive nature of 'spamming' across the Internet and indeed, ChessWorld itself takes active measures to discourage such deplorable behaviour.

If you could offer any clarification and clear explanation of the issue, without cross references to the various Wiki articles, I would be most appreciative. In particular I would appreciate some clear explanation as to why other Chess oriented sites appear to be able to make External Links without adverse comment or reaction.

Son of Zeus 13:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Son of Zeus, thank you for your willingness to speak about the issue. You are true that there are links here which raise much more concerns about their spamming nature than yours.

Why I tried to stop you is because I have seen mass actions by multiple user account, and these accounts are used only to promote one single web site.

Please read WP:EL. Under 'Links normally to be avoided' there is a policy saying: 'A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to.' It is exactly yours case: As an admin of the site, you should not add links to the site here.

Nevertheless, it would be nice if you stay here and help to make Wikipedia better. There is much to do here. Happy editing. --Ioannes Pragensis 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.

I understand the implications of the Guidelines. If I may, I would clarify the role of 'Site Admins' on the ChessWorld site which is, perhaps, fairly unique in that the (very few) people who are so classed are not involved commercially or financially with the site and, as such, have no direct interest in self-promotion. Their role is in offering support and advice, both technical and chess-specific to Members, regardless of their status. The design, operation and technical maintenance of the site is the sole responsibility of the WebMaster.

The intention in adding external links to the pages detailing some of the more well known, and perhaps more popular, recognized Chess Masters was, and is, an attempt to provide members of the general public with more detailed information than would otherwise be available within the current Wiki pages. As such, it could be argued that the links are enriching Wiki. As I believe I have already clarified, the links, as such, lead to a very limited sub-set of the ChessWorld site and nowhere do we, nor would we wish to, induce visitors to make any positive actions toward joining or further visiting the site. Clearly by visiting Wiki pages, or one of the many chess related commercial sites referenced within Wiki, they may wish to further explore the possibilities of such sites but that would be no more than a curiosity which could equally be satisfied by some relatively simple Google searches.

If you would perhaps consider the following. The current 'Statistics' links which have been placed on Wiki pages serve, I submit, a useful informative service, and as such they need to be considered in the light in which they are presented. There has never been any intention to flood Wiki pages with such links: that would be neither possible nor desirable. Indeed, if there were as many as, say, 50 clearly identifiable Chess Masters, deserving of such links through Wiki pages it would be surprising.

I share with you the belief that Wiki pages should be informative, accurate and free from any overt commercialism. In this case I believe that we have managed to satisfy those aims.

Son of Zeus 16:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kingscrusher

Hi Honza,

I recognise your nickname "Honza" from Chessgames.com. I see you have taken it upon yourself to remove the link to Chessworld.net world champions page -a link which is an interface to 1.6 million games as opposed to 400,000 games that Chessgames.com is.

May I ask why you have done this, and could you objectively consider reinstating the link. It was relevant to the World champions page at Wiki, and I believe you are not only showing a commercial bias towards chessgames.com which you are a regular kibitzer too, but also in breach of Moderator guidelines for Wiki Encyclopaedia which I am sure is not meant to be perverted moderation in favour of certain commercial sites above others.

Hi ananymous. First of all, I am not the kibitzer from Chessgames.com - "Honza" is a very common Czech nickname, it correspons with English "Jack". I have no account on Chessgames.com and do not support the site in any direct way.

Regarding the link - I removed it after I visited it and found the page weak, having nothing special to offer above the Wikipedia's own content and links already here. Therefore I will not reinstate it.

It is true, that I am slightly in favor of Chessgames.com, exactly from the reason that they have 400,000 and not 1.6 million games. The difference is in quality of the games, I think - because they do not copy whole public megabases, but add the games per hand in small quantities. It is not a problem to gather 2 millions games in this days, the problem is to have a good community. - But this is not a commercial bias, my stakes are in Wikipedia and not in Chessgames. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Honza

It is Tryfon Gavriel here - webmaster of chessworld.net. Sorry for posting anonymously earlier and assuming you were Honza from Chessgames.com

First of all the World champions link given not only has acess to a much bigger database (of which you argue is of less quality), but also had content articles I had spent many weeks of my life doing for the Barnet chess club site. For example the paper on Steinitz. Do you think this is not worthy of an external link?! If not, i wish to start formal complain proceedings against you. Please let me know who to write a formal letter to, and if necessary I will get the advice of my solicitors.

As an internationally recognised Fide rated player, and webmaster of Barnet chess club online since about 1994, I think your attitude quite disgusting quite frankly. I would recommend you check the links on the left most column - in particular the paper on Steinitz.

Best wishes Tryfon Gavriel Webmaster, Barnet chess club online, www.chessworld.net Fide 2160 ECF 182

Hi Tryfon Gavriel, please address your formal letters to User:Jimbo Wales, the founder and president of the Wikimedia Foundation. But read WP:EL before. You should not add your own links here, regardless of their quality. The reason is that we mortals are often not able to judge our own creations properly and without bias, even if our ranking is as high as 2160. Greetings --Ioannes Pragensis 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have any sense of fairness you would reinstate the link - and thoroughly check the links on the left- they are content papers I have put a lot of work into.

A few points if I may:

1) What is the harm in having a bigger database - for example some people might like to see more games of a particular world champion.

2) We have different analysis facilities than Chessgames.com

3) We have a larger community than chessgames.com and are rapidly annotating games to a very high quality as well

4) We have a lot stronger players than Chessgames.com - many ICCF GM's and FIDE titled players

5) Our game player relies only on Javascript and lets you move the pieces around. The ones on Chessgames.com are only Java based which may crash peoples machines

6) We have dedicated Site admin who are continually working on the Master collection.

Please may I ask you again to reinstate the link and give readers of Wiki Chess World champions page a fair choice of game database and analysis facilities.

I have not only sense of fairness, but I am also trying to keep the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have cited it already three times here. Why are you unable to understand it? --Ioannes Pragensis 14:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

May I just clarify this comment from the Wiki helpdesk:-

"By the way, it should be noted that Ioannes Pragensis, the user who has removed the link, is not a moderator of any sort - he is a user just like you. If you get no response in the article's talk page (Talk:World Chess Championship), you can ask him at his talk page (User talk:Ioannes Pragensis). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk" "

So you are not even a Wiki Moderator?! You sounded like a moderator, and I actually believed you were an official moderator. Please could you avoid destroying important references pages for chess players. You are not a judge and jury so please can you stay out okay? Please let the official moderators decide what is "good" and "bad". You are not an official moderator, and I feel insulted and offended by your destructive actions.

I will have you know I have been playing chess for over 30 years. I don't expect my work to be censored by an self-righteous judge who probably has no experience of play chess in serious tournaments, and no sense of what is "good" and "bad". And to say that games are "hand-picked" by chessgames.com is certainly highly judgemental of you. We have very sophisticated duplicate removal and player information editing facilities to ensure high quality. I certainly will not entertain you as a judge of our database quality. I hope this is very clear.

Kingscrusher 15:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I never told that I am a moderator. It has been only your wrong guess. Moreover in Wikipedia, all users are entitled to edit, discuss, watch other users etc., not only admins.

Regarding other guesses about my person, you are also wrong as usual: I have been playing chess for more than 30 years, too, and have experinced many serious tournaments. But I do not see the connection to the question whether your link is worth keeping or not. Why only chess experts should have right to judge it? --Ioannes Pragensis 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your view about the small database conflicts with a majority vote on a Chessgames.com poll itself- a large % of members wanted a bigger database. The coverage and therefore the ECO statistics of the World champions is out of context, if not as many games are available for a particular world champion. In other words, Chessgames.com is far weaker in terms of game coverage than Chessworld.net. You can put whatever clever spin on it you want - the fact remains it has less than 500,000 games. Chessworld has 1.6 million games - and we run many duplicate removal procedures. You have absolutely no right in this world to prevent people getting to see more games from World champions. With regards to your insulting remarks regarding "community" Chessworld.net is one of the largest online communities there is. We have very vibrant forums, and very many annotators of World champion games.

In short, you are wrong in your judgements about both the elemtns of game coverage, and community. Absolutely and completely biased, and you should cease your acts of censorship as they are not appropriate.

BTW: I have a very good Czech friend who played in a 5-minute chess tournament this evening. Our team came 2nd. He is currently working in London. His name is Peter Zajicek - have you ever played chess with him out of interest?!

With your experience of chess, you are in my view more credible, and you probably have done a lot of good moderation of the chess articles. Surely though, the Chessworld.net database deserves to be given a chance. We have different analysis available than Chessgames.com and we have more games. We do take care about game quality.

I am sorry for all the trouble caused, and if you want to remove the link again, then do it okay - I am too upset to argue anymore about it.

Best wishes Tryfon

Hi Tryfon, and thank you for your attitude towards the problem. I'll not remove the link, at least for the time being, and let others take stance. But please do not add other links to your website here, because of the mentioned rule in WP:EL. (You are of course extremely welcomed to do other useful work here in the chess articles. We need experienced chess experts very much.)

I am sorry, but I do not know Petr Zajicek. There are too many Czechs in the world...

Best wishes, --Ioannes Pragensis 06:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar. One thing about that article, I wanted to show the defense from the defending side of the board. If you are trying to learn a defence, I think it is best to see it from that side. I've also been working on Rook and pawn versus rook, but I haven't worked on it lately, after making major revisions. For the time being, I left a duplicate section in there, and haven't renumbered the diagrams. Bubba73 (talk), 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for greating me. The link's you sent me are realy useful.--Eternal Imortal 15:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

removal of Baryshnikov from core biographies

FYI, the list of core biographies is fixed. Any changes are to be discussed at the talk page, but are currently not taken into consideration. Errabee 13:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that B. is there because of mistake or vandalism. If he is REALLY there, then OK, but who made such a nonsense list? --Ioannes Pragensis 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The people involved in the WikiProject Biographies. There are several other entries, that are doubtful, to say the least. Baryshnikov is certainly not the worst entry, but as ballet goes, I would rather have Sergei Diaghilev, Rudolf Nureyev or Anna Pavlova. Unfortunately, I joined too late to do anything about it. The current list is heavily biased towards American (or general English speaking) knowledge.

Yes. And moreover towards the modern Western knowledge. For example they have Margaret Sanger, but do not have Li Bai or Omar Khayyám - shame on them.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

God: Conservator (irony)

Honestly didn't mean to seem as though I was using an ironic turn of phrase. Apologies as it clearly came across badly. Vizjim 13:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So sorry, I perhaps misunderstood your intention. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 14:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know...?

On 15 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article František Fajtl, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

SoLando (Talk) 23:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais

I understand your concerns about the page being vandalized but looking at the history of the article, it seems like the page is being vandalized on a couple of times each day. This can be easily reverted as you have done quite diligently till now. Please note that protection is used only for persistent vandalism (i.e an article being vandalized several times a day) and protected pages are considered harmful. I have watchlisted the article and will try to revert any vandalism I notice whenever I'm around. However if you still believe that the article should be protected, please feel free to re-list it at Requests for page protection. If another admin decides to protect it, I will not dispute the decision. Thank you for your patience and understanding. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 11:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you have a content dispute on your hands. I'm sorry but I do not know anything about the subject and hence cannot comment on the topic. If you require admin intervention in the dispute, I suggest that you present your case at the incidents noticeboard and later if required resort to higher levels of dispute resolution. If you want the article protected you may request it at WP:RFPP. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais (2)

I'll do that. Though if I'm not sure whether something's vandalism (like today's anon edit), I'll leave it. -- Steel 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chess players

Hi Honza ! Category:Chess players and Category:Chess grandmasters include separately chess masters from whole the World, and are different than, for example, Category:Czech chess players (both chess players and grandmasters).

By the way, I have written articles on some Czech chess players (Jan Foltys, Karel Opočenský, etc.).

Mibelz 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Mibelz and thank you for the Czech chess masters. - Category Chess players has some subcategories, one of them Chess players by nationality. And the category Chess players by nationality has a lot of subcategories, one of them Czech chess players. So everybody who is in the latter category is in the same time also in the category Chess players and there is no need to add these category there. Please read WP:CAT - in the paragraph 3 of the General guidelines we read: "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges." The text follows "However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored," but I do not think that this is the case - there are too many chess players here in Wikipedia, and therefore the general category would be almost of no use.

Have a nice weekend, --Ioannes Pragensis 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to chessworld.net

Hi

Firstly, you make the incorrect assumption that I know of the existence of a chess project.

Secondly, Wikipedians are supposed to assume good faith. The treatment that No65560 received was extremely harsh. How would you feel if you had a week's worth of work deleted. This is what was done to him.

Thirdly, if his edits were so problematic, why was there no early intervention to prevent these problematic edits.

I have stated my opinion on the matter on Eagle 101's talk page. It would have been nice if someone had told No65560 what you've just told me before he received the slapping that he did.

Regards

LittleOldMe 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not aiding a spammer. I am assisting a newcomer. I am assuming good faith as we are all urged to do.

Also, my personal preference is for the concise, tabular layout of the data at ChessWorld.net. This is my personal preference, just as yours is for ChessGames.com. Also, many of the articles that now have a link to ChessWorld.net have no link to any other statistical site. In my opinion, the "spammer" was actually adding useful links to Wikipedia. I do not know why there is a bias against ChessWorld.net, perhaps ChessGames.com has better quality games, but ChessWorld.net has merit. Eagle 101 stated that if a non-partisan editor wished to add links to ShessWorld.net then that was acceptable. I am the non-partisan editor who wished to add the links and have done so.

There was tacit approval given by the hundreds, if not thousands, of new page patrollers like me who saw the original edits by No65560 and allowed them to stand on merit. I don't know what political agenda exists within the chess project, but I want no part of it, I want what is good for Wikipedia.

There seem to be numerous editors who have built kingdoms around certain pet projects who have claimed ownership and who take exception to anyone else meddling in their domain. I understand that Wikipedia edits should follow consensus, but so far I have seen no evidence of consensus stating that links to ChessWorld.net should be shunned.

As a relative newcomer, I sense a lot of hostility to newcomers from all fronts, including administrators. I have therfore made it a mission to make sure that as many newcomers as possible are welcomed and nurtured to become good contributors. If this means that we make a few mistakes along the way, then so be it. But you can bet that if I see a newcomer mistreated then I will fight his corner tooth and nail.

You make the statement, "previous incarnations of No65560" as if you suspect sock puppetry. I challenge you to make that accusation public then so that it can be properly investigated and exposed. If this user does turn out to be a sock puppet then I owe you an apology. He will have had me fooled.

Regards

LittleOldMe 15:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that I have just noticed. ChessGames.com has a commercial component in that adverts are hosted by the site. ChessWorld.net is completely advert free. How can a site that is gathering revenue and benefiting financially from the links within Wikipedia be upheld as a paragon of virtue?

LittleOldMe 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jiri Pelikan

Hi Honza ! I intend to write an article on another Czech player - Pelikan. Because of an aggressive reaction by Gene Nygaard on original form of names, which you know, I have a question to you - What to do with his name ? Jiři Pelikán or Jiri Pelikan, or maybe Jorge Pelikán or Jorge Pelikan ?! Best wishes, Mibelz 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. There is one of the best sources on chess: http://www.olimpbase.org/statistics/all_id01.html

Hi Mibelz! I would say Jiří Pelikán (with "v" over r and with "/" over the second i and over a). He played for Czechoslovakia, I think, so we can defend this version.

Do not worry about Gene, everybody has different language feeling. I think that the most imortant thing is to have all significant variants in the article and to have all redirects for them. And thank you for the link and for your work here. Best wishes, --Ioannes Pragensis 13:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Honza! I have just written two articles on Karel Skalička and Jiří Pelikán, who had decided to stay permanently in Argentina when WW II was broke out in September 1939. Were they Jewish, like Najdorf, Frydman, Feigins, etc. ? Another Czech players, Karel Opočenský, Jan Foltys and František Zíta returned to Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia. All the best, --Mibelz 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society

Hi, I don't know what's up with Guy, he seems completely AWOL. Any chance you could send men the Mega Society article as it was at deletion, for further development? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

chess article

I admire all of the work you've done on the chess article recently. But one thing - I think the article is on the verge of becoming too large. Bubba73 (talk), 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hi and thank you for the message and for your work on the article. The question of length of the article: I discussed it with the FAR guys here Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chess and they told me that we have plenty of space"

Yes, but in my opinion: (1) the section on Rules is getting too large for the chess article. Many of the details of the rules can be left to the rules of chess article, (2) the history part is all great, but I think it is too long for the chess article. I think it should be in a history of chess article, and the chess article could summarize it and link to the main article. This is just my opinion for some small changes. You are putting in a great deal of good work on the article. Bubba73 (talk), 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Bubba73. - AFAIK we have still about 15 kB room. In my opinion, the history section is already very condensed, there is much more to be written (less important masters, tournaments, books, developement of strategy, of notation, of chess organization etc.). And all substantial rules should be there, too, because of their importance. For some purposes, only selections of articles are made (Wikipedia on CD, I think, and such things) so the important articles should contain all substantial parts of the matter, because it may happen that Chess is selected, but Rules of chess are not selected. Look at the German Wikipedia article about chess - they go in much more detail than I do.

BTW, compare it with FA Baseball - much younger and much less culturally important sport. They have a pretty detailed description of the game (and about 70 kB) - so why not chess?

Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, just my little suggestions. You are still doing a great job, but I would like to see a more complete article on the history of chess. There is the origins of chess article, but not much on the modern era, which you have put into the chess article. Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am REALLY very grateful for your help here and I think that we will reduce the article a bit later, but now I try to fill all the holes in it, so I do not care about the size much. As the article is under FAR, we must work quickly, or it loses its FA status, which were not good for the prestige of our poor chess project. After we overcome it, we will perhaps work on the history article, I think. Happy editing!--Ioannes Pragensis 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am only able to make little changes here and there. You are doing a fine job. Bubba73 (talk), 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiCast

Hi,

I am contacting you in respect of an idea I had for WikiCast.

The idea was to do some kind of chess programme, even if it was only showing images of moves in a specfic game with a commentary track.

Given your membership of WikiProject Chess I felt you were a good person to approach.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a GREAT idea, I think. It is something we badkly need here. Curretly, there are 4 ways how to show a game of chess:

1. Just the notation, perhaps with one or two diagrams (the sample game in Veselin Topalov) - horrible
2. A lenghty page with all moves on diagrams like in Sample chess game - too massive for most purposes
3. External links to ChessGames.com or similar servers - it depends on another site, which may cease to exist tomorrow
4. Animated pictures like the Immortal game in Chess - it is hard to prepare and the reader cannot control the speed etc.

So of you came with something better, I would be very pleased.

Some of the properties of such program / script can be:

• accept the initial position in Forsyth-Edwards Notation (the defaul = the standard initisl position)
• accept the game and comentaries as Portable Game Notation
• allow the editor to set up the position initially pictured after the web page is opened (e.g. "ater the 15th move of White") - but the reader must be able to start the game from the first move
• the reader should be able to start an automatic animation (like the Immortal animation) or to control the program with mouse / space bar

So i wish you success and if you needed a help from me (e.g. beta testing), I will try to be useful :-)

Greetings --Ioannes Pragensis 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have clarfied , I meant programme, in terms of radio/TV programme as opposed

to computer program. The aim for WikiCast was to essentialy 'televise' a game with a commentary track and analysis, which is where you would come in :-) ShakespeareFan00 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. This is an even bigger task, I think. Do you mean that you will broadcast a live game from a chess event?--Ioannes Pragensis 17:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, The current idea was to use a series of animated images to represent the moves

in a specfic game, with appropriate annotations to explain possible strategies and so on All material for WikiCast would have to be pre-recorded anyway given that live streaming video on a co-operative basis is not yet techncialy feasible :-) ShakespeareFan00 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are similar thinks online - there are databases with anontated games like ChessGames.com, and there are live webcasts of important games, event with spoken comments - what would be the difference here?--Ioannes Pragensis 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Leading chess masters and World Champions

The material on Leading chess masters and World Champions that you took out of the chess article needs to be saved and either have its own article or put in another article (history of chess, for example). Bubba73 (talk), 18:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of it is from the article about World Chess Championship, only Lucena has been forgotten there and should be added (Im going to do it). Cheers,--Ioannes Pragensis 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

No problem. I will keep the template out of the Chess article until we can make it FA worthy. I previously did not understand what you meant when you said FARC, but now I do. Remember 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess lead section

Excellent work! --Dweller 10:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical Church of the Deaf

I have removed the prod tag for this article. Note is left on the article's talk page. Pastordavid 17:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Answered on the talk page,--Ioannes Pragensis 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to work that out with me ... It is amazing how much more smoothly things go when editors talk to one another. FYI, I have provided some links on the AfD that Adam Riley put up, but there is no way I will be able to incorporate them any time soon. The volume of his nominations today, in the wake of the trainwreck from the Bayside church AfD, is really stretching the limits of good faith -- and responsible editing. Especially given the time of year and the fact that many editors who would be watching these things are otherwise occupied. I can't image the outrage if he would try mass AfDs for mosques during ramadan. Sorry for the rant ... really, thanks for listening and working with me on the Evangelical CHurch for the Deaf prod. Pastordavid 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For rewriting Chess from a poor "brilliant prose promotion" to a featured article, helping retain its star on review, I award you The Editor’s Barnstar. Nice job, excellent effort, and thankless work! Sandy (Talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:Chess

My pleasure! Merry Christmas to you too! Gzkn 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar. Very nice! Enjoy the holidays. SubSeven 20:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanation Please

What is there about 'critical positions from a chessplayers games' that is spamming? What could be more spot on? I receive no commissions or subscriptions from the readers of Wikipedia, unlike many of your accepted links. Links to my website have been found in Wikipedias in 30 different tongues, by invitation, so I'm at a loss at why the offense. That's the nature of an encyclopedia: You don't have to play all the chessplayers' games to see the art that is inherent in the masters' skill. Rather like showing representative sample of artwork from an artists' repertoire, the critical position is when the game was finished. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WTHarvey (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Answered on your talk page.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A good portion of these links to my website are added by patrons who visited my website in the first place. I have alerted visitors to my website of the policy at the English Wikipedia.--WTHarvey

Thank you and wish you a Happy New Year.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

chess pics

Just a note to let you know that if the article had not been on FA track I wouold have definitely put a POV tag on it, since that is how I read things, both because of the nature of the original action and also becse of the content and tone and content of the communications I have received from you and other users. Let me be very clear about this - my original posting, a year or two ago, of the image and its caption was prompted by the feeling that they were of value to the topic, because of the provenance, age, and social context. The homophilic nature of the relation depicted is incidental, but of interest because it shows one of the contexts in which the game was played. It is like mentioning that the Staunton set is made of wood - mentioned in passing and left at that. Much could be said about the wood, but this is not the place. Likewise, much could be said about Sufi homoerotism, but this is not the place. But to attempt to cover up the nature of the relation, at the expense of accuracy and common sense, is beyond the pale. As far as the FA process, I would like to help (that is why I fixed some of the more eggregious stylistic problems) but please do not use that to force me to accept the "cleansing" of the caption, or the arbitrary deletion of the image because I will not. Nor will I countenance being told to go and play in the space reserved for such matters. Anyway, all this may be moot if the Indian pic is properly cited. If not, please do the right thing and let's all move on. Haiduc 14:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also not always happy with the tone and content of communication from your side, you know. Nevertheless thank you for the stylistic changes, you are a very able editor. Regarding the pictures in both the Origin and the Organized play sections, the proper place to discuss them is on the talk page ot the article and not here. I removed them not as a definitive solution, but as a mean to end both edit wars and to force you and others to discuss the changes before making them. You cannot complain, I think, because one of reasons was also your threat to place there a POV tag. So please discuss the matter, prepare a suggestion, make a strawpoll - and if you reach a consensus, I will be happy to see both German children and Persian youth there. And if not, the article can easily be without them, it has many other pictures. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 16:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)