User talk:Quale

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

Moves (spelling corrections) of Ukrainian chess players[edit]

Please read my comments on Andriy's article PS. I contacted him personally on FB & he confirms that the correct spelling of his name in English is Andriy. --BezosibnyjUA (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Antichess material[edit]

I've restored the material deleted by Mann jess at article Antichess. The Bronstein solutions are easily sourcable to Pritchard's ECV, a ref listed in the article biblio. (So that is an insignificant thing to add a page ref if required.) The value of Bronstein's solutions is obvious, and it is obvious they are not a "game guide" as that user has contested. The ELs refs would clearly be extremely helpful to readers in understanding the game and its variants, they require Java, but so does every link to a game in any chess article having such links.

I would like your support at the article Talk should Mann jess return to force his way again. I just do not respond well to aggressive editors (I could name three at WP:CHESS, but I think you know the three I mean) and I tend to push back such aggression with my own brand of hostile. But it's unpleasant doing that, and I know counter-productive too, and it wears on me and tends to destroy my motivation for improving project articles even those of high interest to me. So your help at the article Talk would be appreciated to relieve the pressure if any, since the tendencies I've mentioned are exacerbated when I am all alone struggling with an aggressive editor. (I really feel apathy in general is a huge problem re the project, since said apathy tends to isolate members in their struggles. And isolation is inconsistent w/ concept of "community".)

If you can lend a hand if needed without reprimanding me at the Talk, I will appreciate. (Or, if you want to reprimand Mann jess equally, then I'm fine with any reprimand you'd have for me if you see something you think warrants.) Thanks for any understanding. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Quale, thanks for responding. But I think you only partially understand the problems. (Even if I sourced the Bronstein material, Mann jess wants it deleted on other basis. Also, the last thing I want to do is fight w/ *anyone*, that is why I reached out to you for help. Third, the ELs, which you didn't mention. [Do you have any concern about supporting their restoration.] Fourth, I need help *at* the article Talk, not just advice.) OK having all those thoughts from me, can you help? I'm patient. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Quale, I just don't think you are hearing me at all. First, sourcing (BTW it's Pritchard's Popular Chess Variants not the ECV I referred to) is no problem, it is a trifle matter. But it doesn't solve the problem. (Mann jess will still likely object or delete the material again, based on "Game Guide".) Second, you don't understand the ELs issue. I explained to you his objection is because they require Java. But Quale, *all* links to games use Java. (So, do you see the illogic of your recommendation to go ask ELN? If you want to stick with that recommendation, can you present to me your reasoning why all the links in chess articles wouldn't stand or fall on the same issue as the Antichess links?) Last, the personal comments you made at the article Talk, that I "didn't like Mann jess", isn't representative of how I feel, and how I feel is that I neither like nor dislike him, but what he's doing now and actions he's taken I just cannot work with rationally. By commenting on the personal stuff, aren't you focusing and highlighting it? (It doesn't have to be, and it certainly doesn't have to be permanent. Your implication is that it is permanent. It may very well be hopeless, but it takes two, doesn't it.) I asked for your assistance in order to bring about the exact opposite of that -- to discourage Mann jess from getting personal. I cannot do that on my own. (What would disuade him? He's already shown the proclivity to.) With a chessmember there interested only in talking facts and policy, it would deflate any potential for personal sparks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. I think Cobblet could help me. Could you ask him to help me? (I would, but better if you do, or accompany me in doing.) p.p.s. I've opened a thread at Cobblet's Talk, but haven't asked for the help I need yet. I'm trying to get answers ...
Quale, I've discussed w/ Cobblet, but it still leaves me alone with the aggressive editor. You are right that uncivil behavior discourages discussion participation from new editors, but I have two comments about that: 1) You're implicitly blaming me for being part of that, and can't you see I myself am disinclined to be part of that discussion due to the behavior of the aggressive editor there? Can't you see I've reached out for help from you and Cobblet, as a very means to find a detour around the personal inflamation likely to continue to come out of the aggressive editor there, unless there's more than me trying to try and arrive at a idea/argument-centered discussion rather than the personal affronts? Can't you see I wouldn't have come to your Talk and asked for assistance if that weren't true? 2) The article has very little editor interest, as do most all chess variant articles, so one cannot deduce or conclude anything by lack of participation in discussion there, if that is what you might have implied, other than said lack of interest. (Even the Shogi article, has only three active discussion participants. And there are no hostilities at the Shogi article. And millions of people play Shogi. And I think you would be hard-pressed to find any active discussion participants at even the Chess960 article [other than me for swaths of months].)

There is an excellent case for those ELs to be restored to the article, however the aggressive editor there is impossible for me to deal with single-handedly. (I'm facing "Just say no!" tactic.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation[edit]

You've got a bald untrue accusation that I've created a "problem" for the Wikipedia by "coddling and encouraging" user Wiki brah. You need to pinpoint exactly what you mean, Quale. (As explained already on my Talk, after assulting him as a vandal here, then being warned by admin Drimies to lay off him, I simply made a promise to that user to not cause him grief in anyway again by offensive comments. That seemed to have warmed him to feel safe with posting at my Talk, and that he has done. So what? I have no reason to not treat him less than a human being -- he never said any false accusation against me [he only ever accused me of "getting a hard on" at Talk:Internet chess server, which he subsequently apologized for.) The thing you don't see to get, Quale, is that in all Wiki brah's postings to my attention, he has never made an untruthful allegation or accusation against me. (The same can't be said of users ChessPlayerLev, MaxBrowne, or Mann jess, or even you!) So I have no reason to treat him with rudeness, when he has posted at my Talk. There as even some collaboration attempt on a a chess player's bio, David Taylor, so, who is to say user Wiki brah is incapable of eventually turning around? Since he can sock to his heart's delight without end under current technology, what is the utility in making an enemy of him? I have only been kind in response to kind posts by him. I have even discouraged his abuse of other editors on the Wikipedia, when he raised the topic.

What is your specific complaint of me re "coddling" and "encouraging", Quale? Because they seem very negative accusations, and are without basis. You've accused me of doing something harmful to the Wikipedia, I guess, and I take that seriously, and wholly resent it as well. I don't go around falsely accusint other editors of shit. Apparently you think you can. What harm do you imagine I'm responsible for, by keeping good-faith with not attacking him, and not being unkind when he has felt therefore safe to post at my Talk? What manner of Wiki-subterfuge are you fucking accussing me of? You've made an accusation of some sort, you really have no basis for it, and you are really full of shit making it. (More baseless false accusation on the English Wikipedia! It is a characteristic of the hostile, abusive environment here, long before I signed up as editor here. And now you have just contributed to it. Good job. Your accusation of wrong-doing has no basis other than what is between your ears, stemming from your bad-faith imagination. You have no basis for apparently slandering me, that seems your intent. You have no basis, but that doesn't stop you from throwing false accusation, i.e. mud.) You've pissed me off. All full of bad-faith, you are. (Just fine. But you hand in an accusation. I draw the line there.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I want you to give me one diff, Quale, any diff, where you can point to my response to Wiki brah, and tell me in all honesty what I responded that "encouraged [him]". (By "encouraged [him]", I assume you mean to do destruction toward the Wikipedia, or its users. I don't think you'd be accusing me of "encouraging [him]" if said encouragement was toward making positive contribution to the WP. But if the latter I do plead "guilty".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. You say shit, but you don't back it up. Back up your disparaging accusation with a diff, Quale, even one. Let's see it. Or forever and a day shut your fucking stupid baselessly condemning mouth.

I won't be editing a single pure chess article again, thanks to your condemning bullshit. (Only chess variants articles in my future, except Antichess, where you involved yourself and ruined any motivation I have after abandoning the article once because of your fucking disparaging unfair remarks, and won't be returning.) I was increasing my skill as editor as the years have unfolded, and not even unpacked from boxes over 400 [400 is prob. way underestimated; maybe 1400 is more like it; if you want to see a photo after I unpack and put on bookshelves in future, let me know I have no problem to provide; am always prepared to back up anything I say -- unlike most uncivil Wikipedia editors who throw false accusations around then run like vandals without any responsibility for what they've accused]. You can keep User:ChessPlayerLev, User:MaxBrowne, and User:Mann jess -- all editors you complimented, while only disparaging me. Good luck with pumping up those editors and their future prolific contributions, while you've ruined any desire of mine to contribute even a single edit to any pure chess article. You've done a great job, all said and done, huh? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. Sorry, User:Bubba73! You introduced me to WP:CHESS and invited me, and have always been kind to me. But this is too much. I have better things to do. Too bad. But I've improved a lot of articles here. But now my edits stop. It's not worth the bullshit offenses. I am a person with feelings and a mind. Thanks for understanding. Good luck with pure chess articles.

I'm intending to revert all edits in my edit history on pure chess (non-chess variant) articles. (It will take some time and doing, but in the end I will get the job done; you can believe that. You can also thank yourself. You are the reason.) I feel extremely unappreciated here, blatantly attacked and disparaged, left and right, right and left, up and down, down and up, sideways, and forwards. You've added to that in your own despicable way. You should congratulate yourself, I guess. I regret ever participating in WP:CHESS. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. There will be one exception, but it is the only exception I know of at this time: Alexandra Obolentseva. (I plan to leave that article as-is. I worked a lot on it, rephrasing broken English. I resent the attacks on that article, especially calling it perverted and "sick" by User:ChessplayLev who always jumps on the bandwagon of popular discontent, in order to proclaim initiative and credit for "progessive action". All bogus bullshit pretension. [Easy to criticize -- hard to do. I'm not a deletionist, kept the images already existing at the article, and only worked on making the article readable/understandable. Then my work is called "sick" by someone you compliment. That's fucking great.])Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Go cry somewhere else. I think you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, but if you are this childish then the project really is better off without you. That surprises me. You've always been thin skinned and abrasive, but I thought that that the good work you did pushed you into the net positive category. I'm not sure I see it that way any longer. Quale (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You've set the tone very clear to me Quale. (Did you ever have a negative thing to say to ChessplayerLev? No. To MaxBrowne? No. To Mann jess? No. They all have received your compliments. But you have no problem being negative towards me, insulting me even ["grow up", "cry elsewhere"], and even accusing me perposterously of "encouraging" Wiki brah when I simply have chosen to not criticize him. (And, truth be said, he has never pulled the shit to me, that any of the aforementionied editors have. Compared to their treatment of me, the socking troll has been extremely decent to me.) I'm done with your prejudicial treatment, I've had enough of the abuses here. I'll be withdrawing my contributions to chess articles; you've set the tone with the others that it is ok to scorn me and treat me like trash, and I shouldn't be a part of "collaborative" effort under such abusive conditions. You keep telling me your negative opinion of me as if I care at all. I've had enough of the insults and abusive underhandedness around here that you condone by complimenting those users and treating me like shit. I'm gone because of you really and the tone you've set that condones the abusiveness without comment, while finding your own ways to slight me at every turn. so thank yourself, Mr. Leader, for driving me out. I've had enough. (Did you think I had endless capacity for receiving shit? Huh?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. Your compliments to my "net positive" are coming a bit too late after all your digs, Quale. Did you think that would turn me around at this point to reenter the abusive environment you've set the tone for here? (I won't be returning as long as you are around condoning the others' abusiveness through your compliments, all driven by your prejudice in any given incident that may come up, against me. I don't need more abuse. I've had quite enough. [And good luck with your favored editors ChessplayerLev, MaxBrowne, and Mann jess. You accused me of "encouraging" Wiki brah to do damage to the encyclopedia or its editors. A false accusation. But you have no problem encouraging those other editors, who have been underhanded and abusively aggressive towards me, by your compliments. That kind of self-denial and hypocrisy is stunning, really. But not from the vantage point of abusive treatment. From that it makes total sense. I see right through it, Mr. Leader. You thought it wouldn't wear on me. You guessed wrong. Your opinion of my efforts here were important. You don't have any idea of how insulting and demoralizing you've really been to this editor. Unfairness is something I just can't deal with, and your active and permanent prejudice of me guarantees unfairness. I'm gone and want to be a ghost. Please don't make any more insults. I've had enough. [Isn't that clear?])

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Stop it please[edit]

You s/ stop w/ the incendiary and insulting remarks that obviously refer to me. (Put it in private Email, duh.) Or did you came back to edting to wave oxygen over a flame!? Not a good idea. You s/ think more. And more deeply. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a tantrum; I'm sure you can do better. If you are concerned, you should not worry that I talk about you in email or anywhere else off or on Wiki. I don't have any contact with any Wikipedians off-wiki, and I don't want to think about you or hear from you any longer on-wiki.
I feared our interaction would end badly at the very beginning when you asked me to help you gang up on an editor with whom you were having a dispute. I did not want to get involved in the dispute and I didn't, but unfortunately our interaction did end badly. Sometimes I had tried to help when I thought you were being seriously wronged. (This does not mean that if I did not speak up at the time that I did not still believe you were in the right, only that sometimes I say something when I see an injustice. I'm not a crusader who spends all (or even most of) his time and energy trying to right wrongs on Wikipedia.) When archiving previous years' entries from my talk page, I stumbled across /Archive 4#Again, a relic from a time when I was siding with you as we were both struggling in vain to get the admins to block Wiki brah. (We didn't yet know he was Wiki brah, but that soon became clear.) Not too long afterwards you switched sides and became bosom buddies with the serial disruptor and sockpuppeteer, but it's good to see you are still friendly with Drmies as well. Despite my frustration with Drmies (in)actions in that specific instance, I respect them. Quale (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not really a tantrum; I'm sure you can do better. Baiting sarcasm noted.
  • you should not worry that I talk about you in email Does not compute -- I'm the one asking you to reserve your condescensions of me to private Email.
  • I don't want to think about you or hear from you any longer on-wiki. Then please drop w/ the insulting remarks on-wiki that obviously refer to me. (2nd time.)
  • you asked me to help you gang up on an editor. Bad-faith mischaracterization. (You had voluntarily participated at the article Talk in the past. Few-to-nil participants at that article. I logically turned to you since you'd already dipped into that article previously and I trusted your 3rd party independent voice on content when I couldn't talk content with the competing editor. Instead you betrayed with off-content reprimanding and admonishing. You should have declined my request to assist if you felt you couldn't resist commenting on editors instead of content -- that type topic is what I was trying to avoid in the first place by soliciting your involvement again. It's when your bias against me along with other editor examples really hit home. 2nd time telling.)
  • you switched sides and became bosom buddies Negative. (2nd or 3rd time.) I simply dropped criticising that potential editor. (What's to be gained? 100+ blocks haven't worked duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Otherwise, welcome back & good luck w/ orthochess articles. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited S-algol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Closure and L-value (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mikhail Tal[edit]

Hello quale, firstly, sorry for my english, im not a native speaker. you reverted my edit in this article - and I don't agree with you. footnotes are not for every fact - only for statistics, controversial facts, ciation of a research, quotes etc etc. I can give you lots of links that support it - [1], [2] and more and more. therefore, i've recanceld. good day, Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you don't agree with me, but the rules on the English language Wikipedia require a citation for "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" (WP:V). We don't have to guess whether or not the claim that Tal was from a Jewish family is likely to be challenged, because in fact it was challenged. The person who flagged it as needed a cite was challenging it. When an editor sees a claim in an article and is uncertain whether or not it is verifiable, there are two options. The more drastic option is to remove the claim until a source is provided. The more gentle option is to flag the claim as needing a citation. I think Tal did come from a Jewish family, so I believe the claim is true. (If I thought it was false, I would remove it from the article.) It still needs a citation, and I think the editor who flagged it as needing a citation was correct. It is rarely permissible to remove a cite needed tag from an article without providing a citation. You have some sources that might be suitable for verification. Quale (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There's this chess column from the Montreal Gazette but can probably do better.,2736047 MaxBrowne (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Sports Illustrated, 1960: MaxBrowne (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That mini-edit war was so stupid - so does this policy, which is totaly anti-acedmic. Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion allowing maintenance tags, and especially maintenance header templates into main article space is one of the worst decisions ever made by wikipedia admins. People who look up wikipedia articles for information don't want to see that crap. It just makes an article uglier and detracts from wikipedia's credibility. Drive-by taggers (aka "curators"), deletionists and "citation needed" fascists who demand a reference for every single statement in an article are among wikipedia's most annoying editors, and I'm sure they drive away 90% of newbies. But anyway.... while it is "obvious" to you and me that Mikhail Nekhemevich Tal was Jewish, if someone asks for a source we need to provide it. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
well I did it, and then you canceld my edit. this is getting more and more annoying. Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ruy Lopez may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Olympiad|2014 Chess Olympiad]] against [[Ivan Šarić (chess player)|Ivan Šarić]] and lost.<ref>[ Ivan Saric vs Magnus Carlsen, Chess Olympiad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Worst simul[edit]

This was in an older version of the article, the source given was Fox & James (cited elsewhere). Kind of a silly "record" in any case. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glossary of chess may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{term|term= Pawn centre|content = Pawn centre (or Pawn center) {{anchor|Pawn center)}} }}
  • {{defn|defn= A row of the [[#Chessboard|chessboard]]. In [[#Algebraic notation|algebraic notation]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joergen Moeller may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • REDIRECT [[Jørgen Møller] {{R from title without diacritics}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the admission is through the national level engineering entrance examination - [[AIEEE]] since 2002).<ref name=AIEEE>{{cite web|first=AIEEE|title=AIEEE 2012 Brochure|url=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Quale,

being a relative novice to editing on Wikipedia, I was unable to locate any better means of getting in touch with you via Wikipedia than writing to you on this "User" Page.

After making a minor linguistic change to the article on the Sicilian Defense, I noticed that this change was repeatedly (as I thought at first) not accepted or (as I then realized) UNDONE by you.

This prompted me to write you the following note on the "talk" page:

My apologies to "Quale" - I didn't realize you had actually UNDONE my change to the article on the Sicilian Defense in line 70 ("at which point" instead of "when") - I thought it was some technical error and re-entered my change for that reason. Wasn't trying to be obstinate or fanatical about it! After all, the future of the universe will not depend on which wording is used in this article. That said, I would however ask you to do me one favour before "RE-UN-DOING" my (attempted) improvement again: Would you please ask a professional expert on the English language (an English teacher, university professor, lexicologist, ...) whether or not (as I believe) "at which point" is the more accurate and grammatically more orthodox wording in this sentence - and then report your findings on this talk page, I repeat: BEFORE changing the article again.

Thanking you in advance for your co-operation and professionalism,

Martin (from Canada)


I hope not, because if you had read it, and then COMPLETELY IGNORED MY REQUEST and just gone back and changed the article to the old (your?) wording - - that would be EXTREMELY uncultured and the kind of behaviour that would be absolutely detrimental to the functioning and prospering of a democratic website like Wikipedia, that is founded on the presumption of mutual respect between its users.

SO- I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF THIS - because my hope and assumption is, that you simply hadn't read my comment for some reason.

BUT NOW THAT YOU HAVE READ IT I would like to reiterate my request to have this difference of opinion clarified by a professional expert. THAT is a mature and reasonable way of resolving the issue - changing and "un-changing" and changing back again and "re-un-changing" and seeing who lasts longer IS NOT!!

Just out of curiosity: Are you a native English speaker, and if so, where are you from? I ask that just to rule out some regional difference being the cause of our different views.

Thanking you, once again, for your co-operation in a fair approach to settling our difference.

Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, welcome to Wikipedia. I reverted your change in language in the Sicilian Defence article because it is my opinion that "when" is a better word choice than "at which point" in the two sentences that you changed. I think the edit summary I used was pretty clear about why I did this. I understand that you probably have a different opinion about what is a better word choice, but the person who originally wrote those sentences also could have used "at which point" but instead chose "when". Since the original writer was not me, it suggests that that person also thought "when" was the better word, so so far it seems that it's two "votes" to one in favor of the shorter language. (I put "votes" in quotes, because these are not really votes, but just indications of opionion.)
I am a native English speaker from the United States. (As you might guess, this poses some small challenges for me concerning WP:ENGVAR since Sicilian Defence should be written in British English as that was the initial language of the page.) I read a lot of chess literature, primarily books, and my opinion is that most chess writers would use "when" in those contexts rather than "at which point", so "when" reads more simply and naturally. You may think that it doesn't make much difference, but in my opinion edits to articles should all make a definite improvement, even if a small one, not just change the article language very slightly to something that is "just as good" or "almost the same, hardly any worse". If we make a series of small changes, each making the article barely perceptibly worse, over time the quality of the article and the encyclopedia will decline and wikipedia will suffer death by a thousand cuts. (The other problem with a change to something that is "just as good, not any better but not any worse" is that there's no reason to prefer it to what was used previously. If it isn't clearly better, then why can't someone else change it back? That's just an invitation to an endless edit war, so make sure every change is a definite improvement, even if small.)
So it isn't anything personal and I hope you aren't offended. If you feel strongly that "at which point" is a better word choice than "when", I encourage you to create a new section on Talk:Sicilian Defence talk page to discuss it, and invite the opinion of others to convince them that you are correct. Quale (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate hatnote deletion?[edit]

Looking at your user contributions I see that you're deleting hatnotes on multiple rather ambiguous articles about George Walkers. Some good examples are George Walker (footballer, born 1877), George Walker (footballer, born 1909) and George Walker (Australian footballer). Quoting from WP:NAMB: A hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused with the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator). Perhaps you should consider reverting some of your edits? Trilobitealive (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I replied on your talk. My concern was with hatnotes on articles such as George Walker (chess player), which doesn't seem likely to be confused with any of the other George Walkers. I tried to avoid removing hatnotes that should be kept, but I am fallible and if you think I have made a mistake, you should revert it. (Other editors should feel free to fix any of my mistakes as well.) Quale (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 ;^) Trilobitealive (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I think you're being elitist your reversions of the well known winning line in this game. You can have it if you must because I don't have the patience or the commitment to see you off but I do think you should stand aside. It's not just your project and of course computer analysis properly sourced is encyclopaedic. (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. Read WP:RS. Unpublished computer analysis cannot be a reliable source for wikipedia by definition since it is unpublished. There are quite a few other problems with using unpublished analysis in wikipedia, and I listed several those issues at WT:WikiProject Chess/Archive 21#unpublished Houdini / Rybka / Crafty / Fritz = WP_verifiable?. Unpublished material simply never works for wikipedia, so this isn't specific to computer chess analysis. Quale (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Die or Dice?[edit]

Hmmm. I do struggle with these new 'common usage' terms creeping into the dictionary. Something to do with teaching an old dog new tricks. In my defence, the article does say that 'die' remains predominant among tabletop gamers though, so I can argue I have context-specific usage on my side! Surprisingly, the person I corrected has already thanked me for doing so - his dictionary must be even older than mine! Brittle heaven (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(Your) Edit of "previous" to "hitherto".[edit]

You state that "hitherto" is not an improvement over "previous" and undid the previous edit. However, the edit that you undid was doing exactly that. I can only presume you read the edit note, misunderstood it, and didn't take the time to view how the edit was made in the article (which was replacing "hitherto" with "previous"). So your undo action actually replaced "previous" with "hitherto", and not other way round, as you seemed to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Hitherto Cowboy[edit]

I'm sorry to see that you're also coming into conflict with the anonymous editor who pops up at a different IP address each day, and is trying to eradicate the word "hitherto". He seems fixated on a period in the word's etymological past, and unable to accept the present-day meaning. After failing to get us all to use the clearly dead "thitherto", he now seems intent on wiping out hitherto entirely from Wikipedia. He's popped up in the last few days at User:, User:, and User:, but is clearly the same person. He has past warnings for disruptive editing at the first of those addresses. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Vasyl' Ivanchuk[edit]

He's UKRAINIAN. Vassily is russian pronunciation. are you russian?--Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of my fellow Americans don't know the difference between Russian and Ukranian language! Our news media call "Kiiv" by the name "Kiev". Our American English chess books call the grandmaster "Vassily Ivanchuk". No political message is intended by us American editors of the chess pages. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite right, Jax. And to the Ukrainian activist, I am very sympathetic concerning the trouble that Russia is causing your country, but it isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to promote political causes. We follow the sources, generally preferring the transliterations found in English sources if there's a choice. Today most English sources use the spelling "Vassily". In fact Ivanchuk's rating card at FIDE spells it that way, something that either Ivanchuk or the Ukrainian Chess Federation could have changed at any time. Oh wait, The Ukrainian Chess Federation's English page also uses the spelling "Vassily". Quale (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, whole world don't know difference between Ukraine and Russia, between Kyiv and Kiev. And many others...--Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of technically incorrect spellings and pronucniations have become established in English, "Gorbachev" should really be "Gorbachov" for example (stress on last syllable). It took a while for Kateryna Lagno to convince the English language media to stop spelling her name "Lahno". MaxBrowne (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What to do about the Indian Morphy fan?[edit]

I tried a RPP, but this was declined, with a template saying we should "appropriately warn" him. OK, but how do you do this with someone whose IP keeps changing? Are we supposed to warn everyone in the 182.65.*.* range? Perhaps you could try another RPP, explaining the situation. I suspect incompetence rather than deliberate trolling, but it doesn't make it any less disruptive. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a bother. I think you have judged the situation correctly, but I don't know how to manage it aside from repairing the article when needed. At least we have several people keeping an eye on it. Quale (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't appeased by my mentioning of Fischer's opinion in the lead, so I repeated my request at RPP. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like they were more receptive this time, which is good. Quale (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johann Nepomuk Maelzel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allegro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Carl Jaenisch[edit]

Hi Quale, the only correct christian name is Ferdinand. The old publications with the wrong name Carl are wrong. Best--r s c (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Castling cite book[edit]

WP:CITEVAR requires seeking consensus on talk page prior to changing citation format for personal preference. Please explain on why "cite book" should be changed to the less specific "citation". For example, is there a sitewide consensus that this is a Good Thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talkcontribs) 12:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Fisher claimed as the greatest is incorrect[edit]

I am also a contributor like you and I wanted to share the accurate contents with the fellow readers. If I inadvertently offended you or fellow contributors by reverting I apologize for the intent. But I wanted to do the right thing. And wanted to share correct information with people who learn and refer wiki pages. We are freelance contributors. But we should be reasonable. I assume you understand what I mean. These pages are not fan pages.

        I am a professional chess player. There is no doubt that Fisher is one of the greatest players of all time. And I respect it as a professional. But he is only peaked for 2 years time (1970 - 1972 till the world championship). Everyone in chess community widely agreed that Kaparov is the greatest player of all time.(You can have many dozen references in internet). Being the youngest world champion and being top ranked player for 20 years till retirement(in 2005) along with most number of consecutive tournament victories are nearly impossible to replicate. Though Fisher has his fare share he is not the greatest. This is not a fan page. This is wiki page. As contributors we are responsible to maintain it up to that level not being biased or showing favoritism. Yes people have different arguments. Some says Lasker is the greatest player of all time due to his extraordinary preservation and longitivitivy. And Alekhine is the greatest due to being the world champ due till his death. If you search just like for Fisher there are other people say their respective player is the greatest. Like People say Anand is the greatest because he became world champ in all the formats(rapid, tournament play and championship match). And you find some articles to back that claim. So if people go and change Anands wiki page citing some resources and say he is not one of the greatest but he is the greatest will bring different meaning. As a responsible contributors we shouldn't be bias or partial. But Fishers wiki page guarded by fans(Not contributors). I try to reason and add the right contents. But fan contributors vehemently rejected me. As an experienced contributor I wish you at least you will be open enough to accept the facts(The truth). Any one can argue "Some says he is the greatest". That can be applicable to Lasker, Alekhine and Caplabanca and for Anand. And according to many they also greatest. But no one change their wiki pages to "Greatest". All are mentioned as "One of the greatest". Fisher is not the Greatest but Kasparov is. It's known fact. You can refer Chess Base or Chess games or any reference. I wish people act like mature people not act like fans especially contributors.
    I suppose you fellow contributors understand claiming one as the greatest based on some feeds. Then there can be many greatest just like "Fisher"(As I mentioned Lasker, Alekhine, Caplabanca or even Anand). So all of them are considered as "One of the greatest" not the "Greatest". Greatest title belong to one. (By definition). He is Kasparov.(Don't count on me. Do the research). All other including "Fisher" is "one of the greatest". I will you fellow contributors be open, transparent and impartial about the valid and accurate claim I brought up. As I said earlier this is not a FAN PAGE. So we should responsible for what we share- Thanks....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkadira (talkcontribs) 02:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC) 
Although I respect your opinion, editor opinions don't determine the content of Wikipedia articles. It can be hard to understand how Wikipedia works at first, and it's harder to start now since Wikipedia has accumulated so many layers of policy, procedure and bureaucracy. It was easier to get started here a decade ago, I think. Anyway, I don't think anyone was offended. Feel free to discuss any improvements or corrections the article needs at Talk:Bobby Fischer, and if you have persuasive arguments backed up by reliable sources other editors are likely to agree with you and help make the changes you seek. Quale (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Your repeated reversion and refusal to be civil[edit]

Yeah hi there. I just started a new paragraph on the Lasker page, hoping that you will explain yourself there, if you feel the need to revert my edit again. I asked you not to revert again without an explanation, and you've not only done exactly that, but amazingly said "don't do it again" to me. Hehe. Who do you think you are? Is that how you usually operate on here? I can't believe so, you wouldn't have lasted so long. Anyway. I hope you will actually discuss your point of view, instead of silently reverting my edit. Thanks. I feel rather insulted by your behaviour. Naturally. (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Quale. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi Quale,

Why did you undo my work on the 1.h3 page? I worked quite a bit on that article :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandmeneertje (talkcontribs) 13:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Deep Blue logs[edit]

Thanks for the revert. The same claim was in Human–computer chess matches, with an invalid ref, and Kasparov, where I had tagged it as unverified since July. Somehow I failed to check the Deep Blue (chess computer) ref, which does appear to be valid. Mystery solved. I have now added it to the other two articles. zzz (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, I don't know if a primary source is really adequate... zzz (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you have a point about primary sources, although I didn't see a reference for the claim that the Deep Blue team initially refused to publish its logs in the article either. This article has had a lot of anti-computer or anti-IBM edits in the past usually in support of Kasparov's unproven (and I think implausible) cheating claims against the Deep Blue team. These edits are less frequent now, I suspect because it's clear that computers are much stronger chess players than any human, even a world champion. Quale (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)