Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:02, 30 April 2008

User page	Talk Page	To Do List	INFO	AFD	Control Panel	More

1. It's helpful if you provide diffs for relevant articles and edits.
2. Refer to policies and guidelines.
3. Don't expect a lengthy reply if you don't demonstrate having read the policies and guidelines pointed out.
4. Feel free to ask questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
5. I usually don't do e-mail; if it's about wikipedia use my talk page.

Skip to: Bottom of page

English varieties

WP:ENGVAR, "Strong ties to a topic" applies to biographies. As an example, it would be odd to write "Fischer Defence" at Bobby Fischer. I would expect that Tony Blair would use British spelling, and George W. Bush would use American spelling. Quale (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see there is nothing in WP:ENGVAR saying that about biographies. Specifically as I asked before, I want to know where it says biographies are an exception. SunCreator (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unusual chess openings

Do you know if Benjamin and Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (Collier; ISBN 0020165900) or Angus Dunnington's Winning Unorthodox Openings (Everyman; ISBN 1857442857) covers unusual replies to Whites 1.e4 or 1. d4, fore example lines like 1.e4 h5, 1.e4 Na6, 1. e4 b5 etc. I understand that all White's first moves are covered in Dunnington's book, but am unsure if the replies are also. SunCreator (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin and Schiller definitely do. Dunnington is more focused on Black's reactions to unusual first moves by White. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi SunCreator, I just wanted to say thank you for helping me, and thank you for all of the support you have given to me and my arcticles! I am quite new to Misplaced Pages, and just found out how to leave a message! Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate all your help! Are there any arcticles on chess (prefferably openings) that need work? If so, I would be happy to do my best! Please respond to my account, as I am still not quite sure how I stumbled apon yours! :) Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesslover96 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Your message to me

Hi, Thanks, I think I understand the art of sending messages! :). I know of a larger site with more of Schiller's Book. I will send it to you soon. I also email with Eric himself, I will ask him what he knows. The "Southern Fred" is confusing me. When I arrived, the Fred Defence arcticle stated 2... Kf7?! is "Often called the Southern Fred". I reworded: "Sometimes called the Southern Fred", as I couldn't find anything on it. After more Google searches, I still have not come up with anything! Can you supply any information at all? I think I joined Wikiproject Chess, but I belive I messed up horribly with my name (I found it in a corner somewhere! :).

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesslover96 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

chess problem

ok, see that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Boungcloud Attack

I agree, the Boungcloud Attack is a bit silly. I am a chess.com member, so I guess I cared about it. Delete it if you think it is silly, but if we keep it, let's both try to look around and make sure everyone gets the message that this is bad. The person who posted it here said it was better than 2. Qf3 and 2. Qh5, which is incorrect. Could you help me fix it? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesslover96 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you think the Boungcloud should be deleted, or should it be left? It is already quite famour around the internet, and I heard people talking about it at my chess club.--Chesslover96 (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But what would it be merged with? I don't think we should delete the Boungcloud totally, as it is "notable", and quite famous in internet chess communities such as chess.com, chessgames.com, Yahoo! groups, and Misplaced Pages.Chesslover96 (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

White/white, etc

I saw in your edits to Anderssen's Opening that you took the caps out of some references to White and Black. Our convention is to captalize the words when they are used as a substitute for a player, but not when they are just the color. So it would be "the black pieces" or "the white queen", but "... Black's move was ...", etc. And thanks for your helpwith chess articles. Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Companion content

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that my talkpage has some answers about the content in the Oxford Companion. Krakatoa has posted the main ideas. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes vs. Footnotes

The section you cite, Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Section_headings, says that "Notes" is preferred. Quale (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• The section you cite says that "Notes" is preferred. If both are acceptable, why did you make an unneeded change? Quale (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly it doesn't say "Notes" is preferred. If it does please point out exact where you read that to. Quote it in full for clarity. Secondly, as both are acceptable why are you changing it back? SunCreator (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the section saying Footnote is a recommended section name.

=====Section headings=====

Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Misplaced Pages are:

• ==Notes==
• ==Footnotes==
• ==References==

SunCreator (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the section you pointed to? Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Section_headings, says: "Many editors use "Notes" as their preferred title for the footnotes section, as the same section can then hold both source citations as well as general notes.". If it was acceptable before, then why are you changing it? It isn't enough to say that your edit is OK, you're supposed to be improving the encyclopedia. How does your edit improve the encyclopedia? Misplaced Pages frowns upon worthless edits like yours, including changing "defense" to "defence" in Open Game, etc. There are several reasons to prefer "Notes" to "Footnotes":

1. Worthless edits are discouraged, as I mentioned, particularly to a stable article that conforms to WP:MOS and other relevant policy.
2. "Notes" is recommended at WP:LAYOUT and Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Section headings.
3. "Notes" is a more common choice than "Footnotes", which is to say that more editors prefer it. If you doubt this, compare the number of pages using "Footnotes" to the number of pages using "Notes". In particular, I invite you to look at WP:Citing sources, the page you love to quote, and check what the section is called there—yep, WP:Citing sources#Notes, not Footnotes. Also see WP:LAYOUT#Notes along with hundreds or thousands of other pages.
4. "Footnotes" is a misnomer for these sections, since these are really "Endnotes". Simply "Notes" is a shorter and more accurate section title. Quale (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quale, please don't bite the newbies, especially when the only problem is just that they may be a bit too bold in some cases. There is no shame in asking questions on the Guidelines, especially when they are as confusing as the ones about references, notes and footnotes. That being said, thanks for your explanation on the subject. SyG (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately dealing with Quale is tedious and time consuming as he does not stick to the point.

Here is the events on the Footnotes issue:

• I edited a page and change 'Notes' to 'Footnotes'
• He reversing my edit tagged it WP:Layout, implying that 'Footnotes is not allowed'
• I then tried to show him footnotes is allowed. WP:Citing_sources#Section_headings shows this clearly.
• He then switched to "Notes is preferred". Firstly irrelevant to undo my edit, but also incorrect as the nearest thing it says is "Many editors prefer Notes" which is not the same thing.
• Thinking there might be some reason to his reply and that I may of missed something I then asked where does it say "Notes is preferred?"
• He then switched again and replied with "Notes is recommended" and "Notes is more common"
• Of course the final part is true but irrelevant. His point has been false because "Footnotes is also recommend" but it's to tedious to explain when he does NOT read the guidelines and switches his argument just as your trying to clear up any confusion over a previous point.

SunCreator (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. I have been on point always, it is you who have consistently ignored it. Edits that do not improve wikipedia are strongly discouraged. If there are two equally acceptable alternatives, then do not unilaterally make a change. The reason this is discouraged should be obvious, but apparently not, so here it is. If there are two equally acceptable alternatives, then there is no logical way to choose between them. The only reasonable approach in this case is to leave it alone. Any rational you use to change "Notes" to "Footnotes" also applies to changing it back. There is no way to break this cycle except to not make the initial change. You have never once given any reason to prefer "Footnotes" to "Notes", and I explicitly asked you how that change improves the article or the encyclopedia. I have given you evidence that "Notes" is preferred over "Footnotes", so in fact your change made things very slightly worse. Quale (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Another reply and another switch. This time saying 'Edits that do not improve wikipedia are strongly discouraged' and ' do not unilaterally make a change ', firstly, it's a wording which I'm not sure of the source(WP:MOS perhaps?) and secondly it implies that I made a change that was worthless and does not Assume good faith.

Still, worthy edit or not, it's off point as it's not in WP:LAYOUT, and WP:LAYOUT was the reason given for undoing my edit. SunCreator (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your impressive work of assessment in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chess/Review on B+, B and B- assessments, I am very pleased to award you this barnstar. SyG (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Boldface

Well, I think the Sicilian Defence could use some boldface, and I belive a few other major openings lack it as well. I will start with the Sicilian. Chesslover96 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is an example of boldface. The first name is NOT in boldface, and the second example is in boldface.

Corn Stalk Defense Corn Stalk Defense Does boldface make more sense now? Chesslover96 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

List of chess terms

• Thanks, it looks good. That change was a fair amount of work, so I never made it myself. (Also, I just forgot about it.) Using Template:compactTOC is a very nice touch, I like it. Every one of the pages that link to List of chess terms can potentially be updated to link to the appropriate section. If I can get the enthusiasm for it I may work on it (it looks like there are only about 100 pages), or it could be added to WP:CHESS#... which need some work. Quale (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, you asked whether there was a reason to start the article with 'List of...'. The reason is here Basically, this article is not a regular article, but rather a list. And in wikipedia, lists start with 'List of..'. It sound a little derogatory to call it a list, but in fact, the title 'list' does not say anything about its merit or quality. There are even featured lists, see Misplaced Pages:Featured_lists. I think this article could make it as featured list, provided someone is willing (and has the time) to nominate, correct and defend it. Regards, Voorlandt (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Lange

Hi! The most famous Max Lange lived in the 19th century (1832-1899). Another Lange played at Hilversum 1903. See, for example: 1) Ludwig Fränkel: Lange, Max. In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB), 2) Litmanowicz, Władysław & Giżycki, Jerzy (1986, 1987). Szachy od A do Z., 3) http://www.ballo.de/dsb_2__teil.htm Geschichte des Deutschen Schachbundes, 4) bio in http://www.chessgames.com, although with games of two different players (it should be change), 5) http://chessmetrics.com (Lange Max and Lange Max2), etc.

Best wishes, Mibelz 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Excellent information. 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I will try to find another citation for the B Zhao article. I know the computer isn't well known, which is actually why I added the article to wikipedia. Thanks for the message.

B Zhao

Hi, thanks for the message. I'll try to find another citation for B Zhao today. It isn't well known, which is actually why I added the article to Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelrio (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for the help. As you could easily tell I'm new, and thanks for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelrio (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MoS - percent

From WP:MOS "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % may be more common in scientific or technical articles, or in complex listings. " So writing the word is preferred in the text. Bubba73 (talk), 06:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Feel free to undo any changes in error. SunCreator (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw it in two articles you changed: chess piece point value and Mikhail Tal. I changed the first one back. Bubba73 (talk), 14:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to bare years

Hi. I very much appreciate your recent contributions on chess articles. But I've noticed that today you've linked to bare years (like "2000") in the infoboxes for Garry Kasparov and Alexander Alekhine, and perhaps others. Please note that WP:Context says: "Misplaced Pages has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." - which in my opinion means they should never be inserted into chess-related articles. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. The link was there before but the script I was using removes 'some' year links which left me in doubt whether it should be in or out, hence I reverted the year links to how there where previously. SunCreator (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Both Garry Kasparov and Alexander Alekhine articles now are not wikilinked to lone years. SunCreator (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

blank spaces in diagrams

Your script is taking spaces out of chess diagrams, messing up the columns and making them difficult for editors to work with. Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Let me know of any articles that require fixing. I've often wondered why some diagrams are

• "|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|=" and others
• "| | | | | | | | |=". Now I know. SunCreator (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw several in a couple of articles you edited with JS. The underscores don't seem to hurt anything and keep it alligned. Bubba73 (talk), 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In some places the underscores have always been used. For example the Ruy Lopez. Ths script issue could be why. SunCreator (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The script seems to be replacing two spaces by one everywhere. That probably doesn't do any good. If there are two spaces between words in a sentence or between a period and the next word, they are displayed as a single space anyway. Bubba73 (talk), 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise I can imagine that two spaces are normally not desirable as the formatting has to offset the extra space. Anyway, I will watch out that I don't remove spaces from diagrams in the future. SunCreator (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The software has to check for two adjacent spaces anyway, so I doubt it speeds things up much to take out the extra ones. It save a little space, but every time an article is saved, it takes up much more space than is saved that way. (And my preference is for two spaces after a period for text that is in a fixed spacing font.) Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Prussian Game

Moved discussion to Talk:Two_Knights_Defense#Prussian_Game

User:Voorbot/Most wanted redlinks

pfew, I have updated the list now. They apparently changed the server code and it took me six hours to get the bot finally working! Anyhow, we have a new number one, Alexei Barsov. Most of the red links are chess players, not surprisingly. We are actually seriously lacking behind in modern chess players as compared to the polish and german wikipedia. Voorlandt (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, The bot counts links only once a page, the link to Vitaly Checkover in the article Yuri Averbakh has an extra space, like so ], explains the difference of one.Voorlandt (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Chess FEN

Hello SunCreator, I know I had the diagram originally showing 8/8/8/8/8/8/8/8 for a blank board... I think there might have been a change in the functionality of the parser functions I used. I will look into correcting this for you. I might be able to do some trickiness, like put the fen inside a text box so it will also be the same length and if uses wish to use it they can copy and paste it out if needed. I will look into this and try to get back to you shortly. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 03:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

List of chess topics

Frankly speaking, I think the article is useful for monitoring, and just having a browse through the chess topics. If someone puts it up for deletion, I would probably not know a good way to defend it. That said, there are a lot of "list of ... topics" kind of articles, for which the same argument could be applied Category:Topical indexes. Regards, Voorlandt (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

List of strong chess tournaments

Hi! See at the Introduction of the list, please. (...) "The list comprises only regular open or invitational tournaments held at classical time controls with more than four players. Competitions such as World Championship finals, Zonals, Interzonals, Candidates Tournaments, City Championships and team competitions have been omitted for reasons of consistency and clarity. (...)". So, there are not such tournaments like Zurich 1953.

Perhaps, it is time to change it ?! Regards, Mibelz (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Name change

The artist formerly known as ChessCreator. SunCreator (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the redirect left from moving your talk page

I've declined the speedy deletion tag you left on that page. As a user who signed on talk pages, other users may try to find you from the sig, and deleting the redirect will prevent them from finding you. Feel free to re-make the request one the links are all forwarded to this page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For boldly changing the AfD page to help keep articles out of AfD that don't belong in AfD. Celarnor 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even wp:bold, the change to the text didn't change the process at all, only clarify it and what it already in WP:DEL. If I was bold I'd of insisted that Afd's are not raised until the article is tags with the reason. And even more to add that some time has to elapse after the tag was added before the Afd could be raised.SunCreator (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy

I have even taken a copy of the article on my hard disk already. And thanks for copying it as my user sub-page. Means a Lot.--Sainik1 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm not feeling too badly after that RFA because most of the issues were related to me and WP:AIV, something which I will definitely strive to improve. My civility and my article contributions were well noted, and so that's okay with me :) Gary King (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For tirelessly contributing to Chess related articles.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding grammar

Actually, it would be "you're welcome" --Sharkface217 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Barnstar

Thank you very much for your opinion and the distinction. Mibelz 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, you do such a lot of new articles. SunCreator (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Harmony

Thank you I will. Although, apparently my answer to question #1 "scared" some of the other editors.--Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all those things given in the answer can be done without being an admin. SunCreator (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting my mistake!

Woah, thank you. I hadn't noticed that I'd made that mistake. I've corrected it now. Kind Regards, Dan Beale-Cocks 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition?

I assume from the context of your reply that you're asking about the word "hypertheoretical". Scanning through the cites in your google search, it appears to me that the word is being used as a casual concatenation of "hyper-" and "theoretical" - that is, something which is more than normally abstruse. I'm not seeing a technical definition for the word. But it's a new word to me, too.

That said, go ahead and create the Wiktionary entry for hypertheoretical. They don't have our policy against original research. Their standards are based on the ability to reliably cite usages of the word. From what little I know of their policies, your google search would appear to substantiate its usage. If your wording of the definition is a bit off, their experts usually have better resources than we do to validate and improve the definition. Rossami (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barbara?

Your judgment of the topics as "non notable" is wholly misinformed. Why should I take the advice of someone who clearly has no education on the topics on which you comment? JeanLatore (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because a reading of WP:N tells me notability requires objective evidence. And with no references there is no evidence. SunCreator (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Each sentence -- nay, each word in each sentence -- is its own "objective" evidence. You are just choosing to lend "subjective" meaning to each word through your own interpretation of them. JeanLatore (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in here to agree with JeanLatore. Please do not continue adding the notability tag to articles. Your judgment is unsound. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Allright. You see that Notability is a guideline not a policy. So please take all those notability tags off my articles or else I will. Even as a guideline your judgment is not correct regarding my articles. Thank you for your time. JeanLatore (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are learning the hard way about notability. Let's hope that topic doesn't turn into another red link. SunCreator (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen

Yeah, I know, but I'm a hard-core deletionist. Any excuse to cull another page. Were it my wikipedia I would wipe out any page that wasn't discussed in a peer-reviewed journal or textbook from a university press. So everyone's probably happy it's not my wikipedia. Thanks for the discussion! WLU (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi SC,

I see your concern about the use of the book references during the AFD discussion. I suppose the use of them as 'further reading' would be acceptable if they were the hinge point for notability during the AFD (I don't think they are personally), but after the AFD is settled, my opinion would be they should be moved out of the FR section (per the GTL, stuff in further reading should be informative, and these really aren't). Better would be embedding them as footnotes and expanding the information on the page but given the scant mention in each one, I can't really see a place for them or any information that would be appropriate - I think the German book might be the best one for this, but I can't read German. Irrespective, the non-books are now all footnotes and again should not be duplicated in the FR section, particularly concerning the paucity of actual information in each one. Anyway, if you really wish to replace the books in order to buttress the notability, I'll leave it alone during the actual AFD, but afterwards I'd rather they were moved or used elsewhere. One option is to mention 'X mentions VBI in their acknowledgments, and Y and Z mention VBI as an organization supporting GBI.' but that's also a really, really crappy option and I would only really use it if there was support for those three/four books being a primary reason for the notability of the subject. Otherwise, it's nearly useless as information (in my opinion, of course others may and usually do disagree). Thanks, gotta run. WLU (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thief! At least I you gave me credit in the edit summary : ) WLU (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag

That's your misinterpretation of the guideline. Please do not continue adding the tag to articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Notability is a guideline, not a policy, and if you persist in your disruptive tagging of notable articles, I will report you. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. The best method to gauge notability is to use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Knight gallery

I assume that you think that Staunton Chess Set is a better place for the Knight Gallery than Knight (chess). I put them under Knight, since they are the only piece that varies enough to show these differences. Also, the Staunton article already had enough photos. I can look at any of those knights and tell which one it is; I can't do that with the other pieces. 'm not going to move it back to Knight, since you think it is better at Staunton. Bubba73 (talk), 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring talk page trolling from anon IPs

Putting aside the fact that you are wikistalking my contributions because you are upset at me over a dispute you were involved with regarding your misinterpretation of the notability tag guideline, I would highly suggest that you do not restore obvious trolling by anonymous IPs on talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not used to pester other editors. See WP:TALK and Misplaced Pages:What is a troll?. I'm moving the anon's comments to the users talk page. Please do not continue to disrupt discussions, and to place useless messages on my talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The comments have been moved to the talk page of the editor. Article talk pages are not for trolling other editors; they are for discussing the topic. Since you don't understand how talk pages work, I'm not surprised you would repeatedly restore off-topic trolling from an anonymous editor. The talk page guideline allows for the deletion of "material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)". I suggest you actually read it. Oh, and if I find you wikistalking me to another article one more time I will report you. You appear to be exhibiting an unhealthy obsession with me and my edits. I've succsesfully maintained the talk pages of all Hawaii-related articles for years without any problems. I do not allow trolling of any kind. Now be so kind as to go away. I do not want to see on you my talk page again. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You were explicitly asked to stop following me around and not to use my talk page. You ignored my request and added the same duplicate harassment here after I warned you. If you do it again, I will file an AN/I report against you. Your case is pretty clear. Misplaced Pages does not take kindly to stalkers. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)