Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 30 October 2012 (→Med Com: link to talk page discussion where consensus formed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
Archives Archive 1

Userboxes vn-8 This user talk page has been vandalized 8 times. This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know. This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice. This user has nibbled The Donut of DOOM

Welcome

I am very gald to see you back to Wikpedia and be ready to read more your chess variant article. I am a chess variant and abstract strategy games fan and often write and translate releated article from En Wikpedia into Zh Wikpedia, like Racing Kings...etc. --220.128.77.234 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

MOS:LQ

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm happy to see you are editing regulary and I hope the past is in the past. So, let's keep moving forward to improve chess articles! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar & comment, OTAVIO! (I'm especially happy Quale is back again, too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairy chess pieces

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

The amazon (RNB) is now available. An idea for fairy chess pieces which don't have standardised notation is to use Betza's funny notation: an amazon moving from d5 to f5 would be notated as (RNB)d5-f5 or (RNB)f5. (Of course, we can use QN instead of Betza's RNB.) Double sharp (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Double. Was gonna say, perhaps "rose as bookend to nightrider, amazon as bookend to archbishop & chancellor". You're fast! Good work. (It's your specialty more than mine, so you know better. One thing I'd like to see sometime, are articles on Ralph Betza, George Dekle, R. Wayne Schmittberger, and Tony Paletta. But bio writing is definitely not my forte. Nevertheless I might try and start one on Dekle in future.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)p.s. How 'bout an article on the camel!? (A popular and classic piece, e.g. Wildebeest, janggi elephant. Maybe janggi elephant pattern is close association!?)

The rose is my next target. The janggi elephant is really a non-jumping zebra (J in Betza notation, (2,3) leaper), so I'd probably cover it in the same article as the zebra. Camel is definitely a must, and I think I could (soon!) create articles on all the (m,n) leapers with m ≤ n ≤ 3. (That would be wazir, ferz, dabbaba, alfil, threeleaper, camel, zebra and tripper).

The wildebeest is the NL, right? (This makes me start thinking about one article for all of Betza's augmented knights, and the wildebeest is one of them.)

Others: omega chess champion (WAD) and wizard (FL), perhaps? Crooked bishop (zB) and related crooked rook (zR) in one article? Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to start using Betza notation in the algebraic notation. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A Betza general leaper article seems very logical! If fuzzy could be described clear & easy, that'd be good, too. Yes on NL for wildebeest (was that piece a creation of Schmittberger?).

Argh! I can't draw the full rose (qN) move on boards smaller than 13 × 13! qK (the circular king) would fit on 8 × 8: see below. Double sharp (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the rose will not be the next target after all. I'll write on the leapers first. They have much richer history anyway. (BTW, is it spelt ferz or fers?) Double sharp (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Pritchard uses "firzan (fers)", so I presume the single occurrence of "ferz" in Fairy chess piece is a typo. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've used fers in the article, although having a redirect from the ferz spelling. (And is the (2,0) leaper dabaaba or dabbaba?) Double sharp (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's back up ... I'm not anything close to etymologist/historian, so would be prone to error re this. For e.g. re my "misprint" comment, in Murray's A History of Chess, it says: "A number of the mediaeval European chess terms can be traced back by way of Arabic to Middle Persian. Thus we have ferz = Ar. firz, firzān = Per. farzī. "

Also: "Farzīn (later in Ar. as firzān, firz, and firza) is connected with the adjective farzāna, 'wise', 'learned', and means literally 'a wise man', 'a counsellor'." (A History of Chess, p. 159.)

Pritchard (2004) and Parton both use "dabbaba". Ihardlythinkso Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Advice & requests

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

• Thank you for your comments User:Nobody Ent. For the record, I had no interest whatever to continue the ANI thread; Toddst1 & Macon were continuing to add accusatory posts to my attention, I responded rather than not. I have no reason to go to any of the editors' Talk pages; the reason I posted at User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights was because I had genuine issue regarding his summary remarks and the ANI was closed to further adds at that point. My comments about WP at the ANI came out of complete dismay at the conditions there, not any notion of campaign to improve things, which I see as impossible, and leave to good people like Dennis Brown. My main concern with continuing to edit normally at WP, is the inherent hostility and abusiveness in the environment that has struck at me when attempting to discuss and improve the quality of an article in my niche. The user has continued a campaign of harassment and baiting at every opportunity, doesn't hide his incivilities toward me in the slightest, as though presuming he has free reign to attack and be disruptive, as though WP goals re collegiate atmosphere are a complete joke for his amusement. (How the hell am I supposed to respond to a user such as this? He is not interested in my editorship value, only to continue to harass and disrupt. I'm completely nonplussed why this user gets away with his behavior and has not been already blocked.) Also it seems there is accepted acknowledgment, that to be an annoyance to an admin, can get one blocked. But, to block on the basis of "being annoyed", is itself an offense of incivility and abuse of admin tools, and should result in sanctions and/or de-sysop. If the state of affairs at WP is really that users must cower to the mood of admins, less they use their tools to block, what kind of fear-chaos-cesspool environment is that, in the name of "collegiate environment/community of editors"? Why don't experienced editors call a spade a spade, rather than allow the reign of terror and driving away editors at WP, who decide to be abusive and use WP as a playpen for their own amusement and sadistic entertainment? This is very confusing to an editor as myself with 1+ years experience. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I entertained not even going to the ANI at all. The accusations by User:ChessPlayerLev were baseless, exaggerated, distorted, falsified. I really already learned that ANI is not any decent place to be. (An environment of complete irresponsibility.) May I ask, with a list of false accuses left by the complainant, had I not gone to ANI at all, not responded at all, ... what would have been the likely result? (I would really like to know this. It is not knowing this, that led me to decide to respond at the ANI at all.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what would have happened, but this I do know: The best way to respond to an ANI complaint naming you is not to respond to the initial post but rather to wait to see how (relatively) neutral third party editors respond. In the thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_Abusive_Behavior_from_Ihardlythinkso the first editor in was Jasper Deng, who addressed critical remarks to the poster, with somewhat of a sideways swipe at yourself "which never ends well with Ihardlythinkso." After another brief exchange with JD, you and the poster went back and forth until The Blade Of Northern Lights made his statement. You absolutely would have been better off not responding at all until another party directly commented about your behavior or addressed a question to you. There's no justice system on Misplaced Pages, dispute resolution is all about resolving conflicts as quickly and simply as possible so editors can get back to editing. So a statement like the one Blade made is not a ruling both of you guys were equally culpable -- it's more like no one on Misplaced Pages really wants to expend energy parsing out which of two editors in a conflict is more "at fault." Nobody Ent 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. (Sit until third party comments or queries.) Had there been no third party responders after JD's last remark, there would have been nothing for me to respond to or answer, and, that is the way it looked like it was going, and, I was concerned what my complete silence might yield at closing time. (A sanction because of my disinterest to respond? Then I would have had that to deal with!?) A different point, I still don't understand why the venue wasn't questioned; I've read numerous times ANI is to be used only as last resort after all other options are exhausted. Even the opener sugggested Wikiquette seemed like a more appropriate venue, and tried to justify why he didn't. I don't buy his experience or WP knowledge on it. I understand the closing motive, if Blade decides to leave an unnecessary insulting comment, I don't see why he can't take an objection on his Talk after the thread was closed. (IMO, that would be an example of "taking responsibility". Why does an admin feel inherent right to insult a voluntary editor without comment? And if one objects, the block weapon comes out of holster, immediately. I do think this is a terribly abusive & hostile environment, but have no interest to play martyr as Dennis supposed. Yet, if *no one* ever objects or says anything or demonstrates any resistance in any way , how ever in any universe could or would there be even possibility of improvement or change?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a contradiction present ... If the purpose is to close the ANI as efficiently as possible, so editors can get back to editing, then, wouldn't the most efficient thing for Blade to do, after I registered my view of his summary comments on his Talk after the close, would be a one-liner with me, accepting or disagreeing, which would have been a logical end of the exchange? (Instead, he opened the thread again, proposed a block, and then sat back as the piling-on occurred, with plenty of time and disruption and drama, all a waste, all irrational, all non-productive.) Is it fair for me to conclude then, that his decision to reopen the thread, was for purpose of punishment (a punishing block), in retaliation for registering my view on his Talk? (And if true, isn't that agaist policy admins supposedly are here to enforce, and weren't his decisions and actions sanctionable? Although I don't expect anything like that would really happen, the scenario at least has more logic and consistency and fairness attached to it IMO, than the chaotic & hypocritical wilderness that was the reality of what unfolded.) It was like: "Hm, come to my Talk and complain, huh? Ok ... TAKE THIS!" (Block-time and pile-on time and insult-time opens wide and gushes forth.) I think that whole scenario, besides contradictory, is entirely abusive and punishing and BATTLEGROUND mentality. Yet no sanctions. No challenges. Nothing. (But I did see you had words w/ Blade, which I appreciate very much. Thank you!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For me, the miracle of Misplaced Pages is not that it works so well but rather that it works at all given how dysfunctional it is. There's vast gray areas of behavior. There lot's that messed up and I know I can't fix it, but I don't get paid to fix Jimbo's mess. What I can, and try to do, is just make it a little better, whether that's politely asking an admin to tone it down a bit, or encouraging a new editor who's stumbled in the the ANI shark tank to persevere.

We don't get paid for doing this, so it should be fun. BNL and Todd are not going to get reprimanded or desysoped or otherwise sanctioned (beyond someone like me bitchin' at them a little bit). All in all they're good admins regardless of the fact I think they are a little too harsh with their words sometimes. And Todd is not your "nemesis," he's just someone trying to do a thankless job the best they can. If your enjoyment of a webspace requires it to be Lawful Good instead of Chaotic Good you're highly unlikely to find it an enjoyable experience longterm. This is not a "you're not welcome here" message, it's a "this is the way the place is" message. Life is too short to waste time on Misplaced Pages unless you enjoy the experience. Nobody Ent 12:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for answers. I respect your experience and wisdom. For clarification, Toddst1 has gone out of his way several times, to try and end my WP life here (using admin powers, not words). That kind of targeting is the basis I chose the word I did. A non-admin editor has gone out of his way several times, to try and make my WP life as unpleasant as possible (words). He has followed me around to do so, and that is a targeting, too. Both experiences run deliberately counter to "collaborative, collegiate editing environment" making mine a hostile, abusive one instead. (These are "good" editors?! How can I possibly agree? Perhaps it is difficult or even impossible for you to know the feeling on my end, because you have not been in the editors' crosshairs, I have.)

I'll continue to read and reflect on your thoughts above. Thank you again for your involvements and counsel, I sincerely appreciate. (In fact, your involvements here, plus Dennis's, is the only thing that's given me any feeling of encouragement to return to editing. Your "go back to editing now" was uplifing, as though I needn't worry so much about the safety of the environment here. But, my instincts aren't convinced. As a result, my ambition to edit anything is way down. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Life is too short to waste time on Misplaced Pages unless you enjoy the experience." You're a true "WP philosopher", Nobody Ent! (And, I think I enjoy reading WP articles, more than editing them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Thanks for the welcome

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

I'm glad you didn't disappear for good--I was wondering! I think you contribute important wisdom/guidance to ProjChess (random example: policy interpretation re admissability of computer analysis to game articles). The fact you stay on project as wikignome is a great assurance to me personally, and makes me feel more encouraged to make contributions. (It can be a zoo here, your eyes lend needed rationality.)

Re the cats, it didn't occur to me that the WP software, wouldn't automatically *skip* looking in User:Talk spaces when hunting down catagory identifiers. (Now I know. Thanks!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dawn Marie Psaltis

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

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

Limits

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

Oh God you got it! (So jealous!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that mutual agreement and a willing admin are the sole requirements. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This, like everything else here, has no rules, so I'm not sure it (or anything else) can be "understood". (My guess is you were specially treated ... "considering". You got lucky.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages were sane, then my treatment would be a precedent that others could follow. Whether this is true remains to be determined, but betting on the sanity of Misplaced Pages is not guaranteed to yield returns. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. (And keep in mind, it's novel, young; might generate conditions/eyes that are different than its counterpart. I have a feel they don't wanna make precedent -- else long lines at the box office.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I can comment on this. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. (Keep your nose clean!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Chessmetrics

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

You've taken it upon yourself to remove the source from several articles, undoing the work of other editors, without any consensus for proceeding in that direction at Proj Chess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I wrote a reply just now on the Project Page about it, but the only thing I did in those articles was to get rid of statements that used Chessmetrics ratings interchangeably with Elo ratings (factually wrong), statements using Chessmetrics ratings to make arguments about someone being "GM strength" (factually wrong again; the GM title is awarded based on norms, and not any any type of rating, even Elo), or used Chessmetrics to make statements about "world rankings", as if they were some official tracker. (factually wrong a third time)

No "consensus" is needed for these things any more than any other factual error. If an article states that the Declaration of Independence was written in 1780, I would hope I don't need to get "consensus" to fix an objective error.

By the way dude, if you spent even half as much effort on editing Misplaced Pages Chess Articles (many of which are in an absolutely horrible state) as you do arguing with me, the encyclopedia would be vastly better off for it. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

CPL, I'd like to review the Chessmetrics discussion at Proj Chess page, you're making several assertions, and not knowing the background vis-a-vis Chessmetrics, can't form an opinion whether I think you're right or not. But I do think at this point you are incorrect in what you state about some of the content you've been removing from articles (more than what you said). Also, I don't understand why you are removing content, like matches and match records, based on "I can't find it and it wasn't sourced". (You should be using {{citation needed}} tag for that, rather than wholescale immediate deletion.) How do you suppose that content got there in the first place? (It seems there are three possibilities: 1) someone had a source they didn't identify, 2) someone had a source but got something mixed up, or 3) they invented it out of their head.) In any case, the thing to do is tag it and give the editor time to source it.

I have no interest or desire to "argue" with you, CPL. But when I see what are IMO bogus arguments intended to be the basis for removal of contents (be they article content, categories, whole articles via AfD), then I'm bound to express my thought which might counter your opinions. When you tried to stick words in Fischer's mouth at Paul Morphy that he never said regarding his strength compared to Morphy's, an effort which ended up opposed by me & Quale and which you proved by contacting the author was taken out of context by you, you had initially challenged my revert, re-adding with edit summary asking why I would "nit-pick even the slightest of edits". I ended up protecting the article, didn't I? (And, you violated policy of WP:BRD also by reverting without discussion, a mistake unacknowleged by you.) When you tried to insist an incendiary, accusatory Youtube video should be included in Dawn Marie Psaltis BLP, in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE, you reverted an IP user who removed the material calling the IP's removal an act of vandalism, and you reverted me (edit-warred) even though you were in the wrong about BLP policy, and again dismissed the Talk section I opened after my edit summary explaining the material was a violation of BLP policy and please see Talk -- you reverted me without first going to Talk. Once again I helped protect that article (and Misplaced Pages since it was a BLP) over your efforts to compromise it.

So you see, CPL, I have no interest in "arguing" with you or even engaging in debate with you. I've seen how you argue your points, and I thoroughly disagree with your tactics, and many times your logic. You want me to go into a corner and not speak up when I see you violating policy and compromising articles? If you find that a nuisance, then, good.

No one on Misplaced Pages has called me anything other than my username, or abbreviation IHTS. What makes you think I'm gonna receive your informal "dude" anything but insulting? I do. (And you linked to your posts here to show example of your level of collaboration with me and avoidance of "personal squabbles"?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I really resent how you tried to smear my reputation at Talk:Dawn Marie Psaltis with all your ad hominem fictional garbage. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your problem. I write you a friendly message on your page. You respond in a rude, insulting manner. I ignore it, and answer your points in a cogent manner. You then respond in the insanely over-the-top, insulting manner seen above. (By the way, "dude" is an expression I frequently use in informal conversation with people, especially friends) Your "Misplaced Pages is a battleground" mentality never seems to change, no matter how many warnings or second chances you get from admins. Fine.

But let me say this. I'm here to edit and improve the chess articles on Misplaced Pages. I enjoy that. I don't enjoy the endless objections and insults you write to me in response to my edits. I get tired of it very quickly. When I informed you of this the last time, you ignored it and continued to mock me. I then took it to the ANI and no fewer than 3 different admins wanted you blocked indefinitely. Do you want to go through this same song and dance again? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the shoe's on the other foot re nearly everything you wrote. (You lace your text with personal attacks, twist and distort in attempt to smear me, try to get me thrown off the mountain based on the same. That as background context is hardly a friendly one whereby I'd be able to interpret calling me "dude" as anything other than condescending. So count that another bogus and twisted argument from you.)

The "all those warnings and second chances you've gotten from admins" attempt to smear, is complete exaggeration, and CPL, I've noticed you frequently exaggerate and resort to hyperbole in your arguments. (There are numerous diffs if I had a mind to quote them.) I have a hard time w/ that, too.

"Endless objections and insults you write to me in response to my edits." More exaggeration and hyperbole. Are you including the Paul Morphy false interpretation you tried to force in the article? Are you including the incendiary, accusatory Youtube video you tried to instill in the Dawn Marie Psaltis BLP counter to BLP policy? You objected to my nit-picking at Paul Morphy and don't seem to understand WP:BRD, you reverted me without discussion at Psaltis and called an IP's removal of the material "vandalism". Have you learned anything by these experiences? Is that why I got an apologies from you how you treated me at Talk:Psaltis and Talk:Morphy? I object to you, CPL. (Your bullying tactics.)

If you take a peek at my unblock request, CPL, then perhaps you can gain an idea about the objectivity of the "no fewer than three different admins". (BTW, there was admin user:Toddst1, who blocked me, the admin IMO he pals with at WP, and who else are you referring? User:28bytes? He did not register opinion about my being blocked. He evidently was responding to a request from User:Jasper Deng. And again, to judge objectivity of these editors, including Deng, go see my unblock request.)

IMO your opening ANI against me was both inappropriate (ANI is to be used as "last resort" after all other dispute resolution venues have been exhausted, or so I read all time from comments by admins), aggressive, unnecessary, and twisted/distorted. Your "second chances" thing is completely made up, CPL.

Now you appear to be trying to intimidate by threatening to open another ANI. Based on what, CPL? I know you have extreme difficulty when someone objects with you about ... nearly anything.

The WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is all yours, CPL, it always has been. For me, editors like you make Misplaced Pages an extremely hostile and unpleasant place. You're attempting to make my User Talk an ANI or RfC/U, and throw fictional mud at me (e.g., mock you? I've never done that) again. I find it WP:BAITING. How can you possibly be surprised to hear now: CPL, please stay off my User talk. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we all have a general conversation on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. I'm game, since I know you will control the incivilities. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood. (I thought you proposed a discussion as mediator, Dennis. I was wrong. You dropped your note after CPL opened a section on your User talk, with my username as title. Apparently in search of someone to *complain to*, and asserting you, Dennis, are "responsible" for me! Amazing. ) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The failed discussion with Dennis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still*, thanks for your encouragement. I'd like to respond, but not here. (Is your Email on?) Thank you.

I will answer one question here, however.

Dennis, has helped you in the past. Now you've alienated him.

It works both ways. He has alientated me, as well! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My email is on, but I warn you: I only read the letters from Nigerian princes selling viagra! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I sent you mail, but I must apologize for all the typos and misspellings. (Many. I think I spelled "success" as "sucess" four consecutive times; I spilled coffee in my keyboard some weeks ago, and the keys are sticking.) Maybe you can get the meaning of my sentences, regardless. Thanks for suffering thru it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I put it through a spell-checker, and it appears to be offering viagra from a Nigerian prince. I replied with my full name, address, credit card number, social security number and a scan of my house keys. I'm sure it'll help Nigeria recover its true king. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourced details

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

Ralph Betza

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

Interesting! Have been thinking of "doing" some articles on some of his games. A nice selection to choose!

Here's work list (anyone can help with) ...

• Multiplayer Chess (date unknown)
• Inverter Chess (1963) aka Switch Chess
• Strange Relay Chess (1970s)
• Coordinate Chess (Co-Chess) (1973)
• Conversion Chess (1973)
• Co-Relay Chess (1973)
• Double Conversion Chess (1973)
• Metamorphosis (c. 1973)
• Pinwheel Chess (1973)
• Transportation Chess (Transchess) (1973)
• Watergate Chess (1973)
• Weak! (1973)
• Biflux Chess (1974) a Co-Chess variant
• Brownian Motion Chess (1974)
• Cassandra Chess (1974)
• Orbital Chess (1974)
• Overloader/Restorer Chess (O/R Chess) (1974)
• Put-back Transchess (1974)
• Almost Chess (1977)
• Ambition Chess (1977)
• Autorifle Chess (1977) after Bill Rawlings
• Avalanche Chess (1977)
• Blizzard Chess (1977)
• Buzzard Chess (1977)
• List Chess (1977)
• Plague Chess (1977) after S. Walker
• Twinkle Chess (1977)
• Very Scottish Chess (1977)
• Ghostrider Chess (1978)
• Incognito Chess (1978)
• Liars' Chess (1978)
• Tutti-Frutti Chess (1978) with Philip Cohen
• Suction Chess (1979)
• Betza's Chess (1980)
• One-Shot Chess (1980)
• Swarm Chess (1980)
• Way Of The Knight (WOTN) (1992)

I could see a bio article too, if enough material could be gotten. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

He has sense of humor, see at end of this book review. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

WER logo and reaching out.

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

User:Amadscientist, I was just tinkering w/ your existing logo, made three simple changes, maybe I can send it to you to see what you think. (When you're back from Wiki-break maybe Email me? Then I could forward the draft to you for consider.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're not interested. Ok. BTW, I wasn't "overwhelmed" with the ickiness of the logo. It's not that important to me. (That's why the comments "gives me the creeps" and "ick". Had I been "overwhelmed" in any sort of way, my comments wouldn't have been of that lighter nature, but heavier. One thing I don't like about WP is mischaracterizations, distortions, false accuses. It makes WP an unfriendly and uncivil place.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny!

IP contribution. Iverymuchagreeso! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Christian Freeling.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I abandoned you...

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

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

Nina Burleigh

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

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

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

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

FYI

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

To which it was immediately blown out of the water as clearly being not the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What does "SPI" stand for? ("Severely Paranoid Illusion"?) Maybe it should be renamed to "ODBF"!? ("Overt Demonstration of Bad Faith".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit, the system works. It only took a few minutes for several editors and admins to chime in and call it absurd, and for the page to be deleted outright. The new case (which is named the same, thus the link above works for it) is a completely different one, and of course, doesn't mention you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Never questioned about the system working or not. Rather the obvious breach of WP:AGF necessary to open the case in the first place. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is an expression, often credited to Napoleon Bonaparte, that might fit here, but I won't quote it as a few might mistakenly take it too literal, thus as incivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

FideID

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

I don't know, but have asked User:DrTrigon to help answer. The Proj discuss re FideID implementation is located here. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The data are located at

• Template:Elo rating
• and as noted drawn from http://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml

So first - in order to use this feature - the parameter 'FideID' has to be set in {{Infobox chess player}} on Judit Polgár - as you can see from this diff that was not the case. Second - even when done, Polgars rating stays at 2705 ... I am not an expert in this, but when looking at the Polgars FIDE page there is the same value given. So the bot works and if you use 'FideID' you get the actual value from FIDE page. Now the question is; why the value on the FIDE page does not match - but this seams strange... are you really sure about your calculation? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

When looking at your link , I realized that everything is ok; Polgar has there Rtg=2698 and Rp=2744, if you look at the very useful FIDE graph you can see in Aug and Sep a value of 2698 (which is Rtg and not Rp) and actually in Oct it raised to 2705. She has never reached a rating of 2744 so far, peak was 2735 (as correctly stated on her page her in enwiki). So everything is fine, except the irrelevant question what 'Rp' is... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Another talkback

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

Fischer's nationality

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

It isn't just me. It was discussed at length in article Talk, here. (In fact I don't think I participated in that discussion, but, several members of ProjChess did.) After reviewing, and if you still don't agree, then it is probably appropriate if you re-opened the issue on the article Talk. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And also in an older Talk archive here, including comments by veteran ProjChess member Krakatoa. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In my edit sum I wrote "no consensus for this on Talk". What I really meant was that consensus was decidedly against it (not that there wasn't a consensus). Sorry if that caused any confusion. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dawn Marie Psaltis

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

Wrong. The thing that sparked my recent message to you, was something currently discovered, the Jimbo quote on your User page (I hadn't seen it before). I notice you have avoided my good-faith question to you about your consistency regarding that quote entirely, and chose to attack me here. Good going. You put me through a lot of unnecessary work to get rid of your BLP-violating adds and arguments on the Dawn Marie page, and you are an Admin, and BLP policy is something very basic to WP, so, it was logical and fair (I think) to expect an apology from you for putting me through all the crap you put me through unnecessarily. I don't recall seeing you write at any time that you were "wrong". (Where did you write that? Did I miss it? Please provide a diff saying that.) For being an Admin that doesn't know the basics regarding adding a Youtube video attacking the BLP article subject, without any other supporting refs, it seems mild what I said at the article Talk, and now you like to make an issue out of that, so, who is obsessed with old issues, me? Or you? The fact is, you never said you were wrong, you just excused yourself with complex language that seemed to attempt to save face for not knowing fundamental WP policy on protecting BLP subjects from claims which could ruin their reputations in unaccountable Youtube videos, and, you supported doing so to the hilt. You are an Admin and should have known better, and it was pointed out to you by even me, a newbie, that you were in violation of BLP policy.

I'm still left wondering how you square the quote by Jimbo on your User page, with your actions to argue forcefully to retain a smearing Youtube video on a BLP subject, totally against policy, which nearly everyone is aware of, especially Admins should be aware of. Again, I'm not aware you ever said you were "wrong" (where?), and your Jimbo quote on your User page seems to be totally inconsistent with your actions, I was wondering how you resolved that quote with your actions at Dawn Marie? (Do I get an answer, or like earlier, do you like to leave the room and avoid answering?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As an uninvolved editor, I'd like to suggest that perhaps taking Avanu's advice and dropping this, might be a good idea for everyone at this point. - jc37 06:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, Jc37. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Med Com

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

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

ANI-notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible harassment. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)