Talk:Harry L. Nelson

Feedback
Saw your request for opinions on the new contributors page. It is definitely an interesting article! However, the glaring problem with the article is the lack of Inline citations, which will surely draw the wrath of the deletionists. It is not enough to have a list of references at the end; each assertion needs to be individually referenced. But other than that, it seems well-written and well-organized. Tarastar42 (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42
 * Also (and I am new here myself), but I think all of your information needs to be sourced, even the family information. Your own personal knowledge of family information will be deleted without independent secondary sources.  If that information hasn't been published by a secondary source, it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion, even if the rest of the article meets WP:N Tarastar42 (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42
 * Can't help myself, had to see what I could find. Here is an interesting one: http://archive.computerhistory.org/projects/chess/related_materials/text/3-1%2520and%25203-2.Nelson-Harry.Cray-Blitz.How_we_won.Jan-1984/Nelson-Harry.Cray-Blitz.How_we_won.Jan-1984.062303020.pdf. For a undisputed secondary source proving notability, see http://books.google.com/books?id=WAEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA75&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false. Here is a source for a lot of your background info; it isn't really the greatest source but should do for non-controversial facts: http://www.ucalgary.ca/lib-old/SpecColl/nelson.htm.  Also, he is mentioned on the articles for Cray Blitz and Gigantic Prime, so you can link those pages when you are ready Tarastar42 (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42
 * I know I've read the thing referred to in the computerhistory link you posted, but I'm getting a 404 error when I try to bring it up. Did you actually view that page?  And how did you find it? Bcnelson (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm.... I can't get that link to work either, though I can navigate to the source directly by going to computerhistory.org and searching. Something about the link doesn't cut-and-paste well, but you can go to http://www.computerhistory.org/chess/viewAll.php?sec=thm-42eeabf470432&sel=thm-42f15c52333a3&table=item_document# and then look for the document in the middle of the fourth row.  Let me know if that doesn't work.  BTW, the article looks great!  Tarastar42 (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42
 * Ok, I figured out the problem with the link. The original URL includes spaces (i.e. ...text/3-1 and 3-2.Nelson-...) and the attempt to cut-n-paste converts the spaces into something else.  Typically, that something else is "%20" but for some reason your copy of the link converted them into "%2520".  Don't know why that would be; perhaps you have "wide-characters" enabled or something?  Regardless, if I change the "%2520" into "%20" in the URL, then it works for me:  http://archive.computerhistory.org/projects/chess/related_materials/text/3-1%20and%203-2.Nelson-Harry.Cray-Blitz.How_we_won.Jan-1984/Nelson-Harry.Cray-Blitz.How_we_won.Jan-1984.062303020.pdf   Please click on that and see if it works for you too (or not).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcnelson (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Kayau, Tarastar42, and especially Fuhghettaboutit for their edits; the page definitely looks better. Especially the references; I just don't know enough about the mark-up language (yet) to do such a good job with it. Thanks again. Bcnelson (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article
I saw your post at the new contributors' help page, and came here! Either later today or tomorrow, depending on family commitments and/or babies, I'll see if I can find some more references and get some inline citations added --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 06:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Gone live
Made the admittedly slightly premature decision to go live. Just impatient I guess, and, well, it is Father's Day after all. Bcnelson (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove mention of Berliner ??
I was wondering if I should remove the mention of the fact that it was HiTech / Hans Berliner that filed the accusation of cheating at the 1986 world championship. While it is true, it's not clear to me that it really adds that much to this article, and might be somehow be construed by someone as an attack. I have no axe to grind with Hans; I'm sure he honestly believed that something fishy was going on. I mentioned who it was because the protest was filed about the head-to-head game between the two programs, and if HiTech had won that game, they would have won the tournament. So it seemed important/relevant. But now I'm not so sure. More details are available about it in the referenced page if someone cares, so maybe leaving it out would make the page more neutral? Of course one could go the other way entirely and add the information that the protest was about their head-to-head game that decided the outcome of the tournament, although that seemed a bit inappropriate to me when I originally wrote it. I solicit the opinions of others ... 66.159.222.251 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Whoops!! sorry!! forgot to login before writing/signing: Bcnelson (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As that bit of information has a reliable source, then I would suggest that it be kept in. I feel that the fact that a "negative" is in the article makes it more neutral! As for adding that bit, if there are reliable sources saying that then I'd add it - otherwise leave it out, as otherwise it could be seen as original research (i.e. you are giving your interpretation, rather than what a reliable source is saying) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)