User talk:Bubba73/Archive 5 (2009)

Help! My User Rights have been violated

 * Help talk:Contents Help! My User Rights have been violated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjeremy (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it needed to be copied from the Logic talk page to the Chess page. If you think it needs to be there, put it back.  Bubba73 (talk), 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Licensing of Ray Charles statue image
Hi. I came across your picture of the Ray Charles statue in Albany, GA, and unfortunately I've got to tell you that you can't license it the way you have. Three-dimensional public artworks are not covered by panorama freedom in the US, nor could this sculpture have been made before 1923. Therefore, the sculptor owns the copyright to any photograph of the sculpture as a derivative work. So you'll have to:


 * put it under the Non-free 3D art license,


 * include separate fair use rationale templates justifying its use in each article per the fair use criteria,


 * and remove it from your userspace.

I'd also think about whether you can really justify its use in any article beyond Ray Charles. I don't like that this is the way it is, but it is. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I didn't know that about 3D works. I'll take care of it.  It is also used in Albany, Georgia, it is a famous landmark there.  There is another photo of it there by someone else.  The statue is really a wonderful work of art. Bubba73 (talk), 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid he's right, and in my opinion it's a stupid rule, but that's the way it is. P.S. Great photo. I'm glad I got it downloaded before the deletionists have a chance to zap it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, (now) I know he is right. I didn't know about the 3D works.  I took it off my images page and removed it from another that really isn't justified.  I left it in two articles and I think I have adequately justified the "fair use" in both of them.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect it depends on who gets "caught". There's this, for example File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG which is only in the Honus Wagner article and also somehow slipped into the Pirates 2001 season article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

George H.D. Gossip
Bubba73, would you have time to review Featured article candidates/George H.D. Gossip? There are unresolved questions about the sourcing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can take a look at it. I had never heard of Gossip until this article started on Wikipedia.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Knight undoing
"This is simply meant to illustrate a fork, it isn't intended to show all of the pieces and isn't intended to be a game"

It may have originally been intended only to show that... But there's no reason not to use this situation to show the reader both one of the knight's advantages and one of it's weaknesses. It's really a very good example of that, which by the way the text adjacent to it describes. In fact, as I read the mentioned text, I even expected that picture to show me that. And frankly, it's a better example of that weakness than the picture which shows a black knight, its possible moves, and a cornered knight with only two possible moves. So I suggest either undoing your undoing or perhaps adding a new picture, with the knight cornered after taking the rook there. FredrikHCS (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * er, also. "The knight forks the black king and rook. However, the black king can trap the knight (d7, then c6). The game results in a draw." It's indeed not relevant that the game is a draw. So maybe just like "The knight forks the black king and rook. Subsequently, the black king can trap the knight (d7, then c6)." FredrikHCS (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The position was not meant to represent an actual game. It would be very unlikely for that position to occur in a game, it is more likely some of the pieces that would be in an opening position. In an opening position it might not be possible for the king to trap the knight.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And if it was an actual game, it would be a draw after the knight took the rook, regardless of whether or not the king trapped the knight. Bubba73 (talk), 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. FredrikHCS (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Drawing conclusions like "it might not be possible for the king to trap the knight [in an opening position]" for something that isn't meant to represent an actual game is completely irrelevant. The only relevant things are the pieces on the picture. And since the pieces are set up in a way that shows both how the knight can be powerful and weak -- both concepts the adjacent article text describes -- it is a waste not to inform the reader of that. FredrikHCS (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is already a diagram showing how limited a knight is in the corner and there is a diagram showing the knight trapped by a bishop. I did take the white king out of the diagram so people wouldn't be confused into thinking that was meant to be an actual game position.-- Bubba73 (talk), 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright then. FredrikHCS (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think that the article should show a trapped-knight diagram where it discusses that particular weakness of the knight. Right now, it discusses the weakness early on, and shows the diagram way down, where it mostly talks about something else. Perhaps in the future, the article could be structured more like the bishop's, and having a subsection in its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(chess)#Game_use equivalent for it. FredrikHCS (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a knight trapped by a king to the diagram showing a knight trapped by a bishop. Bubba73 (talk), 19:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, that's good. FredrikHCS (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

About Castling
Thank you for your explanation on why Castling was implemented into Chess. It was nowhere to be found on Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.92.211.187 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bubba where is 'why Castling was implemented into Chess' found? In Castling? SunCreator (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I added two paragraphs to the article on Jan 28 and they came from page 16 and 48 of Davidson's book, A Short History of Chess - the first two paragraphs in the History section. Bubba73 (talk), 23:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Unassessed importance chess articles
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Unassessed importance chess articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Unassessed importance chess articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Unassessed importance chess articles, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

chess cat
Hello. What I deleted is the category Category:Unassessed importance chess articles which isn't used anymore. The whole thing was moved to Category:Unknown-importance chess articles about two years ago and the "Unassessed" became a cat redirect. All the relevant templates have been updated so there's no need to keep the deprecated category around. I'm not sure if these explanations are clear but let me know if you have questions. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi. Please don't censor info. It took a lot of time to find the video source for the gravity problem of the moon thing, and then even more time to make sure it was in the right section. If you have a problem, please use the talk page. If you have anything more to say then "improper edit" lol, please talk back on my talk page. Sfvace (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the video of the hammer and feather being dropped, which I think is linked from that page, and you can tell that the gravity is not like on Earth. In fact, look at any of the video.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I came back here to say I think I by mistake put this info in the next section as the start, when it should be at the end of the last section and if that is why you edited that is fine, but you should FIX it instead of delete the whole thing lol!

Only for this reason did I see this reply...why don't you reply to the PERSON on his (my) talk page rather then reply on your own talk page lol? How would anyone know? I even asked you to.

I don't see what the hammer/feather being dropped has to do with anything. Even if THOSE items at THOSE OCCASSIONS showed the moon's different gravity, you can't deny the other things shown in the video proving it was Earth's gravity. This is such a bad excuse. If I say I was at home all night during an investigation, and I show I was hammering my house in a video for SOME of the time, does that mean we should ignore even 5 min. of me being shown to be at a victims house? Obviously the entire film won't be screwed up, but even if 1 time they showed they were in Earth's gravity, they were on Earth.

Either way your supposed to make your argument AFTER the initial point, as is the format on this whole page, not CENSOR (vandalism) any and all evidence! Sfvace (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the video in question. Everything on the Moon is consistent with 1/6 the gravity of the Moon and inconsistent with the gravity of Earth.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, but it is not a blog, not text messaging, and not twitter. Bubba73 (talk), 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not your own personally controlled blog. Obviously you watched the wrong video or need help with your vision, they dropped things pretty fast. If you think not, go ahead and make that claim below the initial claim, as is done on this entire page, but I can see why you would rather censor whole thing out, people will see the gravity in video shows Earth like gravity. Sfvace (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When you get to ninth grade science one of the things they will cover is objects falling under the influence of gravity. When you get to that, do the calculation on how much longer it takes something to fall in 1/6 gravity and compare that to the video.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the astronaut getting back up. The suit and equipment weighs about 250 pounds on Earth.  Could a person do that in Earth's gravity?  Bubba73 (talk), 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a person of the size who could fit into that suit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the Moon footage is completely consistent with 1/6 gravity in an airless environment. Throwing the hammer and other objects, rolling the big rock, etc.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Beware of too many facts. It gets the kiddies all confused. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do recall the science class, though, possibly 9th grade, possibly 12th grade, where they had a clear vacuum tube with a feather and some other object, to demonstrate that without air they fall at the same rate. One issue with youtube, though, is that sometimes the action seems to be a bit sped up (observable on music videos and such), so youtube is an iffy source for making the value judgment about 1/6 the gravity. Certainly it's useful for demonstrating behavior in airless conditions, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I say "though" enough times? Must be getting late. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

LM vs. LEM
Seems to me that both terms were used, and I'm not sure which was "official". They were both pronounced "lem". LM stood for Lunar Module and LEM stood for Lunar Excursion Module. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Initially "LEM" was used, but it was changed to "LM" long before the first flight of one. So I agree with the change to LM.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe they dropped the "E" because they weren't going to be "driving" it. They had the lunar rover (a true "excursion" module) in the later Apollo flights. I wonder if the dune buggy inspired that vehicle's invention, or the other way around? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know which came first. Bubba73 (talk), 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose I could have looked it up first. The dune buggy article mentions Steve McQueen driving a dune buggy in The Thomas Crown Affair (1968 film) film. That triggered a memory. Ed Sullivan showed a film clip of himself riding in a dune buggy with McQueen driving like a bat (I don't know if they were wearing safety belts, and Ed was certainly not a young man at that point) and at the end, in a then-rare moment of candor on TV, Sullivan said to McQueen, "That was a hell of a ride!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I just had a mental picture of the lunar rover, and a moment that could have been interesting for the moonbats. I don't know if the tires were a fairly solid substance or if they were inflated. But suppose they got a flat. An astronaut says, "Hey, no problem!" and pulls out the tire pump and... oops! No atmosphere! Now, if that had actually happened, and they used a normal tire pump, and it worked, then the moonbats would have something, ja? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The tires were a wire mesh File:Apollo 15 Lunar Rover final resting place.jpg. Bubba73 (talk), 06:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha. That would work much better than inflatable tires. I can't really tell from the photo, but I take your word for it. Leaving the Bible there is an interesting touch. Another mental picture: Little Green Men find the rover. Gidney to Cloyd: "No wonder they couldn't make this car work. This instruction manual goes on and on, page after page, with not one helpful illustration - and in both Hebrew and Greek translations, yet!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You can see the wheels better in this cropped version File:Apollo15LunarRover.jpg. You can see metal bands through the wire mesh. Bubba73 (talk), 16:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I see what you're pointing out. What I find continually amazing about Apollo is the plethora of engineering problems that had to be addressed. Just an incredible team effort. For example, they had to invent a (presumably) new type of "tires" that would work on the moon. "OK, here's a problem. Find a solution by tomorrow." That kind of thing. They sure went to a lot of effort just to "fake" it, eh? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lunar rover was done on fairly short notice. Of course the whole program was a crash program.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironic way to put it. Reminds me of Ed Sullivan interviewing "astronaut" Jose Jimenez (Bill Dana). Ed: "Now, is that your 'crash helmet'?" Jose: "Oh, I hope not!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Village Pump
You may be interested to see the latest in reaction to the proposal you made at the Village Pump on children's Wikipedia and the question of age - I wonder whether you would be interested, too, in the "flagged revisions" debate which is currently there. If you wish to reply, you can leave a note on my userpage. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I quit watching after my third post because everyone was against it. Bubba73 (talk), 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am not against it, the idea is long overdue. Genius! Silk Knot (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Zugzwang
Hello, I just read your fantastic article - really very good! --Yoavd (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I really appreciate hearing that.  OF course, I didn't write all of it.  Bubba73 (talk), 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, Bias, and Abuse of Power
So you blocked me without warning. Did you also ban the user who started the edit war? Better yet, did you block the user and delete the entry where the user sourced an entry, on the same moon hoax page, using a YOUTUBE video as the source? No? No wonder people critisize wikipedia. Sfvace (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) You got plenty of warnings. (2) I didn't block you.  (3) From WP:3rr: "Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule."  Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if a DVD source would be a better citation than the Youtube in question. The Youtube, in my opinion, could be shown as a free "illustration", while the citation could be one of the Apollo DVD's or something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some of the Apollo DVDs. I wouldn't like to just refer to the DVD, I think it is better to let the reader actually see it.  The material is in the public domain, so maybe it could be copied from the DVDs to a file and uploaded to Wikipedia, but I don't know how to make a file from the DVD.  And if I did, I think the files would be very large.  The two clips that were removed and reinstated do not say that the flag is not waving, the viewer can see that they are not waving.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith, I take it the user's complaint is that Youtube shouldn't be used as a citation, although ironically it seems like the first of the two videos is from someone taking the side of the moonbats. I'm just saying that the DVD could be used as the citation itself, and then the Youtube could simply be a free illustration rather than a source. Do you follow what I'm getting at? Mainly, I'm trying to avoid another edit war erupting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I understand better. Maybe the DVD can be referenced, as you said.  I've asked on the help desk about copying video from a DVD and uploading it to WP.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that he's bought himself a week-long block, should we revert him again? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did it. That was only my second revert anyway. Uploading direct from the DVD, eh? Excellent. Got to be better video than the youtube dealie. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 1972
Hi Bubba73 ! I do not know if you have read my user page, but I eventually found a bit of a time to light-review the article World Chess Championship 1972. You can have a look at my comments on the Talk page. I will watch the article for the next weeks, so you can answer there if you wish. Cheers ! SyG (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Fouts
I saw your note on WP:ANI. Why is there a speedy delete template on that article? Or is that vandalism from a different source? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why it was put there, except that it might be a joke article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked and he is a real person, but not a good enough player to be notable. Bubba73 (talk), 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Last night I just saw the repeated vandalism and didn't check it out. Bubba73 (talk), 15:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, you were mostly just guarding a chess-related article from vandals. Turns out the article was zapped for being not notable. All's swell. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had never done anything with that article before. list of chess topics is a list of all the chess articles, and when I can I check "related changes" there and it shows all changes to any of those articles.  I saw a lot of vandalism to that article.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They decided to re-create it under a user sub-page: User:Apples0002/Matthew Fouts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably that editor is going to work on the article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and we'll see if they can make the notability case. I feel like altering the comment about Terre Haute, IN, being a "little town" of 60,000. Bill, Wyoming is a little town. Terre Haute is a small city. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't do anything until and unless it is put back as a regular article. Initially I saw only the vandalism, and asked if something could be done about that.  But then it was speedy-deleted.  It probably fails notability.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Baseball players
You raise an interesting point. Notability in baseball is slippery. What standard to use? Theoretical eligibility for the Hall of Fame, i.e. 10 years in the majors? Or having set a record of some kind? Where to draw the line? So it seems that the decision (made before I started here) is that anyone who ever made it to the majors is to be considered notable. That means all the Moonlight Grahams out there that didn't have movies made about them are still fair game. That means well over 10,000 articles, potentially. I guess they want to have plenty to keep themselves busy. There are also those arguing for minor leaguers. There have certainly been notable minor leaguers, but going down that road opens the door to potentially over a hundred thousand, maybe well over that. That's still being debated. The good news about the over 10,000 major leaguers, though, is that every one of them has an entry in the standard baseball encyclopedias. Hence they all have verifiable stats, and that's probably the reason they can get away with such a massive number. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Participation
You are welcome to participate in the following conversation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_26#26_February_2009 Green Squares (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The terms overzealous and Don't be a dick are not considered uncivil at Wikipedia. Green Squares (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at it as a third party, I think your general tone was angry and uncivil, e.g "Stop lying". Bubba73 (talk), 15:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He did not reproduce the articles in their entirety, therefore, perpetuating a lie, this is factually correct. Facts are what Wikipedia is about. Green Squares (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know he didn't restore the entire articles, but Assume good faith, no personal attacks, and be civil. Remember, I'm in favor of having those articles if they can be expanded.  Try writing the articles offline until they have enough material, then creating the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for Chess

 * Thank you, I really appreciate it! Bubba73 (talk), 16:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hikaru Nakamura's favorite piece
In one of Nakamura's chat games, Naka had clearly stated that his favorite piece was the knight, not the bishop. I don't know where you are getting bishop from, but Naka has stated himself that it was the knight and that the bishop was a mistake. You can ask him, or I can get a screenshot of him saying so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhan (talk • contribs) 07:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This page says that he says that his favorite piece is the bishop. Please send me a link or reference saying it is the knight.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, that seems to be a mirror from Wikipedia. I would like to see the reference you mention.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. The story was, the wiki page was wrongly stating his favorite piece was the bishop. During one of his blitz games on ICC, when asked, he had stated his favorite piece was the knight. Some jokers tried to change it to the Queen and other such nonsense as he said that, to which he replied "NOT Queen, knight." Funny story, but I will try to get you the screenshot if he replies. It might take a few days, since he is busy during this time I think preparing for the French League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhan (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When I saw a first-time anon IP user make that change, I thought it was wp:vandalism, because it is so typical of vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. I probably should have gotten a source anyway so that is my fault.Jonhan (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My Hexagonal Chess Variant
The problem about publication is rather like the chicken and the egg.

As I believe my chess layout has merit I have put a link to it on the Hexagonal Chess wikipedia page; I would be grateful if you were to leave it there.Richmond62 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia policies, especially WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:EXT, and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Bubba73 (talk), 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

stalemate
Hello! Please see the following analysis of the example you gave in Elijah Williams vs Daniel Harrwitz game:

It is interesting to note that black could still win the game till his critical mistake 82...Nc3.

82. ...Nb4 wins - for example: 83. Rc8 Re3 84. Rb8+ Kc5 85. Rc8+ Kd5 86. Rd8+ Kc6 87. Ra8 Re1+ 88. Kb2 Kc5 89. Kc3 a1=Q and wins. --Yoavd (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I didn't add the example Stalemate, but I will take a look at it. Bubba73 (talk), 14:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was added on April 23, 07 by Krakatoa. Bubba73 (talk), 15:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to bring it to your attention, as you contribute so much on chess. The old books writers did not have strong computers to help them check their analysis.... --Yoavd (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I checked it with a computer too, and you are right. Everyone must have overlooked it.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Henri Rinck
If the book was published in 1950, why in the biography is written: "Rinck died in Badalona on February 17, 1952.[1] Six days before his death he was handed out the first copy of his ultimate collection "1414 fins de partie". On his request he was buried with this book under his arm." (last sentences)? http://heritageechecsfra.free.fr/rinck.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.142.59 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This gives it as 1950: . I'll look into it.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was dated 1950 but published 1952, according to The Oxford Companion to Chess. I made that change.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * According to a translator, the link doesn't say anything about "six days before his death". Bubba73 (talk), 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The chapter by Lewis Stiller in Games of No chance also gives 1950 as the date, link to PDF: . Bubba73 (talk), 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Cameras
"I hate to be using the talk page like this but one of my friends doesn't believe that we landed on the moon. His main point is "If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, how did the cameras get there?" I assume that it was a pod that landed near it, but and exact truth would be appreciated."

Do you mean the TV camera showing Armstrong going down to the Moon the first time? The Apollo TV camera was attached to the side of the Lunar Module. When he was part of the way down he pulled on a cord to make it deploy. Bubba73 (talk), 03:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly that. Thanks for the great and quick responce.Wise dude321 (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Gidney and Cloyd took the pictures for them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't get that until I found Gidney & Cloyd. I remember them now.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry, I should have linked it for you. Probably a little before your time. :) I'm guessing the reason the flag never moved is because they hit it with their scrootch gun. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yoitslinda
A new user a few days ago, with virtually everything it's posting getting reverted by one user or another. A model of consistency, as it were. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Q: What do you call someone who's an expert at disproving hoax claims?
 * A: An Arch-Debunker. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:ModernStaunton.jpg
File:ModernStaunton.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:ModernStaunton.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:GeneralElectricSign.jpg is now available as Commons:File:GeneralElectricSign.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Apollo 12 LRO.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Apollo 12 LRO.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:FortSumter2009.jpg is now available as Commons:File:FortSumter2009.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chess piece relative value
... two thumbs up! I like it very much! Seigneur101 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 02:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

oops...
"which translates as "four divisions [of the military]" – infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariotry, represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, bishop, and rook, respectively"

bishop=chariots, rook=elephants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.45.97 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects
Please redirect talk pages when redirecting main pages. It's messy when two talk pages exist, especially if both talk pages have a WikiChess template leading to duplicate counting of articles. SunCreator (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I was going to remove the template but hadn't done it yet.  I updated all references to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Forfeiture of FIDE title
Hello there Bubba

This is the cable that Fischer sent to FIDE:

As I made clear in my telegram to the FIDE delegates, the match conditions I proposed were non-negotiable. Mr. Cramer informs me that the rules of the winner being the first player to win ten games, draws not counting, unlimited number of games and if nine wins to nine match is drawn with champion regaining title and prize fund split equally were rejected by the FIDE delegates. By so doing FIDE has decided against my participating in the 1975 world chess championship. I therefore resign my FIDE world chess champion title. Sincerely, Bobby Fischer.

In it he does not mention forfeiting anything to Karpov only that he resigns his FIDE world chess champion title.

Naming this section "Forfeiture of title to Karpov" is in many ways wrong A. He did not forfeit anything to Karpov it was FIDE that crowned Karpov after Fischer had resigned his title. B. Fischer stated that he was still champion, therefor he did not forfeit his world title only the FIDE title that he held. and C. I don't really know how appropriate it for the current wording to remain unchanged it gives one the impression that Fischer simply handed his championship over to Karpov happily and even recognized Karpovs status as champion, this of course is a false impression and it isn't appropriate that wikipedia gives people a false idea regarding historical facts that took place.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Semantics perhaps. Fischer forfeited the title; Karpov got the title as a result.  Fischer was still world champion only in his own mind.  After Karpov became world champion there were negotiations between Fischer and Karpov for a match outside FIDE.  This match nearly happened.  If the match had taken place and if Fischer had won, people would have considered him the true world champion even though he didn't participate in the world championship under FIDE.  But this didn't happen.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of books on the history of computing
I have nominated List of books on the history of computing, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of books on the history of computing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Official Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess
You once asked whether I had a copy of Kenneth Harkness' The Official Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess. Now I do. What do you want to know? btw, the "Encyclopedia" bit is a little grandiose, especially when you compare it to latter-day chess encyclopedias (Hooper & Whyld, Golombek, Sunnucks, Divinsky). It's quite similar to Harkness' Official Chess Handbook - the rules of the game; notation; how to run a tournament; how to run a chess club; lists of chess clubs, winners of major U.S. tournaments, etc. Krakatoa (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about how good of an encyclopedia it is. It has been reprinted by Ishi Press and I was thinking about getting a copy.  I have harkness' little official rule book and his "Official Chess Handbook".  Bubba73 (talk), 16:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo
This should mean the ball game is over for the hoaxsters, and it's a nice bit of nostalgia for the rest of us. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen that. Better images will come.  I doubt it will end it.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, it won't end it. But it will overwhelm it. Because it's one thing to say something was faked 40 years ago. If they claim it's faked now, they'll be told, "Prove it", and they can't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been a singular lack of coverage in the major media about the moon landing site photos. That might tell us something about how unremarkable the media consider the matter to be. Namely, that it proves nothing they didn't already know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A busy time. There has been a good amount of coverage on the new video, but I haven't seen any about the LRO photos yet.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be the 5 day "no drama" stretch. Now that LRO has seemingly dealt a death-blow to the Apollo hoaxsters (and how sad is it that we lost Uncle Walter on the same day?), I'm considering taking those articles off my watch list. Unless you would feel "abandoned", as it is you and I and just a few others that have kept a long-standing watch on them? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although you could certainly let me know if someone starts an edit war. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It had been pretty quiet on the Apollo hoax articles, then there was a lot of activity with the 40th coming up, with the new video and the LRO photos. I think it will quieten down again soon.  I would not feel abandoned. Bubba73 (talk), 23:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll keep an eye on them for a few more days and then probably back away. The question now becomes, what to do with the articles? Unless the hoaxsters can prove some kind of malfeasance, this knocks the wind out of their ridiculous theories. It probably wouldn't hurt to keep them around in some fashion, although they suddenly seem antiquated - like a site that would be arguing for the existence of the geocentric universe or some such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the articles should stay. I've been editing a lot less the last few weeks, except for the last few days.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that might make sense is to rename "Independent evidence" to the more neutral-sounding "Independent observations". But that's minor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Next time you should just edit out the "POV" (common sense) instead of censoring the whole thing. By the way, we both know the items did not fall as they would if they were on the moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.87.54 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You see, Bubba and Bugs, it's not over yet. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It will probably die back down after the 40th anniv. We've also had the restored tapes and the LRO photographs recently, all of which I think increased the activity.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 00:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

if u cn rd ths ...
Have you succumbed to texting mania? Say it ain't so! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ha, ha - no! No texting or twitter for me!  There used to be an advertisement "if u cn rd ths .. you can learn shorthand", or something like that.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Xcllnt! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an error in [Apollo Lunar Module] where the first paragraph says 'cislunar orbit'. Cislunar refers to the space between Earth and Moon; shouldn't it read 'lunar orbit'? Sorry to bother you with this, but I can't figure out how to edit it myself (yet). I'll work on understanding the process; am currently reading Andrew Lih's "Wikipedia Revolution", will next tackle editing articles. Royoho (could have been 'Gto64'), royoho@yahoo.com   Royoho (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an error and I fixed it. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM
There is a bot in the works; see WP:DATEBOT. The plan is for it to be very conservative so as not to alienate editors, as had happened with Lightbot, which led to the arbitration case. I'm happy to answer any questions, although technical questions should go straight to WT:DATEBOT. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Miles vs. Miles
I suspect you're onto it. If they really got their "miles" mixed up, a fundamental mistake, then there goes their theory... and reinforces an adage a math teacher once told us: "If you start with incorrect assumptions, you're liable to get interesting results." A colleague asked me just the other day why we don't conform to the metric system, which the rest of the world uses. I commented that the answer was implied by the nature of that question. :) Far as I know, they still use nautical miles on the space flights. As I recall, the nautical mile was invented because it's an even division of some portion of a degree of latitude, which a statute mile is not. The statute mile is based on furlongs and such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a nautical mile corresponds to one second of arc along a circumference of the Earth. I noticed that the ratio of the speeds was pretty close to the 1.15 ratio of the two types of miles, and at the time they gave spaceflight things in nautical miles (still do).  It is not the only place that the error seems to have been made.  In the generally very authoratative book (written in Europe) How Apollo Flew to the Moon, p. 74, he gives "about 8500 km/hour".  That is 2361 m/s. Bubba73 (talk), 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be interested to see what our Bulgarian editor has to say about this. If they actually made that fundamental mistake, it's a stunner - and trashes their premise. Like I asked him, did they re-check their figures? Maybe they did, but if they didn't fix their original mistake, it wouldn't matter. This wouldn't be the first time a mis-translation led to false conclusions. Consider the supposed "canali" (channels) of Mars, which was mis-translated as "canals". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch them try to blame their mistake on the USA sticking with this antiquated system of inches, feet, miles, etc. However, the nautical mile is a nice, even portion of a degree. As I recall, the meter was originally defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the north pole to the equator. I'm too tired to do the math, but I wonder if one second of arc is easily measurable in meters? I doubt it. I remain convinced that the metric system is overrated. For example, ever try dividing any metric measurement by 3? It's easy to do in the English system (or American system as they now call it). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A second of arc is not a round number in meters. Bubba73 (talk), 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone in Europe might not know about our two types of miles, and the uncommon one was used in spaceflight. Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They were probably deceived by the announcer saying "[n] nautical miles downrange". They probably heard "mile" and missed "nautical". So it goes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Snow" during Saturn V take-off, and why does its "tail" burn?
I've always wondered what are those snow-like particles that drop around the Saturn V at lift-off time. Do you know where they come from? --Лъчезар (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That proves that it was fake! Actually, the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in the tanks is very cold.  It makes ice form on the outside of the rocket.  Compare an Atlas without the LOX and with the LOX (of course the Mercury program was fake too.):

Bubba73 (talk), 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:LOC-63C-1556.jpg without LOX
 * File:Launch of Friendship 7 - GPN-2000-000686.jpg with LOX.


 * The only snowfall you're likely to see in Florida. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What? LOX with no cream cheese??? OK, time to go to work. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! (Of course, I asked my question out of pure curiosity, without anything to do with our favourite "hoax topic".) --Лъчезар (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see you after the US breaks apart next year. Bubba73 (talk), 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If needed, we can find some nice place for you here in Bulgaria.

I'd like to ask one more question, because you managed to answer the first one. But it's more difficult one. Please watch again this Apollo 15 clip. Between 0:20 and 1:22 (film time), notice how side flames appear and how they start to burn more and more of the tail of the first stage, whose unburned part becomes shorter and shorter. What is this?! Compare with the Apollo 7 launch (Saturn 1B), between 2:37 and 3:30 (film time). The tail is seen clearly and doesn't burn. Are the F-1 engines so hot that they burn the "skin" of the first stage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Лъчезар (talk • contribs)


 * They don't burn the tail. The flames do spread out because the atmospheric pressure is dropping as it gets higher.  That may be what you are seeing.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you use newsgroups then a lot of your questions can be answered on sci.space.history. Bubba73 (talk), 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And how could the F-1 engines be so hot as they burn the skin if they were fake (as you say)? Bubba73 (talk), 01:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't say that, Popov says it, but I try to convince him that he is wrong here. It's normal to make errors in such "reverse-engineering". Whoever doesn't do anything, only he doesn't make errors :) OK, here's how a competent Russian explained this phenomenon:


 * Ну ладно, расскажу тем кто заинтересовался про газы, скачки уплотнения и конденсационное облако.


 * Во фронте ударной волны образуется сжатие, а сзади, за фронтом - зона разрежения. Воздух в этой зоне расширяется в процессе расширения охлаждается и содержащийся в нём водяной пар конденсируется. Именно поэтому он называется "конденсационное облако" и делает ударную волну видимой. Зона разрежения находится сзади ударной волны, там же и облако что хорошо видно на снимке самолёта и ракеты.


 * Но для нас важно что? То, что эта зона разрежения существует. Вот в зону разрежения за хвостовой ударной волной и затягиваются выхлопные газы двигателей. И делают её видимой.


 * Этому способствует ещё одна уникальная особенность двигателя F-1. У него охлаждение концевой части сопла осуществляется вдувом в сопло генераторного газа после турбины. Генераторный газ получается путём сжигания керосина с кислородом при очень большом избытке керосина (недостатке кислорода). Поэтому газ буквально чёрный от сажи и прочих продуктоа неполного сгорания и термического разложения керосина. На снимках сопел крупным планом хорошо видно что первые нескольео метров пламени F-1 "чёрные" - они окружены слоем чёрного дыма. Затем он дожигается смешиваясь с воздухом.


 * Так вот этот пристеночный слой этого чёрного дыма движется очень медленно по сравнению с основным потоком газов двигателя. Происходит это потому что вдув происходит много позади критического сечения сопла и газ просто физически не может разогнаться. Поэтому по выходу из сопла он не улетает назад со скростью 3 км/с как основные продукты сгорания, а спокойно расширяется во все стороны как и положено газу. И естественно расширяется в сторону пониженного давления то есть зоны разрежения позади хвостовой ударной волны. И заполняет собой всю эту полость. Чем и делает фронт волны видимым. При этом содержащейся в этом газе саже ничего не мешает закоптить бока ракеты.


 * У шаттла нет завесного охлаждения сопел РДТТ. Там весь газ имеет высокую скорость. Более того. Хвостовая часть ТТУ имеет расширяющуюся "юбку". Именно на ней возникает хвостовой скачёк, точно так же как у сатурна на переходнике 2/3 ступени. Ну а зона разрежения соответственно позади скачкато есть уже позади среза юбки.


 * Вот примерно такие дела.


 * http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=34813&p=12


 * Sorry that it's in Russian; if you try to translate it using http://www.online-translator.com/ it may still be understandable.


 * See what interesting information I found in English: http://www.ehartwell.com/afj/Saturn_V_rocket_plume (the retro-rockets and other details are shown in the flight manual, part 2). --Лъчезар

Replaceable fair use Image:Bonoff4-mdCropped.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bonoff4-mdCropped.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.35.224 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Fischer Petrosian.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Fischer Petrosian.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Adminship?
Hi Bubba! There is an ongoing concern that the number of active administrators is dwindling, and I wonder if you would be interested in accepting a nomination for adminship on WP:RFA. The process will mean substantial community scrutiny of your editing history, and a number of relevant and not-so-relevant questions, but with your experience and strong record in content creation in multiple topic areas, I think you have a good chance of passing. I would honored to write up a nomination for you. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but no. I spend more time than I should on Wikipedia already.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I figured that you would make a good administrator, but I understand not wanting to immerse yourself even deeper. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bubba73/Apollo photographs
The page User:Bubb73/Apollo photographs has been moved to User:Bubba73/Apollo photographs Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks that is what I intended. I misspelled it.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FIDE titles merge
At first I supported the merge of many pages to FIDE titles, including IM, FM, WGM, and WIM, but now I'm not sure. Your input is requested at Talk:FIDE titles. Quale (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Beginning (Circa 1960)
Posthumous works It's difficult to say when The Beatles ceased to be, but I take it as Paul's announcement of leaving the band, which (I believe) occurred before the release of this album. Regardless, one could argue that this is a release by Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers, who had definitely ceased to exist several years prior to this release. Please respond on my talk if you have further input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure If you consider The Beatles ending at a different date, I won't dispute it. Clearly, the matter is open to some interpretation. While you are correct that "posthumous" usually refers to a deceased individual, I have seen it applied to defunct organizations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kayden Troff's Importance
I believe Kayden to be above a "low" importance rating. He just barely became champion of all North America for all ages U-12 in Mazatlan. He's beaten International Masters and FIDE Masters and Candidate masters. He's also a candidate master at age eleven.

If you could respond I'd appreciate it. I've left a copy of this message on the Kayden Troff talk page as well, or you could go to my talk page. GrandMattster 20:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he is of low importance. But if you want to, ask for opinions on the chess project talk page.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a good idea. Which section would I post it on? GrandMattster 20:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Hmmm, I see that there's a disscussion page, but how often do people check it?  GrandMattster 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * People check it pretty frequently. Put it on the talk page and give it a title such as "importance of Kayden Troff article. Bubba73 (talk), 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help and patience. :)GrandMattster 20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll go along with the consensus, but I don't feel that he is that important yet.  He may be one day, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy theories FAQ
Hi there! I've created a FAQ for the Moon landing conspiracy theories article talk page, and seeing how you're a veteran defender of the topic, it would be great if you could help out. Thanks! Mildly MadTC 15:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent photo


Very nice photo of Fort Sumter! I've moved it to the infobox. Excellent work. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Bubba73 (talk), 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The water looks perilously close. Do they ever have water issues? Besides plumbing, I mean. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but it does look like the waves are hitting the bricks. Bubba73 (talk), 00:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With no apparent ill effects. They made 'em to last, in those days. Is anyone actually on it, as in do they give tours? Or is it just kind of sitting out there? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks kind of like, if you built a boat out of bricks, and it beached. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't on a natural island. There was a sand bar 10 feet under the water and they built that up.  That took 5 years or more.  In 1861 the construction of the fort had been going on for 31 years and it was 90% finished.  (It was originally three stories tall, but the top two got blasted off.)  Bubba73 (talk), 00:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Must have run into funding problems. I wonder, when Abner Doubleday fired his cannons at the southern battery, if he was annoyed that had interrupted his baseball game. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The diagram in the article shows it being home-plate shaped. How karmic is that? :) I wonder also, when they did the restoration, which they didn't rebuild it to three stories. Might be safer this way, though. Less maintenance. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are tours you can go on. There is a theater that shows films. Hurricanes have removed a good part of that side of the island even though they have placed rip-rap to prevent further erosion. You used to take the tour from Patriot's Point but that has changed now. I just found one of the lost photos of the Floating Battery of Charleston Harbor today! I'll try to get it cropped and posted to Commons before the weekend. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 00:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's only so much they can do against erosion. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We took the tour starting at Patriot's Point last weekend. I think there is another place from which it departs too.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

<== From here. I've always gone from Patriot's Point so that I could tour the Yorktown and other vessels on the same trip. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the picture M1 OCTOBER 25 image from hubble :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.174.247 (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Promotion (chess)
Your right that an upside down rook is used, however I have in the past used an upside down pawn; obvious not with modern chess sets. Letting you know because the edit may not be vandalism, it is however unsourced. SunCreator (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, they changed it from rook to pawn and certainly rook is the most common. I've never seen a set where the pawn would stay upside down.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Wolfgangunzicker.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Wolfgangunzicker.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:EduardGufeld.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:EduardGufeld.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  21:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:WUnzicker.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:WUnzicker.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Chess tournament GA
Hey Bubba, how goes it? I recently nominated chess tournament for GA review. Based on the initial comments, it looks like it may have been a bit premature. I'll do my best to make it work anyways, but I was wondering if you might be able to lend a hand, especially in the 'history' section. No obligation of course, but it would be greatly appreciated! Let me know, and happy editing!   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 16:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe but I don't have a good reference for the history of chess tournaments. I did add a little bit about some early tournaments a while back, but that is about all I have.
 * It is really hard to get one to GA. I was the driving force behind rules of chess and it is a lot of work crossing every T and dotting every i.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's even worth it at this point? It sounds like it could use a few more months of work before it's a serious contender.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to look at it more thoroughly before I say, but it looks like a pretty good article to me. I don't know what its chances are - GA is pretty stringent.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bu Xiangzhi page
The material removed was an objective, referenced work describing Bu's first rated match in the United States and the repercussions from that match. It is important that it remain on the page, which was why it was placed there more than a year ago and has been seen by thousands in that interval without complaint until Y3enstls34 removed it without explaination 3 weeks ago. Shearwood McClelland III was a life master when he beat Bu, as he has been a life master since 1996 (www.drwoodymc.com/chess.html).

Without the removed material, the Bu Wiki section on his first visit to America resembles a puff-piece and not the full story. The world has the right to know the truth, especially since it has been referenced. The entire New York Open isn't important round by round, but Bu's first tournament in the USA -- especially since at the time he was the youngest GM in chess history -- is quite notable. Thank you, and I look forward to your timely reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotcallerballerballer (talk • contribs) 03:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A USCF Life Master has a rating of over 2200 for 300 games. It does not appear to be the case for McClelland as of 1996, see this.  But that is not the main point.  I don't think that the text belongs in the article. Secondly, you created the page on Kimberly McClelland which was deleted and you have added Shearwood McClelland to some other pages so I suspect that you may be too close to be objective.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A USCF Life Master either has a rating of 2200 for 30 games; or under the old USCF norm system, had enough norms to qualify -- this rule went into effect on January 1, 1996, which is how McClelland became a life master in 1996. So he was a life master when he beat Bu in 2000. You have yet to provide any objective reason why the text doesn't belong in the article other than attempting to paint me as biased and unobjective; this is disappointing coming from an admin. There is nothing I have posted that lacks objectivity or has not been supported by references -- even the Kimberly McClelland page; any other reference to Sherwood McClelland page I have made has been supported by a 3rd party reference -- that's anything from being biased.

I would appreciate your reasoning for deleting the info from the Bu page that doesn't involve attacking me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotcallerballerballer (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that it takes 300 games as a master, not 30, for a USCF Life Master. But that is besides the point.  Bu lost one upset game in that tournament.  His USCF rating after that tournament was 2540 - clearly grandmaster strength. Losing one game is not something that needs to be in the encyclopedia.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's 300, not 30. Krakatoa (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't doubt the facts that were in the article about Kimberly McClelland, I checked them out. But the consensus of editors was that it was not worthy of a Wikipedia article.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 03:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be silly
Of course the chess project is a child project of the games project (more specifically of the table and board games project, itself a child of the games project). Whether you've bothered to list it as such notwithstanding. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quit disrupting Wikipedia to make a point WP:POINT and quit being a WP:LAWYER. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 15:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And Don't be a Dick: Dick. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

IP 86.46.229.67
Hi, this is a multiple IP used by lots of people in Ireland. I didn't edit the page you mentioned. Best of luck,86.46.229.67 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for letting me know. If you get an account for yourself, you won't have problems like this with an IP address.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 17:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Attachment therapy
Hi. I got your name from the pseudoscience project which seems to be pretty moribund. I am one of the main editors of this article on attachment therapy - a classic pseudoscience. It's one of those therapies that poses as mainstream. In the article I try and briefly describe how the theoretical basis differs from attachment theory and how the diagnosis and treatment methods differ from the accepted diagnoses in DSM and ICD and mainstream practice. It has been suggested that in fact I have produced a degree of misleading and unethical confusion! I wonder if you could look through it for me and advise me on this point as a completely uninvolved editor with an interest in the proper presentation of pseudoscience. In other words - is it confusing, and if so, how would I put it right. (If you are not familiar with the topic then there is an article on Attachment theory and on mainstream treatments.)Fainites barley scribs  20:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will take a look at it. I have never heard of the topic before.  I was active in the pseudoscience project a while back, but not much for about 3 years.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that would be very kind of you. I am aware that it needs some work on prose - particularly in the lead - as it is difficult to get across that there is an entity called "attachment therapy" with a particular set of theories, beliefs and practices but the term "attachment therapy" is also used for other purposes, mostly where "attachment therapy" as such is not practiced. Unfortunately there is no secondary source that clearly sets this out. Fainites barley scribs 09:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given it the once-over, but I don't know much about it. I don't think I have any references to it.  I no longer subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptic.  I have a shelf of reference books on pseudoscience, but I don't think it is in any of them.  So I'm not sure if I can help.  Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 16:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks anyway. I just wanted to know if you came out the other end with an understanding of how attachment therapy differed from mainstream theory and diagnoses. (The only standard reference on pseudoscience I know of which mentions something about is is Eisner The Death of Psychotherapy but he describes an earlier incarnation known as "rage-reduction therapy"). Fainites barley scribs 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm much more familiar with "nuts and bolts" pseudoscience, UFOs, dowsing, etc. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 17:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What! You mean UFO's aren't real? You'll be telling me the Pastafarians are making it all up next. Fainites barley scribs 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No delete the image
You must to say Javierme not delete the image for four or five times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediainsight (talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you misunderstood. I agree with Javierme that it does not belong in the article. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Chess Barnstar
Many thanks for this. I feel I've done little to deserve it in recent times ... hopefully I'll find more time for WP in the future. Anyway, much appreciated, so thanks again. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WhiteWitchFirstLP.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WhiteWitchFirstLP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)