User talk:Bubba73/Archive 7 (2011)

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

AN/I
Hi, Bubba73! Just wanted to give you some advice on this issue as I'm sure you saw that I commented at AN/I. The first thing to do when a new editor is reverting and doing other "bad" things is go to WP:WARN, pick out a nice level one appropriate warning, reference the article (and even add some advice): and then see what happens. If they continue to ignore and/or blank their page and repeat the behavior: step up the warning template and direct them firmly to the talk page. If they still continue after repeated escalating warnings: go to WP:AN3 in the case of edit-warring and file a report. By this time, an admin (or watcher who will alert an admin) might have already blocked the user: not always, but now you've got a "paper trail" of evidence to show you did all you could to stop any possibly disruptive activity. Anyway, I hope I wasn't too "curt" in my AN/I comment, and Cheers :> Doc   talk  06:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter UFO incident
This isn't vandalism: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Adambro (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked about this the other day, and they said to revert and warn the editor (see AN/I above). That editor has been disruptive on that article for several days. I made comments in the edit summaries.  I wrote on the article's talk page.  I left a welcome message on the user's talk page.  I left a level-1 warning.  I recently left a level-2 warning. How do you suggest it be handled?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Was that UFO incident in any way connected with the rabbit incident, or were they independent events? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely independent (Jimmy Carter rabbit incident). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There were a lot of jokes about this at the time, but an animal in the wild doesn't usually approach a person. If an animal acts strangely, they may be rabid.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You bet. Fending it off with an oar was probably a good thing to do, as we didn't need to have our first President ever to die from rabies. And maybe you remember that killer rabbit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do remember that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

books about chess variants
Yes, our strongest defense against the destruction of most of the material about chess variants on Wikipedia lies in providing "reliable sources" from tangible reference books (such as Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants).

FYI- "9250" announced today that he is working on a book about 3-D chess variants.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/3-d-chess/message/2156

I dearly hope he follows thru.

-DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm confused by this. All books are not created equal.  I'd much rather have a book by the likes of Jean-Louis Cazaux.  In my opinion '9250' (James Trimm) is not a credible source on anything.  Just because someone prints ink on wood pulp does not give credibility.  (If it did, the world would be a very fake place indeed.)


 * There is lots of work by many varied authors, some quite credible, at Zillions and Chessvariants. Why can't they be reliable sources in some cases?  Because trees weren't felled?  (I don't get it!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have Pritchard's encyclopedia but no others on chess variants. That is a good reliable source but it might not be the only one.  All articles need a reliable source.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Zugzwang
Works for me. Gut (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Genrikh Kasparyan picture
I just uploaded the file File:Birth Centenary of Henrik Kasparyan.jpg on Commons. I leave it to you to decide if this is a replacement for your fair use file File:Kasparian.jpg, but I thought I should tell you because I don't know much about the fair use laws, so you might have to update the description or something. If you want to reply to me, please also leave me a note on de:Benutzer Diskussion:Conspiration since I'm not often on en-wikipedia. --Constructor 13:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

response
Bubba73 most humble apologies - i should put my bloody glasses on before diving in. sorry and go with pencil in hand. cheers keith nunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith nunes (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SusanPolgar10b.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SusanPolgar10b.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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations Bubba73, your image Image:FortSumter2009.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:

- Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of =[Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate]]


The article Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.'''
 * '''A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nczempin (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I notified you because the link "Contributors" said that you were the most active contributor on that page. I may be that the script got confused. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Tom_Clancy%27s_Splinter_Cell:_Checkmate Nczempin (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting - it does show that, but on the page history of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate, I've never edited it. But I have edited checkmate.  I noticed other top editors of checkmate also being listed.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pritchard's ECV
Thx for your note re non-notables, Bubba. (And I see Mr. Kaufmann is cleaning up the variants article!)

Curious. Did you get the ECV (1994), or the Classified (2007)? (I have both. But I much more enjoy the 1994 orig - for many reasons!)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have the new edition. I got it a few months ago because I wanted to be able to check new variants to see if they are notable.  I got tired of seeing variants that they just made up at school two days ago.  I haven't gotten to cleaning out old ones though.


 * Just yesterday two kids at my daugheter's school chess club (which I coach) made up a variant. They put the pieces on the third and sixth ranks; and and pieces are pawns and pawns are pieces.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't remember ever seeing the first edition, but the second edition is a really nice production, in my opinion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bubba, I could go on & on how/why I feel the 1994 ed. is more enjoyable & easier to use! Not only that, but Beasley points out he dropped certain things from the 1st edition (like sample games), thinking readers of 2nd ed. will already own 1st ed. (!).  Also, *all* of the 1st ed. artwork/graphics/diagrams/photos were lost or misplaced and only a partial of that was recreated for the 2nd ed. (and more crudely, me thinks!).  As mentioned I could go on & on, but I'll stop here.  :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. I've never seen the first edition.  I did read in the second edition about them not having the original artwork.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can ever get your hands on 1st ed., I highly recommend. (Granted, 2nd ed. has some updated Pritchard file info on some vars.  But a lot was dropped, too.  But there are other significant diffs between the editions.  (You'll know what I mean, when you *own* 1st ed.!  Soooo much more an enjoyable read!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TalVisitByFischer.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:TalVisitByFischer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PaulKeres47.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:PaulKeres47.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. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SovietTeam1954.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SovietTeam1954.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed this from David Bronstein and put more justification for its use in 11th Chess Olympiad. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bronstein2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bronstein2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:LStein.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:LStein.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is not needed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

B & W
Hi Bubba; Personally, I prefer "Black" and "White" over "black" and "white" when referring to the players. (It's how I grew up.) But, I notice in lots and lots of WP articles, smalls are used instead. (So, I have tried to stay consistent w/ that apparent convention, when making an edit.)

I don't mind smalls too much, but it seems to me consistency should be the thing. That said, is this a "bigger" issue - e.g., should all WP chess articles be either one way [caps], or the other [smalls], for consistency? (Is there any consensus on it; has it ever been discussed?)

p.s. I'm also don't prefer "bishop", "king", etc., preferring instead "Bishop", "King". (Because again, I grew up that way. And, I think caps for piece names is more logical as well, since the caps correspond better to their single letter abbrevs in algebraic: Bg2, Kh1, etc.)  But again, I've used smalls on piece names since that is what I've been seeing on WP.

Let me know your thoughts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed on the Chess Project, and the consensus is to use "Black" and "White" when it stands in for a person, but lower case when referring to pieces (e.g. "the black rook"). They are caps when used to stand for a person because it is sort of like a proper noun.  I think the articles are mostly consistent, and I change them when I see an inconsistency.  I see almost all lower case for the pieces, and I think that is the preference of of the members of the chess project.  I see them uppercase mostly in old literature.  (They are not proper nouns.)  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thx for the clarification! I do think the consensus to use smalls has a weird effect though ...  the phrase "the black rook" can only mean one thing in chess:  the rook owned by Black.  (So "black rook" is synonymous to "Black's rook".)  If that weren't the case, then "the black rook" means "the rook colored black color", and I don't think color is really being referred to per se (probably a bad idea anyway since FIDE mandates only "dark").  So to me "Black rook" always means "Black's rook", so my vote would have been for caps, even though the word itself is holding the spot of an adjective in the sentence, when really it's like an implied & abbrev'd possessive.


 * Anyway, that's my analysis. (... I "resign".)  :)  I'm glad to know what the WP convention is!  Thx.


 * BTW could you let me know if I got any of these wrong? (Thx again!)
 * 1) "Who is playing the black pieces in this game?"
 * 2) "Did you say Browne is playing the black side?"
 * 3) "Did you say Browne is playing Black?"
 * 4) "If Browne is Black, who is White?"
 * 5) "Who was the White player for that game?"
 * 6) "Did Browne have White?"
 * p.s. No pun intended on name "Browne" (Walter Browne).  :)
 * p.p.s. Did any make you "think"?  ;)
 * Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think those all agree with the convention. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, #6 - maybe not. "Did Browne have black?"  Seems the same as "Did Browne have the black pieces?"  But "Was Browne Black?".  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, "have" changes everything in #6. I missed it.  Thx!  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Found one that's even harder! Are pieces being referred to, or the players?:
 * A) "... similar to Chess960, but the opening white and black positions do not mirror each other."
 * B) "... similar to Chess960, but the opening White and Black positions do not mirror each other."
 * Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, these two (phrase conditions) keep throwing me:

1) "A brilliant White move" vs. "A brilliant white move".

2) "The Black position is weak" vs. "The black position is weak".

Since "move" and "position" don't refer to pieces, I've preferred CAP on White & Black in those cases. (But! There are other phrase conditions not related to pieces which are clear, e.g. "the black square a1", etc., so, I have doubt.)

Your eval? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC) p.s. Is it a gray area? (Pun intended!) ;)


 * That is a close call, but I think it should be caps, since it is equivalent to "a brilliant move by Black". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bubba, we agree, but the reason is maybe confused (e.g. if "a weak black pawn move" can be rewritten "a weak pawn move by Black", is there a difference w/ your "brilliant move by Black" example?). After thinking some more on it, I'm thinking now the division line is probably implied to be about actual color (i.e. a "piece" can have actual color, so can a square; but not a "move", or a "position"). How's does that analysis sit w/ you?  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "... black pawn move" could be either way. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

letters on diagram squares
Hi Bubba, I put up a Parton var I've always been fascinated by (2000 A.D. – whaddya think?). I see you coded the chess diag templates, they allow #s to be put on sqrs but not letters (if I read it right), so I created a graphic instead, making look like a template diag, to accomodate all the letters I needed, since iconics of course aren't avail. Has any thought been given for adding ability to place letters in sqrs, not only #s? Thx for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen it - a good start. I didn't have anything to do with writing the template and I don't know anything about how to do it.  What I did is write a program that runs under Windows that lets you enter a position graphically (also with numbers, black dots, white dots, and Xs on the squares) and it will generate the WP diagram for it.  It works for 8x8 with regular pieces only.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Shuttle question
The misc ref desk has a question about the shuttle. It occurred to me that if anyone knows the answer, it might well be you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Supermoon
My bad, thank you :) -


 * No probs. I am new to editing Wiki and didn't realise such a thing could happen. Thanks for letting me know. -

Service award level
 There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable. Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't change anything, but I did update Template:Service Awards so you jumped a level, and will again shortly. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:NOAD.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NOAD.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Value of chess pieces.
Hello there, I am the user with IP 189.79.206.127 and I did the change that was erroneously identified as vandalism. The original text said that a good bishop values 10% of a bad bishop or more, and that's ridiculous. It implies that you would need up to 10 good bishops to match a bad one. The author wanted to say that a good bishop is worthy 10 percent more than a bad bishop or even more, which is pretty much the same thing of saying it values 110% of a bad one or more. That's the change I made. You're mistaking your ignorance of simple math for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel dCF (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - the sentence was ambiguous. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

do you play chess?
when I write about chess I use the descriptive notation, not the short notation. I lot of books write move using descriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses algebraic notation. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I bet that none of your books using descriptive notation were written in the last 25 years. Descriptive notation has been obsolete for more than 25 years.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I have a book called "The Chess Doctor" which uses both notations, so writing with discriptive wouldn't hurt in wikipedia at all. You just have to know how to read it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Pages of that book are available online and every page I looked at uses only algebraic notation. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of pages use descriptive. Even if most pages are short algebraic notation so there is nothing wrong with descriptive.  In fact some write moves like this: 1 e2-e4, e7-e5, etc.  So there's no one right way to write moves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes there is something wrong with descriptive notation - it has been obsolete for more than 25 years. Wikipedia doesn't use it.  FIDE doesn't accept it, and I don't think the US Chess Federation does either. I don't know of any major chess organization that accepts it and no recent publications use it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Castling
Don't worry, the world won't cave in because we disagree with such a rule. 64.134.67.201 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about what the actual rule is, not what you want it to be. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Queen versus pawn endgame
It appears you have done a lot of work on this article, with very nice results. I want to mention a key position which is not included in the article. It is the position White: Ke5, Qd5; Black: Kd2, Pc2; Black to move. We know it’s a draw, because the white king can’t reach b3 or e2 in two moves. But out of Black’s five legal moves, four of them lose, and the one drawing move may not be easy to find in actual play.

After each of Black’s losing moves, White has only one move to win. White must reply to Kc3 with Qd4+, to Kc1 or Ke2 with Qa2, and to Ke3 with Qg2. The last of these is probably White’s hardest winning move to find.

After the correct 1…Ke1, Black must still play accurately to draw. Play might continue 2 Qa5+ Kd1 3 Qa4 Kd2 4 Qa2. Now we have the position of Trap #2, when Black must play Kc3! to hold the draw.

Do you think it would be worthwhile to include this position in the article? Several endgame books fail to mention it, but I think it should be learned by anyone who claims to know the queen vs. pawn endgame. I learned it from Horowitz, I. A. (1957), How to Win in the Chess Endings, David McKay Company, Inc., ISBN 978-0679140153, p. 178. N9531l (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick answer - it sounds good. I have that book; I'll look it up.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, I made a mistake in reverting something you edited on that page, about what square the king needs to get to and in how many moves. I was looking at the text above the diagram in question instead of below.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And interestingly, I was talking about queen vs. pawn on seventh rank to my daughter's chess club yesterday. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Searching for Bobby Fisher accusations of vandalism
You know, adding unsourced, but accurate, information has never been considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Did you bother to check before you accused me of it? It's a sad state of affairs where accurate corrections are reverted as vandalism and the contributor reprimanded. ,, , also the commentary in Chessmaster 11. Now, I know that I don't have a perfect source here, since Waitzkin can't be considered a 100% reliable source about himself. But I think it suffices for something like this and the information in the article right now isn't sourced to anything. But hey, you're the boss. If you want to keep bad info in Wikipedia, that's your call. -67.180.254.114 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked it up in the book and gave the page numbers. And the first reference you give confirms what I said. It says that a draw would give him first place on tiebreakers, which means that their actual score was tied.  In those cases, they are declared co-champions. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll take your word for it, though I don't really understand what a tiebreaker is, if not to break ties.  But I don't play tournament chess.  The first refence specifically says "Josh knew that he only needed a draw to win the Championship on tie-breaks" - so he won the Championship, but they were co-champions?  I don't understand that.
 * I apologize for my tone, but I made a good faith contribution and being accused of vandalism is just irksome. You didn't engage me in discussion at all, just a revert and a vandalism warning.  Don't we use WP:AGF anymore?  Try to be more considerate of your fellow contributors in the future.  208.97.245.131 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't have to take my word for it - read the account in the book (I added the page numbers). Both players won the first six games.  They played a draw in the seventh/final game, which gave them equal scores (6.5 points each).  Now such ties are often broken by playing more games, but in the past Tie-breaking in Swiss-system tournaments were used. These are numerical tie-breakers based on games already played - not additional games. (These tie-breakers can be partially calculated before the last round, which is how Josh could know he would be in first place if he drew the last game with Jeff.)  The tiebreaker would be to give the first place trophy to one and the second place trophy to the other.    But titles (and cash prizes, if applicable) were awarded equally, making them co-champions.


 * Yes, now I believe your edit was in good faith, and I removed the warning from your talk page. But I have approximately 100 pages on my watchlist, and I have to revert vandalism several times a week (sometimes several times a day).  Putting incorrect information into chess articles is one of their favorite things to do. Most of the vandals are anons, without a history of good edits to chess articles.  Your one previous edit was blanking someone's user page.  So I jumped to conclusions a little quickly, I apologize for that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:FilipAndTal.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FilipAndTal.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Reshevsky1960.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Reshevsky1960.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Reshevsky&Fischer.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Reshevsky&Fischer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ReginaFischer.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:ReginaFischer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpasskyFischer1972color.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SpasskyFischer1972color.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason it is not used in any articles is that you removed it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PetrosianFischer1971cropped.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:PetrosianFischer1971cropped.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FischerSpasskyShakeHands.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FischerSpasskyShakeHands.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpasskyFisher1972b.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SpasskyFisher1972b.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:KaspyKarpov.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:KaspyKarpov.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fischer vs Spassky photo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SpasskyFischer1972color.jpg

Bubba, help! I don't understand the legalise. ("Market role"? "Rationale"? Does rationale have two diff defs?  The justification to use in Bobby Fischer article doesn't need a defense.  So I don't get the bad that's happening.)  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:PetrosianFischer1958.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:PetrosianFischer1958.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TalBot1960.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:TalBot1960.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * what it looked like is important. Contrast these conditions with the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match - the plain wooden chairs versus th Eanes executive chairs, the table, etc.  It shows how much the conditions for chessplayers changed as a result of the Fischer-Spassky match.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SpasskyFischer1972.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SpasskyFischer1972.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tal1971.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Tal1971.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:EuweBotvinnik.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:EuweBotvinnik.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:what chess matches looked like
If you want to include some discussion of the change in the way chess players were treated, sourced to reliable sources, then go ahead. However, you can't try to justify blanket use of non-free images of chess matches based on your claims about how important it is to see how the players were treated... J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There was some of that in a photo at World Chess Championship 1972, with a reference, but someone removed it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Centipede floor.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Centipede floor.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * replaced by File:Millipede on floor.jpg. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A minor vandal
I have a relatively puckish bent to my personality, that combined with some impulse control issues tends to have me change some things for purposes of entertainment rather than education. But this impulse is very rare and I find has dwindled as I have matured. I am an avid user of Wikipedia and very much appreciate the work you fine people do. And so while I have done some minor acts of mischief in the past I hope to in the future redeem myself. To become a sort of Wikipedia Eugène François Vidocq, the french father of criminology, who was himself once a criminal.

But I digress. I hope my suggestion on how to deal with the Palin/ Revere Problem is helpful. Good night to you and as a resident of Arkansas, I hope the heat breaks soon. If you wish to respond please do it on my talk page, I am new to conversing via this method and it has a bit of a learning curve. ForeverZero (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverZero (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But if you change something for your entertainment, if no one catches that, it will misinform someone else. What if you go to Wikipedia to learn something, but someone has put in false information? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm really positive about life, but from time to time I seem to like to set my flesh on fire. ;)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:FilipAndTal.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:FilipAndTal.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Chess Life DVDs
Yes, the Chess Life DVD set includes all pages of the magazines including ads, announcements and rating lists. They are scanned images collected into PDFs, typically a single PDF for a year's worth of magazines. Unfortunately there's no OCR or electronic index, so you have to search them visually unless you know where to look. Quale (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Award

 * hey, thanks, I have a print of that photo on my office wall. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wide TOCs
Hi Bubba. You mentioned a TOC is too wide, if it can't fit the notation tag. And I see you slendered a TOC on one of the articles (can't remember which one at the moment!). Ok, now I have done it too (my first): Ruy Lopez. (How did I do?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I had no similar issue, when adapting notation tag–TOC to: Hedgehog, Hungarian Defense, Keres Defense, Modern Defense, Scotch Game, Staunton Gambit, Symmetrical Defence, Three Knights Opening, Maroczy Bind, Baltic Defense, Torre Attack, Marshall Defense, Sicilian Defence, Overloading (chess), Sicilian Defence, Accelerated Dragon, Poisoned Pawn Variation, Queen's Gambit, Queen's Gambit Declined, Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense, Joel Lautier, and Queen's Gambit Declined, Rubinstein Trap. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the width of the TOC depends on the length of the longest section title and the size of the font you use. I use large fonts so one was too wide to display well on my screen.  One section title was much too long anyway, so I shortened it.


 * On Ruy Lopez on my screen, it puts the notation box above the TOC, left of the info box. The section titles must be too long. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bubba, shortened Ruy Lopez section title further (by removing word "the"). Also shortened the notation Side box itself. (How does Ruy Lopez appear on your screen now?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. Remembered the article! (It was Susan Polgar.)


 * It depends on how wide I have my browser window. I have a 16:9 screen.  I usually have the browser windowed to about what it would be with a 4:3 screen.  With that, the TOC and info box together are wider than the window would be, so it places the TOC entirely below the info box and the notation box above the TOC, which actually isn't too bad.  If I widen my browser window enough, the TOC and info box will fit side-by-side, and it changes to do that and then the notation box is to the right of the TOC.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thx. Ruy Lopez has the widest section titles I've run into to-date. Don't see any practical way to shorten further. I guess one exception ain't so bad!? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't very bad, just isn't optimal. It is good enough as it is.  But I think the moves could be taken out of the two long section titles.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting! But I'll leave that up to you to do, if you like. (With more than 11,000 views of Ruy Lopez in last 30 days, I'm afraid to do myself!) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Unknown guitarist.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Unknown guitarist.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Chess Attack
Hi! Would you mind taking a look at that article's talk page, where I responded to your tagging it. As I say there, I don't have any strong feelings about it, so if you want to nominate it for deletion, that's ok with me, even though the last edition of Pritchard's was published before this variant came to be. But I feel it should either be AfD'ed or the tag removed. Cheers! Asav (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Central Georgia Task Force
Suggest you add your name to the WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/Task forces and work groups for the Central Georgia Task Force. Please help find others who are interested. T amer_of_Hope  talk  00:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No 'pos=section'
Hi Bubba, I think the current options (left–right, and artcile/section/diagram levels) gives notation tag the flexibility for perfect & appropriate application to any article. (I don't see how it could be better. What do you think?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, 'pos=secright' (Carlos Torre), not 'pos=sectright'. FYI. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:CapaPortrait.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CapaPortrait.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vssun (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Capablanca2.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Capablanca2.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vssun (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Apollo Hoax in Popular Culture
An article that you have been involved in editing, Apollo hoax in popular culture, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Apollo hoax in popular culture (2nd nomination). Thank you. Senior Trend (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Image
hello,

can you provide the name of the sculptor on File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg? This issue was mentioned on Talk:Otis Redding/GA1. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me 15:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bradley Cooley, http://bronzebycooley.com/resume.html Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Dashes"
New tb msg. Let me know if I got it wrong. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Haber Process editorials
Bubba 73,

I am taking this opportunity to express my discontent over your dictatorship regarding my editing powers on wikipedia. After I made an in depth, revolutionary discovery, and posted it on the Haber Process page under catalysts, you completely undermined my work by deleting it.

Furthermore, I do not appreciate warnings whereby you state that I have vandalized, when clearly you are uneducated on the topic.

Best Regard, and Kind Wishes

Donald Frump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.192.238 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know unless the JB Portal was suddenly linked in a lot more places. I added Outline of chess in a few places but I see that you added several more yesterday.  That deserves a lot more traffic, and probably the way to do it is list it under "see also" in appropriate articles.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What I think happened was that the portal box was aleady placed on many James Bond-related pages, and when the movie announcement hit, those pages got more traffic, and so the portal box naturally got clicked on more. The Transhumanist 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ELO Ratings
As you see, I'm not a mathematician, LOL-just good at arithmetic, if not quite at the level Tal was reputed to be! Hushpuckena (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Queen (chess)
Thanks. I have reached my limit for undoing that edit, so if you or the anon put it in I won't change it back. Although I haven't encountered that phrase it is certainly plausible and I believe that you and others have seen or heard it. The wording currently in the article agrees with my experience, although it isn't referenced. (Something that I or someone else should fix.) Quale (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to put it in. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

PGN
Oh cool, I'm glad you caught that. I didn't notice that was a &lt;pre&gt; block of text or I wouldn't have made the change. Thanks for letting me know, I'll be more careful.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  04:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In chess, a draw is indicated by 1/2-1/2 or ½-½ (since each player gets a half point), see algebraic chess notation. It is probably not a good idea to change them to the fractional representation in other chess articles.  Thanks. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Notation box
Hi Bubba, I added two "silent" options (because of tendency – I do it too! – to type "section" instead of "secright", etc.):
 * ' ' (defaults to ' ')
 * ' ' (defaults to ' ')

(But am thinking of keeping them *out* of the Doc file, because not really necessary, and could make the Doc seem even more complex. Let me know what you think.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't used the "example" form. I think the new "section" is a good idea because I use "secright" a lot and I mistype it sometimes.  I think it would be good to have in the documentation.  I've been making changes to the notation box as I come across them, but I haven't been seeking them out. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. (I updated the Doc file: Template:Algebraic notation.) I also added option ' ' for shorter typing (defaults to ' '). Good? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Alan Sheppard statue.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan Sheppard statue.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar. I'm glad you find the Outline of chess informative and useful.

By the way, what do you like about it? How do you make use of it? The Transhumanist 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really use it, but it is a great way to organize the chess knowledge. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

2005 YU55
Hi Bubba, I noticed that we were editing the same page at the same time and wanted to avoid editing conflicts. I don't mind personally whether the dates are in date month year format or month date, year but please ensure that all of the dates on the same page are consistent. You might want to address the kilometers/miles conversions, too, if you have the time. Again we should aim for consistency, in my opinion. At the moment some use or, some use a semicolon, some are linked, others are not. I think the first instance might be appropriate to link. I'll leave the fine details to you. Thank you. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't changing the format on any. I just inserted a needed comma in the first one I changed and the other one was something like "16 November 16 2011" so I had to eliminate one of the dates and pick a format.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I gave it half an hour and looked back to see what you'd done, at which point I realised that it had previously said '16 November 16 2011'. I then altered your correction to favour the date month year format, as per the rest of the article. I began altering your first edit as you were making your second, so afterwards it looked to me like you were perhaps going to make a few more. My mistake. No worries, eh? Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

1.e4 test
Hi Bubba, I was curious to try out OCTAVIO's idea of "1.e4" instead of chessboard symbol (an idea he proposed after Adpete expressed view that any symbol would be distracting and inconsistent w/ hatnote). Testcases. (What do you think?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is good. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Better than the chessboard symbol? (And if so do you think I s/ change the template over to it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yrs, I think the move is better than the board because the notation is explaining the move. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I updated Template talk:Algebraic notation about the change. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 17
This ref desk question is already answered, or I would have asked you to comment. However, it's an interesting discussion, to me anyway, as it explains something I also wondered about when I had seen that picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is distortion from the camera angle, but I'm not sure. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, it's just a hill in background, as the wider angles show. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, I didn't read down far enough. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thx for past yr.
Hi Bubba, thx for your mentorship since I signed on ... I do think I've improved over the last year (that wasn't difficult!). Anyway, I especially like the challenge of transforming dysfunction into something more readable. That said, if there's ever an article you specially like me to "naw on" (and u trust me w/ it) be sure to let me know. (I learn by doing.) Happy holiday, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Esserman
Hey Bubba, I really appreciate all you do for chess articles on Wikipedia, but I think that this AfD for Esserman is going a bit too far. I see lots of other IMs on here, and this Esserman article is extremely well-sourced! Tfine80 (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you give me a list I will try to work on getting them deleted, if I have time. But you can help by putting them up under AfD.  I'll probably work on Murray Turnbull next.

This didn't just come out of the blue - I asked at the chess project first (on November 8): I got support for deleting it before I started the AfD.
 * talk:WikiProject Chess

As far as sources, there are references to games in local newspapers. If he is a notable chess player, how about some references to his games in Chess Informant or New in Chess? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You know what is on Wikipedia far better than I do. Please don't be coy... I still don't understand how Esserman could possibly be the most appropriate target. Read through the articles. These games received major international attention... Tfine80 (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are others. But I spend part of my time looking at recent changes to chess articles and I noticed it.  If you put Abby Marshall on AfD, I certainly won't oppose it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was also considering Jordy Mont-Reynaud, but he did hold the record for being the youngest master in the US ever. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Chess aesthetics
Why did you undo my last edit? What did you mean by this: "Edit to make consistent with Chess aesthetics, as rewue"? Azlan Iqbal 05:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)


 * That was a typo. "Rewue" should be "request".  In the edit comment to your edit to chess at Dec. 27, 19:32, you said "If you are going to do this (COI), then I insist you also delete the entire entry on chess aesthetics. Or keep both. Be consistent."  The entry on chess aesthetics was deleted so I deleted it at chess, as you wanted.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My "request" was that you delete the whole chess aesthetics page if you think there is a COI from my single sentence at the "chess" page because I essentially wrote that whole "chess aesthetics" page. By the way, that single sentence at "chess" has been edited so there is no reference whatsoever to my own publication. Azlan Iqbal 05:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)


 * The chess article is for a very general audience - it is not an academic paper. What you added is inappropriate.  Read what people are telling you in the edit summaries and on your talk page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I *have* read them and have made appropriate changes. Some (including you) have even made changes to the "chess aesthetics" page with no objections from me. Why is my one line on the "chess" page still inappropriate? I provided a dozen references (that are not my own) to illustrate the relevance of computational chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition. The section on the "chess" page otherwise makes no mention of this. The general audience will be (wrongly) inclined to think that computer scientists over the decades have accomplished nothing more than making computers *play* chess.--Azlan Iqbal 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
 * What Bubba73 means is the way you wrote it. See our manual of style.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So why don't one of you rewrite it instead of just throwing everything out?--Azlan Iqbal 06:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
 * Let's be civil please. Given your close connection with the subject (a COI), I'd highly advise that you do not try to do this directly, but suggest on the talk page only. This part of chess is very non-notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Right - I was just about to say that. Putting it in the chess article would not be balanced, compared to the rest of the article.  Also, it is your (Azlan Iqbal) opinion that it is so important, and your original research.  Wikipedia mainly relies on secondary sources, not primary sources, so it would be better if a book or periodical written by someone else examined the issue.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources (e.g. reputable publications on the subject); otherwise, the material is going to be out-of-date (decades out of date, even). It could take years before "someone else" bothers to write on Wikipedia about it. I have presented you with many reliable references on the subject that span decades. I have removed my own (latest) reference on the subject. I have even welcomed what I think are reasonable changes to "my" chess aesthetics page. I don't know what else to do to convince you all that all this is worth one line of mention on the "chess" page.--Azlan Iqbal 06:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
 * You have no right to act like you own a page you create. My issue is the undue weight you are putting on this part of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Azlan, you need to put this on the chess talk page. The other editors involved may not see it here.
 * As far as "other writers", that doesn't mean other Wikipedia editors, it means secondary sources. The opinion of five neutral editors seems to be that it isn't important enough to be included in the chess article.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided a dozen references (excluding my own) to back my claim of the subject's "weight" (to justify its one line, that is). Can any of you explain why you think it's still not relevant? (By the way, can someone with more experience move this to the proper talk page? Thanks).--Azlan Iqbal 06:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference count simply doesn't matter when you consider that there are probably thousands of references on the other parts of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said before, this is a general article, not academic research. The references you gave appear to be primary sources, not secondary sources.  I see four problem areas:


 * 1) wp:COI a conflict of interest - you are talking about your research
 * 2) wp:OR this is related to #1, but Wikipecia is not a publisher of original research, and what you have done is original research
 * 3) wp:secondary the sources need to be independent secondary sources.
 * 4) WP:UNDUE undue weight on such a specialized topic in a general article.


 * I'm going to bed.Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I have removed any references to my original research, as requested. I cited only work that came before what I did (we're talking about the one line on the "chess" page here, not the "chess aesthetics" page). So the first two problem areas are not relevant. I don't understand the third one. You mean I cannot cite other peoples research? As for the number of references, it does not matter if there is just one or a thousand reputable references for the subject. It has been documented and belongs (i.e. worth a mention) in the "mathematics and computers" section.--Azlan Iqbal 06:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
 * It's original research for you to be making the claim of advances in chess aesthetics. For secondary sources, you must get sources from people who are generally outside this field. It hasn't been documented enough. Simple as that. WP:IDHT Jasper Deng (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Those other references deal with aesthetics as well as problem composition. My paper is not even in the references. For the second point, you are saying that as a researcher in this field, I am not fit to even write what others have done in it? What do you mean by "documented enough"? Does Wikipedia have a specific number of references required for every claim in a sentence or is this just your view? I have seen pages on medical subjects with just one reference in a line. You're making such a big deal and crying about standards over a small section on chess??--Azlan Iqbal 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
 * Exactly. It's a small section. It's not a big 2000KB section. It's not that your reference is in there, it's that the other references are still too close to this subject. It's not the reference count that's the problem, it's the reference type, the amount of weight you are giving it, your conflict of interest. One good reference suffices, and the question here is the quality of your references. Also, SineBot labels your comments unsigned because you did not link to your contributions (Special:Contributions/Azlan Iqbal), your userpage, nor your user talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, if one of you were to do exactly what I have done on the "chess" page, it would be okay?--Azlan Iqbal 07:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Every point raised by Bubba73 except COI would still be valid.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how. Point (2) does not apply because I never referenced my "original research" nor is the subject new. Point (3) would be remedied if one of you wrote on the page exactly what I did. Or would a "reference" such as this or "Emil Vlasák (2009). Computer Recognition of Beauty in Chess, Computer News, EG, Alexander Rueb Vereniging voor Schaakeindspelstudie (ARVES), The Netherlands, No. 175, Vol. XV, Jan, pp. 31-36. ISSN 0012-7671" be required? Point (4) can be remedied with a warning like at the top of the "chess aesthetics" page, which I already invited Bubba73 to also place on the "chess" page, if he think necessary.--Azlan Iqbal 07:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)