User talk:ISaveNewspapers

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ISaveNewspapers! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing spaces in chess diagrams
I appreciate all of the work you are doing to improve the text of chess articles. One thing, though - where there are two spaces in the chess diagrams, you are removing one of them. This makes it difficult for editors to edit the diagram (and it has no benefit, except reducing the size of the file by a slight amount.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 08:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hang on, what? Let me describe what I have been doing to the chess diagrams. I have been putting spaces after the vertical bars, adding gaps between the actual diagram and the surrounding text, and representing empty squares as two spaces where needed. Therefore, I do not know what you are talking about. In any case, I am willing to stop tampering with the diagrams if need be, as my concern with their formatting is only due to perfectionism. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have looked at the edit differences backwards. If you have your source editor set to fixed-width font (as I do), then if there are too spaces for empty squares then it is easy for an editor to edit the position. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Re adding gaps between the actual diagram and the surrounding text, that was an arbitrary preference by whomever updated the , it wasn't the result of WP:CHESS consensus or any discussion at WT:CHESS, so it really carries no weight. --IHTS (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crazyhouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algebraic notation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I will not be removing this message. It's quite lovely to have company on this page, I think. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Chess diagram pipes
Hello! I just want to let you know that chess diagrams have to have every pipe (|) in order to display properly. In your edit on the Catalan, you accidentally removed one, which led to this hilarious result (reddit link). You can delete this, I just wanted to let you know for future reference, and to share it with you. Don't worry, I already fixed it :) ScottSimply (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"Wording"etc
Seems like "wording" is half your edit summaries, and not very informative by the way. Once you get hold of an article it seems you never let it go, always some tweak or other, and often introducing more complicated wording when the original simpler wording was perfectly fine. I've noticed this in particular in the Promotion and En Passant articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Why have you made this comment? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wholeheartedly agree w/ . Adding excessive and unnecessary wordiness, as you tend to do persistently, results in article disimprovement. --IHTS (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh really? I actually generally strive to make articles as concise as possible. Whenever I do make an article longer, I'll have a reason to think that it makes the article better; for example, I might be removing ambiguity or correcting for grammar. Not all of my edits are perfect, but I believe that the vast majority of my activities on Wikipedia have been beneficial to the project. If this comment was made in an earnest attempt to help me, then I must inform you that you have given me nothing to work with, because I don't know what specifically I have done to warrant this. Clearly it was something that you find important if you actively took the time to come here and criticize me, but I have no idea what to take away from your comment other than, "Stop trying to clarify things." I genuinely don't understand what you were expecting to accomplish. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One example: . Unnecessary "clarification" since 'promote' is a properly used verb for chess. (See also promote.) A pawn can 'promote' just like a pawn can 'queen'; it doesn't have to 'be promoted' the same as not having to 'be queened'. Another example re unnecessary word additions: . The English language is fundamentally imprecise to begin with, so efforting and adding words to "clarify", though objectively defensible, can be a misguided task, resulting in unnecessary clutter to successful idea transmission, not concision. Likewise, your insistence to massage "en passant" phrases wherever you see them. Also, methinks a lot of tinkering may be good indication a sentence/para needs reconstruction or to be rewritten fresh from scratch. My guess is continual tinkering is what elicited Max's post. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my update to Talk:En passant re noun vs. adjective/adverb use of en passant, and correct me or also give your opinion there. Thx! Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Message to IHTS
My patience begins to wear thin for these games. To remove and demean my contributions to Wikipedia so consistently, to outright refuse to speak to me at all and slam the door into my face, I am unable to construe as anything if not entirely uncivil. I believe I made myself very clear when I impressed upon you that I only desire peace. Was that too difficult for you? Too complex? Because I can think of multiple situations that have occurred in the past wherein we could have had peace had you done absolutely nothing. Was that really so out of the question for you?

To be perfectly frank, I have not an intuition regarding from where this attitude of yours comes. Is it because you despise me? Do you take me for a villain? What could I possibly have done to you to warrant such a view of me? I have committed no evil during my time on Wikipedia. Or is there possibly some other aspect of who I am that has drawn your scorn? That would be bizarre considering how little you actually know about me; I place hardly any personal information about myself on Wikipedia. Hardly any.

I truly wish for you to provide some illumination on this subject; I am very confused by the actions that you have chosen to take. I wanted to have nothing more than an honest chat with you on your own talk page, but you have decided to make things difficult by demanding that I make no further edits to your talk page whatsoever. Perhaps you think yourself much more important of a person than I am if you determined to deliver unto me such a churlish ultimatum, but the reality of the situation is that this is simply not the case.

I am certain that you imagine yourself to be aware of Wikipedia's inner workings, but your conduct could not be a more blatant demonstration of the contrary. So allow me to explain this to you: Wikipedia is a place of rules. One can be polite, cordial, and friendly to the other editors with whom one works to maintain and improve the free encyclopedia. If one experiences a lapse in judgement, then one can recognize that one has behaved incorrectly, make up for one's wrongdoings, and move right along. This is simply how humans ought to interact with each other in any setting; an online community is in no way a digression from polite society.

Should one elect to spurn this set of standards, however, one only hurts oneself in so doing. Wikipedia has methods of dealing with unruly editors, methods from which no individual is exempt. Any person who chooses to step out of line can be judged by their fellow Wikipedia users, and that person shall be dealt with accordingly. Although I have managed to remain completely professional for the duration of this ordeal, I fear that I am incapable of standing alone in this matter for very much longer. I grant you one final chance. Do not repeat this behavior in the future. Do not hound me for every minor contribution I make with which you disagree and then fail to be reasonable when conversing with me. Do not make the wrong decision here, for your actions shall have consequences for which you must soon own up. You have my trust this one last time. Do not squander it. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If you're accusing me of "playing games", that's untrue (false accusation). I did not "demean" your contributions (another false accusation). I did not "refuse to speak to you", but if you come to my user Talk page, and insult by recommending I read AGF, which am already familiar w/ for years, an insulting passive-aggressive post (in what instance did I not assume good faith?), then you get politely requested to not post again at my Talk. You also threw my username in title of Threefold repetition Talk article, counter to WP Guideline, at same time you're recommending I go read a behavioral Guideline. (Go figure!) You keep bringing up your personal sense of peace, which is an indirect baseless personal attack 'cause I ensure my editsums are objective & per policy. You need to stop personalizing and your imaginations of same; you need to de-personalize and stop trying to pull me in to your personal issues. Talking about "peace" & "evil" & "villians" & "scorn" is completely out of bounds in context of WP editing and the community of editors on WP, if you have enough experience you s/ already know that. Regarding your editing, I've already commented on your Talk re past incidents that created a degree of pattern of excessive wordiness that doesn't improve articles, but past is past. You are an active editor, and many of your edits pop up on my Watchlist, but I don't maintain an "attitude" re your editing, I assess each edit change objectively like I should. If that seems computer-like and "cold" to you, you might be right (if you want to understand better how I tick, read re INTJ personality types, I tested strong as INTJ). So attacking my "attitude", which is relatively non-existent, was another false personal attack from someone who recommends reading WP:AGF. If you have any Q re any "action" I've taken at anytime on WP, I'm an open book; but from my perspective that s/ be unnecessary since my edits & edisums and comments have been truthful and complete enough. Have already explained why have requested no futher posts to my user Talk, if you choose to apologize for pushing AGF at me, tantamount to WP:DTTR, then you'll be welcome again to post there. To suggest that my request came out of feeling superior is misguided and wrong, it is clear you have a tendency to imagine things and personalize and even accuse based on same, my suggestion to you if you are open to suggetions w/ be to try to put a cork in that, it's not appropriate on WP (not AGF) nor perhaps anywhere else either, but how you conduct yourself in RL is none of my business nor is it my ambition to ask or learn. Your lecturing me on the "inner workings of WP" is not called for, not needed, and, again, insulting. You accuse that I possibly consider myself "superioir" then you go on to lecture and reprimand. Accusing that I "blatantly" cross WP rules is tantamount to saying I deserve to be WP-banned. (And you claim you like to get along w/ "honest chat"?!) Lecturing me how "humans ought to interact in polite society" is more insult, you really need to look at the kinds of things you say and accuse, supposing my thinking might be "bizarre" and so on. Implying my editorship and/or interactions w/ you have be "unruly" or "stepping out of line" is another example. You tend to also exaggerate by coloring any interactions an "ordeal". Then you throw out implied threats w/o basis other than claiming intolerable personal feelings that somehow am responsible for. Accusing me of "not being reasonable" is another inappropriate attack -- can you even justify one instance where you say that occurred? If you felt that in any discussion over any edit change, you s/ have mentioned it then, I w/ have responded by explaining the basis to your satisfaction. As far as my aims, I'll continue to edit objectively. Meanwhile, you're attempting to get personal in numerous ways, which I have no interest in, you tend to make false accuses liberally and make threats, you tend to lecture and insult. For me, that is all chaotic. Nevertheless have replied honestly to you here. Your own behaviors seem to be as beginner Wikipedian, I really haven't explored your history here, are you new-ish? No more of this, please. Take care, happy editing, and good luck. --IHTS (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To clarify context, from the ANI you opened: What I did not expect was an edit summary that was a full four sentences long, which seemed pretty excessive to me. No, lots of editors leave even longer editsums. And I think WP changed their s/w awhile ago to extend the available length for editsums. Lots of editors have taken advantage of that. Gee, note length (and tone!) of this editsum. Even stranger was that it ended with a question, which I would have expected to have been posted on the talk page beforehand in order to leave actual time for discussion. It kind of gave me the impression that IHTS was completely confident that I couldn't possibly provide a good answer, as if I had just made something up entirely when I was referencing the Manual of Style. No, it wasn't strange, it was actually an indirect invitation for you to answer on Talk ala WP:BRD, since I wasn't able to decipher for myself how from the Guideline it produced your change. The ghost of a personal slight wasn't there. I think you're a keen observer of the written language in WP:CHESS articles, which is a strikingly helpful thing considering the poor state of so many articles, and relatively few talented copyeditors who care. There's plenty of work out there/meat on the bones for copyeditors. The caveats are to not take overboard, and to not take personal. A RL friend once told me "Don't think too much", which helped me alot! Relax, take care, enjoy editing. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A little technical advice about ANI. The links you (ISN) gave, which were supposed to be diffs, were instead links to versions of the article.  To get a link to a diff, first show the diff by viewing the history, finding the before and after versions, and hitting the "Compare selected versions" button; then copy the URL that is displayed by your browser.


 * A little non-technical advice. The style that people generally adhere to in describing reverts is what I would call "brusque".  It's OK to be brusque on Wikipedia because (1) everybody does it, and (2) WP:BRD makes it difficult to be otherwise.  Expect this, and don't read disrespect into it.  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)