User talk:Quale/Archive 1

James Mortimer
Got any more details on the history of the Mortimer Trap / Mortimer Defence? Who is this chess-playing James Mortimer you credit? User:Jethero a.k.a James Mortimer
 * Thanks for the info on the chess player James Mortimer! JetheroTalk 17:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your correction about the career life of Philidor! User:Yiuchung

Another opening on vfd
Hi, If you are intersted in vfd-debates on chess openings, I have submitted another "opening" to the vfd debate. This time it was the Napoleon Gambit.

Also on the chess openings article, you are quite right that 1.e4 e5 2.c3 was not the Ponziani. It was called the "Lopez Opening", and it is now corrected.

Sjakkalle 12:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I looked at the Napoleon Gambit and the article is pretty messed up.  I didn't know that it is a variation of the Scotch, but I agree with you that it should be a redirect to Scotch Game.  I have a monograph (not current) on the Scotch, but naturally I misplaced it in the last week or so.  I should be able to track it down in an hour (or a day) and when I find it I'll take a look and vote on vfd probably for redirect.  Quale

Frederick R July 5, 2005 10:17 a.m. (sorry, don't know how to do the timestamp thing) Your reference to the "Napoleon Gambit" as an "opening" is warranted. In over 30 years as a serious student of the game, I had never heard of this "opening." Nor, incidentally, is it logical for either side. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 Nxd4? 4.Nxd4 exd4, simply 5.Qxd4 gives White a big plus, so there is no need to play the gambit (5.Bc4). Since 5.Qxd4 is so strong, no good player would ever dream of playing 3...Nxd4. I am sure a database search would confirm that 3...Nxd4 is only seen from also-rans at the Girls under-12 championships and such. A little-known (at best) line that constitutes an inferior response to a weak move that is never played by good players hardly deserves to be recognized as an "opening."

Possible Pattern for Chess Opening Articles
Due to the fine work of Sjakkalle, Neilc, and others, the chess opening page and the individual openings pages are really getting a lot better. The individual opening pages still vary greatly in quality, but we can improve the weak ones.

An example of one that I think is really good is French Defence, and it would be great to have articles that good for all the major openings. Camembert did a great job with it. It's structured like this: I would move the list of variations earlier in the article, maybe make it #3 or #4. One thing this would help address is urge to create hundreds or thousands of articles on insignificant fringe variations as these could simply redirect to the article on the main opening. --Quale 05:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Moves that comprise the opening
 * 2) History, including how it was named and well-known players who have adopted it
 * 3) Typical pawn structures and strategic themes
 * 4) Discussion of important variations
 * 5) List of ECO codes, including all the variations

Adding the Larsen-Spassky game?
If we add the Larsen-Spassky game it should probably be under the Boris Spassky article. In general I am a bit sceptical to adding a lot chess games to the encyclopedia since people interested in seeing them will probably use another website (such as ChessBase's online database or www.chessgames.com, rather than Wikipedia. An external link is probably a better option, if you take a look at the Spassky article you can see a link to www.chessgames.com which has that game and allows users to play through it on screen.

Some games are of course notable enough to receive their own article such as the Immortal Game, I myself made (a rather poor) one on the 19-move demolition of Kasparov by Deep Blue in 1997.

At any rate, Thank you for your excellent work on the chess openings articles.

Sjakkalle 13:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that too many games would be improper. I have a fondness for miniatures, but it probably is best to use external links for most game scores.  The external sites can offer the nice java players and annotations that we aren't really competent to do.


 * On a somewhat different note, I'd like to add pages for the well known opening traps, basically the named ones like the Tarrasch Trap, Noah's Ark, etc. There are only a handful of these that are noteworthy enough to deserve articles. Quale 19:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge wars
You could always nominate it for deletion, again. The article hasn't been expanded since the last time it was nominated. --Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I considered it, but my initial feeling is that I should give it more time.  Political science isn't my field so it's certainly possible that "knowledge wars" is actually an established term, although I'm very skeptical about that.  What will actually happen is that I will forget about it.  My guess is that even if it went through another VfD, inclusionists would vote to keep anyway.  Quale 16:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sharyn Clough VFD
Hey, Quale... I've rewritten the article on Sharyn_clough, and I'm wondering if you'd consider taking a look at the rewrite and reconsidering your vote for deletion. Best wishes, --Jacobw 15:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Since Sharyn Clough is still in, I guess the Wikipedia community doesn't set the bar too high on what merits inclusion (as I've already seen with chess openings). Someone gets a Ph.D., and has been an assistant professor at Oregon State for two years -- whoop di doo. If that's good enough to get in, then I suppose anyone with a doctorate should be in Wikipedia. I have a J.D. from Columbia -- is that good enough? My wife and aunt are FULL professors -- heaven knows why they aren't in. Frederick R July 5, 2005

Pay less books
I hope you didn't take my comments seriously. My sarcasm was aimed at those who think that all schools are automatically notable even though the articles say nothing. RickK 07:38, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have made it clear that I got that. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't think schools are automatically notable either.  I'm saying that a lot lately, although I don't think it does much good.  Quale 15:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Continuum calculator
Hello Quale, thanks much for discussing the article. Since I am interested to keep the article I have overworked it a bit and I have added an explanation to the vote list. I would be glad if you had another look. Thanks. -- Karsten88 15:23, 21 May 2005 (CEST)


 * Thanks for asking me to take another look. The work you did on the article looks nice, but unfortunately I can't change my delete vote for reasons I noted on the VfD page.  If the article could show where the original journal publication of the theory was cited in other journal articles or how other researchers have investigated these ideas it would greatly help. Quale 22:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Your contribution to the discussion helped me a great deal to come to the awareness of an appropriate relevance of the topic. I have again overworked the article to point out the low relevance in the field of AI. I hope the reader will now get the correct view of what's important. Thanks again. -- Karsten88 22:27, 22 May 2005 (CEST)

Votes for Deletion
Hi again, Quale!

No worries, I have voted delete on the Blitzkrieg (chess strategy) article. It was no more a chess term than Simon Webb's heffalumps, rabbits and tigers. I have noted that the bar for notability on chess articles has been set very low with the inclusion of Hippopotamus Defence but we don't need articles on non-existent chess terms.

You might want to take a look at the Sam Slocum VfD again, since I think he invented the stapler. Sjakkalle 06:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found out that he actually didn't, but it is no longer one sentence, and it is not a hoax. Sjakkalle 08:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Super work.  I changed my vote to keep.  Quale 16:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, and for kind words. Sjakkalle 06:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Childlike mentality VfD
I don't want to "campaign" for this article, especially since I think I was actually the first one to throw a stink about it, but I think that through working with User:Cwolfsheep, the article has been sufficiently altered (by which I mean pared away of its POV), to warrant a reconsideration of your vote (and possibly the speedy removal of the VfD tag). Please review the article, as well as the discussion on the VfD page and on Cwolfsheep's user and talk pages in the process. Tomer TALK 23:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Cambridge springs gambit
Can you take a look at this article? On one hand I recognize this trap in the Queen's Gambit as a very common and notable one, one which has ensnared thousands of players. On the other hand it seems to be terribly misnamed, since this is not the Cambridge Springs, nor does a cheapo constitute a "gambit". Do you know the proper name for this trap? Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm stumped trying to come up with a name for this. It is a very common and important trap in the QGD.  As you note, isn't the Cambridge Springs, nor is it a gambit, so the current article name isn't appropriate.  There is a reference listed, but since I don't have the book I can't readily check it.  I'll continue to look because it would be great to keep this as an article if we could find the proper name for it.  BTW, thanks for creatign Légal Trap and adding it to Category:Chess traps.  It's very nicely done.  Obviously there are hundreds of traps but only a dozen or two are notable enough for articles.  The biggest problem is finding appropriate names, as with this one.  Quale 00:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the best reference I could find. Apparently it's called the Elephant Trap on www.chessgames.com (see the very bottom of the page for the elephant name).  I couldn't find any other references using this name, but they do have a game score featuring the trap: Mayet-Harrwitz, Berlin 1848.  I shouldn't have flat out said this isn't the Cambridge Springs Defense, since 4...Nd7 is a preliminary move in the CSD.  Of course the defining move is usually considered to be 6...Qa5 and this trap never gets that far.  There is another family Cambridge Springs trap after 6...Qa5 7.Bd3? Ne4!, but I don't have a good name for that one either. Quale 03:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have moved the article to Elephant Trap. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind words about my work on chess articles. Frederick R

Parham Attack
Wow. You really went to town on my silly article on the Parham Attack! Very scholarly. I'm impressed! Frederick R 6 July 2005

btw, around 25 years ago Bernard Parham was a player in a tournament in Chicago that I was directing. He was of course playing 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 and such. I asked him if he knew Black's worst response to 2.Qh5. He nominated 2...Qh4?? I pointed out 2...Ke7 3.Qxe5#. I had realized this by analogy to a game in Irving Chernev's Wonders and Curiosities of Chess. Chernev mentioned a game circa 1860 or so that had gone 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5. Now White wanted to play 3.Nc3. Unfortunately, he plopped his bishop on that square instead. Under the custom of the day, having played an illegal move, he had to move his king instead. . . . Frederick R 6 July 2005


 * I like that interesting observation in the article. At first I didn't see the point of mentioning what would happen after a nonsensical move like 2...Ke7??, but 3.Qxe5# is a pretty mate.  I had forgotten about the old rule requiring a king move after an illegal move.  There's a story that someone once tried to take advantage of that by intentionally sealing an illegal move at adjournment, so he could analyze at leisure which of several plausible king moves was the best. This doesn't seem likely to me since I thought the rules always said that a player sealing an illegal move forfeits. Quale 7 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)

What's the world coming to? I would have thought that "1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 is weak" was surely a true statement -- although admittedly I never saw any crushing refutation of it. Now it seems that Nakamura and Ree think it is a perfectly reasonable opening, and that Kramnik once prepared it to play in a blitz game against Kasparov. What next -- GM's start playing Grob's Attack?! By the way, I confess I just made up the name "Parham Attack"; I figured it was at least as legitimate a name as "Napoleon's Opening." After you revised my article, I looked on the Internet myself and found that others had previously called 2.Qh5 the Parham Attack. A natural enough name for anyone familiar with Parham, I suppose.

As to the illegal-move-sealing incident, the story I heard is that once Rubinstein was playing an ending, was on the verge of a win, and had to seal a move. It was obvious that one of two king moves was correct, and should win, but he wasn't sure which one. Under the rules used at that tournament, if a player sealed an illegal move, the other player could (a) let him play the illegal move, (b) make him play a legal move with that piece or (c) make him play a legal move with his king. Rubinstein sealed something like Ke3-g7!! plopping his king right into the base of the opponent's pawn chain, and thus winning immediately if the opponent selected option a. If the opponent selected option b or c, then Rubinstein could play the correct move that he'd worked out at home. You're right that the rule today is that sealing an illegal move is an automatic loss. Frederick R 6 July 2005

Doppelgangers, VFD, and adminship?
I see you left a note on Frederick R's talkpage referring to me as "Sjakkale". I have two "l"s in my username. Thanks for spotting that one however, because now... Incidentally, as a precaution, I think you might want to create an account, User:QuaIe (there is a capital "I" there instead of a little "L") so that this username is under your control and not some future imposter (see Doppelganger account). As long as you have control (i.e. the password) over that account there will be no need to block it.
 * 09:10, 7 July 2005 Sjakkalle blocked "User:Sjakkale" with an expiry time of indefinite (This is a doppleganger account I did not create, impersonation)

As for my VFD views, you are right that my views are more inclusionist than your views and fancruft is one thing which I have a liberal attitude towards (probably in part because the first article I created as an anon was nominated for deletion as fancruft...) However I have avoided branding myself as "inclusionist" or "mergist" for two reasons. First, because I vote based on the article and the subjects, and second because I feel that such sorting into two camps leads to more factionalism. I have seen people oppose candidates for adminship because they are too deletionist or too inclusionist, and frankly, this is a reasoning I fail to comprehend.

One final question, you have done a great deal of excellent work on articles, and you also seem to have a pretty firm understanding of policy. I would be more than happy to file a request for adminship for you, how about it? Sjakkalle (Check!)  7 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm just getting soft, but I am starting to have a little more sympathy for inclusionism than I had. (Actually more sympathy for the intermediate position that you and a few others on VfD have.) Since I've only been thinking aobut this for a few months, I'll have to see where I end up on this.


 * Oops, sorry about the typo in your user name. Misspelling someone's name, even a user name, is careless and rude. Also, thanks for the doppleganger warning and thanks for the adminship consideration.  I'll think about it, although right now I think I will probably wait.  I've only been contributing to wikipedia for a few months, and I think it would be best to see if I'm still active a few months from now.  I'm sure that having an admin who reduces his participation isn't the most horrible thing that could ever happen, but waiting shouldn't hurt either.  I'd also like to work to refine my interaction with others to be a little softer.  I'm certainly not Wikipedia's greatest ogre, but I think sometimes I should express myself in a more patient way. I will ask you about it in the future if I think I'm ready. Quale 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, if you want to wait with an adminship nomination that's OK. BTW, I don't care too much about whether or not my username gets misspelled sometimes, and putting the impostor accounts out of business is worthwile anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!)  8 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not really prepared right now to succeed or to fail at an attempt at becoming an admin.  Since I'm not ready for either possibility, I'm simply not ready. Quale 9 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)

Irrelevancy
Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! *Just* when I was going to edit Larry Christiansen so Sämisch KID pointed to KID, you did it... freaky...


 * Well, I was too lazy to fix the spelling of Saemisch to Sämisch, so you can still do that if you like. The fun thing about wikipedia is that there's always work to be done.... Quale 00:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Too late, suckas! :-) I already edited King's Indian and Larry Christiansen to change references in both to "Sämisch," and to link the former article to the latter. Krakatoa 00:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Glass plate university
Hi Quale. You quite correctly pointed out that I was unable to reference my assertion regarding the existence of this terminology in Votes for deletion/Glass plate university. I've managed to dig out some references; I wonder if I could persuade to go and look at the references (you'll need to engage the search-text function in whatever browser you use) and see if you think they are enough. One of them in particular is a published conference paper. -Splash 00:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. Yeah, I saw that talk-page comment. Renaming seems the thing to do though I think I've heard that terminology even less often than the still-obscure "glass plate".-Splash 18:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Poisoned pawn
Good catch on the Fischer article: I didn't mean to imply that Fischer invented the variation, or that Fischer had played it first. But I think it's important that the reader understand the reason Fischer was successful was that he had found concrete analysis that justified the variation. I'm going to try to come up with a better way to say this.

I'm also planning to re-add some stuff from the old Bobby Fischer (biography) article before sending Bobby Fischer up to FAC. I'd appreciate any further time you could spend looking at this article to help me improve it; in parituclar, I think we need to expand the lead. --Malathion 06:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

All right, I think Bobby Fischer is just about ready for FAC. However since I already have another article nominated, I think it would be bad form for me to nominate it myself. Would you like to nominate it? --malathion talk 06:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Blackburne Shilling Gambit/Giuoco Piano
Under Category:chess traps, you've classified the Blackburne Shilling Gambit under Giuoco Piano. I'm not sure that that's right. The Giuoco Piano and chess opening articles both define that opening as beginning 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, which is how I've always understood it and seen it described. The B.S.G. diverges with 3...Nd4?!, so it's not a Giuoco Piano under the above definition. I wouldn't be averse to grouping the B.S.G. under the Italian Game. I believe Harding in his old (1970's?) book "The Italian Game" considers 3.Bc4 to constitute the "Italian Game." Googling "Italian Game," some sources consider 3.Bc4 to define the Italian Game, while others consider 3.Bc4 Bc5 as necessary. However, the Giuoco Piano article says that "Italian Game" is synonymous with "Giuoco Piano." In conclusion, to put the B.S.G. under the heading of some other opening (the G.P. and/or the I.G.), it seems to me that we have to redefine the G.P. and/or the I.G. as beginning with 3.Bc4. My vote would be to redesignate the Italian Game that way and put the Blackburne Shilling Gambit under that heading. Krakatoa 16:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Nimzo-Indian
Don't you think the Nimzo-Indian article should instead be under "Nimzo-Indian Defense" or "Nimzo-Indian Defence"? People refer to it colloquially as "Nimzo-Indian," of course, but we ought to use the proper name in an encyclopedia. Krakatoa 15:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

About linebreaks...
On my talk page, you wrote:

''Please leave my edits alone unless you have corrections or additonal material to add. I'll put each sentence on its own line if I like. Thank you. Quale 16:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)''

I'd like to gently remind you that you do not own your Wikipedia articles, and therefore it is in your interest to make your articles most easily editable by a large number of people. If that means removing linebreaks then it should be done. I felt it was in the best interests of Wikipedia as a whole to remove them, therefore, I did. Also, I did more than just removing linebreaks, although my changes were admittedly minor. I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes for undeletion
You voted in the VfD for Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić. I believe that this article was deleted without a clear consensus, and have nominated the article for undeletion. If you would like to contribute to the VfU discussion, please follow the link above. Thanks for your time! Pburka 00:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

A quick tip about reverts/Nimzo-Indian
Hi Quale!

Sometimes it is worth checking the diffs to see if an outright revert is in order, or if making a normal edit undoing the erroneous edit while maintaining the valid ones is better. For instance on the Nimzo-Indian Defence, this revert reverted a number of legitimate edits as well.

Incidentally the "Normal Variation" is the one I wind up playing most often when I play the Rubinstein, either with White or Black. Perhaps the Hübner is not so popular among players with ratings below 1500... often a strong centre and bishop pair pointing at the Black king is more effective than a long-term strategic advantage from doubled pawns. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting point. The Nimzo-Indian article as written (in pertinent part by me) stated, as you know, that White "usually" avoids the Hübner with 5 or 6.Ne2. I changed it to "often" since "usually" may not be an accurate characterization (who knows?) of all chess games as opposed to high-level games. Obviously there are a lot more games between sub-1500's than games among GM's, IM's, and masters, but the latter games are (unsurprisingly) what one usually sees in databases. Krakatoa 20:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Von der Lasa
Thanks for your kind note about Baron von der Lasa. I am not a devotee of chess, and probably can't do more than pick off the occasional target of opportunity.J S Ayer 04:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, translating a German article qualifies as a target of opportunity. Perhaps next week? since it's already tomorrow...J S Ayer 04:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What I meant about not being a devotee of chess is that I have other interests besides. There's a lot of material there, about individual and club championships; don't hold your breath. Besides, I would have to learn to build tables. On the other hand, I did learn COBOL, long ago...J S Ayer 14:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Am working on German chess championship, but it will be a while. J S Ayer

I seem to have drifted away from this, and am not sure when I will be able to do much more. J S Ayer 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

APA reference templates
Hi there,

Thanks for your conscientious efforts to provide adequate citations to chess articles. I see you recently converted my MLA citations in the main chess article to APA style using the book reference template. Since you obviously see the importance of quality citations in Wikipedia, I felt this revision deserved special consideration.

While I myself make great efforts to improve articles' citations, in this case I believe article source templates are undesirable since none of their current technical specifications account for certain important citation components, such as the edition or printing.

Please note that a book's edition is not part of the title. In MLA style, the edition is separated from the title with a full stop, and the edition is not italicized; abbreviations (ed. vs. Edition) are optional. In APA style, we cite the edition parenthetically, the full top comes after the close-paren, and&mdash;once again&mdash;the edition is not italicized.

Another problem with the book reference templates is that they cannot accommodate full, inline citations for reprinted or republished works:


 * APA Format: Reprinted or Republished Book
 * MLA Format: Reprinted or Republished Book

Some people prefer the MLA's hanging-indent method of citing reprinted/republished works since it allows for a full citation of each printing/publication. In this method, we isolate each printing:


 * Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld. The Oxford Companion to Chess. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 1992. ISBN 0198661649
 * Reprint: 1996. ISBN 0192800493

If the publisher of the reprint differed from that of the original impression, that information would also appear on the reprint line in standard format. Also note that the wikified year of the reprint does not appear in parentheses, and that this style of reprint citation is (to the best of my knowledge) an MLA convention, not an APA convention. It is undesirable to mix citation styles, as appears to be the case in the sample below; the reprint line does not adhere to any codified standard:


 * Hooper, David and Kenneth Whyld&#32;(1992). The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198661649.
 * Reprint: (1996) ISBN 0192800493

There are lots of excellent reasons to use templates, but in the case of citations, one must consider whether it isn't counterproductive. See also Wikipedia's style policy on source citation. Thanks again for all of your contributions and your commitment to quality! &mdash; Ringbang 15:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Passing thought
The news anchor I nominated to AfD Articles for deletion/Robb Hanrahan looks like it will be kept and since you were the only other person to vote delete I thought I'd point that the bar seems far too low here. Someone should have a go at the audience of 5, 000 thing; it ought to be at least an order of magnitude greater. What about weather people? Or newspaper headline writers? You could justify all sorts of BS bios. Marskell 09:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "What specific accomplishments does this individual have that are encyclopedically noteworthy?" Nothing, which is exactly the point. People seem to confuse exposure with accomplishment. Yesterday I posted a keep here which seems to be headed for deletion and I was struck by the contrast. Fine, just a postdoctoral fellow but she's done something quite notable while your average news anchor just reads sheets handed to him. Maybe I'll post a talk point at WP:BIO. Marskell 09:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Lake Ridge Academy
Hello Quale, In your delete vote you called this a primary school. It's actually K-12, someone is sure to kick a fuss. brenneman (t) (c) 01:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Your input is requested
at Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again). — Phil Welch 23:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Articles for deletion/Maltese Nobility as per Charles Gauci's reply which was excellent 11:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC).

Something a little less serious...
I know this is hardly of earth-shattering importance, but did you know that your username, Quale, is a term of huge research in philosophy? Specifically, Quale, plural Qualia, are "feelings" that are non-physical and are associated with sensing (eg the difference between seeing colour as wavelengths of light and knowing what colour is). As such, they are of great importance in the Philosophy of mind. You might want to check them out! If you already knew all this, sorry, but I came across your name somewhere and just had to point this out to you! Batmanand 19:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the common Norwegian spelling for "Quale" is "Kvale". In either case the "e" is pronounced in Norwegian. According to this page hosted by the Norwegian statistics bureau, there are 44 people in Norway named Quale and 494 named Kvale. The letter "Q" is extremely rare in the Norwegian language, it is only names and some borrowed words from other languages which use it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Lakewood Blvd. Or one of them...
I just wanted to thank you for your list of Lakewood Blvds. I get those sort of fits of researching too, and it was quite amusing to see all of them. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Pedro Damiano
No problems. Most of the internet sources that are not mirrors of wikipedia say Pedro Damiano was born in 1480, like this one, but this magazine isn't certain like the Oxford Companion to Chess. I have no problem either way, even if it has to be something like category:1480s births. I don't know much about chess. I just found the article on a wikipedia search for "Portugese", and attempted to clean it up and move it to its correct title. Graham 11:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Sicilian

 * No problem. Regarding the Argentinian Variation played in Gothenburg, I don't know if that truly deserves its own article either (a variation of a variation of an opening), especially when we have the article Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. It's a fascinating story, and one which definitely deserves mention though.
 * On a related note for what deserves and does not deserve articles, where do you think the line should go for players? I definitely think that all GMs and WGMs deserve articles, and I have no qualms about making articles on them if I can find some sources. I also think that national chess champions usually deserve articles (if we have articles about every Premier League team in football (soccer in the US), even those who aren't national champions, I don't see why we shouldn't have articles on every chess champion. IMs are a bit more borderline, if such an article wound up on AFD I don't know what I would vote, but I don't think I would set about making articles on people whose chief claim to notability is being an IM.
 * Sorry, but I have to log out now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Age progression
Your edit summary ("replace poor article with a better stub") was an understatement. It looks so much better now. Joyous (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA
We havent spoken before, but Ive been reviewing your work, and I see some valuable edits, and civility in you behaviour. Would you like me to nominate you to become an Administrator? →Jo urna list >>talk<<  22:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Im gonna go ahead and nominate you. Please go to Request for adminship, and accept or decline the nomination OK? →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, Ive nominated you for adminship. Please go to Requests for adminship/Quale to eithe oppose the nomination, or accept it and answer the questions. →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  23:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Quale, you have at the moment three support votes and I would be delighted to add the fourth, but you need to accept the nomination for it to be valid. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't wish to be an admin that is perfectly understandable, adminship does put you in the line of fire for more attacks and more conflicts. You are entitled to go to your RFA and decline the nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Im glad you finally decided to answer :). Its understandable that you wanted to reconsider, but what bothered me was that you didnt tell me you were reconsidering so that I know I wasnt just being ignored :. Anyway, no harm done. Continue to be a consistent editor. By the way, Adminship is really not a big deal; its quite fun. I just turned one on Oct 1, and its very exciting. →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Al Majdal
Whether it was added after I looked at it, or simply that I'm blind, I did not realize that the article actually was part of Ashkelon after all. I have re-redirected it. My apologies for my apparent blindness. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 03:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com
Hi. You voted to delete Systemwars.com and it was deleted. However, Tony Sidaway has decided that your vote and the consensus that agreed with you was insufficient. He has recreated the article in violation of policy and relisted it for deletion at Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Please take a look. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Schools
Thanks for your feedback. Sometimes I feel like I am alone in seeing that these articles are devoid of content. Denni &#9775; 00:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyvios
Translation is not a red herring. The fact is, for most encyclopedic articles, a free translation should be enough to remove copyright difficulties. This would not be true for exceptionally long or exceptionally "creative" articles; but, this being an encyclopedia, one should think that the latter would be few in number. I maintain that my advice was sound (although not exhaustive) because it would apply to a large majority of the articles here. I would not post such advice at alt.novels discussion groups, though. I feel your understanding of copyrights is overly formalistic, and this devotion to formalism has injected mild hostility into your tone. Have you ever had courtroom experience with them? I've clerked for a federal judge, so I do have some experience in this regard. Practically, ask two questions when evaluating these things: "Would a reasonable copyright holder recognize this example as infringement of his/her own works in this instance?" and "Would a reasonable court grant relief?" For a large majority of encyclopedic articles (which are normally factual, not creative), a free translation negates each of these concerns. Copyrights are not staid abstractions; they are a practical means for the control of creative work -- they do not apply to information in and of itself.

While I am very busy, if you will forward to me any shorter encyclopedic suspected copyvios in French, I assure that I can manage a free translation of them, such that I'll gladly indemnify and hold harmless Wikimedia against any claims. In a way, you see, this is a wager, on my part, regarding the soundness of my advice. I'd extend the offer further, but I am no polyglot. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)  PS. Since you are an exacting fellow, I'll advise you that your talk page is receiving the standard warning regarding length.

Monticelli Trap
Thanks for the kind word for the Monticelli Trap article. I actually found this trap originally in Chessmaster 10's opening reference guide. I usually go to Wikipedia's excellent chess articles to get a better explanation of the mechanics - and found that one was missing - so I thought I might as well add it. I didn't realize there was such a knowledge base out there on opening traps, so you've got me intrigued. Always nice to have a good arsenal of traps in those games against cocky friends ;).

List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess
Hi Quale! This deletion debate might interest you, I am not sure about the validity of this subject, but your thoughts on the matter would be nice. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Q15X25
First, how the heck did you stumble across Q15X25? Since you slapped the on there, would you mind taking a look and see if you think it's still true? I cleaned it up some, though it still needs work. I know nothing of the mode myself, so I need to learn a bit more about it before I <S>mess it up</S> edit it some more. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Delighted
Hi Quale! Delighted to see you editing again! Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

hi
thx for editing the banikas article! im new to wikipedia- id like to contribute to biographies of chess players. do you know how i could join the chess portal?best--Greece666 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"probability theorists"?
Why are you using this term in the name of a category when everyone else uses the standard term "probabilists", and that's where people would normally look? Michael Hardy 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

MCO
Thank you for the great work on the MCO article. I had done what I could do based on used copies available on the internet, but I didn't have any good source of information. Bubba73 (talk), 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about links to ChessWorld.net at WikiProject Chess
Hi Quale, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess - you are welcomed to contribute. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cocktails
Hello. I noticed that you have been tagging a lot of the WikiProject Cocktails-related articles with a variety of Wikipedia tags (unreferenced, AfD, etc.). I appreciate your dedication to cleaning up those pages, but it's actually becoming very counter-productive to helping the Project do its work.

If you have read the AfD discussion under the Backdraft (drink) or noticed the talk pages on several of these articles, you should be aware that the Project is making a major effort to clean up the mess that exisists in the Cocktail-space. Our goal is to complete the work by March 1, 2007. Unfortunately, having articles be nominated for deletion (or otherwise put under non-Project scrutiny) keeps me policing the XFD areas and checking for attacks against the various articles instead of spending that time on actually improving the articles. It's highly frustrating.

Since you seem very interested in the topic, I would like to offer you a personal invitation to join the Project and help us fix the problem rather than doing the opposite.

If you do not care to join the Project, I can understand. You're probably a pretty busy person, just like I am. What you could do that would help us is to tag bad articles as follows:

<tt> </tt> for cocktail-related stubs (this includes mixed drinks, non-alcoholic mixed drinks, shots, mixers, spirits, etc.). You may delete any generic or drink stubs you find and replace them with the project stubs. Please document your thoughts on the Talk page of the article. Alternatively, if you find the article to be nothing but a recipe (and yes, I'm very aware of WP:NOT), take whatever useful information there is, compare it with the drink's entry at List of cocktails, add anything missing, and then note the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cocktails/Stubs to Delete. That is the master list we will be using to request a massive purging of all substandard articles when the Cleanup Project is complete.

<tt> </tt> for cocktail-related articles that are better than stubs, but still need work. That could include adding references, removing POV, expansion of the article to include more info, general re-write of the article, or whatever you think it needs. Please either document your thoughts on the Talk page of the article, or (what would help the most) is document it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cocktails/Stubs to Improve. This list serves as the to-do list from which Project members should work.

Even if you do not add the pages you find to the lists, by tagging articles with the Project's stub and expand tags, the articles will be added to two categories that serve as a double-check to make sure we get through all the pages.

As you can see, this is a well thought-out and earnest attempt to improve a large section of Wikipedia. It is not just someone attempting to keep a favorite page intact. To be honest, I don't even know why I am involved. I rarely drink, let alone fancy bar cocktails. I just want to see these pages brought up to a consistent level of quality. As a final indication of my sincerity in improving these pages (and a final plea for your assistance in refraining from tagging bad articles in ways that could lead to premature deletions and extra work for me), look at the diff between List of cocktails before and after I started the cleanup.

It has been a lot of work, and it is really only the beginning. If you know anyone else who might have an interest in improving these pages, ask them to consider joining the WikiProject Cocktails, too. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and also hopefully to help in small ways or large. Have a great day. --Willscrlt 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You have a spam-filter-banned URL somewhere within your talk page that makes it a real bear to try to save a new comment. You might want to track it down so less experienced Wikipedians can leave you messages without having to hand-tweak URLs to get to an edit page (or just add which has an "add new comment" link in it). --Willscrlt 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son
Thanks for catching and reporting that typo. I'd inadvertently introduced it while reverting my move to Nguyễn Ngọc Trường Sơn. Hopefully it will be fixed shortly. -SpuriousQ 03:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Shots/Shooters
Well. I did it. :-) Mixed drink shooters and drink shots and Category:Mixed drink shooters and drink shots. I know we had both given up hope on ever seeing that article in an acceptable state, but I think I've pulled it off. How about you? It's only one of the multiple new pages I created in the last 18 hours or so. You are an admin, right? Can you move Category:Cocktail mixers to Category:Drink mixers? Or how do I go about doing that? I've got red links up, and short of retagging each article, I'm not sure how to go about that. Thanks! Bedtime now. --Willscrlt 14:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * New pages
 * Beer mixes
 * Cocktail garnishes
 * Drink mixers
 * Flaming beverages
 * Non-alcoholic mixed drinks
 * Massively improved pages
 * List of cocktails
 * Mixed drink shooters and drink shots
 * Still to do
 * Drinkware
 * Wine mix
 * Note: I've fixed this now. --<font color="#C71585" face="Tahoma">Willscrlt (<font color="#4169E1" face="Tahoma">Talk|Cntrb ) 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cocktails
Hello. As a person interested in cocktails and/or the WikiProject Cocktails, you may be interested to know that a name change is being considered for the WikiProject from Cocktails to Mixed Drinks. Please add your opinions to the discussion and vote. Also, check out the recent changes to the WikiProject area. Consider becoming an active Participant. Thanks! --Willscrlt 09:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

High-class/High-status
I see that this has been a subtle edit war for quite some time. The sources that are cited show that Colbert has used both adjectives so neither is truly wrong (high status idiot:, high class idiot: ). I don't know how this could be dealt with to stop this but neither is wrong unless either NYT or MSNBC is wrong. Gdo01 17:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RFM Sicilian Defence
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Sicilian Defence, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. FrozenPurpleCube 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:TEMPLAR? Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Konstantinopolsky Opening
I saw the change you made to Konstantinopolsky Opening. I thought that these openings should be listed in the opening stubs category and not openings category, since the opening stubs categoty is a sub-category of the bigger category. However, I didn't know about {chess-opening-stub}, which also lists it in the opening stub category. As I think about it, that is probably the best thing to do with these articles - put them in the openings cat and add the openings-stub tag.

Most of them are in the opening stubs category, some are in both. The opening stubs category was up for deletion a few months ago. I think what you did to this article is a better solution. Do you want to propose to the project that we do it on all of the opening stubs, or just go ahead and do it? Bubba73 (talk), 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I could tell, there were only one or two more like that. Now they all seem to be in the Chess Openings Cat directly, and some are tagged with chess-opening-stub.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Category:Chess players by nationality
I'm not sure that is a good idea because I don't know the nationality of a lot of players. For instance, if I was looking for Gligoric, I wouldn't know what contry to look under. Bubba73 (talk), 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chess and chemistry
Hi, regarding Manticore's edits to chemistry related articles, I'll recommend that you stay off those while the disputes on the chess-related articles are ongoing. This is not because I think that your reversions of the tagging were wrong, indeed I agree with them fully. It is in part because the chemistry editors seem more than capable of handling the situation. More importantly, if the current dispute with Manticore winds up on arbitration, (which I really hope it won't, although I have never been party to an arbitration requests, but I have participated in a few, and that process is the true Wiki-Hell on Wikipedia) it is not worth giving ammo to anyone who would try to accuse you of stalking. At some point the fires at the chemistry lab and the chess club might conflagrate, but that time, if ever, is not yet. I have had troubles in adhering to the assume good faith guideline in the chess disputes the past week on this issue as well, and my good faith assumptions are eroding by the hour. At this point, one should do nothing which might be used against onseself.

Incidentally, the reason I withdrew my pledge to accept the Sicilian mediation if the others did was that I felt the NPA accusations were getting too spurious for me to believe that mediation had any hope of succeeding. (Putting a NPA warning template on an experienced contributor who one is in a dispute with is a very rude thing to do, and that was the final straw for me.) I hope the others who accepted mediation are not too angry with me about that. Putting up a complaint about you on the admin's noticeboard without informing you is not so good either.

But nonetheless, it's been great seeing you at work with the chess articles again! Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw your replies to Sjakkalle - just wanted to point out that unleashing M.M on the orgo group was actually my fault. And yeah, I do feel bad about it. Pity that some well-meaning folks (I think) can be such difficult people. At least some good's coming out of it - among other things, we've emptied Category:ECO codes, should we nominate it for deletion now? youngvalter 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * From a chess fan - good work! :) 129.98.212.51 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

CfD
FYI, I've nominated Category:ECO codes for CfD. youngvalter 19:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)