User talk:Sjakkalle/January-June 2007

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. If you wish to make a personal attack against me it will stay for everyone to see. Someone else will judge whether an attack says more about you or about me however.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses.
 * If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage.
 * I do not respond to every message (most notably RFA thank you notices), although I normally reply to requests and questions. Sometimes I am unable or do not have the time to do so (or I see that the problem has already been fixed). If I don't respond to your posting, please forgive me.

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/March and April 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/May and June 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/July and August 2005


 * User talk:Sjakkalle/September and October 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/November and December 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/January and February 2006
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/March, April and May 2006
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/June, July and August 2006
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/September, October, November and December 2006

Note that I am not an administrator, although I used to be one until November 2006, and will therefore be unable to aid in any business which requires such tools. There may be a cases where you have a complaint about an admin action I made previously, if this is so just post it here and we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Roa Station
Couldn't we merge Roa Station to Roa, Norway? Punkmorten 12:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I created this station article was because I was busy filling Wikipedia with Oslo T-bane-cruft and noticed there was another user following behind making (very good) redirects for all stations which happened to have an "Ø" in the name. But when I created Røa (station), I did not want Roa (station) to redirect there since it would be misleading. So what else was there than to create an article where that redirect should point? In any case I consider Roa, Norway to be a station town, where the railway station is the most significant feature of the community, so I think merging this is a good idea which I'll support. Feel free to do it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR - courtesy note
Hiya,

I've updated that section of 3RR - see Talk:3RR#Update to vandalism section. I have done this because I think a few wording changes solve the confusion and also avoids the concern raised over WP:BEANS and also your observation about new user edits.

Thanks for the input. I think this solves the problem but doesn't raise new ones, enough to edit 3RR directly.

Can you review and comment? Thanks. FT2 (Talk 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the debate on the relevant page since your modifications. To me, I am not too concerned about whether newbie testing is listed as an exception or not, because I cannot think of a single admin who would rules-lawyer over that when it comes to applying the 3RR. (I lost a great example of good use for WP:IAR when the exceptions section was expanded to include "non-controversial maintenance", such as clearing WP:AIV of entries).
 * The 3RR is a rule which has problems, in my view, because it can put paid to efforts of removing fairly obvious pushing of a certain bias. I am also deeply unenthused about the situation where "A adds something, B reverts, A readds, B re-reverts, A readds, B re-reverts, A readds, B re-reverts, A reports B for 3RR violation". Technically only B has violated the 3RR, but I cannot say that A has behaved any better. The dilemma is, without the 3RR we no longer have a predictable and immediate remedy for edit warring. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot
I was a bit suprised to see your support of this, particularly when I had blipped over it at first and was in fact coming here to ask if you thought it was a good idea. (Did that make any sense?)

Geogre raised your name as a good sanity-checker, so here goes: I'm weighing up the philosophical objections to admin bots and security through obscurity, adding the practical concerns about Wikimedia extensions which are supposed to be written soon, throwing in a little bit of "what's the deal with these admin bot requests all the sudden," and flavouring with not liking the 10K words hasseling oppose voters. Vs. main page vandalism, of course.

So, sanity checker: Grey enough area that it's just fine that you and I are split on the S\O thing, or am I just wrong?

brenneman 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I see that the request has been withdrawn by Dragons Flight, but I can still give a response on my opinions regarding such bots.
 * In general my attitude towards giving bots admin tools is one of scepticism, but I will not blindly oppose the idea without considering the facts. The admin tools are not given away to everyone like the edit tools are for good reason. The powers to block, delete and protect can be extremely disruptive if given to the wrong users, because they can be difficult to monitor and reverse. In general, I would rank the "power" of each tools, from most heavy to lightest, as follows:
 * Blocking, because a person wrongly blocked is in trouble and pretty much at the mercy of other admins good will to get out of the situation. In addition, wrongfully blocked users can be quite upset and we wind up with a huge load of damage control. In my opinion, this tool should almost always be used by a person who is held accountable for each and every block made.
 * Deletion. Actually a pretty close second to blocking. Maybe it should rank ahead because a wrongfully deleted article can really bug and cause trouble to the readers, not just the editors. A second thing about deletion is that the circumstances around it are difficult to review by non-admins (one of the negative aspects I have noticed of giving up my admin buttons). Even so, a wrongly deleted page is an annoyance rather than a nasty predicament like a block is, and the person who feels wronged can immediately seek help without being at the mercy of other admins.
 * Protection is in my view the lightest of the tools. It does not really annoy most of our readers that much, the vast majority of them are not here to edit. (OK, when I say it "doesn't annoy the readers I should perhaps moderate myself and say that I fully agree with this rant when I say it "doesn't annoy our readers") Even so, protections are usually temporary, are still open to review by non-admins, and usually does not really lock the page entirely since changes can still be proposed and discussed on the relevant talk page. The effect of something wrongly protected is still only an annoyance, and a milder annoyance than what a wrongly deleted page leads to.
 * Now, only in extreme circumstances will I let an automaton be given access to the block button. The exception I have made (and mentioned) is the block bot of Curps which would block people who made ten page moves in under a minute, while always adding a note on the Admin's Noticeboard to please review and unblock if the block was in error. This is a powerful tool, and at times it did make a few false positives so I think we can also say the cost was a great one. But even so, it had a great benefit because it essentially killed off the page-move vandalism which cost us hours to clean up if the vandal was operational for a minute only. In the case of TawkerBotTorA, the benefit would be blocking Tor-nodes, and I felt that the benefit this time was much smaller. The risk of wrongly blocking IP-addresses did not outweigh the benefit of catching some potentially disruptive IPs, hence my opposition to that RFA.
 * Deletion bots are something which should only be used under supervision from an admin who is held accountable, I see that Cyde has a bot for clearing and getting rid of categories where the decision to delete has already been made by a human. This particular use is something I am not all to thrilled about (I cannot see the full benefit of having a bot do the work here) but as long as there has not been a malfunctioning I am not really going to complain about that.
 * Then we come to the bot in question now. The protection bot is aimed at catching vandalism to the featured article of the day. The problem here is a real one, a look at this discussion page shows in all clarity the trouble we have with maintaining the article during the hazing a main page feature is. I think that an article is in a vandalised state for about an hour wach day. In particular, vandalism to the images and templates is nasty because they stick out in the article, and even more, because fewer people have the images and templates watchlisted so it can be hard to spot. If for instance chess were the featured article of the day, I would hate to see all the black pawns on the chess diagram be replaced by black swastikas just because someone forgets to protect the diagram template and the images which go on them. In all probablility, featuring a page with vandalism on it will hurt Wikipedia's reputation as well. Therefore, measures which can prevent vandalism to the featured article of the day have a large benefit, and in this case I felt the corresponding cost was a small one. The cost is abandonment of the "no admin bots" principle and the slight risk of a wrongly protected image or template, which, as I said above, is merely a mild annoyance and can usually be quickly reversed manually. With that in mind, I supported the idea. Then the matter of source code... yes I see arguments on both sides here. We have questions on openness vs. security here. (That seems to bring up deja vu... I am sure that the conflict between openness and security has been brought up before... somewhere...) I thought a bit about it, then decided that since the responsible admin in question is known for good, responsible and careful conduct, I am not too worried about hiding the code in the interests of preventing a vandal getting their hands on code like that.
 * So while I generally do not want to have bots with admin tools, I feel that a principled "no to admin bots. period." approach is too rigid and prevents us from reaping some major benefits, in this case removal of front page and extremely high profile vandalism. I am very conservative with supporting bot-admins, but I feel that in this particular case the risks and costs were low compared to the benefit it would bring. With that said, I am glad to read on the RFA that an alternative function has been made as a substitute to this work and I hope that we can enjoy the same benefits from this feature will be as good as the benefits from the bot. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

 * Thanks for the trust you've put in me -- let's hope the tardiness of this note is among the least of my errors, so far! Luna Santin 12:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Article on WP:PNT
Hi. Zipal has been sitting on WP:PNT since December 27. Apparently it's in Norwegian. If you're not too busy could you possibly take a quick look at it and confirm or deny that it's a hoax? Thanks a lot! Tonywalton | Talk 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have prod-ed the article and put a lengthy explanation on the article's talkpage. That it is written in Norwegian is perhaps the smallest problem with that article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your help. I think I'll ask on the PNT talkpage why things are allowed to hang about for so long; the undefined template does say that untranslated articles will be deleted after 7 days... Thanks again! Tonywalton  | Talk 09:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Livingston Airline Destinations...
...is available at User:Sjakkalle/Livingston Airline Destinations. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose making a redirect is fine. I don't have a strong opinion either way.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent sources
I just speedied it under G7, main author request. I created it under a false assumption. My apologies. Steve block Talk 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Actually I understand the wish for sources to be independent very much. I just don't think that it is appropriate to demand that sources be independent for every statement because in some cases a non-independent source can be just as reliable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's back anyway. Apparently it depends which process you read as to which process can be followed, or something. Steve block Talk 16:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Congress
Would you be so kind as to go here and weigh in on the discussion? Thanks --Appraiser 15:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I too, see some merit in keeping both types of lists; my main concern at this point is which group of lists is linked to from the 10,000 -or-so past congress-members' articles.  I saw that you had asked to re-open the discussion, (which is fine), and I thought you might be interested in this discussion too.  But, anyway, sorry to have bothered you. --Appraiser 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Ethnic Chess Openings
In case you missed it, you may be interested in my comment. Pete.Hurd 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. I think valid criticisms were raised in areas that I need to work on, so I've withdrawn my name. I intend to work on addressing the concerns that were raised, and think I need to work contributing without allowing myself to become as stressed as I have been at times, which did result in some inappropriate behavior. Perhaps I may re-explore adminship at some point in the future, but it's a little early to consider that. Again, thank you. Fan-1967 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Dictators
Hi Sjakkalle!

A few weeks ago I found a red link in an article linking to a „List of Dictators“. I had recently read an article about some current dictators and their “exploits” and created a wiki article for it, citing the article which for every person on the list gave the reason why that person was considered a dictator. Today I returned to the article to see if somebody had expanded it and found it deleted. Now I don’t particularly mind the article being deleted, though I think protecting it against vandalism would have been enough, but reading the discussion page about the article’s deletion, I wondered what the criteria for deletion are. On that page there were eleven votes for KEEP and only 4 votes for DELETE, though the outcome was declared as delete. I followed a link to the “List of Modern dictators” and found it also deleted, although you stated in the head post that the result of the discussion was KEEP – with votes being 34 DELETE / 23 KEEP. Now I’ve been looking through the help sections, but I didn’t find the part to explain just how those votes are counted. Do administrators have several votes? Does the vote count at all or are the decisions made by the admins after reading the pros and cons? Thanks --Mirage GSM 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy answer! The link you sent me is not the article I created. I only entered those 20 dictators mentioned in the article I referenced, because I didn't have any sources for others ready. It seems like the article had already been deleted when I found it, and I accidentally recreated the deleted page. --Mirage GSM 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)
On the Wikipedia talk page for Wikipedia :Notability you expressed some opinions about whether things covered by news media should be entitled to Wikipedia articles for having met the criteria of multiple coverage in reliable independent sources I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news) looking at the question of whether "newsworty" equals "encyclopedic." Your input is welcome. Thanks. Edison 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I am planning to go ahead with it right now, but I'm still going to think more about it. I'm pretty aware of the things you're saying, but the fact is that the ArbCom restrictions won't expire for quite a long time, and one of the restrictions will, according to the ArbCom, never expire. Also, I am not that big of an AfD contributor in general these days, although I did vote on a whole slew of them yesterday and I'd like to stay more active about them. But thanks for your input, and if I do go through with the nom please post some of your supportive comments there to help me out, because I'm sure I'll need it. Everyking 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from a gray area of approximately 65-75%, I don't feel admins should be making judgment calls about the outcome, although I have no objection to them using their judgment to eliminate the votes of probable sockpuppets and brand new users. If there's some hugely significant point that the voters haven't considered, you might want to refrain from closing and instead take the opportunity to stress that point, perhaps even raising the issue on the talk pages of keep voters so that they'll be aware of it. If the participants ultimately decide to keep it anyway, then it should be closed as a keep and then the issue can be dealt with editorially and/or through the article talk page; otherwise it'll be necessary to wait a little while and then nominate the article for deletion again. Everyking 08:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada
Hi, thanks for your vote to keep on the article on their children, but they have put this one (Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada) on AfD as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibbs High School
Done. --BigDT 14:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Progressive Bloggers
You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that my sole edit to that article was removing an AFD tag after closing a discussion (knowing nothing at all about the subject, I think it's best if I don't touch it). I am afraid I am not properly qualified to offer my opinion on the encyclopedic worthiness of this article, but thanks for asking. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship
 

 Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nya, nya, nya, Nyakagomba
I responded to your very interesting comment about my inclusion standard on my talk page. You might want to have a look, and of course feel free to respond back, I always find this sort of discussion highly interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

to much of languages on deletion log; space shuttle simulator
WARNING!: Bad language (2) is posted on deletion log: space shuttle simulator. Jer10 95 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Effects of global warming on Australia page completely rewritten - 40 references
Effects of global warming on Australia page completely rewritten - 40 references The article now has over 40 referenced statements and is based largely on a report prepared by Australia's premier scientific research organisation the CSIRO. The referencing of the article now compares very favourably with most other articles I have looked at. The article has no POV. The report on which it is based was prepared for the Business Round Table. It ought not be deleted now, even if it should have been before. Could each person who has recommended deletion please review and reconsider your view. Thanks dinghy 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. P.S. I especially appreciate your support for someone you don't always agree with on AfD. Many people seem to treat AfD as a life-or-death situation, while it should be a consensus-searching discussion, where someones opinion may be in the minority sometimes. IF you see me closing AfD's (or ther deletions) which you completely disagree with, please contact me and explain your objections. I am sadly not errorfree, and it's only when people discuss such things that I can learn of course. Finally, It is my intention to be more conservative in actual deletions than I am in starting Prod's and AfD's. Fram 15:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again?
"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

DYK

 * It was the Nidareid train disaster which is the new article, but having that on the main page is nice! Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!


Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing!  Crested Penguin 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

you have your opinion and i have mine
hi. thanks for the treathfull message anyway.. couldnt it just be that I actually think theese articles should be deleted? that i had a a opinion about that, with no mean intentions?. i guess you dont think so, to bad-. anyway the articles are staying. and that whats the majority decided and they where closed by you, so why even bather? anyway i dont think you should judge a person.--Matrix17 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Paul Block article
I noticed it in AFD and tried to source it. The name, however, is common enough that there appear to be several Paul Blocks which come up for Google. I noticed that you commented with a Keep in the AFD. If you've got some sources, please put them in the article and then leave a message on my talk page, and I'll change my own voice in the AFD to a Keep as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Chess query
I thought you might be interested in this thread.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Radiant! I looked at the thread, but I am a bit unsure about the full context of the discussion. Regarding the term "chess-like" that does present a value judgement, and as such may be a bit problematic, but on the other hand a judgement like that is also unlikely to be a particularily controversial or contentious one. On the game chaturanga, a wording along the lines of "one of the predecessors of chess" might be appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran War
I could use some help here. Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No. x Line &rarr; Route x (Baltimore)
Hello, I'm trying to delete some overly generic redirects to Baltimore city bus lines. I've sent somewhere around 50 to WP:RFD, and since you voted to delete an article on a Baltimore suburban bus line, I though you might be interested. 70.51.8.244 06:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion for RfA reform
Thought you might like to know that Moralis' RfA was refactored. It tracks with your suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Reform. --Durin 19:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! Interesting to see this up a trial run. Getting some mixed reviews on the WT:RFA page I see, but we'll see if this works as I hope it will work. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I closed the chess openings AFD
I wrote a detailed closing statement on the chess openings AFD: Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4. In it, I recommended some mergers but decided not to execute them. I noticed that you and User:Bubba73 both suggested this kind of resolution in the discussion. I leave it to your judgment to execute any merge you think is appropriate. YechielMan 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Deep Blue pages
Well, I hate to tell you this, but those pages were incoherent anyway, and I was planning to clean the page up. The series as a whole is notable. The individual games are not. If you've got a better solution, then please, do tell me what you think should be done. FrozenPurpleCube 13:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you didn't object to the concept of the merge, I suggest you participate further in the discussion page here. Not that I expect you disagree with anything but cleanup, which is what I was planning to get to this week as soon as I got some more information on the series. If you do truly object, then I guess we'll have to go to Dispute Resolution. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Irregular Openings
Hi - if you look at the example article linked at the talk page you'll see that I didn't suggest merging all the irregular openings - only some. The Benko, for example, certainly merits its own page, as does the QN ('Dunst'). The idea was to gain a bit of discussion on which ones do and which ones don't. Or indeed, that merging any of them is a bad idea. I've also put a merged version of the Grunfeld here for discussion. Cheers!  Eliminator JR Talk  17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't see that one. I think Grunfeld is a suitable opening to support one article, and your suggestion looks like a reasonable article which can be expanded on. I am not enthused about merging the irregular chess openings into one big article however, because those openings are still very different from one another. The Oxford Companion to Chess (which is a chess encyclopedia and reference, not an instructional book) treats them separately for this reason. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:20, 16 April 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. 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Improve versus tag
I certainly recognize the value of fixing an article wherever possible, but when the problem isn't just one article, but many, I consider the most effective thing to do to deal with the problem to be tagging. Why? Because it puts folks on notice that something needs to be done. This is especially true in circumstances where I simply don't know where the references are, or have any idea what sources might have the true answer. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to pretend to be familiar enough with the Chess championships to even know whether a given reference to a particular country is accurate. And sadly, on many of them, I didn't find anything I considered reliable. Or in a language I could understand. So I would rather put folks on notice, so that maybe next time, they realize that there is a problem to just copying lists of champions without even giving a source.

See, fixing things is nice, and if you pay attention, you might notice where I've done that But there's a point where you're trying to boil the ocean with a candle, and something more organized has to be done. I had hoped the Chess Wikiproject would be willing to do something, but that obviously not been the case.

BTW, you'd probably find you might perceive me as less hostile if you tried more receptivity and openness on your own, if there was some attempt to address the concerns I've raised, instead of dismissing me as ignorant because I don't claim to be an expert with decades of involvement in chess. It's been clear to me from the start that there's a resistance to me based not on the actual content, but on who I am. I'm willing to work with people to show my good will, but if folks don't practice AGF on their own, and expect me to demonstrate something before they even listen to me...well, that's a problem in and of itself, a problem that runs counter to the very principles of Wikipedia. So you can perhaps, understand why I have lost faith in you, and other members of the Chess Wikiproject. It's a two-way street, for many grievance alleged against me, I can mount one in response. FrozenPurpleCube 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA
Hey Sjakkalle. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. Thanks for defending me on the Alfred Brown incident. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award originated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer) Harrison-HB4026 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please revisit Articles for deletion/Gardendale High School
Could you please take another look at Articles for deletion/Gardendale High School? I added some references. --Eastmain 19:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Changed it to "keep" now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0. Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

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

Chess and chemistry
Thanks for the advice, I'll take it to heart. I feel bad that we sicced M.M on the innocent and unsuspecting organic chem editors, and at least one valuable organic chem contributor seems discouraged, which really is a shame. The primary reason I wasn't interested in adminship is because I don't enjoy this kind of conflict and I had hoped to avoid it as much as possible. (Competing ideas are stimulating. Personality issues and having to deal with endless foolishness are a drag.)  Unfortunately I think WP:RFAR in this case is likely. M.M has already hinted that this will be one of his next steps, perhaps if he isn't satisfied with the outcome of his AFD nominations or whatever might come out of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/April 2007/Mister. Manticore 2.

Despite this unpleasantness, it is nice to be back. It's rekindled my interest in chess history. I also hope to go back and improve some of the chess opening articles, primarily with better sourcing, but also trying to add some historical details. Quale 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Greco Defense
I'm saying this here because it's not about the article itself, but rather about your words there. I've tried to politely explain why I believe this article has problems. I don't see why you're so hostile to my suggestions. This has been a continued problem with chess opening articles. Perhaps if you didn't adopt such a hostile attitude and rejected other people's ideas, you'd realize the problems I've shown do exist, and despite attempts to shout me down by what seems to be a small clique of Chess-oriented users, there are people who do agree with me. Not that whether or not anyone voiced agreement is a determinative factor. I don't rely on numbers to develop my opinions. FrozenPurpleCube 14:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC) And as I see it, this article is about telling people how to play this opening, not about any significance to it in chess history. There's no mention of other analysis, or even discussion of Greco's analysis. Try fixing it yourself. It'd be much more effective than criticizing me. Sorry for not AGF, but I just don't see you as anything but biased and unfair. This is especially so because of discussions like the one above, and because not one person outside the chess group has offered me any kind of criticism. I think you, and others in the Chess Wikiproject are reacting more to personality than to the issues at hand. This is a problem. So why don't you try sticking to the content instead of commenting on me? I find it quite tiresome and an obstruction to resolving the problems not a solution. It's not going to do anything but convince me you're trying to coerce and intimidate me. I do hope you'll listen to me on that, though I have my doubts. Your response on Polish Defence was exactly the kind to go for, being entirely about the article. FrozenPurpleCube 14:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just so you know, I do think some work is being done to improve the Chess openings articles. It's not complete, in some cases it's probably going to need to be reviewed again, but I am quite pleased to see some work being attempted. So for all the accusations of disruption, I think that after several months of inaction, some folks are finally getting work done. Take that as a good thing, and use it to do more. FrozenPurpleCube 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your post here to be extraordinarily ironic. You write "I just don't see you as anything but biased and unfair.", and then in the very next sentence you write: "So, why don't you try sticking to the content instead of commenting on me?" I don't thing it is fun at all to work on Wikipedia when people start ordering me around, and I think I shall have to take a month-long break to regather my interest. Until next time, Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I found myself troubled by having to write that, but given that you've tried to give your advice before in the past, I felt it important to explain why I didn't feel it appropriate for you to be giving it to me. Sorry, but I just don't see you as fair, or neutral.  It doesn't take much for me to see some slightly troublesome comments by you, and given your association with other persons whose behavior has been less than reputable, it's not good for my perception of you.  It may be unfair, but when I've been described as having a war on chess articles, and other comments made against me, well, that erodes my good faith belief that I'm being listened to and respected for my concerns, as opposed to just dismissed because of someone's one personal preferences.  It'd be one thing, if you'd taken a position against that kind of behavior, but even your advice to Quale is more along the lines of "Don't do that, you'll get caught" rather than "Don't do that, it's wrong" .  I hope you see the problem there.  BTW, you say you don't think it's fun at all to work on Wikipedia when people start ordering you around.  Do you think I might be feeling ordered around and bullied?  Because every time you say something like that, it's giving the same impression.  So perhaps there's a problem on both sides, one that I think would be most rectified by less concentration on the individual users, and more on the actual content itself.  It's one thing to want to offer advice, but it's always troublesome to do so when you're involved in a disagreement with someone.  I'll be honest, I even felt that you wouldn't take my response very well, but I felt obliged to give it above in perhaps the same way you gave yours.  But yes, I do know advice is often best from a neutral party with no involvement and some establishment as a fair and unbiased person.  Or sometimes a close friend.  To me, you're not one.  You're a person with your own agenda, one that may have colored your perceptions somewhat.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But I do apologize if you're offended by anything I've said that feels like an attack. I know criticism can be hard to take, even when it's met in the best of ways.  So, in the interest of improving Wikipedia, just stick to the content, and don't comment on me.  And I'd really be glad not to comment on you, or anyone else. FrozenPurpleCube 13:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deletion review of List of Philippine Presidents by longevity
I've asked for a deletion review of List of Philippine Presidents by longevity. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Fagles 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg
Hello, Sjakkalle. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Sjakkalle/March, April and May 2006. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing Soviet chess players
I've created a section on the WikiProject chess talk page to discuss how we should categorize Soviet chess players within Category:Chess players by nationality. This was discussed once a long time ago, but the number of chess biographies has exploded since then and I think we should consider it again. I don't know if you're back from your wiki vacation, but I'm interested in what you think, so I invite you to weigh in with your views at WT:CHESS if you like. Quale 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see "edit this page" for this User_talk: history section in edit mode. The contribution has been commented out.

Jerry.zambrano 02:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunds ASK (2nd nomination)
Since you commented on the first AfD you may wish to comment on Articles for deletion/Lunds ASK (2nd nomination). Please note: I am alerting all editors on both sides of the argument last time per Wikipedia policy. BlueValour 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lunds ASK (2nd nomination)
Hi, just letting you know that since a second club was given an article, I've added it to the AFD, and I invite your further comment if you so desire. FrozenPurpleCube 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian Chess Championship
You've done a really nice job on Norwegian Chess Championship. The U.S. Chess Championship page is embarrassing by comparison. I should work to fix it up a little. Quale 22:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! Sooner or later I will just have to participate in that thing (the Landsturnering that is, I am about 1081 rating points short of being allowed into the championship section.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Condorcet winner
Your comment on the D. Brandt DRV is cracking me up. Can you imagine trying to run this place by Condorcet? --nae'blis 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (not signed in at present)
 * Well, my point was that while the result does not reflect the prime choice among many, it does reflect a result which I think is acceptable to most. Trying to run Wikipedia by Condorcet in general will of course not work very well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). Your support is a thing I'm very grateful for. I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me SirFozzie 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gory deaths AfD
Yes, this is me bugging you about an AfD vote. Stubbornness is considered a virtue where I come from. Ignore me if you wish, but there are unconsidered and, I believe, vital factors. To copypaste:

"Another of Wikipedia's unconventional strengths, the list of films by use of the word "fuck", lists the films that use it the most, with a cutoff point of 100. Why 100? It's an admitted arbitrary number, but one that was agreed - by consensus - to be a point where there's indisputably a great number of uses of the word. This list is no different. It says in the lead that it does not have an absolute definition of gory, it has a working standard. This standard has - again by consensus - been decided to be a workable cut-off point, that makes classifying a work as gory require no more than a smidgen of personal interpretation. This smidgen is one that's vital for "Category:Fiction by genre" to function - or for WP:OR itself to function at all. A quote from the beginning of the definition of "reliable sources" on OR: "There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word." It then goes on to state criteria to help in defining what counts, exactly like this list. It's hard to imagine harder evidence that it's acceptable to cover a subject using a working definition that requires an acceptable amount of interpretation, instead of an exact one, than this: A pillar of the project, vital to Wikipedia's existence. And there's been no debate here over whether or not the list uses an acceptable amount, only a rejection of the concept. Articles on fiction, including a number of featured articles, use the works themselves to tell what happens in the plot. Primary sources are accepted."

I ask you to consider this, and at least tell me what faults you find in this argument so that it can be improved. Jack's death in Titanic is a definite error, but it has already been agreed that the list is in need of cleanup - which is pretty much the base state of lists on Wikipedia - and it's been a while since the last one. But the article is not indiscriminate - it has standards, as explained above, and it has been patrolled and watched since its beginning. Please don't pass judgement over one entry in hundreds. --Kizor 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern, but I still stand by opinion. That the Jack Dawson death in Titanic doesn't belong is however a tangential reason for deleting. The main reason for my position is that the list's criterion for inclusion, "on-screen human deaths with graphic detail, rather than off-screen and implied, depicting loss of blood and body parts (flesh, limbs, internal organs) in large quantity and other types of sadistic deaths" is not something which I consider a criterion likely to be useful to the reader, or something likely to be looked up. Furthermore, what is a "sadistic death"? What is a "large quantity"? The criterion is lacking in focus. Also, I have serious issues with the word "gory" in an article title, the term is colloquial in nature, and not something which seems in place in a serious encyclopedia. Regarding the use of the film itself as a primary source, I agree with you that this is a perfectly acceptable source for the storyline, and hence also for articles about characters and locations, but each of the example articles you give are articles about the film itself. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

San Juan
Hey Sjakkalle, about your concerns in San Juan's FAC, I added a section about Education, its maily an overview bacause there have been talks of creating an separate article about this. - 凶 20:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD on No painting Mont Blanc red and calling it art
First I find out about it being on MfD is after the content is deleted and redirected to another essay. Good grief. I built the article intentionally knowing the about the reichstag essay. The intention was entirely different, and I took pains to make it so. --Durin 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: AFD
Please read WP:Notability. While cities and large towns which have either present or historical significance are notable smaller communities with no past or present achievements are not, and tend not to be covered by encyclopedias. Sploooshman 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks or assumptions when discussing AFD's, consider this a warning. Each article must be judged on its own merits, unless another AFD has been directly referenced there is no reason to mention it. I have stated above why I have nominated such articles for deletion, if you feel this is a "ridiculous spree" please discuss it with me rather than pretending you did. Sploooshman 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)