User talk:SyG/Archive 2

Talkback
Veraladeramanera (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Index of chess articles/Bottom importance
A tag has been placed on Index of chess articles/Bottom importance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lasker-Capa 1914 psych
Hi, SyG. Do you remember in our discussion about Lasker's "psychological" approach you mentioned how L's choice of the Lopez Exchange Var presented Capa with a dilemma? I finally found a ref for that, a different chapter of the book I cited for Schlechter 1910 - doh! It's:

So that point is now included! --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good catch, thanks a lot ! SyG (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bottom Importance
Hi. Yes, have asked for expert input yesterday User_talk:WOSlinker. I do know of the issue and used a sandbox version Template:Chess-WikiProject/sandbox but without success yet. SunCreator (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now thanks to User talk:MSGJ. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well spotted with the two scale link issues. Partial fix now added. SunCreator (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want the bottom numbers listed in the assessment box, I think you have to switch to User:Erwin85Bot as done here(note each box cell is linked-useful!), otherwise I think it will come in User:WP_1.0_bot/Second_generation, which in due course will do the same thing. SunCreator (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly right, it seems WP_1.0_bot is not able to handle the Bottom category by itself (as it is a non-standard class...). I have started to work on the switch to Erwin85Bot, but it is much complex and I will have to create about a hundred new categories. Ultimately I plan to ask to the members of the WikiProject which format they want. SyG (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If your going to create all the categories(you have done most already) a bot is not required to create the Assessment Box. Using PAGESINCATEGORY you can return the numbers immediately. SunCreator (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact even new categories are not required. SunCreator (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, real time figures(as real time as the category updates anyway!). Note: Any category you create like Category:B-Class_chess_articles_of_Mid-importance can be made clickable. In the above B-Class Mid-importance cell is clickable. Category correctly has 30 articles at present, 29 with 'Mid-importance' and one(Swindle_(chess)) with lowercase 'mid-importance'. It's a common issue of mixed case that can easily confuse. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Case Issue
I notice you encountered the case issue 'articles of Low-importance' 'articles of low-importance' etc. I think it's possible to resolve the case issue with #if coding rather then editing each article occurrence from lower case to upper case. There is a first letter case detection (lcfirst and ucfirst) available. Implementing ParserFunctions is beyond my ability at the moment however. SunCreator (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a very interesting possibility. But that would work for the table, and not for the individual categories, right ? I mean, the table would show the correct number of articles, but the category would not have it ? SyG (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The table already works to handle both lower and upper case, as it simply adds 'Low-importance' and 'low-importance' together, so 1114 from Category:Stub-Class_chess_articles_of_Low-importance plus 209 Category:Stub-Class_chess_articles_of_low-importance which totals 1323. What I believe is possible is a change to Template:Chess-WikiProject so that 'low' goes to category 'Low', 'mid goes to 'Mid' etc then the assessment intersection click through will also correctly show all articles. SunCreator (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That would solve everything. Any idea who could help us on how to do that ? SyG (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect many people used to using the ParserFunctions could do it. I'd like to learn do it myself http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Parser_function and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lcfirst:#Formatting a good start but I got to log out soon, off to a chess congress for the weekend. :) SunCreator (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A chess congress, how wonderful ! I hope all these cat things will be fixed by the time you come back :-) SyG (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See you've been changing the case on lots of articles. Done a few myself. Still 200+ low stubs to go. SunCreator (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help ! I think they all have the correct case now. There are still discrepancies though, but I am not able to find where they come from. For example if you sum the articles in the "Low-importance" column you get 1+3+13+45+737+1320+26=2145 while the category Category:Low-importance chess articles shows a bit more. SyG (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FAQ/Categories SunCreator (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1+3+13+44+738+1318+26=2143 Presently showing 2143 articles and saying total is 2148. Will correct itself in time. SunCreator (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right to point out the problem of up-to-date with categories, but I suspect there is another problem somewhere, maybe an occurrence of quality or of importance that is not reported correctly in the intersected categories. SyG (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The total always semms to be five more then it's showing. Can something be hidden in the category? I looked for the basics - all template(they are NA). Have not found the mystery five yet. SunCreator (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Pages that have been re-directed but the talk page still exists with a wikiprojects chess banner. Thus the recently merged Talk:Chess Victoria for one. SunCreator (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Extra categories
Are the Unknown categories Category:FA-Class chess articles of Unknown-importance, Category:A-Class chess articles of Unknown-importance and any similar, required for anything? SunCreator (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had created these for the Erwin85 bot, but as you were able to count the category without the help of a bot, I guess they are not needed now. I will delete them. SyG (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, the existence of the categories are not required for counting, but useful for clicking the intersection. SunCreator (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Template
WikiProject Chess/Assessment statistics is a template. So move to Template:WikiProject Chess/Assessment statistics? SunCreator (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmm, and what exactly makes this page a template ? I mean, I am not sure I really see the difference between a normal page and a template. Normally a template is passed some paramters, which is not the case for that one. SyG (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many templates don't have parameters. Template:Chess, Template:Fide etc. Not sure what makes a template exactly, being commonly used from multiple other pages perhaps? SunCreator (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Template:Fide is a bad example, as it has parameters... But you are correct about Template:Chess, that has no parameters. On the other hands, all reviews (e.g. FA-reviews, GA-reviews, ...) are done on subpages that are then transcluded on other pages, so it is definitely unclear to me. SyG (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unclear to me also. SunCreator (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you notice MSGJ moved it and called it a template! SunCreator (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's the beginning of fame ! SyG (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality chess articles
Can you explain about Category:Quality chess articles. Category shows 15 articles yet addition of FA,GA and A totals 19 articles. SunCreator (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 4 FA-class articles, 1 A-class articles and 10 GA-class articles. In the metric system that makes a total 15 :-) SyG (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your correct some categories are incorrectly labelled as FA articles. SunCreator (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because I am currently implementing the "Category:Foo-class chess articles" in the "Category:Foo-class chess articles of Zut-importance". It creates a double count for the moment. SyG (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Foo-class, but go ahead lets see when it's done. SunCreator (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria
You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Troff
I would much appreciate it if you could participate in a disscusion on the Jeremy Troff talk page. Thanks! GrandMattster 20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will happily oblige. Thanks for the notice ! SyG (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your contributions. I value your opinions.  :)  GrandMattster 15:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Nikolai Georgiyevich Kopilov
Hello SyG, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Nikolai Georgiyevich Kopilov has been removed. It was removed by Pawnkingthree with the following edit summary ' (rm prod) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Pawnkingthree before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

PRODding
Hi SyG. I don't see the point in prodding articles on chess players with marginal notability. They are unlikely to ever be non-controversial. I for one will always remove prods on players which assert some notability, eg International Master, state champion etc, because we do not know without further investigation whether there are enough sources out there to meet WP:N. Why not just save time and take them straight to AfD?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Pawnkingthree ! I get your point. I wanted to avoid the hassle of AfD first, but you are right to hint that it is probably counterproductive. So I will favour AfD now on. SyG (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy to Join!
I would be happy to join the wikichessproject! GrandMattster 16:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, welcome on board ! SyG (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Belatedly accepting Half Barnstar
Hi, SyG. Over a year ago, you kindly awarded a Half Barnstar to both Philcha and me. I churlishly declined mine on the basis that we had in fact not reached a consensus on the article in question. He and I have both done quite a bit of work on it since then, and have endeavored to fairly present the various viewpoints on Howard Staunton's role in The Staunton-Morphy controversy. Reviewing the article, I think that it is now reasonably balanced, so I have decided to (very belatedly) accept your gracious award. Sorry to have been such a Cheney. Krakatoa (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Krakatoa, I am delighted that Philcha and yourself were able to overcome your slight differences of viewpoint. That was kind of funny that an American and an English were battling over, well, a story about another American and another English having words :-)
 * Your work on this "S-M controversy" has certainly created a great article. Good job ! SyG (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hadn't really thought of the parallel you mentioned. My assistant will have to write a book about me that makes unflattering references to Philcha, "The Triumphs and Exploits on the Internet of Krakatoa, the Wikipedia Champion". :-) Krakatoa (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm disapointed that "S-M" has been ignored for over a year :-) --Philcha (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew you would appreciate that one ;-) SyG (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Congratulations!!
Very pleased to see the Budapest Gambit achieved GA status. You've put endless hour into that article and lots of tlc. SunCreator (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. I had a quick look, and it looks really good. --Philcha (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It's obviously been a real labor of love for you. The opening really should be renamed the "SyG Gambit." Krakatoa (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys for your heartening greetings. The article is still far from perfect, but I am happy that an article on a chess opening can become GA. Nothing can stop us ! SyG (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

George H. D. Gossip
Our (or my, anyway) favorite American-English-American-English chess-playing/writing curmudgeon, George H. D. Gossip, is having a birthday on December 6. Well, OK, he's not exactly having it, what with being dead almost a century, but you know what I mean. Should we be nominating the article for the front page? If so, do you want to handle the formalities, since you're familiar with how it's done? As always, thanks for your help. Krakatoa (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Krakatoa ! Unfortunately I will be pretty busy in the next months (taking a new job) so I do not think I will have enough time to wander on Wikipedia so much. In all cases, from what I know you can only propose articles as early as one month before a given date, so wait for the 6th November ! SyG (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Second (chess)
Thanks for turning Second (chess) into a redirect and putting the content into Glossary of chess. Just FYI, I am requesting a WP:SPEEDY delete of the article now.


 * My pleasure ! SyG (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

En Passant
In French is En Passant correct spelling? FIDE refer to it as 'En passante' twice in http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?view=article&id=125 Can you explain this. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * C.9 In the case of an ‘en passante’ capture
 * C.13 e.p. = captures ‘en passante’


 * "en passant" is the correct one; "en passante" is just a spelling mistake. SyG (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. A little FIDE error then. SunCreator (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

you deserve one of course
Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much ! SyG (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Synder.
It doesn't matter what you think about this person, it matters what the press is calling him. They call him a master chess player. For example a new article I aqm adding to his article states

"Police say Snyder used his world-renowned status as a chess teacher to gain families' trust and to assault his chess students. After his 2005 arrest and conviction in 2007, he served jail time and was released in August 2008." \

There are several other existing sources that also call him world reknowned, so maybe you yourself should refrain from [| stupid] removals. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I should not have phrased it that way. Sorry if I offended you. I will make my further comments more objective and neutral. SyG (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Read Sources!
Just in one source I can validate what you removed. please READ them next time...."As a teen, Snyder won the California State High School Chess Championship and had the highest score on the U.S. Correspondence Olympic Chess Team. He won two international tournaments and became a chess master in 1973, ranking in the top onefourth of 1 percent of all rated chess players in the country. " This is source number 4. Dear lord how much more clear can that be? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned over your lack of response in a clear lapse in judgement. I'm not sure if you are doing this to other articles as well and removing properly sourced material is not the thing around here. Would you at least be willing to indicate you no longer dispute Snyders, world and nationally renowned status as a chess master? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not going on Wikipedia very often, hence my lack of a quick response. I do intend to dispute Snyders, as he is not a world-renowned chess master at all. Of course, I intend to dispute that based on sources and proofs, not on strange arguments like "clear lapse in judgement". SyG (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The funny part is you aren't proving any of this with sources, hence the issue you aren't even reading the ones that are there. This was a lapse in your judgment and I insist you read the sources. If you can find sources that don't call him a master chess player I'd be more inclined to see you po. As every article calls him a master I'd be interested to see your "proof". Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrevelant article in WPTR
Hi, You had labelled the article The Turk within the Project Turkey (WPTR) in 2008. Well, as far as I can see, The Turk has nothing to do with Turkey or Turkish people save for the name resemblance. It is just a playing machine and I think it must not be included in WPTR. Can you please consider excluding WPTR label. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am not the one who labelled that article with that banner, so I have no problem with you removing it if you wish to do so. SyG (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Traite des amateurs
Dear SyG,

I noticed you deleted my addition concerning the fact that some of the ideas of Steinitz, in embryonic form, were formulated in the Traité des Amateurs by some contemporaries of Philidor in 1775. I am referring to the concept that at the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium; correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game, therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. From this prospective, there is no such a thing as a winning move and even the most skilled master can do nothing against these natural laws of the game. You can find this, for instance, in the introduction of chapter 4 of the "Traite des amateurs", but also in other points of the book. I added it because it is not very known and quite surprising. Philidor, for instance, had a different opinion since he tought that with correct play white should win.

You deleted my addition on the basis that was not referenced. That is perferctly fine, of course, I am not here to criticize your opinion. I just want to understand how to make a better contribution. Thus, just for my understanding, I tought my contribution was referenced since I quoted the reference to the Traite des amateurs with the link to google books where you can directly read what I was talking about. Did you read it? Is that not enough as a reference? What do you think should be a better way to referenciate it? Iinitially I wanted to quote directly the introductive section of Chapter IV, which is one point of the Traite where this is explained "The combinations being endless, it is clear that the winning or losing of the game, between players equal in point of skill, must depend on the first bad, or what amounts to the same thing, the first lost move on either side; we cannot, therefore, avoid protesting against the erroneous doctrine laid down by Philidor and others, that he who has the first move, ought to win the game in consequence of that advantage. We proceed to prove, from the very games adduced by Phihdor in support of his position, these three important points. Firstly, that the move alone can never be considered a sufficient advantage to insure success : Secondly, that he who has not the move, will very soon acquire it, or neutralize its effects; and, Lastly, that supposing each move to be the best that could possibly be played, the game ought to be drawn." which is interesting considering that it was written one century before Steinitz. But then I tought it was too much since this is the article about Steinitz not about the Traite. Moreover, there was the link to the Traite page where everything is explained. What do you think?

Sersunzo (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Sersunzo,


 * Firstly, thanks for your interest in that matter. What is lacking reference is the fact that "some of the ideas of Steinitz, in embryonic form, were formulated in the Traité des Amateurs". I may be misunderstanding, but it seems to me that what you are doing is reading the stuff on Steinitz, then reading the stuff in the Traité des Amateurs, then comparing both and concluding a statement. That is original research. The only way to include such a statement would be to find a reliable source that says: "some of the ideas of Steinitz, in embryonic form, were formulated in the Traité des Amateurs". I hope this helps ! SyG (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I see, I never approached the matter from this prospect and indeed it makes sense. Thanks for the discussion.

Sersunzo (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Shogi
Why would you say shogi is not a version of chess? (Not that I have anything to do w the W-project.) — kwami (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Shogi is an independent version, that looks like chess but is not coming from chess. In other words, shogi may be a "cousin" of chess but not a "child" of chess. Hence, I do not see why it should be included in the WikiProject Chess, whom I am a member. SyG (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3
Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to a blog
Hello SyG. I have added three external links to Nadanian's blog in the "Family" section of the article (Evelina, Kiti and Vigen). Is it allowed? Regards, --MrsHudson (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be OK. SyG (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Chess diagram
You undid a change to this template (some time ago) due to not having the white dot SVG files available which was breaking uses. I have uploaded File:Chess ood45.svg and File:Chess ool45.svg to resolve this, in case you'd like to use SVGs again. Adrignola (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I guess using SVG would be a common decision by WP:CHESS. SyG (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
 WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New messages
What do you know about The Verbeterde List? Just because you can't play chess and didn't hear of it, doesn't mean that the Verbeterde List is already a well-established opening name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully agree, as you say it, it does not mean the Verbeterde List is already a well-established opening name. SyG (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually meant that, the fact that you don't know something about it, does not mean that it is not already a well-established opening name. So hands off the Verbeterde List and focus on the subjects you know something about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you should try to fix the objections that are being made to you, instead of bashing the other editors and vandalising their Talk page. You should not take constructive criticism as a personal attack against you, but rather as an effort to check the validity of your assessments and an effort to improve the overall quality of the articles in Wikipedia. I understand you are new to Wikipedia, so what I would suggest is for you to go on the AfD page about the article you have created, and here state your claims and explain why this article is notable and this opening is really named like that. I think you will achieve much higher goals through discussion and collaboration than through insults and sarcasm. SyG (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Dude, stop creating mess on my talk page. Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if the warnings I sent you do not suit you, but your Talk page is the standard place where Wikipedians can discuss, so that I have no other place to ask you to stop changing mine. Please note that, even when you removed all I had written to your Talk page, I did not undo your removal. SyG (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Learn From The Grandmasters
I agree that Learn From The Grandmasters is not very notable, but once a WP:PROD is declined it is not supposed to be nominated again. Instead WP:AFD is appropriate. Quale (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I get your point. I thought the PROD had been removed on a technicality ("no reason given to PROD"), so I added a reason and I re-proded. SyG (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Talk:Loren Brigham Laceste. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  19:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"post-war"
Hi,

I just wanted to comment on your undoing of my edit of the section, Post-War era. I do agree that the year 1945 should indicate which war the section covers, but can you count on readers of this article about chess know that fact? For me, it would be safe to lend readers a hand especially considering how many people out there who are, for one reason or another, undereducated about significant historical events and dates. Retrospector87 (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Retrospector, and thanks for your comment. My reasoning was that, if someone does not know what war finished in 1945, this person could also not know what "WWII" means, so the addition of this acronym was not fully helpful. SyG (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi SyG..so I understand that your appealing to the smarter elements of the readers, assigning them the responsibility of learning the social context of the "post-war" era..more than fine with me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrospector87 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of chess books (A–F), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibor Karolyi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Chess in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chess for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 03:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi!
Thank you for your work on Budapest Gambit and showing the rest of us that it is possible to write a quality article on a chess opening. Inspired by your example, I wrote Modern Benoni recently and am interested in getting it to GA status. If you ever come back to editing around here, would you mind taking a look at it? Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)