User talk:Ihardlythinkso

chess project

Hello, you might like to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the invite, Bubba! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notability of chess variants

You said that some of the 98 chess variants that have articles are not notable. I agree. I got Pritchard's book a couple of months ago, and if a variant is not in it or some similar source, I think it should be deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree of course. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

variants

To respond to your question at the Dragonchess article, I suspect that other than bughouse and chess960, very few of the variants are played much - especially seriously. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

chess notation

You removed the {chess notation} tag from Scholar's Mate. The convention is that articles that use chess notation for moves have that at the top. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your explain! (I removed it when deleting the static diagram, mistakenly thinking it was part of the diagram.)

The chess notation tag is cool! (Is there a specific spot/link you can give where I can read all about more chess edit conventions like that? Thx for advise.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and its talk page (and archives). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Maack

Oh, it's not a big deal — it's just that when someone's doing a page move in AWB, the only choices of edit summary available in the dropdown menu are "typo in page name" and "reverting page move vandalism". So even though it wasn't really a "typo", as such, that still fit better than the other option did :-)

Anyway, you can view Wikipedia:Article titles if you need assistance in determining the best titles for future articles. I thought it specified the rule for personal names, but I can't find it there — but just so you know, our rule is to use just the name itself, and then disambiguate if necessary by putting the occupation in brackets after the name (i.e. if there were another notable Ferdinand Maack, we'd go with "Ferdinand Maack (doctor)" and "Ferdinand Maack (politician)". Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Illusion

Is Chess Illusion in the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, as the editor claims? (I don't see it in the second edition.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it definitely isn't. (Plus, the inventor on his homepage says he invented Illusion in *2011*.) I think the inventor (Carlos) is maybe too new to understand what "References" section is for, and is simply copying w/o understanding from other variant articles. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's okay if I weigh in on AfD discussion, that it's not just for Admins? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Hey look, there was no need to say what you said in Donald Trump's revision history page. If you didn't like what I did you could have just said so instead of being so rude and insulting me like that. My sources may not have been great but again you could have just said they didn't work. Please take what I said into consideration and think about what you say and how you say it. Thank you. 173.72.93.221 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. And I realize that my edit may have confused you because the vandalism that has happened before. If you would like to help me add the Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell feud to both pages that would be great since that was a big event in Hollywood. Again, thanks. 173.72.93.221 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with your User Page

It doesn't seem to have any of these on it:

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		To Ihardlythinkso for attentive edits to Zaw Htet Ko Ko, Zayar Thaw‎, Filep Karma‎, Nilar Thein‎, and Su Su Nway. -- Khazar (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your articles are fascinating; the governments' responses to protesters are really eye-opening. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and Queen Sacrifice

Thanks, I haven't been editing wikipedia for long and any other comments would be helpful.

Can you assess my work on queen sacrifice I have deleted all of the examples and replaced them with one detailed example. Please Comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaon — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is: Nearly all the changes you've introduced seem very destructive to the article. Please stop! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

float chess notation

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#new "chess notation". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing good work with moving the "chess notation" FYI in the articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! It saves space (vertical dimension) usually, too! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For making the chess notation tag much nicer on many pages. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Bubba. I was trying to undo the damage I had done earlier! ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Susan Polgar. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You may not settle a dispute by persistently reverting other editors. If you do this again, you will be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of this?: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."

You apparently believe alot in strict policy enforcement, yet you violate WP behavior guide like above! I will complain about you as time permits.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for more eyes on the issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Susan_Polgar_Hiding_in_plain_sight. I am sure you will want to give your opinion --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no need for me to post opinion there – I already spilled my guts on the topic at Talk:Susan Polgar. However, I did end up posting there, unnecessarily, after you drew attention about my absense there to everyone, along with baiting me again. ("Would be nice if the other editor involved could actually come and discuss this, rather than just continuing to post personal attacks.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day, Quick Comments and RfC

The Susan Polgar bit came up at AN/I and I thought to myself, "That name looks familiar". Reading the text, the word "chess" came out, I said, "Oh, yes, I know who she is". I immediately offered to look at the "problem" this editor was having. You'll be pleased to know that I have disagreed with the editor in question. I don't necessarily agree with a couple of your edit summaries (but hey, nobody's perfect, I've done the odd weird one too when someone disagrees with an edit of mine), but I believe your setup is without question the correct one and worthy of my support in the current RfC on the subject of making things like chess problems an exception in the guidelines for WP:COLLAPSE and possibly WP:SPOILER.

Note that as an involved party you may not want to get too involved in that discussion (wouldn't want to be seen as gaming the system), but chess is one of my subject areas and I am able to go to bat on this one. Your method is the best one Wikipedia has available, and it would be remiss if a less ideal method were chosen. Other commenters at AN/I seemed to agree with my opinion, as well, so let's see how the RfC goes. CycloneGU (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I was very impressed by the positive support from you, and many other editors at the AN/I. I agree it wasn't necessary for me to include comments there, but Elen announced to everyone there that my comments were missing. (How can I get that lady off my back? What does she want from me, and how to make her go away?)

The solution of "hide"/"show" for chess problem compositions - someone did it before me, so I can't take credit for the technique, I just copied what they did (I can't recall where I saw it), because I also found it "best". Again I think there was overwhelming support for application of the technique on chess problem compositions at AN/I, and am confused why the editor opened up RfC soliciting input there, which seems redundant and burdensome to me, covering same ground.

User Anthonyhcole suggested that an exception update to WP:COLLAPSE is best, else the debate on use of the technique for chess problem compositions may never go away. I see you closed the issue as resolved on AN/I, which makes perfect logical sense to me too. (But, what do you think of Anthonyhcole's advice?) I agree with you when you also suggest update to WP:SPOILER.

I'm a little at a loss how the controlling editor at RfC has still argued with me that "hide"/"show" on chess problem compositions is precisely the same as WP:SPOILERS, in light of the overwhelming disagreement with that position on AN/I.

I'm also concerned there was been no weighing of opionion from WikiProj Chess members. My guess is (only a guess) the members there don't like the sparks between Admin Elen who threatened me with block, and other aggression, which I spoke up about. Well, I was simply making good-faith improvement to the Polgar chess composition presentation, and was not looking for trouble. She was aggressive and rude and I did nothing to solicit that. But I will speak up if insulted or aggressed. So I did. I have no regret. It is easy to preach total non-responsiveness in response to an irritating, aggressive Admin when one is not the recipient of their abusive behavior.

There are many intelligent comments and editors (including you) who've already weighed in on this in AN/I. So why does the editor open RfC as though the topic is starting from scratch? I really enjoyed the comments from you, Torchiest, Novangelis, Anthonyhcole, DGG, Count Iblis, Swarm, Hullaballoo, Jonathunder, and now Art Lapella and harej on the RfC. But this doesn't seem to be enough for the controlling editor? Even after all their input, and my input on Talk:Susan Polgar, he still is somewhat scratching his head about it. This is very confusing to me, a new Wikipedian never involved in such a process before, because I was thinking consensus was the determinor, not a single editor (currently up for Admin approval) waiting to "be convinced". (Who put him in charge? I don't get it. And that effort seems to require repeated repetition, which has reached a level which tires me. (Another reason I'm happy to be a silent participant.)

Thx again for your message and participation. Apparently (according to Anthonyhcole) the issue has potential to pull off scabs from related debates years ago. However, I totally agree with the comment from Count Iblis, who said one must first think what is best for the article's presentation (and, policies flow from that, not the other way around). Plus as Torchiest pointed out, both SPOILERS and COLLAPSE have big disclaimers on top, saying to deviate when reasonable and best to do so is permitted. (Why is it that the Admin and Admin-wannabe don't see this or understand it? After what seems to me overwhelming consensus? And again, why are they in charge? It's so frustrating.

I only want to improve articles, nothing more. (Speaking of ... you mentioned there were edits of mine you disagreed with. Please tell me, I like to know. Communication is always good and it can only help me understand impact of my changes which am currently unawares. Thanks!)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain the RfC. What Qwyrxian is attempting to do, now that the AN/I has agreed on the presentation (which at this point should remain regardless) is determine whether it is right to actually write in an exception to WP:COLLAPSE based on the result of the AN/I. RfCs are quite common; for instance, I recently participated in one to determine whether bureaucrats should have the technical ability to desysop; this is still a Watchlist notice if that discussion interests you (at my last check, it was 259 support, 29 oppose). So back to this RfC; it's not a questioning of results; it's using those results in a comment discussion at the venue of the policy in question for the exception to determine whether we should write in an exception (that sentence made my head spin). Quite normal. We've determined the presentation that should be used, it's now an opportunity for those at the page where WP:COLLAPSE forms part of their overall guideline to comment on how to accommodate this result. Even if it doesn't sound like it at times.

Also, it's appearing that Qwyrxian will be successful; right now he is 59/6/3, or roughly 87% support with 6 opposes and 3 neutrals all counted against (which I don't think is exactly how they do it, mind). I'll wait a day or two then perhaps post a congratulatory support. CycloneGU (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to comment on the edit summaries bit. I merely meant that a couple of your edit summaries at Susan Polgar were a little less than professional; they weren't downright attacks, but one exception was telling someone blatantly that she knows nothing about chess problems or playing chess. Maybe not with this subject, but with other subjects, such a comment could be taken negatively. Just be careful what you say, especially in edit summaries; they can't be changed at all once saved. CycloneGU (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyclone, thanks for your explain. Again I'm not sure your position, regarding adding exception to WP:COLLAPSE or not. (Again, Anthonyhcole thought it necessary, to preclude future debates. You closed the AN/I as "resolved" w/ no action needed. Does that mean you don't believe COLLAPSE s/b updated?)

Ok, I get it now. (Duh!) And I see you're helping fashion the exception language at RfC. Great. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edits you didn't like, okay, I was thinking you meant ARTICLE edits, not he tifs w/ Elen. I never wrote at any time that she knew nothing about chess problems. (Don't know where you're getting that.) What I supposed or guessed on AN/I, was that perhaps non-players have difficulty understanding what the overwhelming number of other editior contributors saw, that chess problem compositions are "different". So I was guessing that perhaps Elen et al weren't players. I was only supposing it as a thought and possible explanation, not blatently asserting it (or asserting at all).

Regarding Qwyrxian's app for Admin, yes, I see too, he is bound for glory there. I think it's a mistake. I won't be congratulating him as you will, he puts policy before article quality. I've just been asked to voice support or not for his RfA. It's a losing battle to oppose, but I may do it anyway, out of principle. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I read about your disputed with Qwyrxian; I, as you may read, have had bad dealings with him, and I do not think he is qualified to become an administrator; I would like to hear what you have to say about him, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. Diligent007 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your question at Qwyrxian's RfA

I'm copying your most recent questions here, to respond to them away from the RfA page, as User:Diannaa has suggested.First Light (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. You're engaged in fundamentally the same biasing to effective vote count as cavassing – appending comments designed to influence the closer on Opposes, while intentionally ignoring the Supports. What difference between your engagement in that biasing activity from that of canvassing? As far as contributing to bias goes? And the theoretical question ... you seem to admit you might be appending to a vote by someone already planning to vote regardless receiving an invitation from Diligent. But you are relying on the closer to dismiss your comment? Then, why append one? You are relying on the closer to dismiss your comment "sometimes"? On what basis is "sometimes", versus "other times"? That argument makes no sense to me. How is what you are doing any better than canvassing as far as engaging in biasing activity? It is just a different way to engage. (Maybe even worse.) Your comments have the single and only possible purpose of attempting to influence the vote. Against canvassed Opposes, but not applying equally to canvassed Supports. As long as you are in the garden sowing seeds, you might as well sow both rows. You're trying to restore an un-biased vote, yes? By introducing your own pet bias? (That is not hypocritical?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be doing what you're doing, for two reasons: 1) appending to canvassed Opposes but deliberately ignoring canvassed Supports, is obviously unfair and engages in your own kind of biasing activity, 2) you can't know the user wasn't planning to vote regardless getting a canvass from Diligent, and your appends—which have as their only hoped-for intent of that of influencing the closer to discount the vote—if effective (and effectiveness is your wished-for result) then assumes the analogous role of "condeming an innocent man/woman to death.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs)

First of all, the disruptive behavior on that RfA was from the canvassing by Diligent007, not by myself. WP:Canvassing states that canvassing "compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." The only way to counterbalance that disruptive attempt to "throw the election" through backdoor means is to point out to the closing admin that half of the people who are opposing were canvassed. Some coincidence, eh? Only one out of the 98 people who are supporting were canvassed. Hmmm.... My notes are a belated attempt to counterbalance the bias caused by the canvassing. One big difference is that my comments were all on the RfA page, for the closing bureaucrat, and everyone else, to see. The canvassing goes on behind their backs. They can't see that. My behavior is transparent to the closer, as I have nothing to hide. Those who close RfAs are presumably smart enough to see what is going on, so there is no harm, only gain, in being transparent about these things.

I also believe that everyone should have a voice, and say what they want. Open discussion should not be stifled—that includes your comments, and that includes my comments. Let the closer of the RfA decide whether you or I are being honest, sneaky, biased, etc. Openness and transparency are the best way to let people decide these things.

I do agree with you that the single canvassed support !vote should have had the same comment added. You and User: Diannaa were both correct in that, and I was wrong.

Now that the closing bureaucrat has seen all sides of these arguments, they will be able to make a more correct decision. That's because all of us were able to speak our mind. I'm not going to apologize for my approach, and I'm not going to ask you to apologize for yours. Nor will I accuse you of wrongdoing, the way you are accusing me. I am assuming good faith on your part, and I hope you assume the same from me. Regards, First Light (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... the disruptive behavior on that RfA was from the canvassing by Diligent007, not by myself. But you have in response to Diligent, initiated your own version of disruptive behavior.

The only way to counterbalance that disruptive attempt to "throw the election" through backdoor means is to point out to the closing admin that half of the people who are opposing were canvassed. You think so, and you presume there is nothing wrong with your way. That's not the case. Appending your comments was wrong for the two reasons I pointed out.

Only one out of the 98 people who are supporting were canvassed. You should have appended with your comments, to be fair and consistent. It doesn't matter how many.

My notes are a belated attempt to counterbalance the bias caused by the canvassing. I already knew what you were attempting to do. Your actions were wrong for two reasons. You overlooked or ignored and didn't deal with it.

One big difference is that my comments were all on the RfA page, for the closing bureaucrat, and everyone else, to see. My behavior is transparent to the closer, as I have nothing to hide. It doesn't make your actions pristine or "more right". To append was still wrong for two reasons.

Those who close RfAs are presumably smart enough to see what is going on, so there is no harm, only gain. There is potential harm, I already explained it. (Re-read the analogy I gave.) "Only gain"?! From the perspective of someone engaged in their own deliberate bias-generating actions and agenda. (Already explained and described.)

... in being transparent about these things. If you really believed that "transparancy" creates innocence, then there would have been no need to append your comments on my vote, because in acknowledging Diligent's canvass in my vote, I was being transparent, too.

Open discussion should not be stifled—that includes your comments, and that includes my comments. No one can stop you from making the comments you made. I'm just saying it was wrong for you to do what you did. For two reasons.

Let the closer of the RfA decide whether you or I are being honest. The issue isn't one of honesty. The issue is that your actions engage in your own form of attempted bias-generation, to influence the closer, which was wrong for two reasons. (What you are implying, by saying this, is that you can be as underhanded as you want, and that it's irrelevant, because the closer will decide things. I don't buy the ethics of that. There are none.)

Openness and transparency are the best way to let people decide these things. But openness and transparancy, as discussed above, do not eliminate underhandedness, and deliberate attempts to introduce bias, which pleases your agenda.

I do agree with you that the single canvassed support !vote should have had the same comment added. You and User: Diannaa were both correct in that, and I was wrong. I wanted to congratulate you for correcting one of the wrong things you did. But I see you only admit wrong after Diannaa's prompt – not on your own, and not thru our dialogue, even though you now say I was correct. (So, no congrats from me.) Even with your admission of wrong, there remains the second reason what you did was wrong, too. You've not dealt with it and ignored it for your own agenda. But we should end this discussion now, since clearly you don't care – you got the result you were trying to help achieve. I just don't buy anything you've said, for the reasons stated. (IMO, you think the end justifies the means. I don't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do care - more about process than the result. Qwyrxian was going to pass RfA anyway. In fact, the canvassing seemed to attract quite a lot of new support for him. So I didn't even have to bother doing what I did. If I had kept my mouth shut, the !vote results would not have changed one bit. I stuck my neck out, not because of getting any results that I was trying to achieve, but because I saw a key Wikipedia process being screwed with—and that bothered me, to be honest. Obviously, we're going to have to agree to disagree on just about everything here - at least I will cheerfully do that on my part. And we'll hopefully assume good faith - again, which I can only do from my end. regards, First Light (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made this statement: "The reason I put them here is that traditionally, it only takes about 1/3 oppose !votes to stop an RfA, and so Diligent007's canvassing was effective in that regard, just not widespread enough." This shows you were concerned about he result, as the main motivating factor for what you did. And now you say you "stuck your neck out" in principle, not about potential voting results. You say you reacted to what you saw was bias activity, but your reaction to "counter-balance" was to engage in your own form of the same thing. (Two wrongs to make a right.) As mentioned IMO you believe end justifies the means. The fact that you got the result in your agenda, and subsequently are willing to "cheerfully agree to disagree", does not surprise me in the least. I know what "assume good faith" means. It does *not* mean that anything you might do, is somehow exempt from being inconsistent, unfair, intentionally designed to bias, hypocritical, and wrong. And if I objectively and factually point it out, in spite of all your dodging, it doesn't mean I'm "lacking in "good faith". IMO your thinking, and even ethics, have been very sloppy, and dialoguing with you has not changed my suspicion, it has only confirmed. What possible result did you hope to achieve, by dialoguing with me on it? You already admitted to one of the two wrongs, only after being corrected by Dianna. You apparently aren't interested to look at the other wrong, unless Dianna intervened again. If to "agree to disagree" means honoring the justifications you've tried to give for your posts on the RfA, I see those instead as rationalizations for "end justifies the means", w/ "end" representing your own biased agenda. So no. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qwyrxian

Hello. As the request had been closed, I reverted your edit to the RfA. Please feel free to take up the conversation with whomever you wish on the RfA's talk page or their userpage, but after RfAs have been closed by bureaucrats they are not supposed to be modified. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed it. Thx. (Curious: Why isn't the page locked down w/ software, rather than manual monitoring?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is further clarification of this issue on the RfA talk page, if you have further questions, feel free to ask them there. Dayewalker (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for correcting my goof. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happens all the time. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Blunder

At first glance I was going to tell you that you should hate in the now not in the past, but then I read your "scientific" definition all the way through and it made me laugh. Thanks. Quale (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I was impressed by its simplicity: "A blunder is a very bad move." (Simple notion, expressed simply! My congrats to whomever had the balls to write that prose!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No 'pos=section'

Hi Bubba, I started off w/ 'pos=section', but then decided it's confusing to remember whether it defaults to right or left, so replaced it with 'pos=secright' & 'pos=secleft'. (FYI) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Complete doc: Template:Algebraic notation/doc[reply]

Thanks - I didn't keep up with the changes. I used that in about 3 bios last night. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I corrected them for u. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS language update

Cyclone, we got the new language for MOS:COLLAPSE recently, simplification worked out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwyrxian#Update_to_MOS_or_no.3F Thanks for your support! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! I believe it was the right call, and I hadn't been checking in on it myself, but I am obviously glad that the change was accepted. BTW, you were welcome to post directly on my talk page as well. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

is this roman? Shang2 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic notation sequence of four

Quale, thought I'd let u know, all the articles where I previously added the sequence of four templates ({{TOC left}} {{break|1}} {{algebraic notation|pos=left}} {{clearleft}}) have finally been converted to the single macro template. (There are about 4 maybe 5 exceptions, where the macro couldn't work due to a right-placed diagram near the lead, and the seq of four was retained, albeit w/ a diagram template inserted in the sequence. [I'll be able to identify the 4 or 5 later; I actually want to keep track of them, understand how they work exactly, and add if any new ones come about too.]) Ok, FYI. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a lot of work. You've been doing more work on chess articles than anyone else the last several months. Quale (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for making me laugh! Bearian (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! (It is funny, isn't it! Glad u have sense of humor.) But I only drink dark beers now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your posts on the Donald Trump talk page. I think the situation is corrected now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the beer! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes in Reshevsky article

In the Sammy Reshevsky article, in "(+3 =13 −0)" - that is a minus sign and not a dash. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is terminology. (Before I changed it to the math minus sign, it was the keyboard character, which I call "dash" but really don't know what it's supposed to be called since it's used for multi purposes.) Am I understanding correctly your message? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the thing on the keyboard was a minus sign. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A true math minus sign is: &_minus_; which looks like: −

Whereas the keyboard char (whatever it's called) looks like: -

Which doesn't line up in: +/- (whereas a true minus sign does line up: +/−)

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a GM

No problem. It was a little unclear I think. It does seem a little odd that GM titles are for life even if you don't attempt to maintain a standard. Of course, if you don't remain competitive, then you won't be able to earn a living! Brittle heaven (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Like Supreme Court judges (appointed for life). Even colleges are reevaluating their (lifetime) tenure policies. Besides the need to earn a living, I suppose a GM's rating, if goes down too far, might be a personal source of embarrassment!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you didn't mind...

... my undo. This was a good one. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all if you are right and I can learn something. But I have reviewed both quotes in their source materials, and the sentences in the article containing the quotes, and re-read MOS:LQ carefully, and don't know what you are talking about.

First, here is the basis for my change (which you reverted) from MOS:LQ:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not.

For both quotes, the period is part of the quoted material.

Second, let's take a look at the reason you gave for revert in your edit summary:

no complete sentence: "If the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if is in the middle of a sentence."

You are quoting from MOS:LQ alright, but what part of it am I supposed to think supports your revert? The second part that starts: "The period should be omitted if ..." ? Well for one, your above quote from MOS is not correct. Here is the correct text from MOS: "The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." And if that is the part supporting your revert, it does not apply, since neither of the two quotations are "in the middle of a sentence", both of the quotations are at the end of sentences.

So I have no idea what your argument is for reverting me, it seems to me that you are completely wrong. But I want to be corrected if I am wrong, I want to learn. So please explain, and please be responsive to my points above. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: DVdm go to Talk:Richard Dawkins instead. I'm no longer entertaining your presence here on my Talk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi ihardlythinkso, Hope everything is swell. My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. Please let me know by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 22:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew thank you for the offer, but I don't feel qualified (I'm too new & inexperienced), and am too reserved for this. I'm curious though – what kind critieria led to me getting on your candidates list for this? Thank you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at NikNaks93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.