User talk:Quale/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Castling

I want to ask about it to you before debating it in the chess talk page. You undone my objection that removing the first rank matter of king and rook being a main item. Your explained it as "restore some of the original language (the same rank restriction) as this is actually how the rule is written even if it is not as straightforward". I'm checking fide handbook of chess rules and (fide handbook): "This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows:" is it handling the situation or am I misunderstanding the bold phrase. Maybe we should change the source to fide. Oz an (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

no I really don't feel offended and what comes really enjoying in wiki is the discussion period to me. I feel no ego and one of my concerns which I didn't implement but discussed in the talk page implemented by ubba73 (the value of the king). But u said "In one specific part I thought it better to stick closer to the language that FIDE uses so I changed that back.". But it is not FIDE, it is the cited online source (which still I think of the reason why it is there instead of FIDE, as far as I see, the other parts quote the fide handbook of chess rules). I changed the wording of the statement to resemble the FIDE for u don't like mine(a rook not in the game by promotion) By the way, I still vote to mine cause it is simpler. Thank you. Oz an (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

By the way, what is your op about "to the last square the king has just crossed.". In FIDE, it is "to the square the king has just crossed" ? Oz an (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Bobby Fischer and Gothic Chess

We're having a discussion about whether to include the Gothic Chess material in the Bobby Fischer article. I'm letting you know about it because one issue we're talking about is your opinion on the subject. Check the discussion at Talk:Bobby Fischer Just to clarify (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Desprez Opening

No worries. These obscure openings need all the references they can get!:)Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Liberzon

That's very interesting. I can't find anything on the net that confirms his death (only a quick look though). There are some usergroup sites that mention it, but these only reflect the same state of confusion that we find ourselves in. Pity it's pre-TWIC, as they would have printed an obit for sure. As far as I recall, there was nothing in CHESS magazine back then, and Burgess would have covered it too, but didn't. I've got to say I'm not terribly convinced so far, I think there'd be one or two trusty weblinks somewhere e.g. The Robert Byrne NY Tmes archive ... incidentally, I just stumbled on this site [1] while looking ... could be a useful (Bill Wall?) resource - and shows Liberzon still alive in Dec 06, as does the online Jewish Encyclopedia. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And the hyperlinked site above doesn't acknowledge the Tringov and Bobotsov deaths, even though they were both 2000. Things may look a little more ominous for Liberzon than I first thought. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

David Smerdon

Hi there. You just reverted my edits to David Smerdon's page, calling it vandalism. The talk page asked for a photo, and I added one. I also added his middle name. I'm just wondering how exactly that constitutes vandalism, and how I might have gone about my business in order to avoid such a scandalous charge. 124.176.16.159 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

I think I understand your concern over the question of who Bobby Fischer's father was, but the evidence is rather strong that it was Paul Nemenyi. This is discussed a bit in the Bobby Fischer#Early years section. It appears that the FBI thought that Nemenyi was his father (they had a file on Regina) for the reasons described in that section. The best analysis I have seen in print is in Bobby Fischer Goes To War. Quale (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is alright and perhaps this theory is correct but it's not proven and it's only a theory, it is extremely strange that this wikipedia article is taking sides on that and I will not allow it. This theory is discussed sufficiently elsewhere in the article without the likely remark.

Gravity is only a theory too. Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

William Fairhurst

Hi there. You recently edited this page, changing Fairhurst's IM title award year from 1953 to 1951. I agree this is most likely the correct year (you may already have seen User: Niemzowitsch and my own talk page for some brief discussion) and I note your entry on the Fairhurst Talk page. However, I am slightly confused; did you also intend to replace his ref [1] - ChessCafe (the 1953 source) with your ref [1] - Gaige (1951 source)? Or am I missing something? Brittle heaven (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You may have missed this message last time, for instance if you got two messages at the same time. Regards, Brittle heaven (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl or Karl Schorn

Hello! I have just written to DaQuirin:

In the 19th century a form of Carl was more popular than Karl in Germany (like Curt not Kurt). Schorn used himself Latin form Carl (see for example, http://www.kunstmarkt.de/pagesmag/kunst/_id142974-/news_detail.html?_q=%20 http://muenchen.bayern-online.de/magazin/kultur/kunst/artikelansicht/die-sintflut/ http://www.oldandsold.com/articles36/painters-19.shtml). --Grüß, Mibelz 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So, it is correct to write Carl Schorn like Carl Mayet. Regards, Mibelz 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think that both forms are correct.-- Mibelz 07:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Erno Gereben

Sadly no - I assumed it would, but as you say, that information appears to have been lost somewhere. BCM's source was the Swiss Schachwoche, but I doubt we have any 1980s readers/subscribers here that could check. There's a good chance Edward Winter or Richard Forster would know, because of the Swiss connection, so a trawl of 'Chess Notes' may be a possibility - perhaps a Google search? Brittle heaven (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC).

Theodore Tylor

Hello! You added to the article the fact that "He placed 5th= at Margate 1935 ". Please see the table in [2] - he did not participate in this tournament... Maybe another source lists him as a player? --Niemzowitsch (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mihai Şuba

I see that you have joined the move dispute. As you can see in this link that I had added to the external links section of the article, the name of this Romanian chess player writes with Ş, meaning that the letter reads "sh", not "s". Húsönd 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Romanian you know, and I still spell "Mihai Şuba" in my language, English. Assuming that English speakers do not spell with diacritics in not only wrong as denotes attachment to the past. On Wikipedia, diacritics are very easy to produce and it is thus our duty to provide them to our readers, for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy. The fact that you don't like them reflects only your personal preference. Húsönd 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please revert your move of this article. It is fully protected precisely due to a move dispute. By moving it nonetheless, you are abusing your administrative privileges. Húsönd 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The page is not protected.
2. I don't have admin priviledges. If anyone would know about abusing admin priviledges, it would be you.
3. I'm not reverting the move.
4. If you have concerns about the page name, take them up on Talk:Mihai Suba where they belong. I don't think you'll find much support there, but that's the appropriate venue for your complaint.
5. Where have you written "Mihai Şuba" in any article? Actually I've never seen you improve a single article in Category:Chess at all. Instead you just move war against guidelines and policy such as detailed in one instance (of what is undoubtedly many) at Talk:Arpad Elo. Quale (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that the protection had been lifted already so I apologize for accusing you of moving a fully protected page. Where did you get the idea that I should only be involved in this spelling issue if I had been writing articles about this person or improving articles on Category:Chess? I don't care much about chess really, so don't expect me to. But I do care about linguistic issues so you can therefore expect me to have name issues within my scope of activity. Not that that would make any difference, on Wikipedia everyone is welcome to participate in the areas they wish whenever they wish. Húsönd 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tournaments

Your user page works very motivational for me. Hope you don't mind I once again altered it, this time creating some blue links. Within a few years, would be nice to have all these tournaments covered. Good news on the Iranian chess championship. I wrote to the author of the 2008 chessbase article, and he says he has good information (including a complete winners list). So I will create that article once I receive his info. Kudos on the cable chess links, especially the Brooklyn Daily link is cool (quite similar to the nytimes online archive). I find it amazing that newspapers put their archive online as far back as the 19th century! It surely is a great resource. Best regards, Voorlandt (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Jan Timman

Yes, I was surprised to see it was a stub when I came across it. I'm using my trusty Oxford Companion to add references but I'd like to find a source for my bit about him being one of the first elite players to truly play a wide range of openings. I know I read it somewhere but can't remember where.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found the reference, from Steve Giddins's chess repertoire book. I'll add it to the article.Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1932 in chess

Good work on this. It so happens this is the single worst covered year in the Burgess book, so your source has already filled a gap in our knowledge base - no doubt it will assist with other years too. From what you have uncovered, it seems the Burgess Spielmann-Stoltz entry is OK; It looked a little suspicious at first, but Spielmann ended up living in Sweden to escape the upheavals at home, so there's every chance he would have made more than one visit to Stockholm.

Interestingly, I just checked Burgess' sources to see where he gets all his info. There are of course the usual suspects, Oxford Companion etc. - but also two German (or maybe Dutch) books from the sixties, by a Dr. P. Feenstra Kuiper and a book by R. Eales titled Chess: The History of a Game, Batsford 1985. This latter book sounds interesting; I can't say I've heard of it before, even though I collected many Batsford books through the eighties.

A while ago I mentioned some lesser known 'deaths' entries in the '1990s in chess' articles. In retrospect, I think most of these entries may be worth deleting. Having them sit there with red links is like saying they need articles, but in reality, they'd probably be AfD nominated. It's better not to suggest/encourage articles this way. Besides, if any do merit articles, they can always be added back in later. Hopefully, I'll get on and finish the nineties shortly - is there any period you'd like to see tackled after that, or is it better, for continuity's sake, to simply keep rolling into the eighties? All requests considered! Brittle heaven (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

William Samuel Viner

Yes, you are right, in several cases I used original text too extensively but always quoted sources. Sorry, it is my fault. I have just deleted the old page of W.S. Viner. This should be made in similar cases. Best regards, Mibelz 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on saving the Louis Bozon article from deletion. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also with the Dario Poggi article. Chris (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Centre

Fair enough (re: your comments centre v center) but for the sake of consistency, it should be the same word throughout the article. Which do you propose we use? The British, or US version? Llamabr (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well you seem to be on top of the situation, so I'll leave it in your capable hands. Llamabr (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 2011

Thank you for seeing my attempt at improving this article as the good faith attempt it was. My question to you is what grand prix actually does mean in this context. Do you know? If not, perhaps I should ask on the talk page of one of these articles. Thanks. Erechtheus (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scacchorum or scachorum?

Hi Quale,
Well, I guess this is a good question! If you wish, undo my title move. For while I'm using scacchorum in my Portuguese article. Thanks. --Roberto Cruz (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean Dufresne

Hello! You added his death date as 13/4 but in this photo of Dufresne grave it is written 15/4. [3] I believe that this is the correct date. What do you think? --Niemzowitsch (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the date came up on the Berlin Chess Federation website. It is explained here that 13 was a mistake, made up by the Deutsche Schachzeitung first, and which since that time (1893) "haunts" the chess history books (like Gaige). --DaQuirin (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		You totally deserve at least one of these for doing the vast majority of the grunt-work of converting Alexander Alekhine's detailed results to tables, freeing the text for more interesting stuff. Alexander Alekhine has just been promoted to GA, and you laid a lot of the groundwork for that. Many thanks! Philcha (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merle Oberon

Ah thanks, I didn't realize that about "biographybase." I've re-sourced the fact with the Australian documentary; I had used the biobase just because it was seemingly a third confirmation. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Lipschütz

Hello ! Please note that it is written "Samuel Lipschütz (July 4, 1863–1905) was a chess player and author and was chess champion of the United States from 1889-1890 and again from 1891–1894." At the end it is written that he was chess champion of the United States in the year 1892 and after that was Succeeded by Jackson Showalter.

Could you please check? --Niemzowitsch (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ernest Atkins

It is mentioned that "His only appearances in major international tournaments were separated by a gap of twenty years: Hanover in 1902, where he was placed third behind Janowski and Pillsbury; and London in 1922, which was won by Capablanca. "

In the article Adolf Georg Olland I read that he "took 2nd at Amsterdam 1899 behind Henry Ernest Atkins"

If this is correct we have at least one more international tournament where Atkins participated.

What do you think? -- Niemzowitsch (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

London 1851 chess tournament

Thanks! Philcha (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kapengut

Dear Quale, you wrote the list Belarusian Chess Championship. Three weeks ago I asked a question on the discussion page about the 1970 championship. Do you have a clue which of the three mentioned possibilities is correct? Cheers, --Gereon K. (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Grandmasters

Hi Quale, Sorry for interfering with your User page again. The good news is that the Golombek tournaments slowly increase in coverage. In fact, I believe a good chess encyclopaedia should cover at least the 100 strongest chess tournaments (eg [4]). It might be good to create two extra subcategories in the Category:Chess competitions. One category for single tournaments (like the list from Golombek), and one for tournament series (like the memorial tournaments, Linares, etc.. ). Do you think this is a good idea? And also, can you think of appropriate names for the categories? English isn't my first language, and I just can't think of appropriate names. On the subject of English, recently two categories have been created Category:International solving grandmasters and Category:Grandmasters of the chess compositions, do you know if this is ok? Are these the official titles? The last one just sounds wrong, and google seems to agree. Best regards, Voorlandt (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ivo Andrić

I have added all this sources because article is under attack of nationalistic vandal. In reality only 1 source has been needed (New York Times) but when you work with vandals you need many sources and in many cases even that is not OK--Rjecina (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Immortal Game

This was deleted so I could swap Immortal Game and Immortal game while preserving the history of both. The old Immortal Game was renamed to Immortal Game - Temp page so I could preserve its (albeit short) history. I was trying to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:MOVE#Swapping_two_pages but the procedure is so cumbersome (without being an admin) I'm not sure why I bothered. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Boris Baczynskyj nominated for deletion

I am writing to let you know that Boris Baczynskyj has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion if you wish.Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:1899 in chess

Hi! I have created a page London 1899 chess tournament, adding Category:1899 in chess. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1899_in_chess, please. I do not understand why three pages in this category are changed into Object id? In my opinion, it is not a good idea. -- Warm regards, Mibelz (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see, that now it is correct. --Mibelz (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Zagorovsky

Hello, Please look at the link [5] I think that you mentioned this tournament in your contribution to the Zagorovsky article. IF so, we can correct the year to 1951 and add the link, I did not find a 1952 tournament that he won. --Yoavd (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:1939 in Paraguay

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:1939 in Paraguay]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

2nd AfD of Alcides Moreno

As you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (which ended in no consensus) I thought you might like to know that it has been nominated again. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Drop the arrogance

I just saw this revert of yours with the label "uh, no, we aren't going to allow a biased edit to the lead by a possible IP sock" and I also remember your recent unwarranted personal attacks on a talk page and I just want to ask you to simply drop it.

My username refers to my IP, the IP edit has nothing to do with me.

Personal attacks are not appropriate when a user merely discusses possible article changes civilly on a talk page.

This "we" you're referring to is so far not appropriate either since the only one that seems to have a problem with that guys edit is you although I will admit that his edit is probably not 100% the way it should be and that a "we" will probably exist in the future.

Now I ask again that you please drop the arrogance.

Thank you,--194x144x90x118 (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have NEVER! edited the Anatoly Karpov page and I have always signed my edits to the Anatoly Karpov talk page, these accusations are ridiculous.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Quale as you can see at the Bobby Fischer talkpage I am not exactly pleased with this public personal attack that you posted there and I feel unable to just simply ignore it and move on so I asked you to please strike it out, something which you have not responded to so far. I however can at times be a somewhat patient person so I'll wait 8 hours more before I ask an uninvolved admin to take a look at this matter.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118 RFC

Hi, due to a dispute on an article unrelated to Bobby Fischer, an RFC was opened on User:194x144x90x118's conduct (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/194x144x90x118). Since I have added a view on the RFC, where you are mentioned, I thought it best to give you a heads up on it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The case has been bumped up to an Arbitration request (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118). You have not been listed as a party, but you may be interested. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. :-) If the case is accepted I do recommend lurking a bit on its pages, even if you don't wish to submit anything to them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in case you are not following the arbitration case, I recommend that you take a look at the current evidence page as you have been mentioned there, and you may want to respond to it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I just noticed this, and I'd like to apologize for failing to inform you when I mentioned you in the evidence I presented. This is my first time posting to an ArbCom case, and I completely forgot to inform people that I'd mentioned them. I'm glad Sjakkalle thought to let you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the case has ended now, with a summary at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. The one-year ban on 194x is pretty much along the lines I expected, and I think the result is an appropriate one. I agree with Carcharoth's comment that the issue should have been dealt with sooner, before it reached arbitration. Perhaps I was overly reluctant to take action in the wake of the notorious "fucking morons" post. In the end ArbCom's final focus was on the longer-lasting and relatively nastier DreamHost dispute, but I think the incidents at the Bobby Fischer article mattered as well in determining the necessity of a full ban as opposed to a more limited topic or page ban. I hope it will take a long time before I step inside the arbitration process again, acting as a prosecutor and arguing to ban someone for one year [6] is not the kind of activity I envisioned when I joined Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Raymond Keene article and talk

A whole lot has happened on the "reliable sources" question. I think ZincBelief is engaging in original research, but perhaps this should be examined on an official basis, rather than me just arguing with him. Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hou Yifan

Your addition of a Defaultsort to this article was completely pointless as the article is sorted by that anyway. Defaultsorts should only be added in cases where we want the article to be sorted by something other than its natural order. PatGallacher (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so! "Hou Yifan" and "Hou, Yifan" are not the same sort. Hou Yifan would not sort correctly compared to "Hou, A" and "Hou, Z" by default. Use of DEFAULTSORT also eliminates the need to comment on not needing DEFAULTSORT. Quale (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chess_position

Template:Chess_position has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. SunCreator (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Chess Barnstar
		For many useful contributions to chess articles.

Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

European Team Chess Championship

Hello - nice to hear from you again and thanks for the kind words. We certainly miss your own daily contributions, but it's quite neat that you still keep watching and intervening when needed. My editing has also been largely curtailed these days, but I plan to return more fully in a year or so.

I knew learning the Russian alphabet would come in useful one day! Of course it might have been just as quick copying and pasting from Olimpbase. I'd be clueless when it comes to removing phantom/damaged edits, so that will be a great help if you manage to sort it. Any ideas for the "Details" sections in the title boxes (below each venue), or do they just need removing? I'm also wondering if it's worth putting back the team scores that NovaSkola effectively lost with his format switch? Brittle heaven (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Anania-Shirakatsi-coin.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Anania-Shirakatsi-coin.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Quale. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

One more:

Hello, Quale. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hoax opening

I put a comment on the talk page agreeing that it was a hoax, so that may help, if the admin is unsure. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

PS - I had a kid play that opening against me last year. And a friend of mine encountered it many years ago, with the 9th through 16th moves advancing the pawns to the 4th rank. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted that one. "Hoax" is generally not considered a speedy deletion criterion unless its "blatant", so I won't blame anyone for the relative slowness of this speedy; chess openings is a specialist topic most admins are unable to evaluate with any great accuracy. Nonetheless, I think enough eyes have evaluated the article to not bother going through with any PROD/AFD process. For a chess player, the content of the article is clearly untenable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Liam Howlett

Precedent is that there doesn't have to be any outside cuts. For instance, Category:Songs written by Darryl Worley was kept even though it contains only songs that he also sang. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pomona

TY for correcting the cites.Would you please tell me how I can identify these "wiki-clones"? Is there a list? Divine inspiratioN? LOL. I would appreciate if yo could let me in on the secret because so far no one will tell me. Thanks! Namste..05:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks anyway! Namaste!...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FIDE title award regulations 1970

Hi there. Good work on that article. I hadn't seen it before. Unfortunately, the 1970, "Dorazil" changes are very lengthy - about 3 pages of A4 - I could easily summarise them without giving the detail, but I'm not sure this will do the article justice. I'll give it some thought ... maybe with all of the IM stuff trimmed out and the technical data arranged into a Table, the material will become more manageable. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I did drop a lot of the minor detail which could have swamped the article, but hopefully there is enough to show the beginnings of the modern system. If I see anything else of relevance, I'll add it in. The later developments are probably difficult to itemise individually, as there will have been many small, incremental changes over forty years. An expanded description of the current system may suffice. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate

The article Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Checkmate – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nczempin (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Video annotations on youtube of games of famous players

Quale you seem to have removed all my Youtube video links yesterday which I added, and more from before. Now these were individual playlist links which my friend JessicaFischerqueen was compiling for me. E.g. I am working on a Bronstein playlist here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0DB4C778C29411CA I think my videos are of high quality, and do not breach copyright. I am a Youtube partner, as well as being a FIDE CM (was over 2200 many years back), also a British Regional master, and a Chessbase presenter on Tuesday evenings. My ECF is 199, and FIDE currently about 2150. Please may I ask for my Youtube playlists reinstated from the World champion pages ?! Also, you have removed my edit correction of an external link to a Capablanca Biography which was originally on chessclub.demon.co.uk (and is now currently a broken link after your seemingly indescriminate destuction of all my past Wiki contributions yesterday). The new Capablanca bio page is at: http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/culture/worldchampions/capablanca/capablanca.htm because I had to move server from chessclub.demon.co.uk to gtryfon.demon.co.uk. I have done several bios on World champions before Wiki even existed on the Internet at: http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/culture/culturemain.htm Kingscrusher (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chess bios

While I appreciate that you were unhappy with the category changes that I made although I did not actually remove any information this does not mean that you were correct to undo the separate edits for notability tags. The reason for notability is to avoid having to automatically AfD a page. The wikipedia guidelines are clear on the issue of what meets a notable person and what sources are needed to evidence this.

I would have undone the category changes I made myself when I saw that my edits were unwelcome.Tetron76 (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As you will see from the below, I thought that Quale did precisely the correct thing here. I find both your application of AfD tags and your removal of cats to be inappropriate in these cases. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

... on (to my mind) properly reverting some deletions by Tetron76. I agree that I can't see the basis for them in policy/reality.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

kings are always on the board

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Why are you disputing this postition on Tempo (chess), kings are always on the board.

April 2011

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

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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. Jsharpminor (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See new category I created with three listings

In light of your recent edit to Stanley Kubrick, I have created. [Category:Famous amateur chess players]--WickerGuy (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this is now a 3-way conversation I am replying on MY talk-page.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

List of chess amateurs now created- can include more info now

List of famous amateur chess players.

Whadya think?--WickerGuy (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history

Hi! I have no issues with the edit you made in moving Alexander Khalifman's comments “Anand is a genius. He emanates light”, Mig Greengard, Chess in Translation, 17 August 2010</ref> about Viswanathan Anand to World Chess Championship 2010. However, I wish to point out that the page Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history (where I had originally made changes) is obsolete and needs urgent updation. In particular, the "Chessmetrics" and "Warriors of the Mind" lists are obsolete and must either be deleted or else updated to reflect the real picture as of today.

For example, the Chessmetrics list of most dominant players includes data only upto 2004 and Viswanathan Anand, Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov have remained dominant for almost 7 years beyond that against many a worthy opponent. Anand was already a candidate for getting into that list even in 2004 and he has won two World Championship matches since then! Likewise the "Warriors of the Mind" list is obsolete now. I am sure some of the above named great players would find a place in these lists if only they were updated.

I have been watching this page for more then two years now. Initially only Kasparov linked back to it but gradually several past players like Karpov, Capablanca, Fischer, Lasker and Alekhine all jumped onto the bandwagon and linked back to this page to proclaim greatness. No doubts about the greatness of any of these players, but there must be objectivity and no undue glorification. So either we should update the page Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history or else allow it to move beyond statistics of the last decade. --voyager39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

MOS

Per your MOS comment, I never understood COMMONNAME to be concerned with formatting and stylistic issues, such as logical quotations, en dashes, italics, or the like. It's not used to enforce title case in our article names, for example. I always took it to mean a difference in actual naming. — kwami (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see a conflict. COMMONNAME does not concern itself with formatting. For example, they say "H. H. Asquith (not Herbert Henry Asquith)", but there's no reason to think that "HH Asquith" wouldn't be just as acceptable, if that's how we were formatting initials. There's no substantial difference. Same with "Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)". "Guinea Pig" with title case would be just as acceptable if we decided we needed title case for common names. En dashes for hyphens are a matter of style, not an actual difference in naming. They also advise avoiding "ambiguous or inaccurate names" even if they are more common, which is arguably the case for en dashes if you really see them as creating distinct names. — kwami (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with Polgar?

I hate to impose, but I'm in a debate over a revert I made. I noticed a couple days earlier you reverted the same issue. A discussion began on the Polgar talk page, but I'm getting nowhere with it. To me, the issue is obvious, but I would appreciate your opinions whatever they may be.The debate is in the Many or few? section on Talk:Judit Polgár. I just added a summary of the argument. If you don't want to get involved, I understand. Thanks. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks greatly for the help. This had been using up too much of my time and the offending editor still doesn't get it. Hopefully, this ends it. Thanks again. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I read on the RFC of Nevadone saying he is through with this issue. I've stayed out if the debate so as to not encourage it to continue. He added Polgars lifetime record as a separate section and seems to have said if someone deletes it he's not going to fight it. I feel he has no consensus to have added it, it's unsourced and on it's own merits has no context. I'm not against putting Polgar's record against other players if there is some justification for it, but he was never able to articulate any and the edits he had made were suspect. I could delete his most recent addition myself, but thought I'd consult with you first. Do we need to make and comment on the talk page, etc..BashBrannigan (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Eric Schiller

Hi Quale. According to an archive of Eric Schiller's own website, he was awarded the FIDE Master title sometime in 2003: http://web.archive.org/web/20030425222031/http://www.ericschiller.com/schiller/chess.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallicrow (talk • contribs) 09:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Alekhine's drinking

Hi, Quale. I think the best way to close this case is to add 3 sources who knew A. and said A. drank very heavily - Fine, Golombek and Horowitz. As you brought these up at Talk:Alexander_Alekhine#Alcoholism_-_using_unreliable_sources, can you build citations into the article Alexander Alekhine. Thanks --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Chess Life DVD

Does the Chess Life DVD contain the entire magazine - tournament anouncements, ratings list, and opening pages? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Chess Life DVD set includes all pages of the magazines including ads, announcements and rating lists. They are scanned images collected into PDFs, typically a single PDF for a year's worth of magazines. Unfortunately there's no OCR or electronic index, so you have to search them visually unless you know where to look. Quale (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rules of chess

Your revert there was against consensus on the talk page. Please go discuss.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, on the talk page, I'm reminding you to stay cool with Scottdude2000, specifically, to assume good faith with him. He's a new editor, let's not bite him.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct editing procedure

You recently reverted an edit to the article First-move advantage in chess on the basis that the statement was true but unverified. I am sure your intentions were good, but this is incorrect editing procedure according to core Wikipedia guidance. Correct procedure is if you believe a statement to be true is to request a reference in the article by using the citation needed template. If you believe a statement to be false or completely out of place in the article, it should be moved to the discussion for the article with an explanation. It is only vandalism or other genuinely worthless contributions to Wikipedia that should be simply reverted.

I hope this will help you make many constructive contributions to Wikipedia in the future.

Chess page

I agree with you about the "studying chess problems" verbiage. It was already there in one form when I started editing Chess and I just tidied it a bit, trying to be cautious about entirely deleting another editor's prose. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

endgame opening paragraph

I'm probably going to coach a scholastic club/team again this year. When I get to endgames, I'm going to say

The chess endgame (or end game or ending) is a non-rigorous term referring to the stage of the game when the strategic patterns laid out in the opening and executed in the middlegame have not led to sudden checkmate and the cumulative effect of irreversible piece capture (unlike chess's Japanese cognate shogi in which pieces return) has resulted in a reduced number of pieces remaining on the board in a position progressively more subject to concrete calculation by highly skilled players and especially by chess-playing computers

. (not really) :-) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are being vewwy thilly :-) Wikipedia is not a children's tutorial. I teach grade-school children to play chess and with them, I explain. On Wikipedia I define. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a challenge to see if you can reach 50 on the fog index. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Jax, you really should take a look at Talk:Chess opening. There you will find Jimbo Wales showed up looking for some basic info for he and his daughter, as they began their investigation into chess. (If you read what he said and suggested in Talk, and you have any reasonability at all, you will immediately understand just how far off-base you are in your ideas regarding what kind of writing should occur in WP chess articles on basic topics like openings, endings, etc.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled userright

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Algebraic notation sequence of four

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

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wilhelm Steinitz2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Wilhelm Steinitz2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

AWB tool: removes spaces at ends of lines

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

Thanks for the tip on AWB. It was my first time using it. I tried to be super careful, but I knew I'd screw something up :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

queen color

In fairness, I've heard "the shoes match the dress" for the color of a queen on its square, but I don't know a reference. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)