User talk:Sun Creator/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sun Creator. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Welcome
I see you know my good friend and collegue A Nobody, welcome to our not-so-little band of misfits. If you need help in anyway, let me know.
Hi, Sun Creator, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||||||
- Good information on the WT:ARS page, thank you for sharing ! Ikip (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Epistemics of Divine Reality, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar delivery
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For getting the chess game correct! 23191Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC) |
AfD nomination of List of chess openings named after animals
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of chess openings named after animals. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chess openings named after animals. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_34#Notability_of_list_items
- WP:SALAT
- Category:Lists
- Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists
- List_of_Star_Wars_characters
- Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise
- Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_34#Notability_of_list_items
- User_talk:Voorlandt#List_of_chess_topics
Happy Halloween!
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Carl Hamppe
It's true, there is not much to be known about him. But the creator of the Vienna Game and - yes - the chess mentor and rival of Wilhelm Steinitz during his early Vienna years deserves a better grade here (more than "low importance"). --DaQuirin (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- The importance is a guide to the priority for ChessWikiProject. As it's a guide so far as I'm concerned your free to change Carl Hamppe's importance back to mid. Let me explain the thinking in the low however. Other characters similiar to Carl are low, consider Ernst Falkbeer, again someone who is know for contributions to chess theory. Also the change was prompted in light of the viewing figures where Carl Hamppe was ranked 2847 in the viewing figures, when a Mid importance article would typically be ranked in the 200 to 1000 range. With old masters prior to the creation of FIDE it is somewhat difficult to gauge the signifigance but I am happy with the low in this case. SunCreator (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, as I see now, the Vienna Game itself gets only 'mid' and Johann Baptist Allgaier 'low'... --DaQuirin (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
chess-bio-stubs
Hi SunCreator. After seeing a proposal at WPSS for creating additional chess bio stub templates and categories, such as European-chess-bio-stub, etc., I used CatScan to locate a relatively small group of chess bio stub class articles that either didn't have a stub template at all, or had the generic chess-stub. If I placed the chess-bio-stub template on an article inappropriately, please remove it, or let me know where the problem is. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Canadian grandmasters
SunCreator, thanks for the stats on people who access the Canadian Chess Grandmasters page. On your suggestion to redirect the page, is it just a case of deleting the content and putting a redirect template there instead? I'm happy to do this but just wanted to check the procedure before I go ahead and do it wrong! Thanks again Fletch79 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a procedure person, so really I don't know what the right procedure is. Personally I think it would be good to replace the existing page with a redirect to a List of Grandmasters. If you do that, please redirect the talk page also. SunCreator (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you want this sub-page deleted?
Hi. There is something about your page User:SunCreator/AFD which is causing it to appear in CAT:CSD as a page tagged for speedy deletion. If you don't actually want it deleted, maybe you should investigate. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Investigated. It appears that something on {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}}} is creating incorrect categorisation. 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving!
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Place holder images
I noticed that you have been adding the image place holder to multiple biography articles. Please note that consensus is that although the images should not be removed from any articles that historically used them, they should not be added to articles. The centralized discussion can be found here for reference. Regards, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, thank you for that information. I was not aware of that discussion before. Having read it through I see no consensus to not add place holder images. What I do see is a consensus to replace it with something better. Do you know what is better? SunCreator (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like to make sure the "needs-photo=yes" parameter is added to the Wikiproject Biography banner on the talk page of the article. There's a neat new fuction that displays a link to the Free Image Search Tool in the banner itself when the parameter is activated (example here). Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I've added that to many articles before, but found it inffective to encourage photo additions. Adding place holder images on the other hand gets results. SunCreator (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ideas for a suitable replacement that could be placed on the article page in a smaller, less intrusive manner, have been discussed at the Village Pump several times, but unfortunately nothing concrete has come from the discussions. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. An article message box does get support but never happens. So solution until a replacement is agreed is to use the place holder images. SunCreator (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page you've linked to is a discussion from 2007. Consensus since then (at the page I linked to from the 2008 Centralized discussion as well as this ANI post from 2009) has been not to add the image placeholders to any more articles. Or perhaps I'm misreading your message above? Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understood it was old talk. I think you misunderstand both the links you supply. There is no consensus on them, there is in summary 'significant opposition to the use of the place holder images'. I myself would oppose the use of place holder images if I'd voted. SunCreator (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I just saw that you were adding the placeholders to a large number of biographies, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of the various discussions that had taken place regarding their inclusion. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks again for letting me know. It's not an indiscrimate list I'm doing; it's Chess Grandmaster who by there nature will have played chess in public (publicly where photos can be taken). SunCreator (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha - happy editing!Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks again for letting me know. It's not an indiscrimate list I'm doing; it's Chess Grandmaster who by there nature will have played chess in public (publicly where photos can be taken). SunCreator (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I just saw that you were adding the placeholders to a large number of biographies, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of the various discussions that had taken place regarding their inclusion. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understood it was old talk. I think you misunderstand both the links you supply. There is no consensus on them, there is in summary 'significant opposition to the use of the place holder images'. I myself would oppose the use of place holder images if I'd voted. SunCreator (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page you've linked to is a discussion from 2007. Consensus since then (at the page I linked to from the 2008 Centralized discussion as well as this ANI post from 2009) has been not to add the image placeholders to any more articles. Or perhaps I'm misreading your message above? Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. An article message box does get support but never happens. So solution until a replacement is agreed is to use the place holder images. SunCreator (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ideas for a suitable replacement that could be placed on the article page in a smaller, less intrusive manner, have been discussed at the Village Pump several times, but unfortunately nothing concrete has come from the discussions. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I've added that to many articles before, but found it inffective to encourage photo additions. Adding place holder images on the other hand gets results. SunCreator (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like to make sure the "needs-photo=yes" parameter is added to the Wikiproject Biography banner on the talk page of the article. There's a neat new fuction that displays a link to the Free Image Search Tool in the banner itself when the parameter is activated (example here). Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The Fame Monster
Please see my reply to your comments here. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Lady Gaga discography
I can't speak for other articles, but after looking at the volume of edits that are being made to the Lady Gaga discography article, I'm not sure unprotection would be a good idea at this time. However, I don't mind if you decide to request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection, so feel free to ask there to have it unprotected (though be sure to link to my reply, otherwise someone will just tell you to ask me about unprotection, which you've already done), though be aware that the lack of semi-protection may not last long based on the current amount of activity with semi-protection already on. As for Lady Gaga herself, I am strongly of the opinion that the protection on her main article should be left in place: there's been a lot more concern regarding BLPs over the last year, and a high-profile article likes hers would be bound to attract loads of vandalism without the protection. Finally, I also hope that my reply on Talk:Lady Gaga didn't come across as dismissing you in any way: it wasn't the intention! Best. Acalamari 03:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to make sure it's clear what is in my revision...let me quote the uncollapsed version (not covering tracks 1-14, just afterwards).
| No. | Title | Length |
|---|---|---|
| 15. | "Disco Heaven" |
| No. | Title | Length |
|---|---|---|
| 16. | "Again Again" |
| No. | Title | Length |
|---|---|---|
| 16. | "Retro Dance Freak" |
I have to readd composers and times still (unless someone else does that). Interestingly, I think 16 tracks are on the iTunes edition in America. CycloneGU (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right, that's what I see as well. You have no Track 15 for UK. Hence you got to add it in. SunCreator (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- International Editions covers the U.K. Edition. CycloneGU (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- So the problem is the word international. International does not include the UK for someone in the UK. So can the international be changed to something more suitable. SunCreator (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, what does international not cover, because if it covers the UK then it covers all, do why is it listed at an option at all? SunCreator (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the best question then is what edition is the 14-track version? That's the base release...was that the Italian Edition? Is North America also International?
- Regardless of this, track 15 appears on all editions that are special editions in any way, shape, or form. I think that's the point here. North America might be international as well in this case (again, iTunes shows 16 tracks and I used it as a source the other day...and that 15th track is Disco Heaven, I think). International covers anything outside of the base version that is not released in the country where the base version is released. If that makes sense logically (I'll lose myself soon), then any country where the base edition is expanded upon is "international", including North America. The U.K. Edition, in addition to being one of many international editions, also has a special U.K. track called Again Again. What we need to determine is where only the base edition was released; if the base edition actually includes track 15, we need to list that once proven.
- I'm going to look at a disc somewhere in Walmart or something 2morrow. I want to get to the bottom of this debate for North America (Canada at least). CycloneGU (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- International Editions covers the U.K. Edition. CycloneGU (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) All right, I saw the post at the talk page from someone else. I thought you just added Disco Heaven to the U.K. edition as track 15 which would just repeat the information above it, thus my reverting of your edits. Maybe my eyes are wonky, but that is what I saw in the differences between articles (I'll be more awake by morning, I hope). So...since I screwed up, can you revise "International Edition" to show Retro as 15? I'd do it myself, but based on my edits this evening, my reading comprehension is currently flawed. I'll be better by morning. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Heya, found Cherrytree's Twitter tweet about the censored tracks in The Fame Monster. You can find it (and some more comments) on the talk page of The Fame Monster. MakkeBernhard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
You're Kidding Right?
I'm assuming you didn't read the text of this [1] and are unaware of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. --NeilN talk to me 23:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- haha. No I never read that before, I treat everyone the same - so my mistake I guess, but you get the idea. If your a regular, then more concerning for your edit. SunCreator (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not laughing too much as accusing someone of vandalism ("considered disruptive and/or malicious") is taken fairly seriously around here. I believe your revert was incorrect and will be seeking other opinions. Meanwhile, please be careful not to mischaracterize good faith edits as disruptive in the future. --NeilN talk to me 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It's not a vandal template. Your edit was disruptive whether it was good faith or not and as such the Level 1 template Template:Uw-redirect1 seems entirely appropriate. SunCreator (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, the redirect was correct as it redirected to the artice with the same name. Please tell me which one of these points my edit violated Wikipedia:Redirect#Abusive_redirects? --NeilN talk to me 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- The redirect was incorrect as you made no attempt to allow for the existing redirect. The redirect is in place because Check game is the wording from foreign language. The game of Chess is almost always called Check in other languages. Existing users would end up in what to them was an unrelated random page. So technically speaking that would be the random in WP:RDVAND then. Although I would agree the implication that it was vandalism would in this case be incorrect. SunCreator (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, the redirect was correct as it redirected to the artice with the same name. Please tell me which one of these points my edit violated Wikipedia:Redirect#Abusive_redirects? --NeilN talk to me 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It's not a vandal template. Your edit was disruptive whether it was good faith or not and as such the Level 1 template Template:Uw-redirect1 seems entirely appropriate. SunCreator (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not laughing too much as accusing someone of vandalism ("considered disruptive and/or malicious") is taken fairly seriously around here. I believe your revert was incorrect and will be seeking other opinions. Meanwhile, please be careful not to mischaracterize good faith edits as disruptive in the future. --NeilN talk to me 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- haha. No I never read that before, I treat everyone the same - so my mistake I guess, but you get the idea. If your a regular, then more concerning for your edit. SunCreator (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably the best solution is to keep the redirect as i had it and have a hatnote on Check Game leading to Chess. Do you agree? --NeilN talk to me 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Was planned to add a hatnote before but article was in AFD so was awaiting result. SunCreator (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyways, it's ok, the wording is way off for a level 1 template and I've started a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Uw-redirect1. --NeilN talk to me 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edit to The Beatles
Please be advised that this edit was done against consensus and has been reverted. It had already been reverted back to the consensus version prior to your reversion, so your contention in your edit summary that you were reverting my edit is incorrect, and your accusation of wikihounding in light of the facts amounts to a personal attack. Radiopathy •talk• 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see. Well perhaps in the future you will consider explaining your reverts in the edit summary. It would of saved us both some time. And yes your activity looked like wikihounding as two other editors have also questioned. It's really in your own interest to not revert without explaining why. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where the "wikihounding" comment comes from.
- Jojhutton made an edit, changing "In their heyday" to "At their peak".
- Radiopathy reverted it; he didn't explain the reversion, but it was based on a consensus decision that was discussed on the talk page.
- Jojhutton redid the edit. Presumably, he should have gone to the talk page.
- I undid his second attempt and explained, "Undo; the 'in their heyday' was reached by consensus. Not sure it's a cliche, but we decided it was accurate and multiple editors agreed to it." The cliche part of the response was prompted by the Jojhutton's original edit comment.
The Jojhutton version of "At their peak" is not as accurate as "In their heyday" and the accuracy of the phrase was part of the discussion that eventually settled on "In their heyday." Please do not redo the edit. Feel free to discuss the issue on the talk page, or tell Jojhutton to do so. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I don't have a dog in this fight, but your reversion of the edit without noticing that it was also reverted by someone other than Radiopathy, with an explanation, is just as bad or worse than Radiopathy reverting a change without an edit summary. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why would I check the previos edits? I didn't nor did I have reason to do so, nor read the talk page. I came into the final edit(by radioapathy) it had no reasoning. I checked back to see the previous edit, it made sense to me. If Radioapathy's revert said see talk or something I'd have checked it out. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- You should check the edit history because that's where the story of reverts is told. I don't think you need to check the talk page before editing, but a quick look at the history would show that the editor you were attempting to defend made the same edit twice, both reverted, and by two different editors. Also, you must have looked at Jojhutton's contributions or you wouldn't have known he made an edit that was reverted., and like the page history, both edits appear there. Your edit was careless. I don't know about other activity of his, but Radiopathy's reverts on The Beatles were justified, and now he's blocked. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I reject the idea my edit was careless. How far back should one check? The carelessness if anyones was from Radiopathy who gave no reason in the edit summary. The wikihounding wasn't just about the beatles articles, seems there had been numerous edit warring going on and Radiopathy was being discussed at Wp:ANI seems he/she was on a one revert(1RR) and has since been blocked for 1 week; see ANI. So my question if it was wikihounding wasn't so baseless after all. SunCreator (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- You should check the edit history because that's where the story of reverts is told. I don't think you need to check the talk page before editing, but a quick look at the history would show that the editor you were attempting to defend made the same edit twice, both reverted, and by two different editors. Also, you must have looked at Jojhutton's contributions or you wouldn't have known he made an edit that was reverted., and like the page history, both edits appear there. Your edit was careless. I don't know about other activity of his, but Radiopathy's reverts on The Beatles were justified, and now he's blocked. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why would I check the previos edits? I didn't nor did I have reason to do so, nor read the talk page. I came into the final edit(by radioapathy) it had no reasoning. I checked back to see the previous edit, it made sense to me. If Radioapathy's revert said see talk or something I'd have checked it out. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I thought your edit was careless because the edits to The Beatles were consecutive in the history and within one edit of each other in Jojhutton's contributions. Perhaps "careless" is too strong, and I don't want to get into a dispute with you. If you didn't see the edits I described, then perhaps you were lead to The Beatles edit in question via Jojhutton's disingenuous edit of 20:09 on December 10th where he complained about Radiopathy's revert on The Beatles page ([2]). I say "disingenuous" because his talk page edit was nearly two days after the revert by Radiopathy on The Beatles took place, and thus also two days after I had also reverted him, gave him a reason why it was reverted, and responded to his subsequent talk question about it. In other words, he knew it wasn't just Radiopathy who objected to that edit and he still used it to accuse Radiopathy of wikihounding. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- yes, I came through jojhutton's edit. Which in turn came from the ANI between jojhutton and radiopathy. So I looked at there edits. I didn't look enough to spot the full story as it happens and wasn't aware at that point of the talk page dis ussion on it. Still one has to prioritise time and so I didn't check the history in detail. That wasn't careless or even incorrect it was a decision based on time against return. If the edit was incorrect someone could always correct me or come to my talk page to explain. In this case both happened and I quickly found out more. Still Radiopathy lack of edit summary has used a lot of time. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say that Jojhutton caused the time waste here: he mentioned an edit he knew was against consensus and that misled you, not Radiopathy's empty edit summary. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both perhaps. Or because neither have had the opportunity to explain, perhaps neither. Either way, what is done is done. Lets move on. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say that Jojhutton caused the time waste here: he mentioned an edit he knew was against consensus and that misled you, not Radiopathy's empty edit summary. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- yes, I came through jojhutton's edit. Which in turn came from the ANI between jojhutton and radiopathy. So I looked at there edits. I didn't look enough to spot the full story as it happens and wasn't aware at that point of the talk page dis ussion on it. Still one has to prioritise time and so I didn't check the history in detail. That wasn't careless or even incorrect it was a decision based on time against return. If the edit was incorrect someone could always correct me or come to my talk page to explain. In this case both happened and I quickly found out more. Still Radiopathy lack of edit summary has used a lot of time. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I thought your edit was careless because the edits to The Beatles were consecutive in the history and within one edit of each other in Jojhutton's contributions. Perhaps "careless" is too strong, and I don't want to get into a dispute with you. If you didn't see the edits I described, then perhaps you were lead to The Beatles edit in question via Jojhutton's disingenuous edit of 20:09 on December 10th where he complained about Radiopathy's revert on The Beatles page ([2]). I say "disingenuous" because his talk page edit was nearly two days after the revert by Radiopathy on The Beatles took place, and thus also two days after I had also reverted him, gave him a reason why it was reverted, and responded to his subsequent talk question about it. In other words, he knew it wasn't just Radiopathy who objected to that edit and he still used it to accuse Radiopathy of wikihounding. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"Images" chessplayers Lyoudmila Roudenko and Ernst Grünfeld
Dear SunCreator, I'm sorry, I don't knox where they come from. Yours. br:Implijer:Kadbzh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.1.132.42 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in the third AFD, I am letting you know about the 4th AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
barnstar
|
The Chess Barnstar | |
| For many useful contributions to chess articles. |
Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 01:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Lady Gaga
I have replied to your comments here. WossOccurring (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)