This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bubba73. 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.
No I have not, but I just borrowed the quote from Bubba from that article for my page. I live in what used to be the "shrimp capitol of the world". Bubba73(talk), 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I took a few photos at their MOA restaurant today. Shown below. You need to put one of those bumper stickers in Photo 5 on your cubicle wall or something. Oops, it's not in that photo. Anyway, it says "I [heart] Bubba", followed by their logo. Not all of us get our names on bumper stickers, ya know. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?04:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I had an errand to run at the MOA on Thursday, so I got a couple more items. They might zap the stickers as "fair use". But if they leave them be, then you've got something with which to feed your inner narcissist. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Matulovic help. If you can find that CL with the ugly picture of Fischer that I mentioned in the latest edit to the talk page, most of the remaining stuff in the article can be referenced. I created the original Matulovic article, in a time when Wikipedia was less rigorous about documenting articles than it is now, and was working from memory, which is why references are missing. It's past time to become more rigorous about that.
I noticed in your user page that you were a student at UIUC at one time. When? Did you grow up in Illinois? If so, did you play in tournaments there and then? I'm originally from that area -- was a protege of Garrett Scott and much later, directed a national scholastic event with him -- and wonder if we may have met in real life or even OTB. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I found it, see the talk page. I was at UIUC fall of 81 through spring of 84. I grew up in Georgia, but went to school there for a while. I played in two tournaments at UI. Bubba73(talk), 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I was long gone from Illinois by the time you were there, so we didn't overlap. Thanks for the Andric reference; it contained most of what I had in mind. However, there was another one with that dorky Fischer picture that made many of the same points, including the "play it cool" line. I think it was by Radojcic but am not sure. Anyway, the Andric article should suffice for documentation. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There were several articles, May and June 1970. It was called "the great match" until the "match of the century" article. Articles by Larry Evans and Kolty (May) and Andrric, Kolty, and Evans (June). Bubba73(talk), 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which has the photo you remember. Andric has a caricature of Fischer (and others). Kolty has a photo of Fischer and Petrosian, but it doesn't look dorky to me. Bubba73(talk), 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The photo I'm thinking of has Fischer face-on to the camera with a drink in his hand, and someone (I think Radojcic) in profile talking to him. Possibly I'm misremembering the event; it might have been taken in conjunction with his play in the Rovinj/Zagreb tournament that followed the Match. It was a long time ago, after all ... Yes, I remember the caricatures of Fischer, Spassky the high jumper, an incredibly flattering comparison of Reshevsky to Napoleon (with chess pieces as soldiers), and Larsen in a Hamlet reference. Anyway, no point in running the photo reference down, as the important things are the facts, which have now been dug out and incorporated into the various articles. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I found it. I should know to trust your memory. July 1970 article by Radojcic, pp 368-70, "Observation Point: A Sentimental Journey". I'll read it. Bubba73(talk), 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Page 369 - "The way it was, the Soviet captain had the oppertunity to play it cool; thus it happened that he put Bot. versus Mat, Tai versus Uhl, and Keres versu Ivkov - in all three cases exposing the members of the world team to that most uncomfortable business of having to play opponents against whom, for one reason or another, they had never played well in the past.: Bubba73(talk), 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ReubenFine.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
64
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. It's a tiny bit under the "periodicals" entry. Hooper & Whyld also mentions that 64 sold the most copies (100,000). I don't know how this compares to the circulation of Chess Life, although that could be checked. Quale (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Block
Hi, Bubba73. I had unblocked because I forgot to allow for account creation and I must have forgot to reblock. Thanks for blocking again. I am sorry for the delayed reply. I wrote this soon after the incident, but did not save it and then it got buried by other browser tabs. There is no need for a reply. Talk to you later. -- Kjkolb (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice image you added to Piatigorsky Cup. Now if a picture of Petrosian and Keres from Santa Monica 1963 turns up, and maybe a picture of Jacqueline Piatigorsky with the cup to go with the lede, the article will look nice. (I think I've seen pictures like these, but of course I don't know of any free ones.) Quale (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you picked up that the standardized rules for the FIDE Grandmaster title actually started later. I saw the comments about Gligoric and Bogoljubov receiving their titles in 1951, and it didn't seem worded quite right before. Kenneth Harkness says that Bogoljubov's GM title was held up by the USSR for political reasons, as he should have been in the inaugural group in 1950. Apparently it required a lot of arm twisting, but eventually the Soviets relented and Bogoljubov received his title a year later. If I can track down a satisfactory reference I'll consider adding it to the article. (It was in one of his Chess Bluebooks or Chess Handbooks.) Quale (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd put in the stuff about Gligoric and Bogoljubov, since they got the GM in 1951 - the first after the set of 27 awarded in 1950. Then I read more details in Sunnock's Encyclopedia, and the formal rules didn't start until 57. I didn't know that about Bogo. Bubba73(talk), 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And when I discovered my mistake, I had to correct it last night - even though I needed to be going to bed early, since I took my daughter to a tournament today.
Yes, it is intersting to look back to when the GM title meant something. Well, it still means something today, but in 1970 if you followed chess you would have heard of every one of the 80 or so GMs, all world class players. Today, only a true fanatic would know even a portion of the 900+ GMs. It seems the fairly complicated rules for the GM title were put in to avoid the kind of politicking that occurred early after the introduction of the official title. (Actually since those rules have been adjusted a bit from time to time, it would also be interesting to find the first regulations that were used.) Somewhere there must be a good source that explains what happened and why. Someday someone will dig one up and we can add it to the relevant article(s). Hope the tournament went well and that you both had fun. Quale (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
A scholastic tournament. My daughter was on board 2 in the last round (a Swiss), but lost to a much higher rated player. I was pressed into service as a floor director (again). Some ogf the things scholastic players don't know!!! I had one that wanted to castle with a Q and R and another that thought that the Q could only move 3 squares. Others told me about a high schooler that didn't know en passant and another that tried to move the K 3 squares in O-O-O. When they think it is checkmate, they often start moving the K on all adjacent squares. Once I wasn't sure where the K was supposed to be, so I asked "where is the king?" He lifted it up off the board and said "here". I should have said "what square is the king on?" Bubba73(talk), 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the outcome of this? Are they not copyright if they are dead? Does that mean we can then use them from elsewhere on the net? If so let me know. Please response on my talkpage thanks. ChessCreator (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'veadded quite a few of them in recent weeks,and none have been chalanged. They are not out of copyright unless they are before 1923 (1950 for USSR). A key is to have a fair use statement, and the person being dead, and that it is low resolution (< 100KB). Bubba73(talk), 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I can think of only one other at the moment, and he hasn't edited for a long time. I'll see. I'm planning to get better pictures of Fort Fredrica soon. Bubba73(talk), 00:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
We need as many users as we can get interested. It is recommended that at least five users are in order to start a WikiProject. Jaxfl (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey y'all. I think this WikiProject is a very good idea. However, have you thought about just creating, or trying to create, a task force at WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)? Reb (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)
Bubb73,
I just saw that you joined up at WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) and thought I'd stop by and formally welcome you. If you have any questions or if there is anything I can help you with please let me know. Reb (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone care to answer this one?
Geosynchronous satellites orbit at a height of roughly 23,000 miles. Some of the Apollo photos were taken from considerably farther away. You should be able to tell from the perspective approximately how far away the camera was, and if you did that with some of the Apollo images you should find that they were taken from much farther away than geosynchronous orbit. Bubba73(talk), 04:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this connected with the Apollo Hoax nonsense? I can't give you a scientific answer, but consider this: the farther you are from the earth, the closer you get to being able to see 50 % of it. The question would be, how much of the earth's apparent disc can you see from 23,000 miles vs. from the moon? Or are they difficult to distinguish? Here's another thing to consider: geosynchronous orbits typically lie on the earth's equatorial plane. If the picture is clearly above or below the equator, you're not in a geosynchronous orbit as we normally use the term. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?07:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That's right. Someone asked on the talk page, and since the talk page isn't for answering questions, so I said to look here. You are right - the farther away you are, the closer you are to seeing "pole to pole", and you are also right about the inclination. Bubba73(talk), 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LuzhinDefense.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Minor remarks
Hi, I cannot say I am happy with your edits to [model mate] page as I am used to other conventions in chess problem magazines around globe. But as it is largely a matter of style (usual are Mate in 2 moves or Mate in 2, 1.Qe5 instead of 1. Qe5 etc.), I have no reason to object with firm ground.
Also, I have noticed two things for you to consider on your user page - 1. Are you a boss in the solipists club or solipsists club? 2. One barnstar image is missing.
In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words
. The solipists thing is a joke, I think you got that. One of the barnstars was awarded, but then they took away the image. Bubba73(talk), 16:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked some books, and most of them have a space but no period between the move number and White's move. The ones with the period had no space after the period. So even though I like a space after the period, no space seems to be more common. Bubba73(talk), 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Chess
I take it you're a chess maven. That's not really my area. I know that it has lots of moves named after players or situations, like the Sicilian Defense, which I'm assuming involves guns. I wonder if you've heard of the Fischer defense? Its strategy is, behave like a lunatic and scare everyone away. Well, it worked for him, anyway. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been mostly working on chess articles for 1-2 years. Topics with controvery have caused me to lose sleep, so I've mostly stuck to non-controversial things. When I started editing, I was big on early computers and a few math topics and pseudoscience and a few local things. But I saw that the chess articles were in a poor state and I've been working on them. I'm not a great player, but I've been in it off-and-on for 40+ years, and I have over 100 books for references. Fischer won some games that were not objectively wins - he would just wear his opponent down. Bubba73(talk), 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LuzhinDefense.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:LuzhinDefense.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MNajdorf.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:MNajdorf.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
The links must be exactly matching the name as given on List of chess terms, near enough is not good enough unfortunately. Capitalization and other characters have to be exact. Yakov Estrin for example you used 'Over_the_board' yet the heading is exactly 'Over-the-board (OTB)' and without it being exactly nothing useful happens. Recommend you test every link after you change as errors are common in my experience, learnt that from changing the links on the List of chess terms page itself. ChessCreator (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MNajdorf.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
KIA
i 've already made some changes to the reference list. i think it is a very good idea to divide the huge list into references and further reading list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucySky00 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
KIA
sorry but i'm not so firm in handling of wiki's talk possibilities. i thougt the discussion has to be left on the article site and now i'am on your private talk. it is not so intuitive :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucySky00 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Passed Pawn Image
Hey, good catch about the divided board. The bottom left quadrant looks exactly the same in the two images so I thought I had it right. Well, I remade the image and it should be fine now. Take care, Lyctc (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am the source, or rather the reporter of the source, of the lines about "deadening". You take issue with the writing, fair enough, but also with the question of whether the term and it association with Andersonville Prison is "encyclopediac". I also put the lines on the Andersonville Prison page, but they have already been removed. Since you appear to have some expetise related to Wikipedia, I would appreciate your suggestions of how what I think to be an interesting piece in the jigsaw puzzle of remnant facts about that place and time should be more appropriately or correctly preserved. A Georgian (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Niemzowitsch has some photos of Vladimir Liberzon that might be a good addition to the article. Because I am not very familiar with either the copyright issues or wikipedia policy about these images (the few images I have uploaded to wikipedia were published in the US before 1923), I told him I would ask you if you are interested in helping with this. See User_talk:Niemzowitsch#Vladimir_Liberzon if you are interested. Thanks. Quale (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's done! I checked, and it *should* work in both Firefox and IE, and the code is written so that other screen resolutions won't cause problems either. If you ever need that sort of code again, feel free to steal it from that article, my awards page, or this section of WP:RIBBON (the latter two undoubtedly being the reasons they sent you to me). Hersfold(t/a/c)19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! In January 2008 you wrote: "I broke the list up by 25-year ranges, but the ones from 1900 on probably need to be broken up by decades". In my opinion it is a good idea to devide the list by 10-year ranges. I think the year 1870 would be a starting point for it (the first period from 1850 to 1869). Best wishes, Mibelz (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if the article starts going by decades in 1870, it might as well start with 1850. Although there aren't many in 1850-1869, at least going by decades the whole way would be consistent. So I'd say go by decades starting at 1850. There's no harm in having the first two sections small. Bubba73(talk), 00:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pillsbury2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU≈talk01:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you're bumping the ratings of some chess articles up to B-class. I think WP:CHESS has many Stub-class articles that actually should be rated Start-class, and many Start-class articles that really qualify as B-class. We don't have as many A-class articles yet as we should, but realistic class grading may help us focus our attention on the high priority pages that really need help. Quale (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen some that I thought were underrated. I looked at the criteria for "B class" (at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment) and the ones I've changed all seemed to easily meet it. I appreciate the editors who went through and gave ratings to 2000+ articles, but I looked at it and they were doing about two per minute - not much time to give a good assessment. Bubba73(talk), 00:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
30 seconds it quite a long time once you get into the swing of it. I suspect more of the articles that require up-rating are those that where assessed a long time ago and have steady improved to the point the original assessment no longer applies. SunCreator (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I also really appreciate the hard work of the two or three or so people who tagged and assessed over 2000 articles. Even if I think the assessments are sometimes a bit low, I didn't help with the work and I'm not now going to complain that I disagree with a handful out of 2500+ assessments. Quale (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! It works very well and saves a lot of time. If you find a good way to create table results of tournaments like Nottingham 1936 chess tournament - I find it difficult to prepare. If for example we could take a table in html (like in this week in chess) and turn it to a wiki table we could enrich wikipedia with many tables in an efficient way. --Niemzowitsch (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! That's the first feedback I've gotten for it, and it really speeds up making diagrams. There is a little bug - the "clear" doesn't clear the pieces from the display, but they are actually cleared from the code. I want to fix that and add two options: regular size or small, and left/right/center. Bubba73(talk), 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not notice the bug because I used only the 8 rows with the pieces, and copy pasted them to my Hebrew diagram. See for example:
[1]
You will have to scroll down a few lines as you get to the start of the study part of Capablanca. I change manually the size by the last parameter. I am sure that many use your wonderful tool! --Niemzowitsch (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
GIMP
I don't know if you planning on going the GIMP route, but if you are, an idea is to open an existing automated image(like the one in the Budapest gambit) and you can see how the layers and step through timing is done. SunCreator (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'll do it. There are really only three frames to show, and they are already in the "Illustration" section. Bubba73(talk), 01:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A microscopically tiny point ...
It's a microscopically tiny point, but I prefer to not capitalize wikilinks unless the target properly begins with a capital. In other words, I prefer "[[check (chess)]]" to "[[Check (chess)]]", and "[[chess endgame]]" to
"[[Chess endgame]]", etc. It may seem that this doesn't really make a difference if the link is piped, but actually there are two small reasons why I think it's better to not use unnecessary caps. First, the caps confuse people into thinking that they are required in all wikilinks. Some beginners really do pipe links without need like "Fred Blogs is a [[Chess|chess]] player ...". Second, with the caps you can't use the trick that lets you write "[[check (chess)|]]" and the wikimedia software will automatically complete the piped link into "[[check (chess)|chess]]" when the page is saved (unless you really want the link to be capitalized). I don't think I'm the only one who has this preference/fetish. It seems to be uncommon to needlessly capitalize piped links. Quale (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been using AWB for the first time today, and it is easy to get in trouble. That is one I was changing. I used to generally not use caps, but once a month or two ago, someone went behind me and Capped them. So lately I've generally been doing it. But you are right, it is completely unnecessary. I didn't know about the trick with just putting the "|". Now that I'm onto AWB, I could find and replace changes like that at the rate of 3 to maybe 4 per minute. But in this case, it probably isn't worthwhile. Bubba73(talk), 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right that there's absolutely no reason to edit an article just to change "[[Check (chess)|check]]" to "[[check (chess)|check]]". That's the kind of change I'll make in passing if I see it while doing something else more important (such as using dashes instead of hyphens when appropriate :), but I wouldn't edit a page just to make that change. Quale (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cydonia Mensae
Hi Bubba73. Sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to let you know that I've removed an image that you added to Cydonia Mensae. I couldn't see that it added anything on top of what the other images already showed. I did think that because it's from a different platform it might be good to keep (the MGS one is used twice), but for conformity with the rest of the images, could it be rotated at all? It shows the face "upside-down" (so to speak). Anyway, just wanted to let you know why I'd done this. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I thought anohher recent image would help to show that the original "face" was a trick of the low resolution and shadows. Bubba73(talk), 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a better image, but as it duplicates, and is "upside-down", I removed it. Anyway, I'm going to try to rotate it and put it back in. Another editor has also queried the attribution of the similar image still in the article to Mars Global Surveyor - you wouldn't know anything about that would you? Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
By way of follow-up, I've uploaded a new cropped version of the MRO image and used it in the article to replace a duplicated MGS image. So the article now has more diversity in the images of the face shown. I hope this helps. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thought all those Knight images are a bit to much for the Knight topic, and as they are said to be from the standard Staunton pattern, moved them to the Staunton chess set. I'm going to hunt through the commons and see what is available. I think it would be nice to add a few variations of each piece in the piece topic but not so many as unbalance the topic. SunCreator (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Among Staunton sets, there isn't that much variation among the other pieces. I have about 30 sets, so I could come up with three to five examples of variations of other pieces, but most of them don't vary that much. I can look at any of those knights and tell which it is, but I wouldn't be able to do that with most of the other pieces. Bubba73(talk), 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you changed the layout of this article by moving the summary table down. Any specific reason for this? At least on my screen it looked much better before. Now the first page of the article has almost 2/3 whitespace, while earlier there was almost none. Also the picture is moved away from the first page. Best regards, Voorlandt (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
On my screen, with the table on the right, there was a narrow strip of text (the lead section) to the left. There were only two or three words per line in the lead, which looked pretty bad to me. Bubba73(talk), 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I had moved Georgia State Route 99 from a non-standard name format to the correct one. When moving a page, it says to avoid creating double redirects. If I eliminate the redirects then it will avoid creating a double redirect. Bubba73(talk), 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Double redirects are redirects to the old name, not links to the old name. Links to redirects are fine. --NE203:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That was per WP:USSH; it doesn't really improve anything, but neither does changing from a redirect to a direct link. --NE204:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That page says that there is nothing wrong with a redirect, don't fix them. But changing the links from the actual article title to redirects the way you have been doing is probably counterproductive. Bubba73(talk), 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Another advantage of using the actual article title is that this utility to show the number of times an article is read does not count views that go through a redirect. So for an easy and accurate way to get the number of page views, don't put redirects in the links. Bubba73(talk), 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: user block
A block stops the user from editing, except to their user talk page in case they want to request to be unblocked. The other options we can apply just add on to that - so a block that's marked "account creation blocked" will stop them from editing, and from creating other accounts to get around the block. Help:Block and unblock has more information, if you'd like. Hersfold(t/a/c)15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Averbakh image
Yes, I was previously advised by the terminator, or his bot. From previous experience, it's rarely worth resisting these terminations in the case of living people. Shame, but it's quite miraculous that its lasted this long really. From memory, mine was just a re-cropped, touched up version - not sure who posted the original. I'll have a look in Commons and if it still survives, I'll re-post it after a short lapse. Thanks. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Great images
Hi, I notice you've taken and uploaded some great original images! If you're not already familiar with Wikimedia Commons, I encourage you to check it out, and upload your original free licensed images there. The images can then be not only used here on the English language Wikipedia exactly as if they were uploaded directly here, they'll also be availible for use in Wikipedias in other languages, related Wikimedia projects, and can be seen in galleries and categories there. (I'm an admin both here on Wikipedia and on Commons, so if you have any questions I might help with, ask.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw that you had moved one to Commons earlier today (the oak tree in Cummer Gardens). I prefer to have them on Wikipedia, for one thing I can keep them on my WP watch list. Secondly, I don't really know now to include an image from the commons. Finally, it is hard for me to imagine that another project would want a picture of that particular oak tree. Bubba73(talk), 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I copied that one since there was already a gallery of Cummer Museum images on Commons it could be added to. I also uploaded a copy of your great pic of Jimmy Carter on the bicycle to Commons. Yes, you do need a seperate watch list page for Commons, but the way to put the images into Wikipedia articles is identicial to if they were here only. It is your choice of where to upload things, of course; I wanted to make sure you were familiar with the Commons option. Yes, I saw your image gallery, which is what prompted me to bring it up. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:SteinitzAlternate.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SteinitzAlternate.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll accept that you see something. I'm not seeing it. And the IP address that keeps posting it is doing so with a "gotcha" slant, in my opinion. If I'm overinterpreting that, let me know. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Make sure you are looking at the Apollo 15 video, and look at the edge of the flag away from the pole when an astronaut passes between the camera and the flag about 2:38. It doesn't flap as in a wind, but it does sway back and forth. Bubba73(talk), 01:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It took clear until Apollo 15 before anything like this happened? Talk about the moonbats grasping at straws. So I must have been looking at the wrong video. Do you have a link to the right one? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Here they plant the flag and it is moving as they do that, as it should. Then it quits moving. Then about 2:38 an astronaut passes between the camera and the flag, moving left to right. The edge of the flag away from the pole moves back and forth a litte a few times. It is clear that the astronaut has caused it somehow. It appears that the astronaut wasn't close enough to the flag to touch it, but that isn't certain. Pro-hoax people think that it moved because of a puff of wind caused by the astronaut, i.e. there is air. But it never moves otherwise, and if you walk by a flag on Earth that way, it probably isn't going to make it move. Most people think it moved because of static electricity. I haven't looked at it closely enough, but they say that it moves away from the astronaut before he gets there, an electrostatic repulsion. Bubba73(talk), 03:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. Looks like it's "wobbling", like it had been jarred somehow. Oddly enough, when the astronaut was standing closer to it, earlier, nothing happened. One thing we can't tell too well is how far away things are. But the astronaut hit the ground fairly hard, and maybe that cause the pole to oscilate a bit. If that's the best the moonbats can do, they had best go back to the drawing board. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's right, after they plant it, it doesn't move any other time. It is hard to tell how close the astronaut is to the flag when he passes by. The lens is a zoom lens, and perspective changes. If the lens is at a long focal length, objects appear closer together than they really are. If the lens is at a short focal length (zoomed out), objects appear farther apart than they are. Bubba73(talk), 03:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That is the only one I know of, and I've watched plenty of the stuff. And it isn't at all certain that it is an anomoly. And the rest of that particular video suggests an environment with no atmosphere and low gravity. Bubba73(talk), 04:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We can leave the article as it is now; that is, with the reverted introduction by the deletion of "landlocked" harbor. The only reason it was written this way: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762511090/Brunswick_(city_Georgia).html -- a Oglethorpe Bay can be considered a harbor, and in that notion it can be considered a landlocked harbor because of Andrews Island to the west and the fact that the bay empties into the Brunswick River, which is basically a strait from the marshes to the Atlantic.
I wouldn't have put that if Encarta didn't list it as landlocked. I agree -- it makes more sense now. Jaxfl (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Chess photos
It's been a while, but I believe most of the chess player photos of mine were taken with a flash. I used a film SLR camera (Canon Rebel G). One way to tell: if there is a prominent shadow on the wall behind the individual - as for example, the photo of Laura Ross on her WP page - then a flash was used.
By the way, could you carefully watch the Jeremy Silman page and notify me of anything funny going on there. I just received a personal communication from Silman protesting some of the content (just now removed by myself).
Sure, I'll add it to my watch list. I've edited that article some (and communicated to Silman some errors in the endgame book). Bubba73(talk), 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Bubba Gump shrimp company
We went down to the launch of STS-124 a week ago and came back through St. Augustine, Florida, and passed a Bubba Gump Shrimp Company resturant. But it wasn't near mealtime, so we didn't stop. We are planning to go back to St. Augustine next fall or winter, so maybe we will check it out then. Bubba73(talk), 15:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
We will probably make it back there in a few months. I think we were 11 miles from the pad. The three photos at the bottom of STS-124 are ones I took. Bubba73(talk), 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. That looks like about the distance from which I watched the maiden launch of Challenger in the summer of 1983. I think it was at Titusville or Cocoa Beach, some 10 miles away. You have to know somebody if you want the box seats. Otherwise it's SRO. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?16:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It might have been. But if it was, they had some really good special effects. Even the sound from about 5 miles away made your body vibrate. Bubba73(talk), 17:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Botvinnik2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Botvinnik3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Botvinnik3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Taxicab Geometry & Euclid's Axioms
Hello, Bubba73! I have received your message from June 7th about how 1) Euclid's axioms on Taxicab Geometry is unreliable, and 2) How a high school teacher is not a reliable source. Sorry for the delay, but I have been busy lately. I am convinced that a high school teacher is not a reliable source, but will you PLEASE post your reasons why Euclid's axioms are not a reliable source on MY TALK page since I am not fully convinced. Thank you for your time and effort.
Is it true they're going to mothball the shuttles in the near future? If so, how long will it be before the Sibrels of the world start claiming the shuttle program was also a hoax? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Reference for Topalov-Aronian Re: Opposite Coloured Bishops
Hi there, I noticed on SyG's talk page a discussion about a need for a reference for commentary on a game Topalov-Aronian, Linares 2006. Just in case you miss it there I thought I'd alert you to this analysis of the game: [3]. It's by ChessBase and goes into detail where it's needed, so should give you a starting point. I'll try and do something myself but I'm not the best chess player on the project so I suspect you and SyG may have more luck than I on the matter. Hope it helps anyway.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That was an observation about the article. How was that vandalism? That was a talk page opbservation. Are we not allowed to talk on the talk pages. What the $#%? I mean what the f*&(ing f*^? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimZDP (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It was not a rant. It was an observation (that can be supported by facts), then a question. And it was a legitimate question about the article. So you revert rather than answer? Is that "Wikipedia?" FYI, when I discover how to make a request for a comment, I am DEFINATELY going to ask why you beleive you can revert a talk page. JimZDP (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science
I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- TinuCherian - 09:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolute seventh rank
Someplace you asked for the definition of the "absolute seventh rank." Aron Nimzowitsch wrote: "By '7th rank absolute,' we mean that our control is such that the enemy King is shut in behind it. For example White: Rook at a7. Black: King at f8, pawn at f6. On the other hand, if the pawn were at f7 control would not be absolute." My System (21st Century Edition), p. 26; My System, David McKay, p. 42. Krakatoa (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is still a 'work in progress.' The Liberty ships portion of the article will definitely be added to Brunswick's main article, just more likely in a more condensed version. As you see, there's now a History of Brunswick, Georgia article, and when I have time throughout the next week, I hope to expand that article as well as improve Brunswick's article. Would that be sufficient? Jaxfl (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't know about the History of Brunswick article, and that would be a good place for the Liberty ship material. And if it is there, one paragraph in the main Brunswick would be enough. Since you put a GA request on it, I assumed that you were through with your changes for the time being. Thanks for all you do. Bubba73(talk), 03:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I have a three-paragraph format as of now on the main Brunswick article. What the main article needs is a good set of references, but besides that, the article is pretty decent for a city of 16,000. Jaxfl (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Staunton2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A new task force - ESA
Hello,
I've noticed that you are active in the area of space exploration. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Bubba73! I took the {{talkheader}} off Talk:Janis Ian because it says explicitly "This template should be used only when needed. Do not add this template to every talk page." Janis' talk page has a few comments, but isn't all that active. Thanks for your edits to her article! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)05:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This IP address [4] has taken it upon himself to start removing stuff with fact tags on it. He's been doing this kind of work for several months, and it only caught my attention because he did it to the Apollo hoax article. I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not, and have posted it to WP:ANI. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?09:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to the policy, material that has been tagged for a long time and not referenced can be removed. I glanced at the article, and most of what he removed was in the claims, and I don't know a source for a lot of those claims. Some of them may have been O.R. or POV of some editors. Offhand, I don't know a reference for any of them. I'll look in more detail later. Bubba73(talk), 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Hoax believers were pretty much given a free reign and use the article as a blog to say anything they wanted. My favorite is that some woman in Australia thought she saw a coke bottle, and that is seriously taken as evidence of a hoax. I don't think that would hold up in a court of law. Bubba73(talk), 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
None of it would hold up in court. I'm sure Kaysing knew that. If the government had tried to sue him for his slanderous comments, he would have been ruined. He took the calculated risk that the government wouldn't bother wasting time and money on him. Is that Coke bottle nonsense still in the article? I guess it's at least sourced, even if it's bogus. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading your talk page is making me very hungry. I must leave and eat some shrimp forthwith (that means thawed frozen shrimp in these parts, alas). Krakatoa (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good, thanks. Anything to improve the article. It is read more than 500 times per day, so I think it is one of the most important chess articles. Bubba73(talk), 18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've signed off my comments "complete". I've also adjusted the position of the simple exmaple diagrams and tested the result in all my browsers - the main one I can't test is Safari on Mac. Talk page includes instructions for moving the diagrams up and down. -- Philcha (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize if you are in the crowd that has successfully spread it through many chess pages. I also apologize for a lot of the unfair things said abotu Sonas, in chess-rumor websites (like redhotpawn, chessgames, 65th square, etc...). Using ex post facto data, is explained in a MIT youtube video, I'll find it for you tomorrow hopefully. First can I ask what is your opinion on chessmetrics and specifically Mr. Sonas? Sentriclecub (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been spreading it.
I haven't read any of the rumors.
I can't find the video.
I have read quite a bit about Chessmetrics, and it seems good to me. He did a lot of analysis that was not possible for Elo or his predecessors to do.
I wasn't trying to pile them on. I thought it was appropriate to link to the articles, and at first I added only the first one. But although the 4th one has links to the previous ones, part 1 doesn't have links to the later ones, so I added all four. Bubba73(talk), 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the MIT video and is the first 6 minutes (and at circa the 50th minute) but if you have the 45 minutes to spare, I recommend watching Part 1 here maybe in a few days or couple weeks, whenever you get time (but don't make time for it, just a moot point now).
Here is the EXACT part of the article (which I had nothing to do with) reads loud and clear right here..
Jeff Sonas, Chessmetrics' author, repeatedly emphasises the importance of a rating system's ability to "predict" results (during testing the results to be "predicted" are those of past games whose outcomes are known to the tester).[1]
Its almost like the author of the article for chessbase, included this ironic statement which comes across as positive to 99% of readers, but the 1% of scientists its like an inside joke. This is the flaw which is fatal. The formula was designed around 1 fact which was to make a chessmetrics formula which puts kasparov as the highest long-term chessmetrics score, but to have Bobby Fischer have the highest peak chessmetrics score but sadly, Sofia Polgar actually has the highest chessmetrics peak (she is only an IM) and this single case, is the the inexorable refutation to the loose foundation, already shakey and broken and full of strained logic. However, the guy has since redesigned his formula to again make Bobby the peak again, and did a pretty bad cover up (though this isn't well known because it was before the chessbase article).
(unindent)
Where does it say that he based it on the "1 fact", to make Kasparov higher than Fischer?
In science, predictive ability is important. For instance Galileo did experiments with falling bodies and then devised equations that made precise predictions about future events. Kepler used obversations of planets to devise equations that made precise predictions about their future location. What's wrong with that? Chessmetrics has demonstrated that it is a more accurate predictor than Elo's method.
That's my problem, I only know it from someone I absolutely trust. Its hearsay, but I can only point out Fine-tuned Universe just as this suggests there is a god, the exact numbers which Sonas used to satisfy the kasparov fans and the fischer fans (because chessbase won't publish something unless it passes this litmus test). Thus I offer no proof except for a speculation. I wish wasn't just a screenname, because its ridiculously silly to say that I know people in chess gossip circles, who know that Mr. Sonas is a self-promoter and trying to garner fame by coming up with a miracle formula that solves what we all suspected anyway. He's merely giving the chess world a "feel good answer" caused by all the collective desires to have closure on crazy matchups--Morphy vs Fischer, Fischer vs Karpov, Karpov vs Capa... Its like religion, since so many people want to believe so bad, its usually met with absolutely very little resistance. There is a lot more to Mr. Sonas and chesspolitics than I'll go into, since it only serves to make me look foolish. However, I can safely say that there are some strong opinioned people involved in some sacred alliances and the USCF is extremely rife with officers being strong-armed by pressure. I believe that it is just the nature of professional chess, to be extremely nit picky about every detail and will sometimes fight just to fight. Have you heard of some of the recent lunacies? Like the Fischer's deathbed 61 memorable games conspiracy? There's so much behind the scenes stuff, and everybody knows who is behind most of it, most of the time. But that's why hearsay is so weak. Really there is no proof of anything. Try googling Mr. Sonas, there's nothing said of him which I've been told by those active in chesspolitics. Its just so crazy, I don't know why people subject themselves to it? Sentriclecub (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
In Sofia Polgar it says "According to the Chessmetrics rating system, her performance rating was 2735;[3] one of the strongest performances in history by a 14-year-old." Is that sentence confusing you? Bubba73(talk), 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
"Jeff Sonas, Chessmetrics' author, repeatedly emphasises the importance of a rating system's ability to "predict" results (during testing the results to be "predicted" are those of past games whose outcomes are known to the tester)" But the known games were not included in the prediction! He used the historical data to calculate ratings up to a certain point and then see how well that predicted the outcome of later games. Bubba73(talk), 01:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The first formula did have her as the highest peak, in the beta phase while he was hammering out which values to use for various "weights". That was one of the most difficult tasks, was to make sure that the chessmetrics formula was "correct" by not letting her have the peak. He had to make some sacrifices to make sure that the RESULTS of the formula were consistent, and as a whole, much better than elo. Sentriclecub (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The part you're quoting is exactly what one would have to say, in order to convince people that he took into account ex post facto correlation. Honestly, if the article is 100% true, then you're right, but I'm speaking from what I know through gossip. Which again, is foolish of me to use that in an argument, but I hope you wish to consider the amount of chesspolitics that exists--look at the link I showed kainaw of a few examples. The USCF is rife with strong-armed influence and GM's throwing hissy-fits (like Fischer complaining about the bright lights and cameras and to play in a back room). Except today's stuff is much worse--just have a look at this if you'll see that there's a ton of politics involved in chess, and many factions who are analogous to political parties. In other words, assume neutral faith about Mr. Sonas intentions and his credibility of his formula, and then play the part of the skeptic. Then spend an equal amount of effort assuming he's a great guy, and his work is straight on, and the recalculation of his formula to smoothe out the results that it would suggest (sofia pulgar) are indeed empty gossip. The only opinion I have respect for is to say that one is uncertain. As for the article though (which is what we should instead be focusing on) the article is fine now, my concerns were addressed, and I'll apply no more mechanisms to initiate change. I am more needed at Annual percentage rate, what do you think of the first 2 paragraphs? Are they clear now? Compare that to the version before I took over what is someone's opinion from outside of finance? Do you think the first 2 paragraphs are better for those who wish to consult an APR from an encyclopedia? Sentriclecub (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is not supposed to be based on gossip and rumors you heard. You seem to have misunderstood things like "ex post facto data" (I saw the video) and Susan Polgar, etc. I don't care about the annual percentage rate article. Bubba73(talk), 14:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood, as it appears flawed reasoning is the issue which I'm trying to hint but not in the way you interpret my point. About the APR article, that's why I want your opionion! I want it from a wikipedian, not a finance person nor science person (and that eliminates everyone else I know on here). There's no point in discussing the chessmetrics article, I'm happy with the way it is. If you want to carry on the conversation (if you are genuinely interested in a moot point) I'll be glad to explain how it is similar to the MIT video you watched. However, if you think that the point I was trying to make the whole time was making the article more reflective of gossip and rumors, then do me a favor and politely tell me to go about editing the APR article. I feel like you are giving me a mixed message. Am I supposed to follow up and you are genuinely interested? Or are all things wrapped up? Either way, I'm glad the article is in much better shape, and the talk page has some pertinent discussion, than before I put up the prod:tag. Also, if you want any help on [wikibooks-opening theory in chess I'll be glad to get you started, as that's the only other involvement I have with chess on this site. Thanks for your understanding, and thanks for your contributions on chess. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
How is that reasoning different from what Elo did, or Galileo or Kepler? If you are right then all of science is wrong. No, I'm not interested in discussing the point with you. Bubba73(talk), 17:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You are delusional uncivil. I am agreeing with the MIT professor. So if you disagree with him, then it is you who disagrees with science. We are both trying to outstrawman the other's argument, its just I'm the only one willing to admit we're both doing it! Why? I am just as clueless as you are--probably trying to win an ego battle and this discussion was drug out because you pretended to not understand my point. I'll let you have the last post, and promise not to respond, as long as it is shorter in length than 6 sentences. I have work to do at the APR articlce. Chess editors, I'll treat with even more apprehension than my standard apprehensive greeting. Even though I disagree with you, I will honor your contributions to chess endgame articles. You're a fine editor, even if we disagree on Mr. Sonas's process of the development and creation of chessmetrics. Sentriclecub (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Brunswick
Hey Bubba, it's United Statesman -- I changed my username from Jaxfl. Anyway, I've been working on some cultural aspects of the city (Brunswick), and I've come across sports, and more specifically, the Golden Isles Bowl. Do you know if that game was discontinued? If so, when? United Statesman (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I do not know anything about it. I haven't heard of it before. I've lived here 6+ years, but I'm not a follower of sports. Bubba73(talk), 01:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I called my dad; he thinks the game was discontinued in 2007, the website points to the fact that the last active game was 2006, and the sign going into Glynn from Camden that used to say "Welcome to Glynn County—Home of the Golden Isles Bowl Classic" was taken down last year. I made sure to include some of the aspects of the game on the city's page. By the way, I've been working patiently over the past few days on Brunswick's article. I'm going section-by-section; right now, I have demographics, economy, education, government, and culture to — standard, shall I say. I think the article has potential for GA nom later in the week. What do you think? United Statesman (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks good to me but I don't know if it will pass a GA review. One thing - although I like the first picture of the port/bridge a lot, I don't think it is a good one to represent the city. The problem is that with a city like Brunswick, there isn't a good skyline to photograph. Bubba73(talk), 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect it to pass GA -- there's still a lot of work to be done, but maybe after a lot of cleanup is done, it might have the potential. And I have a photo of the city (actual downtown -- from the bay), so later today or tomorrow I may put that as the skyline photo. United Statesman (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As noted by Bubba73 on my talk page, that's not really the most useful quotation. First, it's to be expected that Armstrong would debunk the hoaxsters, so it doesn't really add any new information. Actual debunking, as opposed to an opiniated comment, is much more useful, as with the Plait book or the Mythbusters show. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Image:EloBook.jpg
I removed this image from the article on the Elo system. There is a set of requirements for nonfree images. The important one here is #8 - nonfree images are only permitted when they significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic. I believe book cover image does not materially increase readers' understanding of the rating system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Thanks for uploading Image:EloBook.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Gothic Chess is under attack again
Many people have an axe to grind with Mr. Trice, but chopping up the article isn't appropriate. I believe some of the sections you worked on got deleted. The stuff about middlegame and endgame and openings are the most relevant part to readers like me. i don't care all that much about its history or tournaments, I mainly want to know how is it similar to chess, how is it different. We can't have an article about a chess variant without a description of how it varies from standard chess. I don't have good standing right now with the wikiproject:chess ever since the chessmetrics days, so I hope that if you think gothic chess is being unfairly butchered, maybe drop a line to the wikiproject's discussion page, or take a loot at it yourself and reason out what's best. Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Question about book image
Hi, Bubba73! I believe you have uploaded photos of book covers and used them in chess-related articles. I was wondering if you could help me do the same thing. I have taken a digital picture of the cover of George H.D. Gossip's book The Chess-Player's Manual. A copy of the picture is now on my computer's desktop. The most recent copyright indicated in the book is by David McKay (1902). Where do I upload the picture to, what do I do in terms of documentation, and how do I put the picture in the article George H.D. Gossip? Thanks for your help! Krakatoa (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
On the left of the screen is a "toolbox" and in there is "upload file". You can be on any Wikipedia screen and select that (i.e. you don't have to be on the page where the image will go). Then you have to give information about the copyright and where you got the image (download, your own scan, etc). For book covers there is an item to select that it is the cover of a book. That creates a file "Image:name.ext" that has the image and some text with it, which can be used in the articles.
If the book is still under copyright then one of the most important things for book covers is to put a "fair use" statement in the text of the uploaded file for each article where it will be used. You can click on some of the photos and look at the type of info that goes there. Bubba73(talk), 18:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Mythbusters
It's hard to get away from the Apollo Hoax thing. We've got a user now trying to qualify every sentence about the Mythbusters tests, claiming they're unscientific and unreliable. I reverted and started a discussion thread on that page, if you would care to weigh in. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruy Lopez
My edit to the Ruy Lopez article was fine.
You should read the article before you decide whether an edit is constructive or not.
I'm sorry. It was an unexplained deletion of material (no reason given in the edit summary) by a first-time user. It had all of the earmarks of vandalism. Bubba73(talk), 23:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
request for your input
Hi Bubba73, there is a editing war regarding an article onRonnie Nader.
The whole discussion is documented on the talk page Talk:Ronnie Nader,
I would like to get your comments in the talk regarding the relevance of the article,
the reliability of the sources, maybe your input could settle the editing war.
regards, --Guillermosoriano (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Staunton Knight Photo ID
Hi Bubba73,
I noticed you loaded several photos of knights on the Staunton Chess Set page. I'm particularly interested in the photo in the lower right hand corner called PlasticCavalier. Can you give me any more information about this set? I believe I had this set when I was a kid but my mom threw it away during one of her periodic surges of energy after I left home. I always liked the feel of those pieces and the look of the pieces. I tried searching for Staunton Cavalier but the images on House of Staunton appear to show a differently shaped Knight. Can you steer me towards a place I can find one of these sets? If it is via ebay, etc, can you tell me what the key words (year, etc) that I should look for to distinguish it. Also, what do you think the price would be. Thanks for your help.--Billyshakes (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That is a set I got from the USCF in 1970 or 71. It came in a blue cardboard box with a lift-off top. It has a 4 inch king. The top of the box has "Cavalier Chess" as the main title, and it also has "standard of the world" above it and below it is "Authenticated Staunton pattern", "tournament edition", and "approved by the United States Chess Federation". On the side of the box it says "(C) 1967 Pacific Game Company, No. Hollywood, Calif. 91505". There were three models (listed on the side):
Thanks. Yes, that is the one. The blue box on mine was falling apart so I tossed it and just kept the board and then the pieces in an old plastic ice cream bucket. I played with my great uncle who had MS and was half blind. The pieces were easier for him to see and handle (and he still kicked my but most of the time, despite his poor vision). I too had the Ivory and Black set. Thanks for giving me the size and weight. At least I know what I like if I try to find a replacement to fill its shoes. I always thought the knight was nice looking and still choose it over all the other knights on that page. I appreciate your hasty response and I guess I'll just have to let it go. If you ever think of getting rid of yours, I'd be interested. In Turkish, they would say "Gule gule kullan" which means "Use it smiling!"--Billyshakes (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Comparing Greatest Chess players of all time- the Fischer Method
Hi,
On the whole, I think the page in question presents an interesting & informative article. However, the section which describes Fischer's opinion of the ten best players ought to include at least some mention of the fact that any such list which does not include Fischer himself is anomalous at the least. To make some small mention of this anomaly would not do a disservice to the priority of facts over opinions. It is, after all, a fact, that most such lists offered up by professional chess players have & do include Fischer.
Thanks for the comment. In most cases where I've made such changes, I've used consistency as a rule of thumb since WP:Style makes exceptions that promote the opposite. At any rate, the guidelines also note this: "Centuries are named in figures: (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting); when the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth-century painting, but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century." However, given that these were small, random edits, I have no problem if you prefer to revert any of the changes I've made. I'll watch my talk page should you have a response. Allreet (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[[simple:Checkmate]] is an interwiki link. Interwikis link to articles in other languages. They show up in the bottom left corner of the page below the toolbox. The article I was linking to was simple:Checkmate. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! :) Malinaccier (talk)01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
#c-STBotI-2008-01-22T00:56:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:ReubenFine.jpg){kind=link}
#c-STBotI-2008-02-29T03:52:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:LuzhinDefense.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BetacommandBot-2008-03-08T13:35:00.000Z-Disputed_fair_use_rationale_for_Image:LuzhinDefense.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BetacommandBot-2008-03-08T13:38:00.000Z-Disputed_fair_use_rationale_for_Image:MNajdorf.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BJBot-2008-03-12T06:37:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_media_(Image:MNajdorf.jpg)){kind=link}
#c-MECU-2008-04-19T01:48:00.000Z-Unspecified_source_for_Image:Pillsbury2.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BJBot-2008-05-15T12:14:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_media_(Image:SteinitzAlternate.jpg)){kind=link}
#c-BJBot-2008-06-16T05:20:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_media_(Image:Botvinnik2.jpg)){kind=link}
#c-BJBot-2008-06-16T05:20:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_media_(Image:Botvinnik3.jpg)){kind=link}
#c-Eubulides-2008-08-15T22:42:00.000Z-Replaceable_fair_use_Image:Staunton2.jpg){kind=link}
#c-CBM-2008-09-24T18:53:00.000Z-Image:EloBook.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BJBot-2008-09-25T05:12:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_media_(Image:EloBook.jpg)){kind=link}