Ihardlythinkso (talk | contribs) |
GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) AE notice |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
:Nice non-obvious key. Loyd was a genius, and quite a strong player too. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 04:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
:Nice non-obvious key. Loyd was a genius, and quite a strong player too. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 04:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::Yes, a "wicked" genius. ;) The problem tortured & killed me. --[[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
::Yes, a "wicked" genius. ;) The problem tortured & killed me. --[[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion == |
|||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]] regarding a possible violation of an [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] decision. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ihardlythinkso|Ihardlythinkso]]. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:06, 27 January 2021
|
(This took some time, and research, to make. The correct kanji, rendering the images, the board geometry.) --IHTS (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Articles I've created
Games: 2000 A.D. (chess variant) · Millennium 3D Chess · Wildebeest Chess · Chad (chess variant) · Onyx (game) · Cubic chess · Dragonfly (chess variant) · Troy (chess variant) [1] · Hexdame · Chessence · Dameo · Rhombic Chess · Wolf Chess · Triangular Chess · Trishogi · Hexshogi · Masonic Chess · Masonic Shogi · Chesquerque · Tri-Chess · Three-Man Chess · Cross Chess · Quatrochess · Space Shogi · Double Chess · Rollerball (chess variant) · Parallel Worlds Chess · Stratomic · Beirut Chess · Apocalypse (chess variant) · Balbo's Game · Game of the Three Kingdoms · Canadian Checkers · Falcon-Hunter Chess · Congo (chess variant) · Hostage Chess · Diamond (game) · Chancellor Chess
Bios: Ferdinand Maack · Philip M. Cohen · Veniamin Sozin · George R. Dekle Sr.
Other: Fischer–Spassky (1992 match) · The Chess Variant Pages · Glossary of board games
Articles I've developed from stubs
V. R. Parton · Dragonchess · Semi-Italian Opening
Shall we go
I have the vanity of a powerbroker. I like my work to be heard, but not necessarily read.
I am looking for you. But nobody seems to know where you are. Find me!
- I luv puzzles! More clue(s)? --IHTS (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Secret admirer? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Revision of edit, if the red pawn moves 2 steps it is out of range of the white pawn. If it moves a single step it can get taken Dalepgray (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rec'd your 'thank u'. Yeah an e.p. capture can occur only after a double-step. Thx for your interest in the article! --IHTS (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
After a double step it is out of range Dalepgray (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- No. Do you know about e.p.? (Read en passant.) --IHTS (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry you are quite correct, my error. Thanks for taking the time to reply Dalepgray (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
What have you gone and done this time?
Was kind of missing your contributions so I checked your user page... stay away from the drama boards you silly bugger, you just attacked the guy out of the blue in a conversation you weren't even involved in. What did you think was going to happen?? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macron is the editor who initiated the ANI thread that led to one of IHTS's previous indefs, so it's perhaps unsurprising that he has a low opinion of him. But still, inexcusable.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Very adept, P-K3 (except the "inexcusable" part; this editor has been holding a grudge & taking whatever shots possible to damage me ever since I offended his ego on Talk:Three-dimensional chess eons ago when a relatively new WP editor). --IHTS (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] --IHTS (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
More destruction
Quale, it's "Alice Chess", it's "Fischer Random Chess" (originally "Fischerandom", also "Fischerandom Chess"), it's "Capablanca Chess" (just like it's "Grand Chess"), "Capablanca Random Chess", it's "Chinese Checkers" (not Chinese checkers), and ... the inventor has a say in their game name/title, when an inventor names his game "Three-Man Chess", then that's the game name, not what somebody thinks is better for "consistency". The arguments given were terribly erroneous. One editor suggested the game names were chosen thoughtlessly just following what someone had done before. I'm careful editor and did what was carefully the right thing to do when authoring these variants. Do I need to get a letter from the inventor about "Parallel World's Chess" that THAT is his chosen game name?!? This is all insane. Meanwhile, Go should be go. Chess60 is not trademarked but is upper-case. Grand Chess wasn't touched, gosh I wonder why?!? This was pushed thru when I was blocked, I wonder why?!? This was started on Three-Man Chess, which is recently a subject line on my Talk, I wonder why?!? The proposal was put thru by an editor who wanted "Queen's Gambit" to be retitled to "queen's gambit", and who still undoubtedly thinks he's right. The editor who thought my game names were chosen thoughtlessly tried to change captures "x" to "×" (e.g. Nxe5 to N×e5) in all chess-related articles, would not bend to reason, and undoubtedly (also) still thinks he's right. Now we have the ridiculous "Balbo's game", gosh, did Balbo have favorite games or something, lots of games or something? (No. Balbo's Game is the game name/game title for his invented game. How ridiculous!) Alice Chess is in sources almost exclusively. What gives with all these destructive changes, and as mentioned, the timing was circumspect. --IHTS (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
SnowFire, thank u for opposing those changes at Talk:Three-Man Chess. The decision was wrong, & sucks! --IHTS (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment: You can't just count votes, even per WP policy you have to weigh the quailty of argument. And it MIGHT be a good idea to place more weight on arguments from individuals who know their field, as opposed to editors who push new MoS policies they had a hand in, for purpose of some sort of imagined sight-wide "consistency", when ignoring at the same time the inventor's chosen game names, also the preponderance what is in reliable sources. (I notice a sparsity of checks re reliable sources, e.g. for Alice Chess, Capablanca Chess; the others are more obscure, which just means the number of reliable sources is LESS, is all.) What a wrong decision! --IHTS (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Add'l comment: WP is a cesspool. --IHTS (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #27517 was submitted on Nov 07, 2019 17:47:30. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Hope you come back. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thx Max. Have enjoyed our recent collaborations, we work ok together methinks. (Gained respect thru time. And shared/common experiences re the crass ruthlessness of this place.) --IHTS (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- You'll be pleased to know a certain RfA failed anyway, for too long admins have been flouting the civility policy with impunity and it was good to see some pushback against that. A lot of his supporters were existing admins who clearly don't see a need to reform the culture whereby admins can be as uncivil as they like and then close ranks around each other if anyone raises a complaint. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I saw it. (But that user plans to re-apply and might get sympathy votes. Totally hypocritical how he took recent isolated incident of frustration and attempted to paint picture of "long term behavior", while dictating how own behavior must be judged from a recent point of time only. More example of hypocrisy & abuse on WP, making up rules as go along. It is Lord of the Flies here, or Calvinball, a crazy-making abusive environment. Admins under their cloak of other admins, as you point out, are the worst. Disgusting. This place is pre-historic jurisprudence. Totally backward & disgusting. ANI = A-hole Nihilism Insanity.) --IHTS (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- You'll be pleased to know a certain RfA failed anyway, for too long admins have been flouting the civility policy with impunity and it was good to see some pushback against that. A lot of his supporters were existing admins who clearly don't see a need to reform the culture whereby admins can be as uncivil as they like and then close ranks around each other if anyone raises a complaint. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- This place is pretty crazy, but not crazy enough w/o you. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thx Bruce. Frankly, get a pit in my stomach when even thinking of resuming. (Heavy-handed inconsiderate admins, e.g. the latest was my Talk access removed unwarrantedly; my appeal of that rejected unwarrantedly. ANI issues opened by uninvolved/unaffected parties; miffed editor egos from ages ago out of woodwork to pile to vote indef or WP-ban. Mob-rule by non-specialists in content changes, e.g. Three-Check Chess. And why are Alice Chess, Grand Chess, Capablanca Chess, Fischer Random Chess, and Chinese Checkers all in lowercase now?!? Very ill-considered and very wrong. Will I have to become wiki-lawyer to prove sky is blue, and then take shit for it as well?!? And is it me, or do you ever notice too, coming here and seeing recent edit changes to articles in one's WATCHLIST, is mostly, at least 85% of the time, a disappointing, demoralizing experience? All said, WP is like swimming in a polluted pool, and on top of it, being towel-snapped when cleaning yourself off. I don't know how you keep your attitude up. Perhaps you are "too nice"!?) --IHTS (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back IHTS. The lowercase move was the result of this discussion. P-K3 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I know that. And that incredibly questionable & clearly wrong decision was enshrined by Quale here, who previously advocated differently here. (Fuck me!) --IHTS (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- My Oct 28 edit to WP:CHESS didn't enshrine anything, it only announced in a neutral tone that a move discussion had just started. I had hoped that the announcement on WP:CHESS would interest some chess editors to participate while there was time to affect the outcome, particularly those who know more about chess variants than I do and those who actually edit chess variant articles and thus have skin in the game. Unfortunately that didn't happen, and of course you weren't able to participate either. My guess is that a few more chess editors in the move discussion wouldn't have been able to change the outcome, although editors who cared might have tried since it was clear which way the wind was blowing. The chess variant name spelling decision is one of three that I can recall that pain me because I think they were substantively harmful to chess coverage on Wikipedia, and it's certainly the one that affected the most articles. (The other two painful outcomes are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_who_have_beaten_Bobby_Fischer_in_chess_(2nd_nomination) and the deletion of an article on a British chess journalist, although I'll be damned if I can remember who that was now. The journalist deletion sucked, but I just didn't know enough sources to demonstrate WP:GN to put up a reasonable fight to save it.) Quale (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- I know that. And that incredibly questionable & clearly wrong decision was enshrined by Quale here, who previously advocated differently here. (Fuck me!) --IHTS (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, my watchlist gives me access to the same vandals and doofuses that your watchlist gives you access to. But I take them for granted, whereas when I see a pleasant surprise, like some IP editor making an improvement that I hadn't thought of, I savor it. Anyway, it's only a hobby for me. I can see that a lot of people are putting in their 10,000 hours here, and Wikipedia depends on them a lot more than on people like me, but I can live with that. Collaboration is tough, or, as they say, "hell is other people". Enjoy your break! Bruce leverett (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back IHTS. The lowercase move was the result of this discussion. P-K3 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thx Bruce. Frankly, get a pit in my stomach when even thinking of resuming. (Heavy-handed inconsiderate admins, e.g. the latest was my Talk access removed unwarrantedly; my appeal of that rejected unwarrantedly. ANI issues opened by uninvolved/unaffected parties; miffed editor egos from ages ago out of woodwork to pile to vote indef or WP-ban. Mob-rule by non-specialists in content changes, e.g. Three-Check Chess. And why are Alice Chess, Grand Chess, Capablanca Chess, Fischer Random Chess, and Chinese Checkers all in lowercase now?!? Very ill-considered and very wrong. Will I have to become wiki-lawyer to prove sky is blue, and then take shit for it as well?!? And is it me, or do you ever notice too, coming here and seeing recent edit changes to articles in one's WATCHLIST, is mostly, at least 85% of the time, a disappointing, demoralizing experience? All said, WP is like swimming in a polluted pool, and on top of it, being towel-snapped when cleaning yourself off. I don't know how you keep your attitude up. Perhaps you are "too nice"!?) --IHTS (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Want to review my mutilations updates? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, goin' outta town, maybe soon! --IHTS (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Max, have been thinking bout this, and realize am not having the heart in me, since the ANI, to do anything more than the trivial sorts of edits have been doing recently. The ANI over the Three-check chess content dispute left bad taste in my mouth. In that dispute I offered reasoned arguments along with documented examples, but no one in that dispute responded to any of the arguments or any of the suppporting examples. The opposition relied only on "this is the way it will be" statements without entering discussion, which is nothing less than bullying. Worst I said to anyone was that they "didn't know what they were talking about". And for that a non-participant holding long-term grudge opened an ANI & tried to make the dishonest case that it was "serious long-term behavior" issue by digging up diffs from early in my editing history and making that case. And of course multiple editors who had their feelings miffed by me in the past came out of the woodwork to vote for Wiki-execution (Indef block, even WP ban). You were the only editor who commented truthfully that my editing behavior had changed & evolved from the earlier days. But that was ignored, even the ANI instigator instructs others after his failed RfA that his editing behavior can only be judged in any future RfA from a current date forward. That is the kind of hypocrisy that rules the WP Lord of the Flies kind of prehistoric "jurisprudence". I don't want to be subject to it again. Committing editing time & good effort only to be tossed around like a rag doll in a gorilla cage. I also have a problem with the lower-casing of obvious proper names like "Alice Chess" and "Capablanca Chess" and "Fischer Random Chess" and "Chinese Checkers" and more, but am not going to invest time & effort into becoming a Wiki-lawyer to set them right just to face opposing "arguments" like "Not convincing". That effort should be a WP:CHESS community effort not individual effort, but chess variants don't get the interest or care enough for community effort, I guess. Thanks for your understanding, Max, and, good luck. --IHTS (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
WP is mob justice. Just like massive voter fraud. Both suck. --IHTS (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
WP, w/ its saturated Left bias in all political articles, based on "reliable sources" when the US press is corrupt and a political special-interest group, is not only disgusting, has lost credibility as an encyclopedia and probably cannot ever recover any claim to credibility, same as the liberal un-free press. It's disgusting to be here and has lowered motivation to contribute, even to my fav subj area. Meahwhile, WP ejects serious contributors like Eric Corbett. (Self-destruction much!?) Good luck & Merry Xmas. --IHTS (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Merry Xmas and happy new year to you, too. On earth, peace to all ... editors of chess-related Wiki articles. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- WP identified a gap in the US media landscape, a lack of moderate right of centre outlets with good factual basis. Only prominent example is WSJ. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Great puzzle!
Great puzzle on your userpage :) I saw mate in 4 after 1. Qg7 Rd8 2. Bf3 and so on, which is already a pretty weird starting move, but I wasn't creative enough to find the sheer ridiculousness of Qf4! - Astrophobe (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, thx for the feedback. Methinks the "ridiculousness" of the key might have something to do w/ the weirdness of the knight move. (Notice the key puts the Q a N-move away from both B & K. ) --IHTS (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Example game removed from London System
Hi. Thanks for your cleanup of the article. I see 97.115.173.3 removed my example game there for being a "bad example game" and I was looking for a more expert opinion. Should example games be particularly notable for some brilliant moves or the level of the tournament? My simple (maybe naive) logic was that it's notable that the current World Champion plays it, and its better to have more examples in general. Dhalamh (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Magnus game seems fine to me. (I put it back.) "Example games" has never received objective criteria at WP:CHESS. "Notable games" in bios has been debated & discussed, methinks some conclusions have been drawn at WT:CHESS. The anon needs to give more than "bad example" as rationale to rmv. If more reverts this belongs at Talk:London System or WT:CHESS. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you sir. Pleasure doing business with you. Yes, those locations you list are the more orthodox venues for discussion in this case, just from looking at the IPs edit history I suspected I might not get a response any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhalamh (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary political correctness
This edit actually made it more politically correct. And better. It doesn't draw attention to gender or attempts to avoid mention of it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Don't get u. (White being referenced in "the order in which White advances", makes possessive "their" unnecessary/implied, & also potentially confusing since Black was mentioned in the prev sentence. The "political correctness" was in unnecessary effort to abolish "his", thus drawing attention to that overt effort evidenced by the text.) --IHTS (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Or maybe you were defining "politically correct" as a good thing (advantageous) here? (If so, thx! ;) ) --IHTS (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's actually more "politically correct" not to draw attention to how totally not-sexist you are, which "they" and "-person" tend to do. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Any thoughts on the current upheaval at Chess?
Too many changes too fast for my liking. It wasn't a bad article before all this. I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater just to please the wikipedia overlords and their Featured Article standards. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Been w/o Internet last wk & missed the drama, haven't gone over details. But when you & Bruce agree, methinks it's gotta be right. --IHTS (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think that when this new guy came along, he wasn't necessarily what Piotrus, DrKay, etc. had in mind. I would assume FA review usually involves the usual tweaks. Oh well, never a dull moment. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
OMG, this prob killed me
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
- Nice non-obvious key. Loyd was a genius, and quite a strong player too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Ihardlythinkso. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)