User talk:Bubba73/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

A good mathematical resource is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and its talk page. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov 20:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Empty product

Here is another justification, based on computer programming. Suppose you have an array of numbers x(1) ... x(10) and you want to get the sum of them and the product of them. You would do it this way (pseudocode, not WikiCode):

sum := 0

prod := 1

for i := 1 to 10 do

sum := sum + x(i)

prod := prod * x(i)

The empty sum is 0. The empty product is 1. Someone may want to write this up for the article. I don't want to because I don't want to take any heat. Bubba73 02:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's already in the article. It's the section titled A conceptual rationale. Michael Hardy 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W/o looking, isn't that the calculator example? I think that is a bit different. This is actually done a lot, there aren't any calculators like the one in the article.

No — it's not different except that the calculator in the example is simpler than any existing device, because it's designed as a thought experiment only for the purpose of explaining this idea. In other words, it's stripped of all complications that, although useful in other contexts, are not useful in this article. Michael Hardy 00:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It amounts to the same thing, but there are differences. For one, the limited calculator seems to have been very controversial, from what I read of the old discussion. I think that the little program should not be controversial (although strangely I seem to be wrong about that!) Secondly, this is an example from actual practice, not contrived like the calculator. Bubba73 01:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SEAC

(thread copied from Wernher's talk page)

I don't know if SEAC is Standards EASTERN Automatic Computer or ELECTONIC. I thought it was Eastern, and I had it moved from Electronic to Eastern. But since then I found contemporary reports calling it Electronic. People (including me) may have assumed that the E was Eastern since the W in SWAC is Western. (Or maybe it was called Eastern after SWAC came on line.)

I created the redirect page "SEAC (computer)" and I think the article chould go there, with redirects from the other two names. Since you are an administrator, can you do that? Bubba73 July 6, 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Working on it now. I f*cked up a little, so I'll have to fix some stuff. I'll take care of it. --Wernher 6 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

Finally done fixing the article mis-moves; I also wikified the articles a bit. --Wernher 6 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it and SWAC too. Bubba73 July 6, 2005 14:40 (UTC)

Bendix G-15

The photo looks like a computer to me. In college, we had something like this which we used as a coffee table. Wish I still had it. linas 05:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about this picture

http://foodman123.com/g15.htm which to me looks like an outdoors scene with some yellow things on the left. I don't see a computer anywhere. I removed it and put up some actual photos. Is this the one you are looking at? Bubba73 14:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Naming CW

Don't you think that the name "Civil War" for the American Civil War is a misnomer? According to all definitions I've seen of a civil war, the "American Civil War" doesn't fit. "in which the competing parties are segments of the same country". The war was between two seperate countries. Bubba73 20:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

On a similar topic, I've never heard anyone call it "The War of Northern Agression" except jocularly. Bubba73 20:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote the article, I tried to avoid the opinions about which terms are valid (very controversial) and merely focus on which ones are used most frequently. If you look at the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki Civil war article, it essentially says the term "civil war" can be used for lots of different types of conflicts, so I, personally, am happy enough with CW to describe this conflict. As to TWoNA, I have never heard it either, but it came from the previous version of this text, which was in the main American Civil War article. Hal Jespersen 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's the common name. I've always called it that. Bubba73 03:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Stone Mountain

Thanks. Those were my thoughts too. I hope you like the way I've now split out the KKK stuff. -- Chris j wood 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Brings it more into balance - the article is about Stone Mountain, not the KKK at Stone Mountain. Bubba73 03:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from the neighborhood

Hi. Your deduction that I live in the coast is correct.

How did you settle on your username, anyway? Not many programmers get called Bubba. ~ WCFrancis 01:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I had a 1973 car that I let my sister have about 1980 because she needed a car. Her roommate said that it looked like the kind of car someone named "Bubba" would drive. So the car got named "Bubba". And it is a '73. My wife thinks she's met you. Bubba73 01:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I meant to tell you that I got a laugh out of the name choice. And it is possible that she may have met me. I've been in Island Players productions and get in the newspapers occasionally due to water resources stuff. -- WCFrancis 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Liberty Ships

Just skimmed over your contributions re: Liberty Ship construction in Brunswick. Good going - important and notable part of Brunswick's past. I have heard (but do not have verifiable reference) that Brunswick's population (inside Corporate Limits) then was over twice what it is now, due to war workers. Hope we can find some verifiable data - maybe Census? --WCFrancis 06:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know about an old census because they're taken every 10 years. My mother says that Brunswick declined after the war. (Her father and uncle worked onthe ships, and my other grandfather did too.) There were 16,000 people working on the ships, so that would have been a big increase in the population.

That would tend to support the claim of higher population since the workforce is always less than the population. -- WCFrancis 20:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

(I've often suspected that the Brunswick streets given letters were done rapidly in that perios, but I don't know.) However, not everyone lived in Brunswick permanently. Many people stayed in temporary housing during the week and went back home on weekends, sometimes 100 miles or more away (at least one of my grandfathers did that). Some made long daily commutes. (Some of that probably needs to be in the article, but I only have word-of-mouth about that.)

The street had the lettered names much further back - On the wall of our office there is a copy of a 1910 map by F. J. Torras showing them. There are even older maps (if I remember correctly) showing them. Gloucester St. was once E Street. I don't know how we could find out when A through E were renamed other than a laborious manual search through Commission minutes from the 19th century. -- WCFrancis 20:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, about the controversy about Lanier and writing the poem in Brunswick, that probably can come out because I don't see much, if any, suggestion that he actually wrote it there. He probably was inspired there but wrote it elsewhere, and I don't see any real controversy about that. Bubba73 14:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that he wrote it in N. Georgia. We might be able to find verifiable info on that somewhere. -- WCFrancis 20:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

although the GA DOT web site that the article links to for the poem reports it as "--Baltimore, 1878". --WCFrancis 01:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

PS - also it wasn't a case of ships being launched that month instead of a month earlier or later. The month before and the month after each had the full 5 ships launched, so there really were two extra ships that month. Bubba73 00:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Format point

About n-th - since many editors use this, you should really discuss the point before starting piecemeal changes. There are a few thousand usages, I guess. Charles Matthews 16:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but where should I discuss it? I checked several books and I haven't seen n-th or n-th used in any literature, only nth and sometimes n^th. Bubba73 21:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Bring it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics if you feel strongly. In general the WP format conventions are an evolved 'house style', rather than directly drawn from other sources. Charles Matthews 21:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll bring it up there. It seems to me that the only justification I can see for "-th" is if you don't have italics available. Bubba73 22:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Philip J Klass

Sorry, all I did was add the disambiguation link. I don't know enough about Klass to comment on the NPOV. --Howcheng 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Bubba73 15:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, all I was intending to do was update it with news of his death - I hadn't really looked the rest of the article over. I'll take a look at it tomorrow after I get some sleep. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 17:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd appreciate getting your opinion on it, whatever it is. Bubba73 18:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

LCP info

Good info on LCP superfund site. I'd suggest it should go over to the Brunswick GA article. Thought I'd ask you first. -- WCFrancis 20:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think it should go there. Just yesterday we heard on the radio something about superfund sites and how only a few of them had been cleaned up, and I asked about the one here. Bubba73 20:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe Glynn County. I do not remember whether the property is inside the city limits or not. Checking...-WCFrancis 02:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It is outside the city limits, but not too far. Glynn County may be the better article to include it. Cross references between articles on lacal areas will ensure that folks can find it. Current owner is Allied Signal, according to County online GIS. --WCFrancis 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

See also Info on Georgia Superfund sites. -WCFrancis 03:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was something about it at Brunswick or Glynn, but I don't see it there. It is a Brunswick address, so it could go in either. PS: It is mentioned at St. Simons, Georgia. Bubba73 03:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I moved it from St. Simons article and put it in both Brunswick and Glynn County articles, since I couldn't decide which it should go in. I also added list of three other sites listed at the EPA site linked above -WCFrancis 13:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Divisor function

Hi,

I found references about that sigma function

Sorry for popping up here, I am new at wikipedia, what is the best way to answer your answer to my question on the talk page of the article?

Anyway : Hardy and Wright :'An introduction to the theory of numbers', pg266,theorem 322 sigma( n ) = O ( n^(1+delta)) for all delta>0 the big O means that the quotient is bounded but if you know this and you do some quit thinking, this is the same as saying that sigma(n)/n^(1+delta) goes to zero for all positive delta

for the second inequality, by using the sequence

u1=p1 , u2 = p2 ,u3=p3,....

and v1=p1 ,v2=p1*p2,v3=p1*p2*p3 one easily sees that the bounds cannot be improved

Is it OK to do it either way, but on the article's discussion page, more people will see it. Thank you for that reference. I will try to put it in there within the next few days. Bubba73 19:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the more precise Hardy & Wright Theorem 323 is already in there under "approximate growth rate". So I need to think more about what revision to make.

Bubba73 19:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Question about a vandal

Bubba, I responded to your query on my talk page. Cheers, Fernando Rizo T/C 16:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Pi/crank

The link to Crank (person) in pi is useful because the other things he claimed prove (right before I put in the link to crank) show that he was a crank, and therefore probably wrong about pi being 3.2. Bubba73 22:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, the irony of that section in pi might indeed be lost on some readers, so some extra explanations could be useful. Nevertheless, I still think that the link to crank (person) is of no use, but I've better things to do than fight it, so feel free to put it back in. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I will probably put it back in, but with an expliantion, as you say. Bubba73 23:04, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reply, divisor function

I found the thing to be a mixture of a 's and α's and in fact tried to make things consistent by reverting back to the original a 's. I must have missed one. Looking now. linas 01:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks, APH 09:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank yuo, I might be. Bubba73 (talk) 14:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Great. APH 07:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Castling

Thanks for fixing my botch regarding castling out of check. The rules are clear, but I seem to have suffered brain lock. Quale 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. After I cited the USCF rule, I looked it un in the FIDE rules to be sure - it is 3.8 ii (2) a. Bubba73 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

What makes it worse is that the castling article correctly explains it in condition number 4 (king must not be in check) above where I made my bad edit. If my mistake were correct, it still would have required a change in the wording in 4. I didn't make that change, so even if I had been right my edit would still have been wrong. Once I saw your fix I remembered a story about a master who lost a tournament game because he rejected the winning move thinking his opponent could castle out of check. Quale 20:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. I think Korchnoi once had to ask the director once if the rook could pass over an attacked square in O-O-O. My little pet peeve at the moment is that the USCF doesn't force the rook to be moved if it is touched before the king,conflicing with FIDE rules. Bubba73 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Odd weird numbers

Hi, MathWorld and others may still be reporting only that odd weirds must be greater than 10^17, but Bob Hearn has extended the search to 10^18, as reported in the original text.

However the result is reported on the SeqFan mailing list, which is a closed list without public archives. So this may not be a result considered sufficiently encyclopaedic - and if not, the reference to Bob Hearn should also be removed. Hv 09:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry I wasn't aware of that. I saw 10^17 in the two references, and I thought it was a typo. I get the seq fan mailing list. Bubba73 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've changed it back. In case you want to look it up, the thread started with messageId <3DD99543-1463-42D4-BA0A-883A1A7BEA09@ai.mit.edu>, and subject line 'There are no odd weird numbers < 10^18'. Hv 17:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Local stuff

Just did some research and made some minor edits to Battle of Bloody Marsh including removing siesta reference you questioned. Still a stub but better, I think. -WCFrancis 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the siesta thing. The marsh seems like a strange place to take a siesta. One day I'll stop over there and see what the marker says. (I've been there before, but I don't remember.) It might be true, I don't know. I read somewhere that the battle effectively ended the war of Jenkins Ear. The war continued after that, I think, but morphed into something else. I think it was the last time the Spaniards came into Georgia, so maybe that is essentially right. But I don't know enough of the history. Bubba73 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, now I have found other references to the siesta:

siesta so perhaps it is right. I'll try to find out. Bubba73 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a wikipedia mirror so we need to continue to check. I plan to check the monument and take some pics of it as well. -WCFrancis 16:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I checked it yesterday, see below. Bubba73 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Lanier Bridge photo

I added a photo of the bridge I took this weekend to Brunswick, Georgia. Check it out. -WCFrancis 16:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I saw it a few minutes ago, and made a little addition to the Brunswick stew pot. I went by Bloody Marsh yestereday, and it doesn't say anything about a siesta. It said that the Spanish soldiers were marching single-file through a causeway, so I made that change. Bubba73 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

User Sub Pages

To create a sub page of your user page, simply type User:Bubba73/PageName into the search bar, and click go (replace PageName with what ever name you choose). You will be taken to the "no such page exixts" screen, one of the choses is "start the page". Click on that choice. Edit and save as on any wikpedia page. Note that anyone really wanting to find this will be able to do so. But no casual user will evenr know it is there unless you tell such a person. Yopu can have several such pages. For example i use User:DESiegel/Test for testing templates and wiki-code I am working on.

By the way, other users can not see your watch list, even if they are admins. I suppsoe developers could see it via direct database access, but that is about it. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag? (MJ-12)

Could you please specify in a bullet list your concerns as to the NPOV violations? Otherwise the tag should be removed ... Sincerely, JDR 22:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added NPOV to two articles. I will do that tonight. (after dinner). Bubba73 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement WMC's parole (pathological skepticism)

William M. Connelley has violated his parole. [1] The one case I have personal knowlegde of is his reverts in de lomborg case.[2] You can contribute if you wish.--MichaelSirks 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have continued the quest to get enforcement on WMC's parole at[3]--MichaelSirks 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

kummer

In Ernst Kummer. I'm suspicious about whether he really wrote down that proof of the infinitude of primes. It's almost exactly the same as Euclid's proof, except it looks at n−1 instead of n+1. Do you have a reference for that? Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 20:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I must have had a reference, but I don't remember what it was right now. I'll try to find it. Bubba73 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to Caldwell. I think I got it out of Ribenboim. It is very similar to Euclid's proof, though, except forthe last bit. Bubba73 (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Immanuel Velikovsky

About my old request for help on what is said about Immanuel Velikovsky in the Carl Sagan article .... I went ahead and did a bunch of reading on the topic and come to my own conclusions, which are now on the Carl Sagan discussion page. Bottom line: I satisfied myself on this issue. All I would ask now is that you check what is said on the Sagan page about Velikovsky. I think there is more that could be said by someone who is not trying to promote Velikovsky. I think that the entire Velikovsky-Sagan episode is a good example of how the facts must decide disputes within science. --JWSchmidt 13:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One thing I see is the commant by Jastrow that Sagan was ignoring gravity. This was added my someone with just an IP address on Sept 29, 2005. I found this in Sagan's analysis "Fortunately, the relevant physics is extremely simple and can be performed to order of magnitude even without any consideration of gravitation.", which was in rewsponse to Velikovsky's "That a comet may strike our planet is not very probably, but hte idea is not absurd." This is probably what Jastrow's comment was about. Sagan was doing an order of magnitude, or ballpark calculation of the probability of the earth being hit by a comet. Sagan is correct. Although you need to do a more detailed analysis to tell exactly when a comet would hit, the ballback estimate of the probability over a long period of time can be done without going into the details. So Jastrow's criticism is unjustified. Bubba73 (talk), 19:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Roswell

Bubba ... how about a list of NPOV concerns? JDR 22:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try, later. It may take me a day or two. I did mention in the talk page that they're too numerous to list. Do you think it is NPOV? Bubba73 (talk), 22:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't really look at it too closely ... but it didn't seem overly POV ... Roswell incident has a zealous following .... mabey if things are stated by whom (eg., attribution of a person) it may be better ... I just thought a list would be more constructive to go through. The Theories and Analysis section seems to be a good balance .... nothing overly POV. Sincerely, JDR 22:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It took me several hours, but I've added a list of a dozen or so points for Section 1. I don't have enouth energy or time to cover the rest of the article right now. Bubba73 (talk), 14:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit War Alert

You do NOT want to be in a Edit war right now, I had just came out of one. When the "pro-Roswell" people see what you've done, you will be in one. I had to help settle that Bigfoot war myself. The war I was in was the Bigfoot article. The page got protected from further edits until the war was over. This is NOT a personal attack,vandalisim,etc. at all. As for Roswell, been there myself. Tell them they're lying, the person making that accusation just may get shot. Too many "Original Witnesses" and 1st generation kinfolk around. The place is still like the Old West in temperment - out there, a gun is the law, just like in the Old West. If you want, I could have a Administrator protect the article for you. Martial Law 08:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Should one come up, want me to mediate it ? Martial Law 08:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be in an edit war. Those people have a lot more free time on their hands (and committment to a single issue) than I do. I don't have the time or energy to be in one. Since I last tried to work on the article it has grown quite a bit, and now it is probably too large for me to fix. Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Calling the Roswell incident article "ET-POV" is a good way to get a Edit war going. on. Trying to prevent one. Heard of User:Beckjord ? If not, you will ! I "met" this User while editing the Bigfoot article. He's currently examining, and/or editing the UFO article.Martial Law 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've encountered that user. I put POV on it 3 or 4 weeks ago but someone removed it. About 2 weeks ago I noticed that it had a "cleanup" tag and all I did was change the tag to show that it started in Dec 05. What is the "ET" in "ET-POV"?

While I was in the UFO Museum myself, a elderly gent told me this,"IF those (Expletives, meaning Skeptics) don't quit abusing,ridiculing the people, all (expletive)(expletive) will break loose IF AND when there IS alien contact !". He also said that a certain nurse was KILLED, records altered, and gave his obscene/profane laced views about the govt., skeptics treating the people as if they're a bunch of retards or idiots. This is NOT a personal attack, vandalisim,etc. @ all. Just telling you what this guy had told me. HE may have been one of the "Original Witnesses" I had earlier referred to here. Do apologise if this has upset you. Just telling the truth, no more, no less.

The intent is to help create a encyclopedia, NOT prove or disprove the existance of aliens at all. Martial Law 04:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally. They want to carry out the arguement in the article. I put POV there so that people going to the article would reaslize that much of what is there is the pro-chrashed saucer opinion. There are several other articles that have similar problems. But Roswell incident is probably the absolute worst article I've seen on WP, especially as far as being non-encyclopedic. The others are violating NPOv against insinuation, violating verifiable/reliable sources, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating a chess article

Since you seem to be experienced in chess articles, I would like to know if you could help me with the title for an article on this chess game. There are some sources, but here the question is notability.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd call it Rubinstein's Immortal since that is what it is called there. There are at least three other "immortal" games with articles, I think. You need to be sure that it is notable enough (I'll check a couple of sources). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A Google search led me to Susan Polgar's blog, obviously a reliable source but only with a video, no text. I also have this. Most of what I find is Youtube and forums.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is in both 500 Master Games of Chess and The Mammoth Book The World's Greatest Chess Games, so I think it is notable enough. However, neither of them have a name for the game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your link also calls it that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We could simply go by the players of the game, as in the opera game's article. Even Polgar alone is not enough for the name to be considered embedded enough.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That could be done too. There is a link to the game at List of chess games, the first one after 1900. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The player of white is listed as Gersz Rotlewi on WP. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is also in My Great Predecessors, volume 1 (but with no name), so it is definitely notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "Gerzi Rotlewi versus Akiba Rubinstein" might suffice.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You might just go by last names. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I'm starting my draft now.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your book references

How would I cite the books you mentioned above without page numbers or copyright date info?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You should include that information

• Kasparov, Garry (2003), My Great Predecessors, part I, Everyman Chess, ISBN 1-85744-330-6
• Tartakower, Savielly; du Mont, Julius (1975) [1952], 500 Master Games of Chess, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-23208-5
• Burgess, Graham; Nunn, John; Emms, John (2004), The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games (2nd ed.), Carroll & Graf, ISBN 978-0-7867-1411-7

Kasparov, pp. 187-88

Burgess, Nunn, & Emms, pp. 63-67

Tartakower & Du Mont, pp. 504-5.

But unless you directly reference them in the text, they should be under the Further Reading section instead of References. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Do you think it's a done job yet?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except that I would avoid using annotations from ChessGames.com, since anyone can put them there. But the one by Tartakower comes from p. 504 of his book. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The other notes are obvious enough. I've moved the article into the mainspace at Rotlewi versus Rubinstein.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Kasparov (p. 187) says "Here is virtually his mostfamous creation:" On page 188, "Rubinstein's truly 'immortal' game!" Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for all the help!Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you busy more...

...but I'm thinking of an article for this one, which I recall being mentioned in a book I forgot about. No names for this one, and I have some internet sources, but what really matter would be some more book sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some references for the game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is in Burgess, et. al., but not Tartakower. I'll check Kaspy. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Kasparov, Garry (2003), My Great Predecessors, part II, Everyman Chess, ISBN 1-85744-342-X

Pages 125-29. "... Botvinnik played what was altogether the 'game of his life' against Capablanca. It was not just that it was judged the most brilliant in the tournament [ AVRO 1938 ] and to be worth two first prizes, but it was even suggested that, by analogy with the 'immortal' and 'evergreen' games, it should be called 'peerless' or 'classical'! - p. 125. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm giving you a barnstar.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started User:Jasper Deng/Botvinnik versus Capablanca, but reliable annotations are very very sparse on the Internet.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. The books I have give more annotation. Once you make it "live", I'll see if I can add some. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

When making a new chess article, please do two things:

1. put {{WikiProject Chess|class = |importance= }} on the talk page so it gets picked up by the chess project.
2. add the article to index of chess articles.

I did these for the first article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do all of that. Moving it to the article mainspace.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All  DoneJasper Deng (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I don't know whether this is for your persistence in helping me make those articles or for the references themselves, but you deserve this. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm on a roll...

...having written User:Jasper Deng/Levitsky versus Marshall. We may want to choose a better title, but this game's shower of gold legend definitely makes it notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That game defintely belongs. The "shower of gold" is probably not true, though. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I did not say that it was true. I'll add the appropriate disclaimer made by Eric Schiller.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the game isn't in any of the three books I've been referencing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is sufficient online coverage though, and my magazine has all the necessary annotations.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a treasure trove: [4].Jasper Deng (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I need to go offline for a while, but I'll continue working on a section about this, because it is what makes this game very notable. I'm submitting the article so you can add what you'd like.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Chess

There's a question in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous that might be right up your alley (apologies if you've already spoken to it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Korn versus Pitschak source refs

Hi Bubba, the source refs were added by Krakatoa on Sept. 3, 2008, I've asked him here if he can respond to your Q. FYI, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your recent reverts on the Emitt Rhodes article

I’m a little mystified as to why you are reverting this. The reasons you are choosing to revert amount to what would be called wikilawyering, especially considering the rest of the content on the article (which isn’t any more “encyclopedic”).

I took a look at the history of the article and noticed that you have been editing and adding additions to this article for some time now. Considering that you took so much of your time to doing so, I must assume that you are almost certainly a fan of Emitt Rhodes. This is the reason I find this so strange. I’ll explain more below.

If you are a fan, I’m mystified as to why you would do this. Emitt’s three new releases (the first releases from him in over 30 years, if not much longer) would not even exist if it wasn’t for the work Studio 201 Recording put in. Emitt had little motivation to even get back to recording again before he spent a considerable amount of time hanging out at Studio 201 in 2008 during the Cody Road project (to which Emitt was only an observer).

Emitt promised payment when the songs were completed if Studio 201 would record them, and now he has refused to pay. Let me say this again, these songs WOULD NOT BE RECORDED OR AVAILABLE if it was not for the time Studio 201 put in. So by omitting this information, you are basically saying you wish they didn’t exist. But it gets worse (I’ll explain below).

Because Studio 201 has to find a way to make back the lost income ($28,000), the studio has two choices.

1. Provide a donation system that is widely available to his fans (this wiki article is a PRIMARY location for that).
2. Otherwise, should the studio not be able to make this income through donations (if it’s not available here), this only increases the likelihood that the studio will have to take legal action against Emitt, forcing him to possibly close his own studio (due to selling all of his classic gear--his console and more) in order to pay for the studio time that led to these songs.

Because I know you are a fan, I need to make you aware of the implications of your actions (removing this info from the wiki article) will have on Emitt.

The studio does not want to have to take legal action, but if notification of a donation system to pay for the recordings is not made available on the sites/pages that his fans view the most (this one is primary), the studio will be forced to take legal action against Emitt, because no other means of making up the lost income is available.

Now, you can continue to WikiLawyer this, finding obscure rules of this site to keep this from happening, but you need to understand what this could lead to. The studio does not want to have to sue Emitt, but should no other choice be available, that may have to be the outcome. This isn’t a threat, because there is no choice in this matter, it’s a two way street, and the studio has to find a way to make up the income. You can either help Emitt, or you can continue to make this difficult for him. I’m trying to help him.

I will now revert the edit one last time and wait to see what you do. The choice is yours.--Studio201 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The above comments look like legal threats, so I'm taking this matter to WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Studio201, apparently you have no idea just how dead-wrong your understanding is of what WP is about.WP:What Wikipedia is not: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

These are not "obscure rules". The first post seemed to be asking for donations. When you reposted, it was missing the donation request, but I checked and it seemed to be word-for-word the same as the website, a probable copyright violation. Third, assuming that you are associated with Studio 201, it is a conflict of interest. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not a blog or forum to post whatever you want. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor is now indef'd as a promotional account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it is good to know people are watching out for my talk page. This had been addressed before I even saw it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. You have friends in low places. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For reference, Wikipedia:ANI#User:Studio201 issues until it is archived. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chess again

Someone is asking on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, where might be a good place to direct questions about chess. It occurred to me that you might have some thoughts on the subject. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what they're getting at is, which particular ref desk would be the most obvious to direct people with chess questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably miscellaneous would be the best area, but his question might be answered in the articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved Tag

I think it's up to the Ref Desk OP to decide if his question has been resolved, but on the Nikon D40 remote question I guess you feel differently. I am not insisting on my way or your way, but I'd like to ask about this on the talk page to see if there's a consensus. Of course lately it seems that talk page is for endless arguing, not productive discussion. Thoughts? --LarryMac | Talk 18:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am the OP for that question. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

D'oh. Sorry, it's been a long week. --LarryMac | Talk 19:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Brittish Chess Magazine

Hello,

I am Co-editor of the British Chess Magazine. Do I need to ask you (or someone else) which cover BCM can use for its Wiki entry?

Not sure of the protocol!

Best regards,

Dr. John E. Upham, Co-editor, British Chess Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeupham (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you can choose which one to use. There were three or four covers of successive months that had the same logo - this is too many, so I commented out all but one. But you as an editor can use your judgement as to which one to use. I don't think that there should be more than one with any particular logo. There are covers of two older issues in the article, but they have different designs. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Moon nearside LRO.jpg

Your lunar image is rotated 90 degrees clock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.229.91 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mieses and six degrees

If you like, weasel words can be introduced to suggest that it's possible that there's some 120 year-old GM we're all forgetting about who might yet pop up and play Anand, thus shortening the chain to fewer than five. A chess database IS a PUBLICATION and thus is a reference; it is certainly going to be taken as meaningful by people who might care about this bit of trivia, i.e., chess players. I don't see how that's any more of an issue than, say, citing a census for the population of a country, which is readily accepted as a reference by Wikipedia. The database is a publication that can be read by any interested party, which is also the case of a census and any number of other references that I could give as examples. It's not my job to demonstrate to the reader step by step how to do so.

If you wish to do so, simply delete the whole thing, as I suspect my explanation and position won't satisfy you. I won't hold it against you but I'll certainly be a lot slower to contribute or expand stub articles in the area of chess. Enjoy your skepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.245.196 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Queries

Hiya Bubba73. OK if I run a few things past you?

• re the 'welcome' section you use - e.g. this one - I see you use a template that refers to 'my talk page' and the first section itself doesn't include one's signature. Fine if as I guess as you always follow it with another section - just looks a little strange perhaps?
• nice user page you have.
• Mind if I ask what the : at the start of a link does? Do you always use it? Would you recommend I do too?

Thanks for your time, Trafford09 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to sign, I should. I got the welcome template from somewhere else. The colon must tell it to substitute the Welcome message, but really don't know anything about it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right. Actually, the colons I referred to are the ones you use in say User:Bubba73#Glossaries, such as "[[:Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists]]". Does that extra colon at the start have any effect, would you know? Pardon my curiosity. Trafford09 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, those. I thought that the colon before the article kept my user page from showing up in the "what links here" of that page, but I did a test and it doesn't. (I know that if you put the colon before an image file name, it links to the image file rather than inserting the image.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Alan Bean art Hall of Fame.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alan Bean art Hall of Fame.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Chess strategy#King

Can you take a look at the March 3 (or so?) edit made by unregistered User 207.255.197.192 to Chess strategy#King about protecting the king in the middle game. Up to now, that is his/her only edit. My opinion is that edit it is not right, but I cannot prove it. H Padleckas (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I fixed it. That page is not on my watch list. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Guard Armory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

edward kotlyanskiy page

I believe that the page of Edward kotlyanskiy shouldn't be deleted. Although it was nominated for deletion a few years ago, it wasn't deleted because additional sources were provided. Since then, it was live for over two years and was even updated to reflect Edward's lose to Eros Riccio. I do not see any reason why it should be deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.173.69 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't my decision to delete it. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Kotlyanskiy. I asked about it. It was deleted, then made a file for a user, then restored. People at the AfD page looked at it, saw that there was no significant change, and proposed it for speedy deletion, which was done. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, now resolved with 'subscription needed' instead of 'pay wall'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.92.141 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Chess template

Hi there, it seems very silient in WikiProject Chess. (No-one seem to be talking on Talk:Chess) You look very active in chess articles, so thought if you could take a look at the the work I'm doing on Template:Chess and let me know your comments/suggestion. (Pls reply back on my talkpage.) Regards. Abhishikt (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bubba73. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 04:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Again ww2censor (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Stonewall Attack sample game

Hey, I see you posted the sample game at StonewallAttack. Do you have a source for it? ~ CZeke (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't post the game at Stonewall Attack. I might have done the first diagram. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah! We both made mistakes here. You definitely did add the sample game, but I didn't think to check the talk page, where you discussed it at the time. ~ CZeke (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right in the end! That was a little over five years ago, and I didn't remember it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Chess question

If things are getting a little dull, you might consider putting your toe into this little potential hornets' nest.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me started! :-) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KasparovBookofyear05small.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KasparovBookofyear05small.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong example (rook with 2 pawns against rook).

Hello! You have changed my example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_and_pawn_versus_rook_endgame#Rook_and_two_pawns_versus_rook I am sorry to say, but your example is wrong. In your example Black have no way to draw. Black to move, White wins. Want to play? Gaz v pol (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How is White going to handle Black's checks after 1...Rb1+?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2.Kc6.Gaz v pol (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2...Rc1+ 3.Kd5 Rd1+ and if 4.Ke5, then 4...Rb1 5.Rh6 Re1+ etc. and White can't hide from the checks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

4.Ke5 Rb1. 5.Rh8+ Kb7. 6.h4!. Do you have skype? Mine is patison4616. We can just play and I will win :-). There is some way to play using grafic interface starting from this particular position of Freechess.org (so-called "bsetup" in help), but I cannot make it work, need help of some computer expert).Gaz v pol (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm running it through my chess engine, but it's very unlikely White wins by force. After 6.h4, 6...Kxb7 followed by ...Rh1 should draw easily, since Black can always check White's king away from the pawn.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

6.h4 Kxb7 you probably misprint, king is already on b7...Gaz v pol (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Meant 6...Kxb6, but allowing Black to take the b-pawn is obviously a mistake. The idea suggested by Fritz is to advance the b-pawn to b7 when Black attacks it, since Black can't afford a rook swap of any sort.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Using my way White wins for sure. What about playing this game of Freechess.org or by skype right now?Gaz v pol (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How? Why are you giving the b-pawn away for free?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Because I see the way to win without b-pawn. And I see no way for White to win without giving the b-pawn. What about playing this position right now? 6...Kxb6 7.Kf5. Gaz v pol (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

7...Rf1+, followed by 8...Kb7. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you had 6...Kxb6 or 6...Rxb6? If 6...Kxb6 then 7.Rb8! and Black loose the rook!Gaz v pol (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

White played Rh7+, did he? If he didn't, then Rxb6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this yet, but the position I removed was unreferenced. The one I replaced it with is in one of the references, FCE by Muller and Lamprecht, p. 200. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I put it into the Shredder endgame database and White does win. We want to have an example that is a draw with two pawns that are not doubled and not rook and bishop pawns on the same side, but it must be referenced. There are some others in the references have, but do you have one with a reference? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not have one with the reference. However, the example that I listed was a 100% sure draw. Try with Shredder!Gaz v pol (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Doing that would be original research. I'll put in a different one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Example of mutual zugzwang rook with two pawns agains rook.

	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

White to move draw, Black to move White wins

OK, thank you for replacing. New position seems to be correct. However, may I ask you to explain me please: why you prefer positions that appeared in some game? Position from Levenfish and Smyslov that you have placed is really hard to understand. I mean it is not easy to get, how White can win if White to move. In my position it's much easier to understand how to play. Is't it better for readers who are not familiar with the topic to illustrate the article with as easy to understand as possible diagrams? I want to put one more diagram to this article: with mutual zugzwang. For instance: FEN 3K4/8/2r1k3/8/P7/2PR4/8/8 w - - 0 1 (see right). White to move draw, Black to move White wins. I have constructed several diagrams of this kind in the past (which are more or less easy to understand). Is this OK to put this, or you want to find such zugzwang from some real game? I do not know how to find such (I am not good in computers). Thank you. Gaz v pol (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not OK to put positions you have constructed because that is original research. Referenced material is required. Also, mutual zugzwang is probably rare in these positions. And a problem with constructed positions is that they usually rely on some trick that pertains only to that position and not that type of position in general. The reason I put in the one from Levenfish and Smyslov is that it shows how close it can be - one tempo makes the difference. The section on rook and two pawns versus rook is not meant to be anything but a brief mention, and that position basically shows two positions in one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LisaLane.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LisaLane.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in Rook+2 pawns vs. Rook

Hello! In Rook and two pawns versus rook you wrote: "Black to move draws, starting with 1...Re4!" You are correct that Black to move draws, but not with 1...Re4? (white wins in this case). Black draws with 1..Re5 or 1..Rh1 or 1..Rg1. Any other move lose. Have a check with Shredder endgame database and you will see. Gaz v pol (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. That was my error in translating from the descriptive notation used in my copy of Levenfish and Smyslov. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SteinitzAlternate.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File: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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Old Indian Defense

Dude, I only changed one or two words in the first paragraph to make it sound better. I didn't vandalize anything. Please get your facts right before you make false accusations. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.54.224 (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You unlinked things that didn't need to be unlinked and you changed a correct name to an incorrect name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

JFK Assassination

I removed your explanation of the dictabelt from the HSCA section of the JFK assassination article. The reason I removed it is because you said the HSCA based their conclusion of a 4th bullet/2nd shooter solely on the dictabelt evidence. And you referenced Bugliosi citing page 84 of the HSCA report. However, page 84 of the HSCA report says there was other evidence "corroborating and independently substantiating" the 4th bullet.

I don't think we can do any more than speculate about where the HSCA's case stands without the dictabelt evidence, unless we have a reliable source. The NAS is a reliable source for the dictabelt, but not the case for the 4th bullet without the dictabelt. That's why I removed both sentences.

I also left a note on the talk page for the article. Ggeezz (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

They don't seem to say what that evidence is. Is it the "badge man" "photo"? Bugliosi is a reliable source, and at least one of the other two that I referenced in that paragraph also say that the dictabelt was the only evidence they had for the fourth shot. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Bugliosi is reliable or not, but if he's referencing page 84 of the HSCA report he is clearly wrong. That page mentions the dictabelt and other scientific projects. Later it mentions witness testimony. What page 84 does say is the dictabelt is the only evidence that "scientifically ... established" a second shooter. The other evidence was graded less than that standard.Ggeezz (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bugliosi's book is the definitive book about the event. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BooneAsPaladin.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:BooneAsPaladin.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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)