User talk:Adpete/Archive 3

Comment on Australian elections

From a discussion at Talk:Next Australian federal election, I made a soapbox comment, which is better off here...

I think we're drifting off topic here, and you seem happy to leave my by-election mod in so we're all happy, so there's no point continuing this discussion. EXCEPT that you've brought up a new point which I can't resist replying to... "When was the last time a party was voted out of office federally unconvincingly?" - there's this myth, based on recent history, that when modern Australia votes out a government it'll always be by a large margin. It's a myth propagated by political journalists because it's their job to find cute theories. IMO it's rubbish, extrapolating from the past based on a few odd events. Whitlam got in on a small swing in 1972, so it's only the last 4 changes of governments which have been landslides: 1975, 1983, 1996 and 2007. 1975 was a special case. In the other 3 cases, the swing was magnified by the fact that the government had done better than expected at the previous election (1980, 1993, 2004). In the last two cases (indeed, perhaps all 3), this was because the opposition had a leader the voters couldn't trust. IOW, there wasn't really a big swing in 1996 or 2007 - it only looked like a big swing because of the Anti-Hewson/Anti-Latham vote at the previous election. In reality there was a gradual drift over 6 years, IMHO. The pattern is this: a government gets in, is popular for 4 or so years, then the electorate gradually gets sick of them. One day a Federal government will be unseated narrowly - it's happened lots of times at the State level and there's no reason it cant't happen at the Federal level. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like some WP:OR there! Don't look at the swing but the margin. Whitlam got over 7 percent as a 2pp swing in 69, and 2.5 in 72, to get to 52.70, the same as Rudd, just the seats fell differently. State governments/premiers change quicker than federal, perhaps it's the number of voters involved. Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The point still stands. One day an opposition will get in on a narrow margin. It almost happened in 1969 and 1998. It might have happened in 1993 or 2004 (or 1987 as another example) if the opposition hadn't shot itself in the foot. No seismic shift is required. It's just political journalists extrapolating from events in the past which have other explanations. But yeah, that is all obviously my OR/opinion. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And the opposition supporters were so (apparently) sure in those close elections that the government would be voted out - but didn't happen. Five times the incumbent government has lost the 2pp but won the seats (IIRC). In 1998 the coalition won on 49.02 by retaining enough seats. In 1949 the opposition gained 51% but a lot of seats. I still maintain opposition wins need to be convincing to throw the govt out, in terms of 2pp. A lot of it I put down to compulsory voting and incumbency - a couple % usually shifts back to the govt at election time. I find it fascinating the number of people who voted Keating in 96, and Howard in 07, and concede likely to vote Rudd next election... IMHO there's a lot more of a swing at each election than the results let on. The only federal election heralding a change of government by a close call was 1913. I'd include 1940 but the government didn't change at the election. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Carr - I was two seconds away from making that change myself. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chess grandmaster

Hello! You have written: "A consensus was reached that we would only put FIDE (i.e. 1950 and later) grandmasters into Category:Chess grandmasters". Well, would you explain why - for example - Siegbert Tarrasch or Frank Marshall (absent in the FIDE list of grandmasters in 1950) are included into the category? Of course, these players were described as grandmasters by tzar Nicholas II of Russia at St, Petersburg 1914, as well as Tarrasch, Schlechter, Janowski, Marshall, Burn, and Chigorin at Ostend 1907 by the tournament organizers. By the way, the term grandmaster was created there. So, there is not difference among them. Now, an inconsequence is seen here! Mibelz (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarrasch and Marshall were meant to be deleted from the GM category but weren't, by accident. The tsar story is now widely seen as unhistorical - see the discussion at Talk:Grandmaster (chess)#Grandmasters before 1950 FIDE period. I'm sure a number of editors including me came to the conclusion that we should only include the FIDE GMs, but I must confess that now I can't find the relevant discussion. But I remember the discussion and (more importantly) I think it's only the consistent way to go. The term GM was very arbitrary pre 1950. The term dates at least back to 1838 - see the discussion referenced above. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts... maybe there was a lot of discussion at Talk:Grandmaster (chess)#Grandmasters before 1950 FIDE period but the conclusion (to only put FIDE GMs in the category) was in my mind. Anyway, I think the solution is to re-raise the question at Talk:Grandmaster (chess). I don't really care what answer is arrived at, but I'd like it to be a clear-cut one. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, a formal point of view (FIDE GMs) is wrong. In that case, not only Tarrasch and Marshall but also Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine ought to be delete from Category Chess grandmaster! So, it seems curious. User:Mibelz 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Kratochvilova page

I'm a great track and field fan, and it's a shame that in the article about Kratochvilova there are more text talking about doping (she never failed a control), taht about her incredible career.

There are other pages to talk about doping, but the page about her is not the more appropiate place. ¿Is there more text about doping that about his career in the Carl Lewis page? Now we know he was tested positive in the American trials before Seoul 88.

So the facts are:

- She is one of the greatest athletes of all time. - She never failed a test. - She has always claimed she never cheated (why don't believe her? Is wikipedia above laws, above the word of a honest person? - In the article there are more text talking about doping that about her career, when there are pages in the wikipedia talking about doping specifically.

I think these are very solid arguments to allow editting the page.

Thank you.

Jarmila Kratochvílová: I think we need both the allegations and rebuttals, but they need to have WP:Reliable Sources. Since the allegations are unsourced, deleting them is the right thing. But the article would be far better if the allegations (and rebuttals) were in there - with sources. Because there certainly was a lot of speculation over whether she used doping. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

TNIV

Hi, nice to know you are here at Wiki, like your up-front common sense User page. I also liked your edit at TNIV.

Just thought I'd let you know that I'm mildly interested in that page, but only indirectly.

People I respect in America put a lot of pressure on Zondervan and the CBT not to publish the TNIV. I agree with many of their views on translation, but not at all on their politics. Let Americans be Americans is what I'm resigned to—they are giving us Wiki to share, so it can't be all bad. ;)

What I think would be sad is if the TNIV article became too full of "it's so good" and "it's so bad" associated with the gender-neutral language issue. Historically, it was a kind of "test case" between evangelicals on that matter. That probably needs careful neutral treatment, not hidden, but not dominating things. It's just not fair to the TNIV otherwise, it's obviously not the only GN translation, just one run by people sufficiently evangelical to have taken strong criticism with as much grace as possible.

I'm sure you understand the issues here, and the difficulties of managing things in a Wiki context.

Anyway, nice edit from you at that page. Happy editing, and best regards for your chess as well. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too happy with the TNIV page at the moment. I'm a big fan of gender neutral translations, but for balance the criticisms need to be discussed, rather than just a roll call of who does and doesn't like it. But it's a fair bit of work so I've avoided it so far. Anyway, thanks for your nice feedback! Peter Ballard (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha! It's a pleasure to disagree with you about GN translations so courteously, and agree about the importance of presenting arguments rather than head-counts. How "us and them" is the roll call thingy! The issues in the debate are much deeper than a short article can cover. The one good thing about the naming names bit is that it does show that reponsible people disagree on this point. An interesting side issue is that all the names would line up (I think) to retain masculine language for God. That says something important to an outside observer.

I'm glad you are a fan of GN translations, it encourages me to "write for the enemy" in this case and work at a neutral presentation. It's still not a high priority for me to do so at the TNIV, but I might write up some more extended coverage of the broader debate in other locations. If I do so, I'll make a point of seeking you out for feedback on what I produce.

Again cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

John Howard, Iraq and the Senate

Ah, it appears I was misinformed. Thanks for clarifying that.

As the untruth was previously mentioned in the discussion, I'm going to just strike the statement instead of withdrawing it to indicate that it is void. Is that acceptably clear?

Carbon Rodney

17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Thank you for your message. In your opinion, is the current article reflective of a NPOV? TemporaryBobDay (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As edited by you - no. Your involvement with the HR Nicholls society should not be removed by you. But I didn't like the old version either: the words "millionaire" and "right-wing" carry POV, in my opinion. Basically, your page needs work, but that is not unusual for the Wikipedia pages of comparatively low-profile politicians. Your page has come to the attention of a few regular editors now, so I suspect it will be substantially cleaned up over the next day or two. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But he is a millionaire? How is it POV? But I will change right-wing to New Right, as it is what the think tanks are. What they are definately not (and what Bob changed it to) is conservative. The IR think tanks are anything but conservative. Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's POV because it's in the lead sentence, as if that is his most notable characteristic. I don't see it in the lead sentence of Malcolm Turnbull or Thérèse Rein, and I doubt it's in the lead sentence of many other rich pollies. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's the issue? Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I did leave a warning. The user continued unabated without trying to communicate about the issue. Note that it was the minimum duration available - takes it to past the end of working hours. Orderinchaos 07:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deep Blue: section on "Future"

I've tried to figure out if there is some way to accommodate both your and Mschribr's positions; your contributions would be welcome, or else it is difficult for me to establish a consensus. Without this, the best I believe I can do is to revert the uncited changes, which I know you felt still left the article with irrelevant material. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Goldbach's conjecture

If every integer greater than 5 is the sum of three primes, then every even integer greater than 4 must be 2 plus the sum of two primes, so this implies that every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.

If every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes, then by adding 2 and 3 to each it follows that every integer greater than 5 is the sum of three primes. Hence the two are equivalent. Zander (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"If every integer greater than 5 is the sum of three primes, then every even integer greater than 4 must be 2 plus the sum of two primes" - why should that follow? Isn't that the same as saying that, if Goldbach's weak conjecture is true, then Goldbach's conjecture automatically follows? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. Goldbach's original conjecture was for all integers, even and odd. I thought the original conjecture was for odd integers only, i.e. Goldbach's weak conjecture. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kerr, etc

Good one, Peter! I've a long road ahead, a few books to get, not much time but all the necessary patience to eventually neutralise the trivial POV stuff in this and related articles. An ALP vendetta is a much greater and more intriguing fury than a woman scorned! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Xu Yuhua

Whatever approach we go for, you move of this page to Xu Yuhua (disambiguation) was confused and completely unnecessary. Even if we do move the chess player back to the main article for this name, there is no need to include a disambiguation page, it should just include a hatnote for the judoka. Do we have a consensus to move the chess player back? PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Xu Yuhua (chess player). Peter Ballard (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Twelve Apostles

Now that I think about it, the link was beside the helicopter rides section - I probably though it was spam for the operator of said rides. Wongm (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it. I see it was an honest mistake. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and hope you don't think i'm a sockpuppet

The wikipeda policy pages are unclear because I'm not used to them. I thought there was only one type of delete nomination, but the one I chose made more sense. I only wished to propose the discussion of its deletion. I wanted it to be very mild subtle suggestion, and for anyone for any reason can remove the tag and my specific question was this one...

Is it correct procedure that I don't have to explain anything except that 1 line in the template box? And the person who takes it down must initiate the discussion? I thought that's the way it read, and wanted to make sure I didn't misuse the delete template, since its a very strong template. Sentriclecub (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes the Wikipedia help pages are a dog's breakfast. There are 3 ways, that I know of :), to delete a page: speedy delete (WP:SPEEDY), WP:PROD, and normal delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion) after discussion. SPEEDY and PROD are both for uncontroversial deletions, so I'm not entirely sure why WP:PROD exists at all. Chessmetrics has obviously been contested, so the only way to delete it is via the normal delete procedure, and I've no idea why an apparently experienced editor in User:Kainaw wanted to persist with PROD. You're within your rights to request a "normal" delete, but I would oppose the delete and I think the chances of it succeeding are very low. As for the other matters (on the use of Chessmetrics itself), I'll take them up at Talk:Chessmetrics when I have the time. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd really prefer to push it back. I'm glad that it has generated some responses. As a mathematician, I hate certain types of common mistakes (such as sig-figs) and also using ex post facto data to create a formula which predicts that same data, to boost its credibility. I'm extremely OCD about innumeracy which my radar goes off and I hate seeing it here on wikipedia and on the chess websites which I'm a member of. I do have some valid points that I wish to make, but its not some delusion that I think I can initiate and win a discussion to delete the article. I just feel like I'm on a roll, since I helped in a big way, the APR enigma and so many finance articles were in razor close to contradiction. Sentriclecub (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User Kainaw

Hi, Peter. Kainaw is the editor who was uncivil to me at Talk:Chessmetrics and who refused at least twice to read the Moul & Nye ref in the article, the full text of which is available for free. He's since posted another less than civil message on my Talk page. I'm quite prepared to go for an RFC - I've seen enough posts at the Village Pump that dismiss WP:WQA as ineffective. This isn't just personal, you may know that I've had one hotter dispute without going to formal dispute procedures. Have a look at this diff and draw your own conclusions. You supported my demand for an apology at Talk:Chessmetrics, and I'd have to mention that in an RFC. It would therefore be unreasonable for me to go ahead without your consent. What do you think? -- Philcha (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it's better to just ignore him, but I'm also happy for you to quote my support for you.

On the issue of your "this diff", i.e. the original request for support by User:Sentriclecub... I don't think there's anything sinister there. I'm assuming Sentriclecub is a good faith editor, so I'm taking him at his word - that he was just looking for advice from an experienced user. Unfortunately, Kainaw has not been helpful. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't wonder about the agenda then? -- Philcha (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentriclecub raises some valid concerns and I'm happy to treat them as good faith concerns. He has a personal bias ("I have heard bad things about Sonas from people I know"), but he has been quite open about it, so on that basis we should treat him as a good faith contributor. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We should treat anyone as a good faith contributor initially. However Sentriclecub failed to do that with us, see for example "There are a lot of people in wikiproject:chess who are at odds with a core wikipedia policy" just above Bubba73's first contribution. We told him there was a good ref in the article and he refused do accept it, in fact I see no sign that he's read it. I've shown you the evidence of his preconceived and far-reaching agenda. And his incredibly long, rambling posts repeat themselves both internally and from one to another. He's the Talk page equivalent of the the bad editor. -- Philcha (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've raised an RfC for Kainaw. Can you please sign at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kainaw#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. -- Philcha (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I've been put in an awkward position now. I gave my approval for you to quote me. I didn't say I would sign anything! I wish Kainaw would apologise for, or at least retract, some of the comments he's made, but at least he's being civil now. I'm not sure what I'll about that RFC. BTW, at least one of the links is wrong, pointing to the history page instead of a specific diff. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

My main concern is that Kainaw might now feel free to take the same approach in other cases, and could do real harm if not opposed by a group as active, confident and knowledgeable as Wikiproject Chess.

I've fixed the diff - thanks for pointing it out. -- Philcha (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have bias because of the people I know. Imagine if everyone you know is a McCain fan. All you hear through them is negative stuff about Obama. Are you not biased? This is my predicament. Nothing more, nothing less, I'm biased so I requested the help of someone with a high edit count, and is known for blunt, offensive honesty (user:kainaw). He owes me no favors, he and I have only once interacted, and I accused him of wikilawyering and he accused me of practicing medicine. So I wanted to pull help from an honest wikipedian at random who had no personal interest in chess! He also has no personal interest with me, thus I'm shielded in a layer of neutrality (which couldn't be said if I pulled ANYBODY who edits chess pages, there could be an underlying suspicion), because you can't really get honest opinions from your friends because they have to balance multiple interests. Kainaw's offensive style was supposed to be directed at me, if I misused the template (or failed to follow deletion protocol at any step). I hoped Kainaw would give me harsh advice, not the innocent bystander Philca.

Now let me dissect

We told him there was a good ref in the article and he refused do accept it, in fact I see no sign that he's read it. I've shown you the evidence of his preconceived and far-reaching agenda. And his incredibly long, rambling posts repeat themselves both internally and from one to another

First, chessbase.com is NOT a good reference! That is the company I allege to be one of the 4 pillars of chess politics. The absolute very first sentence of the chessbase article reads. ChessBase is a German company that markets chess software, maintains a chess news site, and operates a server for online chess. Do you not see the potential conflict of interest right away in blazing emanating red flags? Additionally they sponsor tournaments, and through sponsorship, sponsor other stuff too! Imagine if CNN sold products related to the war in Iraq, would you trust them as a news source? It takes more effort for Philca to assume I didn't read the sources, but he did the extra effort, to support his weak assertion, to give it some false strength. The article which I tagged for deletion proposal had 3 "notes" which I assumed references.

The second reference was missing [[1]] I did not find it either in the paper as expected. The third reference was chessmetrics.com--enough said. Long rambling repetitive posts? Yes. If you know anything about journalism, soundbites can put together any story you want. Same thing I fear could be done to me. One thing interviewees can request, is that to have nothing cut from the interview, but to include every word so that nothing can ever be taken out of context. The wikipedia analogy would be to repeat the whole thing if it is being discussed at 4 different spots.

This is a wise tool, because as noted, I repeat on every talk page that I have a bias (not a bias in reasoning, but a perception bias) so if I chose which talk pages to announce it on, and which to hide it, that would be deceptive. To show you a great illustration, why didn't Philca quote the sentence immediately before the quoted sentence There are a lot of people in wikiproject:chess who are at odds with a core wikipedia policy. which would otherwise totally misrepresent the theme of my whole post.

my whole post, the non soundbite version

Sorry I wasn't clear. I have heard bad things about Sonas from people I know who are Fide masters, and IMs and "in the know" such as that he is a self promoter and self proclaimed expert, and he has upset a lot of people in the USCF. The burden of proof is on you. I want the article deleted, unless reliable sources say that he didn't create a formula using ex post facto data, to boost and help sell its credibility. A google search shows that 500 pages of chessmetrics are in the en.wikipedia.org subdomain. Can we allow him to contaminate every chess article that exists? For us to rely on chessmetrics, and use it on tons of wikipedia pages, and we don't even know who jeff sonas is? Please read the entire page about WP:VERIFIABILITY is way more important than WP:CITATION. Just because his work is cited, and published in chessbase, does not validate his hypothesis. This article needs to be about his research paper, and all the chess articles (except the 3-4 which chessmetrics relevantly serves) need adhere to the principle of being an encylopedia article. I for one have tremendous open-mindedness about this guy. I hope that chess rumors are just that. Hopefully it will be like the 61 memorable games facade. I want a good outcome, and if this guy is an actual gem to society, great. However, there are some strong opinions of people I look up to, that accuse him of chesspolitics and are extremely upset with his method. I'm probably the only person who can discuss it here civilly. I am acquaintance to some strong minded people, and I want chessmetrics cleared up. This is the talk page for the article, so I'm in the right place. Ultimately, an encyclopedia is not a place to throw stuff at a wall, and see if it sticks. Chessmetrics got into wikipedia with zero resistance. There are a lot of people in wikiproject:chess who are at odds with a core wikipedia policy. Please expand this article, and accept the burden of proof. I'll put up a invitation at the wikiproject chess, in a few days. I'm in no rush at all, this could take weeks to figure out more info about Jeff Sonas and incorporate it into this article. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the great length is because of all the extra time and care I put into reviewing my message. I hit show preview honestly about 30-40 times for a message this size. I believe myself to be an above average communicator. A great listener (but this is the one I persue strongest improvement), and an effective arguer. I have read philosophy books on argument, and my favorite author is Willard Van Orman Quine so for every wikipedian who is disappointed with my analytical tautology it is textbook stuff straight from the book which would make the author proud, and I'm proud to argue in this way. Have you ever tried to argue with someone who has never shown effort to improve their skills in dealing with other people? Hopefully, you wish more wikipedians put as much effort into communication as I do. Sentriclecub (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

moved your comments

I just moved one of your comments because it seemed to me that it was not where you intended. I moved the comment about Mig to right below where you struck your previous comment. However, you may have intended it for the Comments section. Please see if my move was correct or not. I'm sorry if I did the wrong thing. Bubba73 (talk), 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the comment exactly where I meant to, but I think your placement is better! So I'll leave it there. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the chessbase thing on Irina Krush

I read that article, and its so sad. Plus they were using my chessclock--the Saitek competition game glock. I even set a 8 seconds vs 3 seconds blitz game, with zero increment, and tested whether or not its possible for the side with 3 seconds to make moves fast enough to have the other players clock run out from 8 seconds when they start with 3 seconds. Its absolutely impossible. I hit the 3 second side's button, then would do 7 quick taps with my thumb, on the nearby surface, then tap time. I'd make the side with 8 seconds do 2 taps. I'm a former drummer, and I got to move 10 (20 ply) using this simulation with took only 11 seconds and the 3 second side always lost. But the rules are the rules. She or her manager should have protested, or someone who was their on her behalf (like a friend or family member) should have said something if they noticed it. She waited to late, and I think as a consolation, they should move up the time it would take for her to re-earn the title, from 12 months up to 11 months. That way it doesn't take anything away from the winner, but it does signal that Irina did in fact win, through after-the-fact video evidence. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Krush was in the right or not. From my viewing of the video they were both knocking pieces over. The problem was a stupid tiebreak (Armageddon) was used. A fair tie break would be pairs of blitz games using a small increment (like 5 minutes + 5 seconds/move). Now that the Fischer clock has been invented, there is no excuse for not using time increment, in my opinion. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's been a response at talkpage of chess championship

Could you comment on Jao's suggestion? Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Have typed a new section at the talk page, and I ask you to read it literally. Its not whining, and no matter how many types I try to make my statement not come across that way, it loses meaning. So I figured, just click submit, after 50 previews, and to just write it out over here, that I'm being sincere that what I wrote has no intention of complaining, or whining, but its hard to keep the meaning and trim the perceived emotional elements. There are no whining or complaints, strictly unemotional. I hate drama, and I do not ever wish to add drama to wikipedia. So hopefully this clarification will guide your your perception of what I wrote over there (well, I haven't clicked submit yet, but its hopeless to make it sound the way I want it too without it being too long of a post). So hopefully you'll see I'm trying to follow those improvements you gave me a while back. Its not natural to me yet, but I made sure to stritcly follow the 2 bulletpoints of the 5 which are relevant (the other 3 were mainly relevant to chessmetrics) Sentriclecub (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't write too much. You claim to be a good communicator, but I must say I find you very hard to follow at times.
• Don't bother trying to justify yourself. It's almost always a waste of time. Even if I'm in the right, I find that retractions and apologies are very hard to get out of people on Wikipedia (and on Internet discussions in general). I'll do it occasionally, but generally it's better to ignore it and move on. And that's on black and white things, like when I've been accused of saying X when I said Y.

about your recent edit

Its not a forum (well it is actually, but you have to be a member to use the forum), but its primarily a place to review the games with a java-browser. I ask permission to reinsert after the first game, since the java applet is very elegant, and has the ability to add variations, and see them using the motion of the animated board. The alternatives which have "clicking" through moves is too "jumpy" and lastly, the java viewer has a built in chess engine. After a game goes by, its free and relevant to readers of this article, who want to review the moves made for any game. The link I believe takes you to a screen that has all 12 games listed, and with just one click (and no popup, but admittedly minimal banner advertisement) they can replay the game, on an animated large chess viewer that is better than the official site which allows one to click through the moves, at zero framerate. The IP is from bulgaria, but is probably trying to do a favor, since the company is owned in Miami, thus its not a conflict of interest. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Rename it to something like "Chessgames PAGE on the 2008 WCC" (rather than "Forum") and it'd be fine. I use Chessgames a fair bit to play through games myself, but I thought this was just a forum. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk

Hi, I left three answers to your question on Wikipedia:Help desk; I believe the third one is the correct one. ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Ephesians in Hebrew

I did not realize that I was affecting a link; the link to "The Epistle to the Ephesian Twins" remains (such is the consequence of the extra yood; it turns a plural into a pair). A Georgian (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Old Adelaide Family(ies) - (originally "OAF")

"totally unreferenced - without references this category should be deleted)" - I'm afraid I don't understand. I have looked at many hundreds of categories, and I don't remember ever having seen a category referenced.

Can you show me an example of a category that is referenced so that I have some idea of what a referenced category looks like?

Do you think you could explain to me why any category should be referenced, then why this one should be, and why thousands are not?

Signed, Puzzled from Adelaide. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example? See WP:CAT, for instance it says, "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories". Now the problem I have with the "OAF" acronym is that I have lived in Adelaide for decades, and have never seen, heard or read the term "OAF" except on Wikipedia (not by you, it was sitting in the Alexander Downer article for a while). So to demonstrate that "OAF" is a real term - and not just something someone made up one day and put on Wikipedia - you need references demonstrating that "OAF" is moderately widespread and important. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. So your concern is not that the "category" is unreferenced, but that the term "OAF" is unreferenced. Is that correct?

If so, would your concerns be addressed by renaming the category from "OAF" to "Old Adelaide Family"?

In fact, I will rename it anyway - OAF is too cryptic and also is not sufficiently distinguishable from oaf.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a double concern: (1) that the term is unreferenced, and (2) that it's a little derogatory as a category name. I think the rename to Category:Old Adelaide Family adequately addresses the second, but the first is more important: references need to be produced to show the term is sufficiently notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

references need to be produced to show the term is sufficiently notable.

Which term? "Old Adelaide Family"? Will these do?

Google pages from Australia for "old adelaide family" returns about 35 results. E.g. Bickford, Pru Goward's mother, Barbara Cleland, daughter of a distinguished Old Adelaide Family, Michell, Menz, Barr-Smith, (An interesting read), Aherns, Barro? (probably too "new"), Crawford, Simpson, etc., etc.

Of more interest to me, How would you one demonstrate notability? i.e. Where would you put the references? As I said, I have never seen a category referenced, and your information supplied above suggests I never will, so how/where?

Pdfpdf (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The references belong in the article which has the "Category" line, not in the "Category" article itself. So returning to my example of Alexander Downer, he's in a number of categories, and the references for all of them are (or should be) in the article. For instance, he's in Category:Australian Leaders of the Opposition, and the article documents that. He's in Category:Alumni of Newcastle University, and the article documents that. etc.

As for "Old Adelaide Family", I've looked at a couple of your references, and I'm not yet convinced that it exists as a special term or acronym. Perhaps I'm wrong. I think the best way for you to proceed is to create an article called Old Adelaide Families or Old Adelaide Family, and there explain (with references) why the term (and its apparent acronym "OAF") is notable. (e.g. presumably every city in the world has long established families - why does it matter in Adelaide?) This is what you've started already at Category:Old Adelaide Family. I think a general rule is that the "Category" article shouldn't have too much text (I'm sure I read that somewhere in the WP guidelines, but can't find it now!) So why not see what you can put together for an article, and that (including how much you can support with references) might be a guide to whether the Category is worth while. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the opposite of "indent"?

Thanks, that's useful. (It also overlaps with my opinion of the only sensible/practical way to do it.)

Not wanting to be rude, but "Old Adelaide Family" is a well established term that is independent of your opinion of it, and yes, I believe you're wrong, but then, that's only my opinion.

"OAF", on the other hand, isn't worth any further discussion - the fact that it is only 3 keystrokes is out-weighed by its obscurity and ambiguously derogatory associations (which is no doubt part of the justification for its existence). So let's just drop "OAF" from the conversation.

(On a tangent, thanks for bringing <u> </u> to my attention; I've been looking for a way to do that, and it never occurred to me to try basic html!!)

Yes, an article is probably a good idea. I'm reticent, however, because to do it justice would require a lot of work. (I've just started on The Adelaide Steamship Company - that will keep me busy for the next month. I would guess that a decent OAF article would require over 40 hours work.)

presumably every city in the world has long established families - why does it matter in Adelaide? - Wow!! That's a $64,000 question! Interestingly-to-me, I think I can answer it!! However, it would take me at least half-an-hour of talking to do so. Briefly: Yes, "presumably every city in the world" does have long established families, but I think, in general, "So what?". why does it matter in Adelaide? - I think that's the question that "hits the nail on the head". The answer is complex, and is tied up in the fact that Adelaide was a "free" (non-convict) and privately financed settlement, the economic "travails" of the colony, and the fact that the "founding fathers" were able to become so ridiculously wealthy that a culture of philanthropy developed. Then, through various droughts, depressions and periods of horrible disease and death, these families continued to put back into the community. e.g. Moonta's copper kept SA going when otherwise everyone in Adelaide would have packed up and either returned "home" to England, or moved East. e.g. The Hayward family starting up the John Martin's Christmas Pageant and the Magic Cave.

This is what you've started already at Category:Old Adelaide Family ...

Yes, I think you are right, and yes, I think it does say something like that somewhere.

So why not see what you can put together for an article ...

Flipant answer: Because it's too much like hard work, and I'm too lazy!!!

I have absolutely no doubt that it is worthwhile, and easily justifiable as such. Further, you have convinced me that the way forward is to write an article.

However, my wife wants our grey water diverted onto the garden, and that has higher priority!

Thanks for the discussion-to-date. I've found it interesting, useful and thought provoking.

I expect I will probably bother you again when I want someone to bounce ideas off of.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

changing section title

I noticed that you put in comments about changing section titles because of links to them. I've put in quite a few links to section titles, but not comments about changing the titles. Is there an easy way to find such links? I have AWB, if that helps. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, though I'm sure something exists. I've never used AWB or any other Wikipedia bot. I suggest you ask at a help page. Sorry I can't be of more help. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistake?

I assume it was a mistake, but do you realise you provided two duplicate refs here? Two links appear twice, giving the impression of nine references when in fact there are only seven. --Surturz (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't a mistake. Two different sets of people interviewed for the same article. I was looking for different opinions, not doing a reference count. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Amir Bagheri

No, it didn't say anything about a chess grandmaster. It was about some random Iranian wannabe web developer or something, so I guess you'll have to start over with that one. heh. I've got to tell you you gave me quite a scare there. (I would certainly hope I would notice that the article said something about him being a grandmaster....) Good luck with the article btw. Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Keating split

Just checking you're aware that another Prime Ministerial article is being split. See Keating talk page.--Lester 15:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow...

...nice user page. Very good read, advice, and reaffirmation. --Merbabu (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say... thank youo very much... though I don't always follow my own advice (e.g. I now think my advice to always delete rather than put in "fact" tags is a little harsh). Peter Ballard (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Péter Lékó

Already noticed the discussion on talk when you posted there (watchlist), but thanks. Added a new post too now. Hobartimus (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Terry Boylan

I'd much rather be wrong and have it deleted than right and have it kept :) There's two firsts I can think of - a party incorrectly declaring they had won a by-election, and the first opposition to lose a by-election! Probably more firsts I can't think of... but certainly about as fascinating as an SA by-election gets! I for one could not be happier... I thought after 2006, 15 seats was tiny... but 14 seats, wow! And there wasn't even a State Bank that caused it! I really can't see the Liberals winning government next year... I should probably get off my pedestal now. Timeshift (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Lewis

Is it really in the best interests of a complete encyclopedic article to remove the information?

If it's uncited, contentious and about a living person, then yes. WP:BLP is clear: "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced".

Wouldn't it be better to find out what part the user took the issue with, and/or find cites? Timeshift (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but it was late and I didn't have time. So better to do a temporary delete. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just noticed a cite at the end of the article. (There were no inline cites so I thought there were none at all). But it's a dead link. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: Australian Senate election, 1970

Thank You for your comment. However I like a infobox election for the Australian Senate because for me it would be unfair for both the House elections would have templates and not the Senate. I hope you understand. 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Native Countries in chess tournaments

Hi! I have added "Native Country" (synonyms: Birthplace, Country of Origin, Native Land, etc.) into several crosstables, mostly for the period from 1850 to 1914. It is important especially for people from Eastern and Central Europe. In my opinion, it is always better to have more information than less information. I am going to give my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Listing Native Countries in tournaments. -- Mibelz (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)