Welcome to the Wikipedia, ChessHistorian! And thanks for the new link added to the Bobby Fischer article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:
Hello. Thanks for your help at the Ed Trice article. Please include sources for this section. Once you have the sources, I'll be glad to let you include it. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 03:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to his online resume, plus the interview I had with him when the game of checkers was solved. ChessHistorian 03:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if you interviewed him or got the information from his own site, it can not be used as the references would not be third-party sources and original research. --Boricuaeddie 03:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The material from the interview was printed in about 10 different newspapers that carried the story. See, for example:
Actually, that is where he lived at the time of the patent filing. Don Golub, the patent attorney who filed for his patent, can confirm this.
ChessHistorian 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay! Sorry about the mistake. --Boricuaeddie 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your tireless help with the Ed Trice article, I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Happy editing! Boricuaeddie 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Barnstar, and sorry for the confusion[edit]
I am not 100% sure what a Barnstar actually signifies although I have seen them on some pages. I am pretty sure it is a good thing though, at least I hope so. I must confess that I accidentally caused the current stirrings on Ed Trice's page. I was one of the reporters that interviewed him when the announcement came that the game of checkers had been solved. When I spoke with Dr. Schaeffer, he gave Ed high marks and suggested we speak to him as well.
Anway, I did muddle through the cryptography quotes. I should have left it to a more capable editor. I'm not completely familiar with all of the Wikipedia policies. I did see a copy of his original Invention Disclosure document that was filed in 2002, but I did not describe it well. Perhaps because it is somewhat secret it should be left off of the Wikipedia pages. I will also follow up with Ed via email.
You seem to be unaware of any of the policies and methods under which Wikipedia operates. Please note that someone cannot be banned for "reverting this twice, once over a week ago, once today", even if were true (which in this case, it isn't). I would suggest reading WP:BLOCK and WP:3RR.
I would further suggest that you are orders of magnitude more likely to be blocked than me; continued unjustified re-inclusion of material (in the sense that you have posed no justification for its re-inclusion) when valid arguments for its removal remain unanswered, will eventually be seen as disruptive editing. Simply stating that the section "is not contrary to either the spirit or the letter of the basis for avoiding the Wikipedia How To constructions" is not only false, but unjustified (in the sense that you have simply stated a claim, with no logical argument for how one should arrive at that conclusion). Please make some effort to actually answer the problems cited with the section in question, otherwise I will remove the section again.
I would also suggest reading Wikipedia's policy on referencing material, see e.g. WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Phrases such as "This variant has been deemed an improvement over Capablanca Chess by the publishers of the International Computer Games Association Journal" need verifiable sources. Claiming that the "previous author must not have read the citation in the refs which support it" makes no sense; one does not read references to find citations, one cites references. In any case, there is no specified reference anywhere near that particular claim, and as far as I can see, none of the current references in the article assert this claim.
I can tell you did not read the article published by the International Computer Games Association Journal. On page one after the table of contents, that quote appears directly, although written in 1st person rather than 3rd person. Therefore, the citation referring to the Journal is documentation enough. Until you actually read the references furnished, I have no choice but to ignore you.
You seem to think that your removal of the Trice-Polgar game is some important contribution to the article. The game is of historic value. Not only is Susan Polgar an advocate of the game, she is now on the Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation. She has the power to introduce measures to the other board members to suggest that Gothic Chess will be used to break ties among top tournament prize winners in the event many draws occur. It may ruffle some feathers, but measures such as this are in the works.
The game belongs, it was put there by someone, it will remain there, I will fight you, others will fight you, you won't win, so drop it.
ChessHistorian 19:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the ICGA "quote", perhaps I'm being slow tonight, but the only reference that seems to match what you're saying is the article by the inventor of Gothic chess. This is clearly not the same as saying that the ICGA "deems this an improvement over Capablanca chess", and is not an independent source. If indeed I am being slow, please point me at the correct reference, I will add the cross-link to the article, and I will then drop the point. Oli Filth 01:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a simple question for you then: Do you have a hard copy of the International Computer Games Association Journal in front of you? Yes or No? If it is "yes", turn to the inside cover. There is a section of editor's comments on the same page as the Table of Contents. Read it. It is written by the editors of the magazine. If you don't have a copy of it, that explains everything.
ChessHistorian 13:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ChessHistorian, if that is the case then can you add an inline citation to the claim to settle the discussion. Hut 8.5 13:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Gothic chess. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Oli Filth 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but someone modified the header that GothicChessInventor created with the equal signs. Why don't you admonish that person? Or is your review of the history only concerning the bias you seek to dish out?
Until User:GothicEnthusiast pointed out the same thing on the talk page, I had literally no idea what you were talking about. A link to the relevant diff would have been helpful!
However, you are correct, altering section headings that others have added is generally frowned upon as well. I will reinstate the original title. Oli Filth 18:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for not replying to you sooner, but I was away from my computer for a while and have only just seen your comment. I see this issue has erupted into a larger discussion in the meantime, and as I know very little about chess and have no desire to plough through pages of arguments and edit histories right now I'm not going to comment on the link. For future reference, there are several places where you can report problems of this sort:
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to ask that the page be locked from further editing (read WP:PP carefully first). I note that an admin has already protected the page, but you could have requested it.
That person has long since engaged in repeated attacks against me, the game of Gothic Chess, and my patent. This is the reason I consider him an adverse candidate and a person that should be prohibitted from posting material to the Gothic Chess article.
The Mig Greengard AFD you linked to is months old. The article was deleted. Later it was recreated with different content and discussed at this January 4 DRV with the result that the deletion was overturned. Quale (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're aware that one more reversion like that will be in violation of 3RR. Especially seeing as you have chosen not to participate in a discussion on the talk page like I suggested, and are still throwing accusations of "vandalism" around. Regards, Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the message you recently left to User talk:InfoCheck. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Hut 8.5 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
