User talk:Bubba73/Archive 6 (2010)

Conflicted licensing on image File:AdolphAnderssen.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is free, but people are so ticky about images that I put in the fair use rationale as well. I removed it (the unneeded "fair use" rationale). Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 21:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Moonrise

If you want, I could get the required Perl modules myself and put your data in. I'd only do this as a one-off (I'm not willing to commit to working out moonrise times for you for the next ten years ☺). Drop me an email via my userpage if you like. I'll reply tomorrow, though - it's 2:20AM in my timezone and I'm off to sleep! Tonywalton ^Talk 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I ordered a book that says it has routines in BASIC that I can convert. That should work out. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 17:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:OnNotice1.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OnNotice1.jpeg, 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. --Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What change to the licensing info will make it OK? It is a snapshot of a single frame of a TV show. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning

First off are you guys kidding me... You sayed and i quote : The "when" is an indication that the year needs to be specified. Don't you realize that it isn't always going to be "3 years ago"?

Whit that i actually agreed whit you and corrected the article and then your gonna whine and warn me because i did wat you wanted... Also don't have discussion on my page... My page inst social network if you want to warn me of something that fine but don't talk to each other on my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush (talk • contribs) 06:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Bubba73/Archive 6 (2010)! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Steinitz

If you have to revert few things, first, you ought to know, check facts, you reverted to wrong ver 1871! 1872 is in the article but ought to be known in the first paragraph, all are well known facts, you deleted valuable info, such moves make articles bad, you mentioned 1866, 1872 contemporaries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in Wilhelm Steinitz where I reverted anything this year. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings for becoming a local-level TD ! SyG (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 18:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Parham

Fenner Parham is an ancestor of Bernard's. Fenner is the one who signed up for the event but Bernard is the one who actually played vs. Fischer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windingshu (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Help desk

Hi Bubba, just a quick note to let you know that I've replied to your query on the help desk, direct link to answer. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, above comment is something I normally do for newer users who might have trouble finding their way back to the desk.... Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Grandmasters for chess composition.

Hallo Bubba73, today I made some improvements to the page List of grandmasters of the FIDE for chess compositions. I added an introduction and changed the list of grandmaster to sortable wikitable, in this way it will be easier to find names and countries. However, I don't like the present title, a better one I propose is "List of FIDE Grandmasters for chess composition" or better still "List of Grandmasters for chess composition", since no other organization than FIDE awards this title. At first I wanted to move the page to this other name, but then thought that it could be an hazardous move, also considering the work of changing the links. I contacted you for being one of the best editors of chess articles on en.wikipedia. Let me know your opinion on the list of grandmasters for composition. Note: I also asked the opinion of Brittle Heaven on this. --Gabodon (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Other pages I wrote recently: Bill Wall (with data he sent me), Women's Soviet Chess Championship, Cappelle-la-Grande Open, enlarged a lot the page World Open chess tournament. Forgot to tell you that I'm Italian and contribute mostly to it.wikipedia (some 350 articles on chess and 200 others). Ciao, --Gabodon (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely - the current title is very awkward. Either of the ones you suggest are better and I agree with you on the one without "FIDE" is the best, since it is a bit redundant. There is really not much problem with moving it to a new title because the system will automatically generate a redirect to the page with the new name. However, you can look at "what links here" and see all of the pages that link to that one and make the change. With this one there probably aren't very many. And if you do change them, I would only bother to change the ones in articles - ignore ones on talk pages and user pages. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 23:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The main thing that does need to be changed is at index of chess articles. That must have the actual name of the article (not a redirect) so that "recent changes" will show changes to the article. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

List of grandmasters for chess composition

Hallo Bubba, I moved the page to this new name and corrected most of the pages linking to it, e.g. index of chess articles, FIDE titles and others. But if you care to give it a look it would be good. Thank you for your help, --Gabodon (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me, except that International solving grandmaster became a "double redirect". I fixed it. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

I explained to you, in polite fashion. That it inappropriate for you to delete my work in till you prove that it the right decision. So far you haven't proven anything. Do not delete my work this last warning. Discuss it, valid your point and then we will consider it. (GSP-Rush (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Grass, etc.

As a possible companion to your ship in the grass, behold the Chartres Cathedral, which along with its neighboring structures are apparently outbuildings on a French farm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 1987

I may be seeing this wrong, but I think your change [1] actually has all the backgrounds white and the color black. I went into edit mode on that one (without saving) and changed one of them to background black and color white, and it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I see the problem, default is black on white, you have to change it for anything else. Thanks. Bubba73 ^{(You talking to me?)}, 05:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your excellent question

I copied your question to User talk:B. Wolterding who created the cleanup listings. I hope my post helped, please message me on my talk page if it did. :) Ikip 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Animal Crackers (film), etc.

That one punctuation correction you made is in a paragraph that looks to me like it was lifted from someplace, the way it's written. What say you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like encyclopedic writing, especially at first. It is similar to a paragraph in the reference but clearly different. Perhaps it was copied and then reworded. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To me it sounds kind of like verbiage a critic would use. I'm not quite sure what to do with it though. As a side note, I'm pleased to see that you're getting into the Marx Brothers. :) I was also watching a couple of old W.C. Fields films on youtube a few minutes ago, which are (as far as I know) not available on DVD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've liked the Marx Brothers for a long time. I hadn't seen Animal Crackers in about 30 years, but it was on a few days ago and I recorded it and watched it this past weekend. I used to not like A.C. much - A Night at The Opera is by far my favorite, and probably Horse Feathers second. But A.C. has a very large number of funny lines and my opinion of it went up after seeing it again. I don't like the songs in it very well. When I started college in 1972, I had never seen a Marx Bros movie - I thought the only Marx Bros were Groucho and Harpo - I had seen them portrayed on TV. Of course, at that time it was popular to show old movies on a college campus and that's where I saw "Night at the Opera" for the first time. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a Canadian comedy team called Wayne and Schuster who narrated / hosted several retrospective shows on TV about movie stars or genres. Those aired in the 60s, and that's when the Marxes and Fields first caught my attention. The 2 Fields DVD sets have their program about Fields on it. I haven't seen the repackaged Marx collection, so I don't know if their show is anywhere in those specials. Anyway, I got a new appreciation for Fields from that DVD set, and you guys have inspired me to re-watch the early Marx stuff again, beyond my favorite classics, Duck Soup, Horse Feathers, and A Night at the Opera. I've also been trying to identify the piano pieces that Chico did. I haven't quite got them all figured out. I was watching Cocoanuts earlier, and it's really primitive. Supposedly Groucho hated it and wanted it burned. He didn't hate the material, I guess, just the presentation. There are flubbed lines that were kept in, and some of the jokes aren't very funny, even by my low standards. :) Animal Crackers, while still kind of cramped and stagy, and with some obvious continuity mistakes (like different spellings of the Captain's name), but it's a lot funnier. I think the first two films were made in New York, and the rest in Hollywood. A lot of folks don't know that New York had a thriving movie industry for awhile, but Hollywood had more room and usually good weather year-round. The songs in the early films aren't much to write home about, except for the ones Groucho sings, along with Chico and Harpo playing their instruments. Someone told me awhile back that they thought Chico and Harpo's little set-pieces are self-indulgent and that they bring the films to a halt. Naturally, I don't agree. I find them charming. It's all a matter of taste. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, coconuts is like they let the camera run and they did the stage show. But making talkies was in its infancy at the time. I've seen it only once. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Why a duck?" bit is probably the best known gag from The Cocoanuts. I was noticing the camera work a little bit. There were times, in Animal Crackers I think, where it was obvious they were moving the camera toward and around the players, as it was vibrating a bit. No Stedy-Cam in those days. However, the anomolies in Cocoanuts are much more obvious. All the paper in it was obviously soaked in water so it wouldn't crinkle and pick up on the mike. There were also times when the actors moved away from the boom mike and their voices faded. I think something like Cocoanuts could be condensed down to about a 20 minute short and it would work fine. If you like Groucho, there are all manner of youtubes out there. Recently I got a DVD of Copacabana, which is not a great film, but it has Groucho as a solo act, along with Carmen Miranda and Gloria Jean. That's a motley combination for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Best W.C. Fields: The Bank Dick. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 06:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(To Shemp Howard): "Was I in here last night, and did I spend a 20 dollar bill?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone converted the cast list to two columns, and it doesn't look so good, as it puts a big square of white space in the middle of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Insufficient losing chances

Hi, I left a comment on User talk:Wikitiki89's talkpage concerning the "insufficient losing chances" rule. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the response. It does lead to a slight problem with footnote 6 in Rules of chess where it says that

"The USCF rule is different. If the player whose time runs out has "insufficient losing chances" the game is drawn. That is defined as a position in which a class C (1400-1599 rating) player would have a less than 10% chance of losing the position to a master (2200 and up rating), if both have sufficient time (Just & Burg 2003:49–52)."

I do believe that the USCF rule is slightly different from FIDE in that a player with only K+B or K+N cannot win on time barring a forced checkmate, but I don't think it is the "insufficient losing chances" rule. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

USCF rule 14D says these are automatically draws: K vs. K, K+B vs. K, K+N vs. K, K+B vs K+B with bishops on the same color and 14D4 "no legal moves lead to checkmate". So in these cases checkmate is impossible so it is automatically a draw. K+B vs. K+N is not covered because a checkmate by either side is possible.

Rule 14E is about "insufficient material to win on time": (1) lone K, (2) K+B or K+N and doesn't have a forced win, (3) K+2N and opponent doesn't have any pawns, and there is no forced win. Insufficient losing chances in sudden death is rule 14H.

But it is part 2 and 3 of rule 14E that probably cause the confusion, and that may be what the other person was talking about. If a player has only a bishop or only one or two knights, he can't win on time - unless he had a forced win (which is possible). For instance, with K+2N vs. K, if the defender didn't defend properly, he could be in a position where checkmate is one move by the knight away. That is a pretty subtle "loophole".

To illustrate, in ISCF rules suppose White had K+2N and Black had K. Black's time runs out. White cannot claim a win on time unless it had gotten into a position where White can checkmate on his next move. (Or it is possible to get into a position like this after exchange of material, see two knights endgame.) Of course, the defender probably could have claimed insufficient losing chances earlier.

And there is a big difference between USCF and FIDE here. In USCF the checkmate must be forced. In FIDE it just has to be possible by some sequence of moves, no matter how illogical. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have amended to footnote to read:

"The USCF rule is different. USCF Rule 14E defines insufficient material to win on time, that is lone K, K+N, K+B, and K+N+N opposed by no pawns, and there is no forced win. Hence in order to win on time with this material, the USCF rule requires that a win can be forced, while the FIDE rule merely requires a win to be possible."

Is this accurate? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is OK except that you could never have a forced win with only a king. But that is obvious so I wouldn't change it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your change and you took out the part about "insufficient losing chances" and that belongs in there too. In fact that should come up much more often than the rare loophole (which probably has never come up). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually that would belong elsewhere. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, great! I think the article is accurate again. Thanks for your help! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:BloodyMarshMap.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BloodyMarshMap.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. --—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Clear

I think if {{clear}} was being depreciated it would say so on the template or talk page. A wiki search gives no mention either. SunCreator (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I saw it somewhere a few years ago. But it works, and the alternative is something I can't remember. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Your comments on the Chess opening talk page were quite helpful. Thank you!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Learn the fundamentals - there are good articles about the rules of chess and several other topics, such as Chess tactics and chess strategy. You don't have to start learning chess by learning the openings. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:EuweVsBotvinnik.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:EuweVsBotvinnik.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Human vs Computer Chess

Hi,

No place on this article states that mathematically, in theory human would not be able to defeat a computer (a computer with the required processing power to calculate all possible moves to win). Do you not feel that it is necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahee.saib (talk • contribs) 03:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit (quoted below) does not make sense.

It is impossible for a human to beat a completely configured computer at chess even if the human is able to attain the same processing power of the computer opponent. The result of the game will probably result in a draw or loss to the human.

What is "completely configured"? What does it mean for the human "to attain the same processing power" as the computer? Humans can still beat computers sometimes, so the last sentence is not quite correct. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, my wording is not perfect. Although, mathematically, computer chess only contains a finite number of possible moves, the problem we have today is that pc's arent powerfull enough to compute that high number of moves. Theoretically, if a computer was able to compute all those moves (Chess will then be solved), it would be (mathematically) impossible for a human to beat the computer. Reason why I'm putting this here, is that I am an AI student doing research on Chess. When doing reading up on this site, I noticed that this (impossible for human to defeat "completely configured" computers). The reason why humans sometimes beat computers is due to the computers difficulty level being set low, or the computer processing power not being enough. I strongly believe that this should be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahee.saib (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that what you are saying there is already started, or at least implied, in the "Solving chess" section. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is implied, it more implies that the possibility of humans beating computers will always exist until Chess is solved. Chess being solved is a matter of processing power, no? It may be started but not exlicitly stated.

If you want to, ask for opinions on the talk page of the chess project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall do that, thanks. In the meanwhile, how is the following wording: In theory, a computer will always beat or draw a human at chess, assuming that the computer has the processing power to perform the required calculations and the human brain at best can match the processing ability of the computer opponent. This is due to the finite number of moves involved in a chess game and zero probability of the computer making a mistake.

Copied to computer chess talk page. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bubba73. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Credo Reference offer

You might find this offer useful: some of the sources aren't normally found on UK library subscriptions. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I signed up but I was #103. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You might get lucky. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

At least one above me didn't meet the requirements. Looks like I got off about 4 minutes before you sent me the message! And didn't get back on for 30-40 minutes. That's what I get for not being online all the time! Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I was saying, you might be lucky. Check again :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fool's mate

Hi Bubba73. Your work on fool's mate has made the page look much nicer, and I think you were right in restoring the static image...especially with your improvement of the page layout. Good stuff :) I added the new animation, so I don't trust my objectiveness enough to do much more than that. I only added it to replace the old animation, if there was no animation there originally I wouldn't have touched it, but the old one clearly had deficiencies. What do you think about putting the image tag for the animation at the top of the Details section instead of embedded within it? I'm stuck on my (beloved) 1240x600 resolution Eee right now so window size tends to be a bit limited, but this seems to make things line up a bit cleaner. I'm not terribly fussed either way, but I think it may be a slight improvement. I'm not confident either way without my big screen to play around with it tho. Thanks! Winston365 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that it needed a static position in addition to the animation, so the reader could look at it as long as they wanted to. I'll look at the page again. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Move done. I think I moved the animation down before I added the section. It is better at the top of that section, as you suggested. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Winston365 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hi, I nominated File:VSmyslov.jpg and File:Smyslov1958.jpg for deletion because free images of Smyslov exist and the omission of the non-free material is not detrimental to the understanding of the Smyslov article. Regards Hekerui (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree you can remove the notices and readd the images, but perhaps a discussion with others on whether they should be included should follow. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Hoffer

Just wondering why you are asking to delete the article on Michael Hoffer? I mean Michael John Hoffer. If you think I am him, then you are mistaken. My name is Michael W. Cutler and I just happen to know this man. If you would like to ask questions and try and resolve this issue we can. I just wanted to repeat, I am NOT Michael Hoffer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessmike04 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that makes the article not an WP:AUTOBIO. However, the person does not seem to be notable as a chess player. Also, since you do know him personally, there is a possible wp:COI. You can participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael_Hoffer.

Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VSmyslov.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VSmyslov.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Smyslov1958.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Smyslov1958.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rules of chess

Found the bug and fixed. Thanks. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Morphy Number

Amazing your a four. I think I'm a five. Did play at next table to a three before Stuart Milner-Barry Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've played two of the fours listed and a few that have played Stuart Milner-Barry. So several routes to being a five but none to being any less. Congrats to you, four is exceptional! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that list is no where near complete. But those are important ones in establishing links to later generations (see the two articles in the references). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Fischer 2, Botvinnik 2, Smyslov 2, Tal 2, Euwe 3, Anand 3 and Kasparov 3. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today my wife asked me what I would be to Fischer. I'll have to work that out. Whitaker is crucial to me for Morphy. I have found no record that he played Fischer, but they knew each other and went on a trip together so they might have played. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm Fischer 2 via two routes. Have you a connection somehow to James Sherwin? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

None that I know. Of course, everyone with a finite Morphy number is connected somehow. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitaker played Sherwin in 1951, so that makes me a Fischer 3, unless Whitaker played Fischer. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a pretty good chance that I've played someone who played Anthony Santasiere, who played Fischer, Capablanca, and others. Not sure though. There is also a good chance that I played someone who played Rubén Shocrón, who played Fischer (but I already have a 3-link to Fischer.) Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a Susan Polgar 2, which gives me a closer link to many more contemporary players. I also have another route to be a Reshevsky 3. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Tal 1, having played Tal in a simul; a Fischer 2, having drawn a tournament game against Viktors Pupols; and a Kasparov 2 and Karpov 2, having played a tournament game against Alexander Ivanov. Only Morphy 5, as far as I can tell, through either Arthur Bisguier (2 simul games); Sergey Kudrin (1979 U.S. Open), who lost twice to Reshevsky; or Greg DeFotis, against whom I swindled a win in the 2000 (IIRC) U.S. Masters, who drew Reshevsky and beat I.A. Horowitz (both Morphy 3s) in the 1972 U.S. Championship. I believe I'm also an Alekhine 2, since I played a number of games against Morris Pimsler, an old man (since deceased, I assume) who I'm told played Alekhine in a simul. Krakatoa (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

btw, many people have an easy route to a Fischer 3 through Walter Browne. Surely you must have played someone who played Browne, who drew (and almost beat) Fischer at Rovinj-Zagreb 1970. Krakatoa (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm 3 to Tal, Spassky, Fischer, and Karpov (unless there is a 2-link I don't know about). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitaker is a great person to have played, since he played Lasker, Capablanca and Euwe. Krakatoa (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

He played Ed Lasker but I don't think he played Em. Lasker. Walter Browne played in the 1967 US Open in Atlanta and played two people I knew, but I never played them. He was also at the US Open in Jacksonville in 89 or 90 but I don't know if he played or who he played. Others like Benko, Saidy, and R. Byrne were in Atlanta in 67 - I'll have to see who they played. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, Whitaker did play Em. Lasker. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitaker is a great entry point to have. My entry points to top players are: David Bronstein 1, Gary Lane 1, James Sherwin 1, Milner-Barry 2, George Thomas 2, Symslov 2, Michael Adams 2. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are some good ones. If I lived in Europe I'd get over to Budapest forthwith and play a game or two with Andor Lilienthal, who's played or met every World Champion other than Steinitz. Krakatoa (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So for me:

Lasker 2

Capablanca 2

Alekhine 3

Euwe 2

Botvinnik 3

Smyslov 3

Petrosian 3

Spassky 3

Fischer 3

Karpov 3

Kasparov 4?

Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to get a Morphy 5 - I see that I have another route by having played blitz against Roman Dzindzichashvili, who played Lilienthal. But to get a Morphy 4 you have to have played a real old-timer, like Lilienthal, Reshevsky, Horowitz or Whitaker. Krakatoa (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I played Whitaker when I was about 14 and he was almost 80. He played Lasker when he was about 17. So I realized that there probably aren't very many Lasker 2s around. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lilienthal is the only living Lasker 1 that I know of. I know Irving Chernev's young son (Melvin?) played Lasker in 1935 at the Chernev house. The game (Lasker-M. Chernev) went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O Be7 8.Re1 Be6 9.Rxe6 fxe6 10.Nxe6 +- Draw Agreed. If M. Chernev is still around, he'd be 87 or so. ChessGames.com has a game from a simul that Lasker gave in the U.S. in 1939. It's possible that a youngster who played Lasker in that simul could still be alive. But if one isn't already a Lasker 2, one probably won't become one now. Krakatoa (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that I have a Kasparov Victory Number of 4. Krakatoa (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a 5, if you include a game with Whitaker that isn't in the database. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a 5 by a different route if you count a game I won in the 89 or 90 US Speed Championship. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't resist leaping in to say I'm a Fischer 2 as I (along with countless other British club players) have played Bob Wade in a simul.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty good. The only way I might be a Fischer 2 is if Whitaker played him. The knew each other but I have no record that they played. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Fischer 2 three different ways, since in addition to drawing Pupols in a tournament game, I also played two simul games against Bisguier, and one against Tal. Krakatoa (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And you played two who beat him, which is rare. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all three of them beat Fischer. Krakatoa (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

yes, I was just making that comment, based on List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this article, which had been on my to-do list. I'm guessing I'm a 6; whatever it is, it's probably 1 higher than either Paul Robey or Michael Rohde. Ma^t_chups 02:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. As you can see from this discussion, several people found it interesting! Compared to most articles, it is a little bit of fun, but it is documented and referenced, and there are counterparts in math and movies. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Checkmate

Hello, May I know the Reason for deleting my sources please.. thanks --Matthäus3000 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are ample sources saying something different. I added one authoritative source. The other one examines the question much more in depth than that dictionary and cites several sources. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Znosko

They were not references; the article had no in-line references. One was a repeat of one of his books (already listed), the other was Sunnuck's Encyclopaedia, which has been superseded by the Oxford Companion, the most comprehensive and reliable work available. Oh, your other question. In English, only proper nouns are capitalised. They were not proper nouns (though I see WP erroneously thinks they are). Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Information from Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Capitalization of book titles. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Lighthouse restoration 2010.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Lighthouse restoration 2010.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

New York

Did you ever get to New York City? I was thinking that was supposed to be in the springtime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we did. Got there March 31 and spent four nights. We saw most of the usual things, plus West Side Story on Broadway. I was asking about transportation, and the first two full days we took the double-decker sight-seeing buses. That was a good choice - you get to see a lot they way and they have guides telling you what you are seeing. They make several stops on their route and you can hop off, stay there for a while, then hop on another one. Then we mostly took cabs and did some walking. A view from our hotel room: File:World Trade Center site 2010.jpg. And I got to play chess with a hustler in Washington Square Park, and came out even. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Must be weird to see that construction site. And the guy in the park didn't realize you were a "ringer". Pretty good. :) How was the "West Side Story" production? I saw the play version once, but that was at my university. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The play was very good, top-notch performances. The production has gotten some awards and nominations. I was out of my element playing 5-minute chess (for $5/game to the winner). The last time I played 5-minute chess (except on the computer) was 20 or 21 years ago, and that fast play was never my forte. And obviously he has had a lot more practice in that format than I have. And I was also tired and bleary-eyed from not enough sleep for 3 nights. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

photographs by GF Hund

Hello - yes, they are grouped together in Commons - just go to 'Chess Players from Germany' select 'next 200', then 'Gerhard Hund' then 'Photographs by Gerhard Hund'. It's a terrific collection of photos. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the ones you have done are ones that had no photo. Keep it up. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring comments

I took the liberty of splitting the discussion about file and ranks, and the one about squares being squares. I haven't changed anything you said, I just moved it around. I hope you don't mind. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. They were two different topics. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tal.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tal.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Blacklake (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

~Thanks~

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Bubba73, a barnstar to say thanks for your endlessly good contributions to WikiProjects Chess. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Aldrin picture

Hi, I've answered on my talk page Man with two legs (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings (2)

Just a courtesy note to indicate I've provided some analysis here on your recent talk page post. However, I think myself and other editors may be interested in why reviewer error, as I've classed it, can be considered an error of the system. Would you be interested in continuing this discussion there?

I've also put a more specific title on the section as "Feedback" is a bit vague, and I'm sure someone else will use that title and cause HTML anchor errors otherwise if I didn't. I actually just had this error on this very talk page with the title "Greetings". =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I considered the reviewer part of the system when I said that it was a system error. I don't want to criticize one person. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alrighty. I was wondering how exactly you meant it and thought others might take it the other way. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

About the move after check

You are right about should. But what about "The move is legal if it results a position that the opponent cannot capture the king." I think that is the essence of the move after the check. It doesn't concern about the details, it is concerning about the position after the move (don't me push to generate a position which is valid after the stated responses :) ). So, my point is that stated responses to a check is the natural result of the principle that I stated. ?? Oz an (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

The king can't be captured so you could say that it is no longer in check or under attack. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

so you are with me?. How can we formulate it. "The move is legal if it results a position that does not leave the king under attack"  ? If u agree please change it that way. Oz an (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

I made a change a few minutes ago. See if it is OK. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I read it now, but I think the meaning of interpose is not clear (which u try to make it clear by adding the pawn). What does that mean and do we really need it if we state that a move cannot leave the king under attack ?. In any case we have to clear what is "interposing", after all it is valid only for bishop, rook and queen. Oz an (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

And then only if there is a square between the checking piece and the king. But interpose means to put between. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with a move cannot leave the king under attack. This excludes every misunderstanding and handles the details. So u? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz an (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

after promotion

thank u for changing my edit. I'm still a coward so I'm trying to hnadle it in parantheses but as u put, the pawn must be changed (promoted) to another allowed piece. This is as important as the same rank rule about the king and the rook. By the way there is a composition next to the same rank problem about the not-promoted pawn in Krabbe's page Oz an (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Just curious

Do you have any frogs in your salt marshes? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they live in the salt marsh, but we sure have a lot of them around our house. We are a few hundred feet from the marsh. There is a cacoffiny of them every night. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Brother Theodore

Theodore Gottlieb, the comedian, was apparently a strong player. Tried chessgames.com and nothing obvious came up. I wonder how to find out more about this.--Jrm2007 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If he was still alive he might be listed as a member of the United States Chess Federation or FIDE, but he is dead. Otherwise, I don't know. I remember his appearances on the David Letterman show, but I didn't know about his chess playing. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think if he played tournament chess it was maybe 70+ years ago but if he played a simul vs 30 opponents with success, he was probably a strong player. I just read about this today. I played tournament chess as early as 1972 and never heard anything about him and chess. (Not like he is really that famous.) I also note that the strength of celebrity players tends to get exagerrated in the non-chess press.--Jrm2007 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Playing 30 games at once successfully is pretty good (but the opposition may not have been very strong). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely: the opposition probably wasn't. Like I said, some non-chess playing reporter covers this and concludes that the guy is a great player. Anyway, unfortunately the time when it can be determined just how good Bro. Theodore was or finding a game of his is probably passed. An interesting perhaps article would be a list of celebrity tournament chess players. I have actually seen William Windom (a "B" player 30+ years ago) at tournaments and also Roger Bowen (maybe also "B" or "A") who I had seen recently in MASH in 1975 in an event at the Ambassador Hotel (only 7 years after Bobby was murdered there) -- I am old.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WWBD

Saw a car tonight with about 20 bumper stickers on it, about fishing and other such activities. One of them said WWBD - "What Would Bubba Do?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I googled and found them at http://www.cafepress.com/+bubba+bumper-stickers. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Clearly, you need one of those on your user page. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 01188821b76aa6d702e6d31ebfcc6dec

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Wheel identification

Hi, what car originates this wheel from? Is it the same wheel as the one pictured in the "bent rim" photograph? Thanks! --Rderijcke (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is from a 1999 Ford Crown Victoria. This one replaced the bent one. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for the info! I had the suspicion of it being from a Grand Marquis but both cars share the same wheels. Do you have any pics of the Crown Victoria? It looks clean! I have an older Grand Marquis myself with the wheels featuring the chrome center caps, but it'll probably be replaced by a Buick soon. The Buick doesn't have as nice wheels as the Grand Marquis does unfortunately, they're just dull powder-coated aluminum wheels. --Rderijcke (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any pictures of the car. When I got the car, there were five types of wheels available. You got this kind if and only if you got the "handling and performance" package. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Too bad, could you make one? Yes, my GM has got the performance & handling package as well, including the dual exhaust. It's a very nice addition. Did you buy your crown vic new? How did it hold up over time? --Rderijcke (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i bought it new in 1999, after the 2000s came out. It has 167,000+ miles. It has help up well until the last few months when I've had engine problems, a stuck thermostat, and air conditioner problems. My two Pontiacs were dead at about 120,000 and my Taurus gave out about 90,000. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen them being sold used with over 300.000 miles on the odometer. So if your engine problems weren't too severe, it probably could last you another 10 years! The only problem my 1994 Grand Marquis is having right now is a rumbling transmission - the sole problem after 16 years! The dealer says there is a special type of fluid one can pour in to quiet the rumbles. I'll try that first before I have the transmission rebuilt. For the rest, even the climate control is still working properly.

Still - how about uploading a picture of your Crown Vic somewhere? I'd like to see it :) --Rderijcke (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:My Crown Vic.jpg

my 1999 Crown Vic

I'm sort of planning to trade before it gets 200,000 miles, which will be in 2 or 3 years. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, here it is. It looks like a lot of others - this was a popular color, it seems. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, your car looks mint! Actually I've never seen them in that color. My GM is dull dark blue metallic, I'd rather have it red like your Crown Vic. Let me know when you want to get rid of it! Haha! What would you trade it in for? Ford will stop making panthers this year unfortunately. I don't see any alternatives to my GM except perhaps the Chrysler 300. So I might consider buying a 2010 Grand Marquis and keep it up as long as possible. By the way, how did the rim get bent? --Rderijcke (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of them that color around here. I probably hit a curb that bent the rim. The other side doesn't look as nice. The other side is missing the strip along the bottom and the mirror was replaced with a used one that is of a different color. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Karla Bonoff

Bubba73 - I'm having a hell of a time getting a photo uploaded and put on Karla's page. It's her official press photo which is what she'd like. Any tips? I see what code would need to be added but I don't follow how to upload the photo. Paul Grosso (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be easy to upload. If you are having problems you can email it to me and I will do it. You can email to me from my main page,or give me a link to it. The problem is that there can be no copyright restrictions on the photo, if it is to go on Wikipedia. It has to be either in the public domain or released into the Creative Commons. There might be some paperwork involved with that, but the actual upload is easy - I've done it many times. Let me know if I can help. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

hoax opening

Thanks. I don't necessarily think that articles like that are created with any malicious intent, but I do think that they undermine the credibility and usefulness of wikipedia if not dealt with quickly. I know eventually most of these things get squared away, but some things should be pruned right away. Quale (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not malicious, but it is a joke or hoax. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How good are harv templates

Hi, Bubba73. I know you think harv templates are great, and I've tried a few checks at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Reference_methods/Harvard. It seems these templates can do what I want. Do they have any downsides or limitations? Thanks, --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Chess on ref desk

I wonder if you saw this chess question on the ref desk:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't. I don't follow the reference desk, and I just got back home after being gone since lunchtime Friday. I'll look at it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Up and Coming Tour

Hi bubba73, i'm mike from argentina, i wish that we can put the grossconcert info in this articule, can you help me?User talk:Mike-hilal → 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, what do you need? I was there in Charolette, but I don't know many details. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Chess for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bubba73. The Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Chess may become a Wikipedia:FARC (these are really the same page). The reviewer expressed concern about the article's structure and writing. I suggest the most efficient way for you and other members Project Chess should do all you can. Then, if you want me to have a try, please tell me at my Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that Malleus Fatuorum has volunteered to work on Chess - and everybody wants Malleus to help them. Do you want to continue working or would you prefer to let Malleus start work now. I suggest you tell him at his Talk page as soon as possible.

I've also been that the review will stay at the FAR stage as long any is working on it. --Philcha (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not much more than I can do. I addressed almost all of the original points, and all of them have been fixed now. The next issues were with images, and I could help with only one of them. Now there are a few other points - I gave references for three Citation Needed flags. Other things mentioned are mostly formatting (text layout and references), but they are saying that the prose needs to be improved. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 22:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia topics - I enjoyed watching Forest Gump

I have financially supported Wikipedia in a small way for years.

Editing or reviewing low interest articles or relatively insignificant subjects in something I think I good do. I have graduate degrees in accounting and economics and post graduate knowledge of law and politics. I mostly read Wikipedia articles on history or cities with nice photos with landscapes.

Can you refer me to a section of Wiki I could contribute to?

Kevin I registered on Wikimedia as WateredLife.

Wateredlife (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC) who sees what gets sent to a talk page?

I don't know of any sections to suggest, but with your education, try areas of your expertise. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NOAD.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NOAD.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 8 combined citations

Thanks for the feedback and help, Bubba. As for the combined Chaikin references, I've had a little experience doing that and could probably take a stab at it, but I see a problem: when we combine them, don't we lose the individual page references? Is there an easy way to do that when reusing named references?

The only way I know to point to multiple page references from the same sources is to switch over to the "shortened footnotes" format (with references and footnotes kept in separate lists), which I'm sure we don't want to do here because it would be a massive change from the way it's already set up in this format (and against policy.) JustinTime55 (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It definitely needs to have individual page numbers. I'll try to look for examples in other articles to see if and how it is done. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, one way would be to just have the full info the first time it is used, and from there on use just "Chaikin, p. xx". Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, is the "disputed facts" tag justified in Apollo TV camera? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been watching that article - I'll look at it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I see, your last talk page comments were from 2 years ago and your last article edits were from over a year ago. It then sat fairly dormant until the recent dispute erupted. It all seems to be about technical details, and I have no way to know if the dispute (apparently tagged by a hoax believer) has merit or not. I caught wind of it on an ANI complaint, where both of the edit warriors ended up being put on ice for a day due to mutual 3RR violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at it and I would have to dig into the technical details to know what is going on. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bubba73test2

Can I just ask about the above "test" account? Is there a purpose to it, or should it be indefinitely blocked as an account that will not be used?

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has a purpose. If I am logged into this account, some pages take a very long time to load, 35-45 seconds. Bringing up the edit page or doing a diff is even slower. If I am not logged in, the same pages are fast. I believe it must be due to some preference or option I have set. The purpose of the test account is to try to figure out what is making my regular account so slow. Bubba73 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! As you only have one script in your vector.js file, that won't be it - I would suggest looking at the 'gadgets' page on your preferences, that's most likely to be where the problem could be! Good luck with finding the problem -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hit "restore defaults" - intending to restore only that page, but it reset everything and cleared up the problem. Now I'm adding things back and checking. Bubba73 | You talkin' to me? 15:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule against having multiple accounts, as such. The rule is about using sock accounts to evade a block or to otherwise circumvent the rules and engage in nefarious activity, such as vote-stacking or consensus-stacking, or fomenting disruption. Some users will state on their user page that they have multiple accounts that conform to the rules. Some will even state what the multiple account ID's are, to reassure skeptical observers. But that's not required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doing any editing with the other account - just testing. Bubba73 | You talkin' to me? 14:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if you're not, there's no rule-based grounds for an admin to delete it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Chessplayer edit wars

Bubba73,

I think that the Yelena Dembo biography needs to be stationed in an original context and protected from a misinformed child, or children who continue an internet campaign of defamation, which had been otherwise silenced last week. I have left a message with Jasper Deng(talk) to notify an admin for such protection. I also know that you've experience editing this and other Chess-related pages, which is why I am notifying you to help contact the admins, if at all possible - that is if you agree with this action. Thank you - Bartonlaos (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The other day I saw 10 edits back and forth on that article by two editors, and I put 3RR warnings on both of their talk pages. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Coming to WP:BLP/N was the right solution. Unfortunately, it was also appropriate several days before the notification was actually made. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I just happened to notice it the other day. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Relatives?

I was wondering are you related to the McCranie's of Willacoochie. I was a relative of Madge McCranie my mother is Joyce Baker and my grandmother was Winnifred Kirkland.(I also remember Shasta and heard mama talk about Baker)

Richard Couey67.125.156.4 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am! Madge was my grandmother. Shasta is my father. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Relatives?

Jud it is so nice to meet you in a removed somewhat casual manner. I like your user page and am pleasantly surprised to find out that we are related. Your father was so nice to me and my family. He allowed us to stay at the small house on St. Simons and it was one of the best times that my wife Michele and I had when we were visiting with our kids maybe 10 or 12 years ago. Best regards and much love.

Richard Couey67.122.136.129 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We are having a surprise 90th birthday party for uncle George Nov, 6 or 7. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DAB Editing

I know that AWB, popups and whole lot of other methods are faster and more efficient. I just like doing it manually that's all. Ulric1313 (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It helps to make a list of the files that will need to be changed before the article is renamed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Strongest chess tournaments in history

By ELO (which is the only objective way to measure tournament strength), the 2009 Tal Memorial (avg. ELO 2763) and 2010 Grand Slam final (avg. ELO 2789) are the strongest two tournaments in chess history. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any objective way to compare tournaments widely-spaced in time. For one thing, there is constant, but artificial, Elo rating inflation. Secondly, FIDE didn't use ELO ratings before 1970. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Capricorn Records

Just wanted you to know that your photo of Capricorn Records HQ is the saddest thing i've ever seen. Excellent work, it's much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.100 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Capricorn Records has seen better days. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The photo was too dark so I uploaded a brighter version of it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals

Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Such that

Hi, thanks for your message. The distinction between "such that" and "so that" is a bit of a bugbear of mine. As I see it, "so that" (or just "so") is used where the meaning is "in order that" or "with the result that", whereas "such that" introduces a kind of adjectival phrase, describing a previous noun, often used in mathematical writing. An example of the correct use of "such that":

Let x be a real number such that x² + 3x + 1 > 0

You can usually tell if "such that" is correct by adding "which is" before it and seeing if it still makes sense:

Let x be a real number which is such that x² + 3x + 1 > 0

Looking at one of the examples I changed in Eight queens puzzle (the others are similar):

Place m queens and m knights on an n×n board such that no piece attacks another.

Here the sense is "in order that", so "so that" is better than "such that", and adding "which is" makes the sentence nonsense. An alternative rewrite would be

Place m queens and m knights on an n×n board in such a way that no piece attacks another.

I hope this makes sense. The "wrong" usage is very common, so I suspect I'm pursuing a lost cause. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I understand it. I didn't do any of the "such that" in that article, but I have in other mathematical writing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

John Selfridge

Why do you think John Selfridge died, and died on November 2? I found a news report that one of his brothers died September 26 [3], and I see that there was rumor of John's October 31 death written November 1 [4], but I haven't found anything else suggesting John Selfridge died. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Found a reference and linked it. Sorry for the interruption :) -- ke4roh (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I found out about it here. (I got the date wrong.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

9/11

Not to make the government mad but i think it was the government the whole time because how would they know where to hit and also it was a reseane to go after iraq and take everthing and also the pentigon noone was injerd or anything wheres the justice in that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.173.28 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"i" -> "I"

"reseane" -> "reason"

"iraq" -> "Iraq"

"everthing" -> "everything"

"pentigon" -> "pentagon"

"noone" -> "no one"

"injerd" -> "injured"

"wheres" -> "where's"

Based on spelling and logic, I'll give you an "F". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And a run-on sentence, missing comma, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, there were fatalities on the ground at the Pentigon, er, Pentagon also.

The 9/11 attacks probably occurred in order to cover up the Apollo moon hoax somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I was the recipient of the original message. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Especially since that English-as-a-32nd-language message was the only edit from that IP since 5 months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The person was probably born before 9/11/2001 or is too young to remember. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

9/11

i am going to prove that 911 was a cover-up. so we can go to war.we want to show we can dominate everyone in are path.when we told that lie about iraq doing 9/11 we made people hate iraq.we are just chasing people who aint real.all we take is 1 iraq person he was real but than we blame them for something we did.wheres the justice in that.everyone i know agrees with me.how would they know where to hit? think about it.neal armstrong never even went on the moon eather we made it look like we did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.173.28 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

deletion of the Stock's Gambit

Why was the revision undone, if the revision falls under the title, "List of Chess Gambits", and the name of the revision is, "Stock;s GAMBIT"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew93429 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the hoax article Stock's Gambit will soon be deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew93429 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It obviously isn't serious. First, Wikipedia uses verifiable sources and reliable sources and not a publisher of original research. Second, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog (wp:NOT). Third, in this particular case, no one could take such a queen sacrifice seriously, especially since it was made up by a grade school player with a USCF rating under 1000. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PS- see what others have to say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stock's Gambit. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all I'm underrated. I've only gone to three tournments since 4th grade.

Second of all, I mentioned that it is only for Speed and Bullet games. Do you understand what that is because you keep ingnoring it. After you take their queen, they spend time thinking why you would do such a sacrifice, reducing their time. Then you put them in check with your biship, making them think more where to move their king, reducing their time once more. You can then pin their king and queen with your bishop if black decides to move their king to g7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew93429 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could try it out on Internet chess servers. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried in real life against higher rated players. It works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew93429 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Try it against a good computer program. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not meant for computer programs. It's obviously meant for human opponents, that are likely to make mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew93429 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be an awfully big mistake to lose after getting a free queen. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would and that would suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew93429 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Chess question

Someone has a question at the Entertainment ref desk[5] that I think you might be able to answer, at least in part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bubba73. You have new messages at Inoesomestuff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProjects Moon and Mars activity

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (here) and Mars (here). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Solar System at 17:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight activity

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 17:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot

Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

notified police

Are you a stalker or a creep?

look "bubba" I dont know who you are, or your motives, but why are you creating wikipedia pages about chess from when I was in elementary school in insulting fashions? I have reported this to law enforcement, and am requesting that you stop as it is viewed on this end as harassment. Thank you.

I did more research into this and realized you did not create it, (although you're near an area of GA I once stayed in) but are egging it on, so please stop. It turned out to be an innocent joke by a few friends lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notfunny1221 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the article. In fact, I endorsed its deletion. I have tagged it for Speedy Deletion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Jupiter proposal

Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!--Novus Orator 04:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)