Epstein Files Full PDF

"Fellow workers of INTJs often feel as if the INTJ can see right through them, and often believe that the INTJ finds them wanting. This tendency of people to feel transparent in the presence of the INTJ often results in relationships which have psychological distance. Thus colleagues find the INTJ apparently unemotional and, at times, cold and dispassionate. Because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they do themselves, INTJs often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy. INTJs are high achievers in school and on the job. On the job, they take the goals of an institution seriously and continually strive to respond to these goals. They make dedicated, loyal employees whose loyalties are directed toward the system, rather than toward individuals within the system."
Keirsey, David; Bates, Marilyn (1984). Please Understand Me: Character & Temperament Types (Fifth ed.). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. p. 182. ISBN 0-9606954-0-0.

Userboxes vn-13 This user talk page has been vandalized 13 times. This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know. This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice. INTJ This user has an INTJ Myers–Briggs Type Indicator This user does drugs. This user supports the presidency of Donald Trump. This user uses the personal pronouns up, yours This user has nibbled The Donut of DOOM FREE PENYULAP

Game of the Three Kingdoms

This took some time, and research, to make. (The correct kanji, rendering the images, the board geometry.) --IHTS (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this editor created

Games: 2000 A.D. (chess variant) · Millennium 3D Chess · Wildebeest Chess · Chad (chess variant) · Onyx (game) · Cubic chess · Dragonfly (chess variant) · Troy (chess variant) [1] · Hexdame · Chessence · Dameo · Rhombic Chess · Wolf Chess · Triangular Chess · Trishogi · Hexshogi · Masonic Chess · Masonic Shogi · Chesquerque · Tri-Chess · Three-Man Chess · Cross Chess · Quatrochess · Space Shogi · Double Chess · Rollerball (chess variant) · Parallel Worlds Chess · Stratomic · Beirut Chess · Apocalypse (chess variant) · Balbo's Game · Game of the Three Kingdoms · Canadian Checkers · Falcon-Hunter Chess · Congo (chess variant) · Hostage Chess · Diamond (game) · Chancellor Chess

Bios: Ferdinand Maack · Philip M. Cohen · Veniamin Sozin · George R. Dekle Sr.

Other: Fischer–Spassky (1992 match) · The Chess Variant Pages · Glossary of board games

Articles this editor developed from stubs

V. R. Parton · Dragonchess · Semi-Italian Opening · Christian Freeling

Articles this editor substantially improved

Ringo (board game) · Stone Warriors · Bizingo · Conspirateurs · Hexagonal chess · Glossary of chess

I have the vanity of a powerbroker. I like my work to be heard, but not necessarily read.

I am looking for you. But nobody seems to know where you are. Find me!

I luv puzzles! More clue(s)? --IHTS (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secret admirer? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess so. Hope she's pretty! --IHTS (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed collaborating with you, with our different skill sets. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment, Max. And I do miss editing/contributing, and collaborating too. But the jurisprudence re article title Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack versus Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack has been poison to my system. Contenders claimed the hyphen was in published use. That is nonsense for more than one reason. Publishers don't care or have any MoS for those things, what they publish on book covers and in book text is subsequently meaningless. And one can't even put a magnifier on printed pages and say "That's a hyphen" or "That's a dash". Completely an inarguable point. We have a clear MoS, and the connector between two individuals is clearly a dash per MOS:NDASH. To subject this to !vote and an unqualified "judge" thinking both arguments have weight and a judgement needs to be rendered based on assumption the hyphen "arguments" make any sense, is a poison pill for me. I can't continue to be subject to mob rule like this, have witnessed too much of it on WP during my time, and I think this was the final straw. This wasn't a judgment case it was/is simple MoS. I give up, I'm dead. --IHTS (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am with MaxB on this, I always enjoy checking out your chess edits, and also appreciate your work ethic. But whether you're stepping away because Wiki is intensely crazy, or you just want to relax a little and do other things, I wish you well. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post a similar message to Max a few days ago when I saw you hadn't edited for a while. Totally understand why you had to take a break - do hope you'll be back someday. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the consensus is "wrong", sometimes you don't get your way. That's wikipedia. Don't quit the whole thing over an n-dash. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is not a count of votes but of merit. There was no merit in any of the arguments. The decision was not "wrong" it was anti-MoS wrong. And it wasn't just an MOS:NDASH, it was an article title. And BTW a title that has meant something to me from the 1970s. It's too much, all rolled into mob rule and incompetent summary judgment. And *that's* Wikipedia. It's just too much to swallow. You've already stated in that discussion that the issue wasn't something you cared about either way. All Wikipedians aren't made of the same stuff. You might not have cared and don't care. I did and do. That article title is a permanent stain until presented Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack. I'm done. --IHTS (talk)

You might be interested in Talk:Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack#Requested move 26 October 2024. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been moved. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Just noticed this. Still in some shock/disbelief. (Never expected w/ *ever* be corrected.) Looks like will be creeping out of the lagoon of wikiretirement. Will take some time to regain pace. I prob never w/ have checked the article, so thx Bruce & Max for signalling me. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me likes the phrase dual attributive form. Thx for that, BarrelProof. --IHTS (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very good to see you again! :D Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Ditto. (But if get really pissed again, well. ;) Hate Wikilawyering.) --IHTS (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ihardlythinkso. I noticed that you are marking a number of edits as minor that aren't really minor edits. Some examples: [2], [3], and [4]. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I really only agree w/ the first example, though. (My bad. Will endeavor not to repeat. Thx.) On the other two, one was to reverse a markup deletion that messed up a template execution, my EDITSUM s/ have made that clear; the removal of text was incidental, part of that user's unfortunate edit, I reverted the entire edit based on the mess up, if the editor cherished their text, they c/ resubmit it. The last example is simply adding a ref, which wasn't really needed, except undefined user IcePage had placed a citation-needed tag. Adding a superfluous ref (the source re entire article was already listed in References sec) seems minor edit to me. (That's wrong?) Besides the first example, methinks you're being too picky. --IHTS (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. My editorship tendency/habit is to mark my edits minor, unless there is good reason not to, unless clearly content-related. I do so because my i.d. does show up in numerous articles' stats as numerically high, and as Wikifairy editor, don't like to obscure the true credit due the articles' creators & content contributors. --IHTS (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that they are smaller edits compared to a lot of edits, but the flag isn't really intended to be used as broadly as any of those three example edits. Each is altering the information in an article.

Ultimately, the better default habit is to leave the box unchecked. You're allowed to simply never use the minor edit flag. Someone might disagree or find reason to improve or change your edit? It's appropriate to leave it off. Add or remove text, a citation, a template, etc.? It's appropriate to leave it off. Please read the minor edit information page for more information. You could also ask about those edits at the Teahouse if you'd like a second opinion. For several examples of minor edits, here are the last three times I used the minor edit flag other than cases where it's set automatically: [5], [6], and [7].

Also, please try to keep edit summaries focused on the change or reasoning. An edit summary like why the fuck did you do that?? is not in keeping with Wikipedia civility guidelines and it's much more likely to create or escalate a disagreement rather than avoid one. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That EDITSUM isn't my normal, the editor was inexplicably sloppy and it did damage and pissed me off. I really don't try to be a perfect Jesus if that is what you're expecting of me. I did review the minor edit info pg again, I think I'm using minor edit box close to properly, I believe it always crosses my mind the Q: "Is this edit potentially disputable?" and that seems to be consistent w/ the minor edit info page. Interesting, because I somewhat disagree on that page: "rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits". (Rearrangement of text, especially a major rearrangement, is a presentation factor, which can totally impact how content is perceived/absorbed, so I have an issue w/ that aspect of the minor edit info pg description/definition.) Last, I really don't like skipping the minor edit box as a better habit for future, because, those edits then default as "major", and the extent/number of cosmetic/Wikifairy edits I tend to make in articles w/ then obscure as mentioned the true creators/contributors in the Page statistics displays/graphs/counts/summaries. --IHTS (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

The best chess glossary depends on the user's needs, but several comprehensive options stand out:

1. Wikipedia's Glossary of Chess

Best for Niche/Advanced Terms: ChessCentral or SquareOff

− • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • − • −

--IHTS (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Bruce leverett (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think wikipedia is one of the best sources for chess information anywhere. That's why I tend to fight against the meme openings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding all the Chess tactics articles are Amer MOS:ENGVAR, was there an RFC somewhere or is there something in the MOS on this? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Q. Nothing like that. I wanted some consistency, and for those articles I changed, they were either Amer ENGVAR already, or neither Amer or Brit. (Except the article that contained secname "Defence", which I changed to "Defense". For that article, edit history didn't reveal anything, and I presumed the secname choice was an arbitrary choice.) And when I wrote "all", I really meant only the few I dealt with. (Have I stepped on any toes?) Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the English variety should generally follow the guidance at MOS:ENGVAR, more specifically MOS:RETAIN here. Making changes for consistency across a group of related articles shouldn't be done unless there's a specific guideline or policy to that effect such as WP:ALUMINIUM. For example, Skewer (chess) appears to have been written in British English since 2019 so it shouldn't be switched to American English. The other articles you changed today seem to have been written in American English for some time although I didn't check the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am already am well aware of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN and what they entail. But I didn't make any changes to any Chess tactic article texts, the one change I made to article Skewer, as mentioned, was renaming sec "Defence" to "Defense". And prior to doing so, per RETAIN, I first checked article orig (12/31/2003) through one year later (end of 2004), where there was nothing indicating either Brit or Amer. (Was I supposed to continue inspecting through the edit history post-2019?!? Especially when the current article status had only the Brit secname and nothing more?!?)

Apparently you found article text post-2019 that was Brit English? (Curious what you found.) But how relevant was your find, since whatever you found, that text had to be deleted from the article in further history, since there wasn't any Brit English in article text as of my one secname change.

Am I missing something here? Are you perhaps complaining about my editsum, that it alarmed you, and not changes to the article text, of which there were none? What exactly are you complaining about. Please explain. Thank you. --IHTS (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly concerned by the edit summary which sounded like it might be a a prelude to more changes. Nobody expects anyone to check the entire history, but it's not about the first non-stub version. It's the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. For example, "Defence" was added to Skewer (chess) in 2019 and at that point the article was identifiably not American English. The WikiBlame tool can sometimes be helpful for this sort of thing (like this). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am an experienced editor, you needn't have lectured me re ENGVAR & RETAIN. You did so based on what you thought I might do, interesting. And now you have reverted me, based on the one-word secname rename, which clearly doesn't qualify as establishing in an article an English variety's consistent usage, which clearly is referring to BODY TEXT. So your lecture, and revert, are based on your arguable mis-application of RETAIN, as no consistent Brit usage was established in any body text. It was one damn word for a secname, and for that you jump all over me and revert me. I explained why I renamed the sec, for advantage of consistency in the few Chess tactics articles. That was bigger basis than you coming here based on what you suppopsed I might do, then lecture and revert. --IHTS (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The secname was renamed from "Conversion" to "Defence" by user 184.150.236.51 on 4/19/2019 in this edit. (Is that what this thread is all about, that I renamed the sec to "Defense"??) --IHTS (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RETAIN states: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." That's how I got the understanding what is being referred to is the article text. A one-word secname is not "consistent usage" that "has been established in an article". It's one arbitrary solitary word!! With no basis other than arbitrary basis to use Brit English for that word. No article text. (So why did I change the word? As mentioned, for consistency across the named Chess tactics articles. I felt okay to do so because the choice of Brit English for the single-word secname had no basis other than being completely arbitrary, supported by the fact there never was any Brit English text in the article. Consistency is a small point, granted. But your complaint is even a smaller point, and seems to be based on what? That the one-word secname qualifies as "an English variety's consistent usage established in an article"?? On my reading that means BODY TEXT, and more than ONE WORD, especially not merely a one-word SECNAME.) If I've missed something here, and you haven't jumped on me over an astonishingly minor point, one based on your arguable misreading of MOS:RETAIN, then let me know. --IHTS (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one last time: my concern was about the possibility of broader ENGVAR changes since that rarely goes over well. The guideline exists to help avoid conflict. The edit to Skewer (chess) was secondary, but it seemed appropriate to retain the existing variety. That's all. I'll leave it there. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinarily picky, and inappropriately so, as explained ad nauseam. --IHTS (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added details of a famous composition by Mark Liburkin, unfortunately it's mostly uncited (well I did crecdit it to Shakhmaty v SSSR 1939, good luck verifying that). Would appreciate any improvements you could make. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Me likes to keep changes to minimum. He's Russian, so thought about changing "honor" to "honour", but then dropped the thought as there's an admin who apparently loves stalking my edits and posting exceedingly picky & misguided complaints to my Talk, reminding me of everything unpleasant re being on WP. --IHTS (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original author chose the American spelling and we're not supposed to change that without consensus despite the lack of strong national ties. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only one word, hard to call that "consistent usage". And if the article has any tie, it's not to American Eng, it's to European/Brit Eng. Anyway, I've just been reverted for no reason given on another article, I truly hate this place, it's goodbye for awhile again. Good luck. --IHTS (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Ihardlythinkso, did you notice my latest contributions on Talk:Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant? - Bob.v.R (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes to make like "WP normal" for presenting games: 1) diags s/b small to not dominate/detract fr the main purpose of a bio (the person not specific games), 2) diags go right, 3) diag headers were redundant to body text, 4) diag captions s/b sentence case (first word cap'd). --IHTS (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the "normalization" chgs I made, it's' fine, but w/ advise to keep them in lieu of your more "dramatic" presentation format (again to not sweep attention away from the chief purpose of the bio). --IHTS (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation for no obvious reason disappeared from this talkpage, I am now putting it back. Ihardlythinkso, you have now changed a lot on the article but you didn't answer the question that I placed at Talk:Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant, which was the reason for me to start this conversation. Can you please read and answer the question that I placed at Talk:Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant? Regards, Bob.v.R (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my edits to that article, you'll see they're all cosmetic or MoS or WP:CHESS convention. So was easy to misunderstand your intent above. As far as accuracy of the game score, Bruce has responded on article Talk, I've nothing to add nor interest to pursue. p.s. You s/ have ping'd me on article Talk instead of posting here re article content. Also inappropriate to restore to my Talk for purpose of nagging me. --IHTS (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, for me it is unclear how or why you could have misunderstood the sentence "did you notice my latest contributions on Talk:Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant". As my question was ignored / not answered and my contribution was removed for no reason, I don't see how putting back my question can be seen as nagging. Anyhow, the moves 20. and 21. of the first game were put there by you and now appear to be contradicted by several sources. So it is now unclear what is correct and what is incorrect. Are you willing to disclose the source that you were using as original contributor of these moves? Regards, Bob.v.R (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never adjusted any moves 20 & 21, my edits to that article were all cosmetic unless something happened inadvertent. If you have a link to show I messed w/ moves, provide it and I'll respond. And if you c/ stop your pesky arguing w/ me over baseless crap, that w/ be appreciated too. --IHTS (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20.Re8+! Qxe8 21.Qxe8+ moves were in the article before I ever touched the article, so why are you saying those moves "were put there by you"?? --IHTS (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those moves were "put there" by user Brittle heaven on December 29, 2007, at article creation, years before I ever was an editor on WP. How c/ you possibly mistake that addition as mine?? --IHTS (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ihardlythinkso, you are right, the moves were put there by Brittle heaven, and I should have asked Brittle heaven about this and not have bothered you about this. I apologize for my mistake. Regards, Bob.v.R (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. (Otherwise, would be calling you a "pest". ) Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Fool's mate.

Isn't this fake numbering a MOS:ACCESSIBILITY issue? Maybe what is needed is some way to tell the screen reader to read out the move or something. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 15:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, and no speculation to offer. My point was/is a narrow one re article-wide consistency. (If wrong on Fool's mate, then is also wrong on numerous, maybe hundreds, of WP:CHESS openings articles, e.g. Sicilian Defense, Ruy Lopez, Queen's Gambit, etc.) --IHTS (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like my definition of "Question" on Glossary_of_chess#Q probably needs a bit of editing/reducing, while keeping the essence. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Dusted it up some. (If you don't like, am not offended.) Am seldom here, RL caught up w/ me lately. --IHTS (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I just see dashes in the books. I personally prefer that to "vs" or "vs.". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chessgames.com uses "vs" (MoS "vs."), so have stayed true to that. Which is also consistent w/ how I view "vs." as better for titles, incl diag titles (notable exception is World Champ articles' games diags where ndash is norm), and sec headers. For body text sentences though, it's a different story. Using "vs." is disruptive to the eye when reading, ndash (as in books) is smoother, so better. Anyway, that's my "logic". ;) --IHTS (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people on WP suck. A cesspool of abuse. Grokipedia can't come fast enough. --IHTS (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust AI at all, there's a reason that AI-generated edits get reverted on Wikipedia. Grok uses crappy sources like twitter conversations too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, needs lots of improvement. (In a chess article, "white" [WP "White", the player] was linked to the color incl complete scientific exposé on white in the color spectrum. ) Don't particularly like what it's done to some articles, nor the "blah blah blah" excessive wordiness it spins out. But ... it's just a baby. --IHTS (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A creepy baby like Michael Myers in Halloween. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcha waiting for? Don't they have a chess group over there ("GP:CHESS", talk page at "GT:CHESS")? If you can find a way to make yourself useful for Grokipedia, as you have done over here, then I'll sit up and take notice. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except ordinary people can't contribute to grok, you can make "suggestions" which get reviewed.... by an AI. I'll take all the wikipedia drama over that any day. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, w/ caveat that aggressive abusiveness, especially by admins, is different from "drama". --IHTS (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Won't warrant serious checking out for over a year. Grokipedia w/ or even does go far to solve the reputation problem WP has earned fr blatant far-left bias in political articles. --IHTS (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree, who knows what will happen to it in a year.

I am interested in how LLM's might enhance my ability to play my present role as Wikipedia editor. I got this idea from reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-12-01/Opinion which is an account of a guy's experiment running a supercharged version of ChatGPT to check for errors in various (FA-class) articles. He got some impressive results, averaging more than one error per article. At the same time, it seemed that the human must still exercise editorial control; he rejected about 1/3 of the bot's suggestions. This is consistent with the idea I have heard that AI is "auto-complete on steroids", or maybe I should say, spell-check on steroids plus fact-check on steroids. This sounds like it could be a handy thing to have. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked chatgpt to review the Evergreen Game article (which might actually qualify for GA status). It criticized the claim that the game was probably played in Berlin, except the article explicitly says that no details of the circumstances of the game were included in the original publication. So Chat GPT gets a fail grade for that. The wikipedia article is also far superior to the corresponding grok article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use Perplexity in lieu of Grok, fundamentally it's very useful; however, have run into provably false statements ("halucinations", "reference errors") and contradictions, but worse, it has an ingrained tenacity to never admit fault, never admitting error, covering up by repeating correct answers instead, unless I cross-examine it to death and finally get an admission after five go-rounds. I even documented to their User Support and asserted, fairly, they programmed a human "denial" psych complex into the thing, that their development team needs to fix now while still in early stage. (I don't even recommend Perplexity anymore unless a person is willing to play prosecutor.) Max drew attention to crappy sources, and that's the trouble w/ WP political articles too, admitting NYT, WashPo, eg, as RSs. (Incredible.) --IHTS (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to be constructive, rather than just responding to you and MaxB, I started to read Grokipedia's article on Bobby Fischer. I am finding this very refreshing and interesting. That's not to say that the article is better than WP's or even all that good, but it is plausible, and it emphasizes different things from WP's and uses different sources, some of which I had not read (although they are online). That's the "refreshing" part -- after staring at our article for almost 10 years, I really needed to look at somebody else's POV. Also, if it was produced without human intervention, or without much intervention, then I am impressed! On the other hand, WP's policy and MOS are burned into my brain by now, and I notice deviations from them, and shudder. Also, and this is kind of surprising, I found linkrot -- how can there be linkrot when it has only been released for a few weeks? (It cites a lost article by Bill Wall.) Well, I could go into more detail, but this is only IHTS's user talk page, and besides, I have other chores to do. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's most usually unpleasant, tacky & disappointing logging in, just to see crappy edits that degrade articles, and receive unexpected, aggressive & unwarranted messsages from admins. What a fuckup place! Video on YouTube --IHTS (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just perused your talk page history for a couple hours while drunk for New Year's and thoroughly enjoyed it. Particularly the repeated reverting of yourself in 2023 with "Oh yes!" and "Oh no!". Literally could not stop laughing for like an hour. What's your favorite example of admin harassment, other than the one preserved earlier on this page, which I think is a bit irritating but not that bad? Also, how crappy and degrading do you find my edits, and how unexpected, aggressive, and unwarranted do you find the message you're reading right now? And why do you think there are so many people watching your talk page? Just curious. (btw WP:EUI rn if not clear. you don't anger me although your commitment to n dashes is impressive. And I don't even disagree with it. But I do think the guideline to use lower case "white"/"black" in some cases clashes horribly with "White"/"Black" and should be abolished except maybe for like "white pieces" and stuff) Dayshade (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the holiday cheer. To answer your Qs, White/Black (ref'ing players) vs. white/black (pieces) is well-defined, but other contexts are murky. The recent admin example was pure baiting, so harassment applies, unbecoming of an admin, but said admin passed RfA yrs ago when was given to anyone. My history w/ bad admins goes further back, several have been since de-sysop'd. As for why so many watching my Talk, that's simple: people like drama (slowed traffic to gawk at car accident on opposite freeway, etc). And WP is a nasty place. (E.g. I responded to a lib female editor on an article Talk that I don't argue w/ libs, and got blocked for it; later, she posted to my Talk as uninvited guest while was chatting w/ others, to bait to see if c/ get me blocked again or even banned if I responded poorly. How nice!) Re you, I see you as an energetic editor, and that you routinely solicit & encourage discussion is a very positive thing. As far as editing w/ altered state of consciousness, in a sense I do too by editing sometimes when entirely pissed-off. (Both alcohol and being pissed remove inhibition, facilitate honesty, which can only be good. Critical thinking ... I'll drink to that! ) p.s. Not currently active, it's good for mental health to not have to witness article-degrading edits (like this one). Cheers & Happy New Year to you. --IHTS (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update re "vs." versus "vs". --IHTS (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've gotten two edit conflicts just now while trying to revert a MOS:RETAIN violation on List of chess openings named after places. Could you fix that before making 100 more edits to this page? It gets harder to revert the policy violation and retain your small changes the more edits you make. Quale (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?! I made three edits only. Confused. How am I tying you up? --IHTS (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plus am curious re the RETAIN violation, what is it? (An editor changed Defence→Defense. There are no occurrences of "Defence".) --IHTS (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling better? Rag unjustified and will return the favor. --IHTS (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that IHTS was making a hundred edits, but that Wikipedia decided that one of his 3 or 4 edits conflicted with Quale's attempt to undo the IP's edit. The normal way to get around this would be to first undo IHTS's conflicting edit, then undo the IP's edit, then redo IHTS's edit. I will scratch my head over this. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert all of IHTS's edits to get to the IP's edit. I will redo IHTS's edits, but I hope the MOS:NDASH one is not tricky. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think IHTS watches edit activity on chess articles and often works on pages that have recent edits to improve them further. This is good. In this case the previous edit that apparently drew IHTS's attention to List of chess openings named after places was a bad edit that needed to be reverted. It's best to revert those bad edits immediately. Any series of other subsequent edits before doing the revert complicates the revert as Bruce described. Although Bruce is correct that the "usual procedure is ...", IHTS fairly often will make a dozen or several dozen consecutive tiny edits to a page. This isn't against WP policy but in these circumstances it can be a bother because more edits just makes doing the revert harder. I tried twice to do the revert but each time IHTS had made an edit to the page causing an edit conflict. I wasn't upset but I also didn't feel like banging my head five more times so I left a note here asking IHTS to pause for a moment so we could correct the bad edit made by the anon. You can see in the article history that Bruce had to do quite a bit of work to correct the page. This would have been avoided if the revert had been made before your series of edits. To be clear, IHTS's edits were good and I don't blame him for not noticing the edit prior to his was bad and needed to be reverted. I've overlooked the same thing many times. Quale (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I apologize to IHTS because my talk message was completely unclear. "trying to revert a MOS:RETAIN violation" sounds like I was claiming IHTS made a violation. He did not and I did not mean to imply that. I should have said that it was the previous editor's violation. IHTS didn't do anything wrong, I only wanted an opening when the page wasn't being edited so we could correct the other editor's policy violation. Quale (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]