User talk:GothicChessInventor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

By the way, since you've identified yourself as Ed Trice through your contributions, you should consider adding {{Notable Wikipedian|[[User:GothicChessInventor]]}} to the Talk:Ed Trice discussion page so other editors know who you are. You also might want to read WP:COI so you're aware of our policies on editing with a conflict of interest.

Again, welcome!  Mangojuicetalk 12:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ed Trice article

Hi, Please read the Wikipedia policy on autobiographies before making any further edits to the Ed Trice article. Thanks. Oli Filth 13:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


I was not associated with this article at all. I was correcting a vast majority of mistakes concerning an Encryption algorithm I gave to the United States Government for free afrer the 9/11 attacks against the United States.

With my regards,

GothicChessInventor 13:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me your middle name for the article? :-) --Boricuaeddie 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

Just a quick question. In the article it says you were "acknowledged as providing help with Dr. Jonathan Schaeffer's solution to the game of checkers"; the source is a thanks page from Schaeffer's web pages that concern his work on checkers and Chinook, not just the work on solving checkers. I noticed you were listed under "database verification." Could you explain what that means? Were you involved with the work on solving checkers specifically, or was it a different aspect of the project? Mangojuicetalk 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Greeting Mangojuice,

This link may help explain some of what I did with Dr. Jonathan Schaeffer:

http://www.onlyperfectcheckers.com/databases.txt

When we solve checkers databases, the only way we know we are correct is to compare counts of wins, losses, and draws. Scroll all the way down in that link I gave you, and you will see results for the database slice of 3 checkers vs. 3 checkers.

TOTAL POSITIONS: 7,959,904

TOTAL WINS : 2,700,665

TOTAL DRAWS: 4,931,025

TOTAL LOSSES: 328,214

If all of the numbers above match, it is a good sign. But, we also count wins/losses/draws that were resolved during the pass where one side "jumps", and make sure these counts are correct:

Wins resolved as jumps: 2,212,771 Draws resolved as jumps: 274,333 Losses resolved as jumps: 25,891

Any move that is not a jump is called a move:

Wins resolved from moving: 487,894 Draws resolved from moving: 4,656,692 Losses resolved from moving: 302,323

And, once the databases are COMPRESSED for run-time lookup, any position that has a jump is removed the database. This includes jump for the side to move, or the side NOT to move (meaning, it's your turn to move, but your opponent would have a jump if it was their turn.) We also compare these counts to make sure our database compression is working:

Wins with NO JUMPS for EITHER SIDE: 425,177 Draws with NO JUMPS for EITHER SIDE: 4,005,208 Losses with NO JUMPS for EITHER SIDE: 130,577

If all of these numbers match, we say our databases are correct.

This is just one particular arrangement for the 6-piece database, the slice with 3 checkers against 3 checkers. You can see there are other slices also: 3 kings versus 3 kings, 3 kings vs. 2 kings + 1 checker, etc etc.

In 2001, I compared about 132 billion position counts with Schaeffer. His count differed in about 89,000 positions. We sent emails back and forth trying some positions from data mining our databases. It turns out, my data was correct, his was not. He recomputed his databases in error, and our results finally agreed.

This is what he calls "database verification".

With my regards, GothicChessInventor 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


I almost forgot, I was also the 5th person to ever defeat his program on the web. You can see that on one of the links. Also, I was the last (and only) player to play against the 10-piece database version of Chinook. I played it to two draws. That has not been published yet, but the "Last games of Chinook" will appear on his page some time soon. GothicChessInventor 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic chess

What an amazing coincidence I only started Alexis Skye several days ago!!! Its like fitting pieces to a puzzle. And we now have an image of the tall lass. Super ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 10:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is quite a coincidence! I have some other pictures of her, she is a great gal though.

Regards,

GothicChessInventor 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool!!! But I'm British and have a Suzuki Jimny!!! I think she's even slightly tall than me -especially when she's wearing heels. I'm 194cm . Wow is she really that tall. Was she attractive? I too am a keen chess player but would probably lose in eight moves against that Hungarian-American pro chess player (Susan Polgar)! Thats a great concept Gothic chess. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have other images of Miss Alexis please by all means upload them to the commons. Keep up the good work but be please be careful in writing articles about yourself or your own work - I personally think its great but as an encyclopedia the wikipedia "policemen" are quite strict on anything which might appear promotional. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 12:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Alexis and I went to Iceland to meet Bobby Fischer in June 2006. You can see some of this described here: http://www.gothicchess.com/iceland_news.html

There are some picts of her there, but I think she would not be happy if they were released to the public. As a fan, you can check them out, of course. Here is one of the "funniest" pictures:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/alexis_ed_elevator_iceland.jpg

Alexis was a lot of fun, she is a great gal, a real joy to be around. GothicChessInventor 04:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Gothic chess. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Oli Filth 20:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm not vandalizing anything. I have corded off one area and specifically requested it to be designated for showing pictures of that other variant. I do have the capability to make such a request and patrol this area for compliance.

GothicChessInventor 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Gothic chess, you will be blocked for vandalism. While you may have the "capability" to do so, you do not have the right. I suggest you read WP:TALK again. Oli Filth 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


I don't think you understand. I created that small area SPECIFICALLY for posting pictures. I said if you want to debate anything, start another section. More proof that you are only interested in being an antagonist. I want someone to post a picture to that tiny little area. If you don't have one, don't post there.

GothicChessInventor 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because you want that to be the case, it does not mean that it has to be the case. Anyone is free to respond to any point on a talk page, you cannot corral off your own area for one specific purpose. Oli Filth 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Well anyone can post to any one of N topics that are already started, and with so many already created, it is very hard to read. Plus, I would like to think if I create an area called "Let's Talk about X" and people start commenting about the Mets vs. Yankees game, we should be able to redirect them to post elsewhere, starting a new topic, so that we can focus on X. This is what I will do. I would like the "X" to be someone furnishing one picture of one pair of people playing the variant in question. Any other material that does not pertain to this can be written about at length in some other area.

GothicChessInventor

Yes, refactoring is just about ok, if done appropriately (to pre-empt you, it wouldn't be appropriate to split out comments from a section just because they don't fall into a particular subset of responses). Simply blanking the comments that others have made is definitely not appropriate. Oli Filth 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles missing pictures

Hello! Please read Wikipedia:Requested pictures. If you want a photo added to Optimized Chess then please post a request into Talk:Optimized Chess and Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Asking for Optimized Chess photos at Talk:Gothic chess is not the way to go. Thank you. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a game if nobody plays it. And nobody plays it. Not a single game score exists. GothicChessInventor 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page comments

Ed,

Is there any reason you've taken to putting div boxes around all your recent comments? It's non-standard, and will probably be reformatted in due course.

Oli Filth 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Easier to read, other authors do it, and I will continue to.

GothicChessInventor 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Which ones are those? I've been on Wikipedia a long time, and can't recall ever seeing it before. Oli Filth 08:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's where I copied the template from. I'm not so well versed in Wikipedia script architecture that I came up with it myself. Also, I don't have to answer to you and I will exercise that from this point forward.

GothicChessInventor 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Gothic chess, you will be blocked from editing. Oli Filth 23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? GothicChessInventor 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of talk-page comments. Oli Filth 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You have done the same thing, more than once. I only removed where you wrote something that I did not say. I am notifying mediators that you are no longer posting in Good Faith. I will open a case file. Thanks for supplying me with all of the ammunition I need.

GothicChessInventor 23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you've also deleted a message I put on Oli's talk page. See this diff. Please do not do this. It's sheer vandalism ... richi 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question at my Editor Review

I've answered your question at my Editor Review. Please note that I did not mean for it to be insulting in any way. It was an obviously failed attempt at sarcasm. Please forgive me if you were hurt or insulted in any way. That was not my intention. Regards, Boricuaeddie 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked for your forgiveness; what else do you want? Comment on the content, not the contributor. Your remarks about the way I "use" my religion were entirely uncalled for. Do this once more, and I'll consider it trolling. You have a history of doing this; I doubt anyone would doubt to block. Also, you need to find another online activity if you're going to take silly comments such as mine so seriously. Regards, Boricuaeddie 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In Spanish speaking countries, if you say "Come mierda", it's a very big insult. This is because they have a celebratory, friendly outlook on sharing a meal. So, telling them to "eat crap" is more offensive than if you said the same thing to an American. Where I come from, if you say the comment you said to me, you are asking for trouble. It's never viewed as sarcasm, it's considered a prelude to a physical confrontation.

You should know that Wikipedia is an international community and you have to be aware of the things you say, considering the perspective of those to whom you are speaking.

You said what else do I want? I want you to remove your comment, which I have already stated.

It is an insult, and requesting you to remove it is not trolling. Like I said, had you been man enough to swallow your pride and edit your remark, I would have given you praise. As it stands right now, you are merely issuing a veiled threat.

I don't have a history of doing anything that you imply. I get calls at 4 in the morning because a Gothic Chess player from Australia witnesses someone issuing borderline profane attacks in the discussion area, then they clean up their act after I post notifications to administrators. I run a business and I didn't ask for these pages to be created. The Gothic Chess page was created by a player from Germany, and it existed for over a year before I even knew about it. But people use Google and they find Gothic Chess pages on here and they read the content posted by people who have imaginary persecution complexes, and I get email by concerned parents who are appalled at what they are reading here.

Take, for example, http://www.gothicchess.com/nalls.html which summarizes the 5 years of abuse issued forth from InfoCheck who is none other than Derek Nalls. He is known to have several mental problems, notably acute schizoprenia and paranoia according to people from his home town of Ardmore, Oklahoma. Yet he is given practically free reign to vandalize my pages for some yet unknown reason. He suffers from grandiose delusions that his chess variant is some earth-shattering discovery, and yet my international enterprise with tens of thousands of players is somehow subordinate to it.

It is also well known that two Fortune 500 companies are looking to buy my company, and InfoCheck is trying to make us look bad during this process of due diligence. Well I'm sorry, but I cannot allow that to happen, and I will defend my company, my patent, and my posts. I don't start any trouble. If you read the history, there were many, many months of tranquility before Derek showed up spewing his garbage.

When I'm wrong on an issue, I am first to admit it. When I have been wronged, I will defend myself with vigor. Any other scenario generates no activity on my behalf.

I wish you luck in your pursuit of whatever follows as a result of your review.

GothicChessInventor 06:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha! People like you are the reason I pray every night. Regards, Boricuaeddie 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you might if I show your comments to some admins on here? GothicChessInventor 15:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. Just be sure to link to everything that was said, not just one side. --Boricuaeddie 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InfoCheck

I'm not sure why you're contacting me - I have never edited Gothic chess or its talk page - but there is no technical mechanism to stop someone editing an article. It is possible to ban people from pages following discussion at WP:CSN or WP:RFAR, but I'm not going to go into that. You haven't presented any evidence that InfoCheck is this "Derek Nalls" person, and a quick glance at their edits pulls up this which implies they are different people.

I should also remind you that as the owner of a business promoting Gothic Chess you have a strong conflict of interest in articles relating to Gothic Chess. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before I strongly recommend you do so now. You should be extremely careful when editing on subjects relating to you or your business. Reading your comment above it is even more important that you bear this in mind. Hut 8.5 15:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent talk page comments, etc.

Please do not resort to blatant untruths in order to support your arguments, as you have done in recent days; it is completely inappropriate.

For the benefit of anyone else who stumbles across this, here are the specifics that I am referring to:

  • "I only came here to...". This is untrue. The scope of your edits to the Ed Trice and Gothic chess articles have had considerably wider scope than the two examples you cited.
  • " 'removing other editors' comments' ... One instance was accidental ..." By elimination, I can only assume you're referring to this: [1]. Quite how you can describe this as "accidental" (given that you have attempted to defend it further above on your talk page) is beyond me.
  • "No sooner had I placed this in the talk section, OliFilth comments on something orthogonal to the purpose of my comment..." This is untrue. My reply was a direct response demonstrating why your request was absurd and irrelevant (which you, I and ZeroOne all followed up with more in-depth responses before you deleted the whole lot).
  • "...and placed it in the talk section elsewhere" This is a lie. You did no such thing.
  • "OliFilth has edited my talk page comments" and "Purples edited my text above" These are both untrue. We have corrected your overblown formatting, for sure, which is allowed per WP:TALK, but have never (to my knowledge) edited a word that you have written on a talk page.

Best regards, Oli Filth 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've also just stumbled upon the fact that it was you (or someone you share your LAN with) who vandalised my user page here. Not only is this blatant vandalism, it is also a forbidden use of sockpuppeting.
You are treading on very thin ice; I suggest you start to toe the line immediately, as there are a number of editors (myself included) who are rapidly losing patience with your disruptive editing. Please consider this an unofficial warning. Oli Filth 22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I currently employ 47 people, one of whom is the author of Gothic Chess Review. This has long since been disclosed. Furthermore, I have asked him NOT to participate in these discussions until there was a cool down period. As far as I know, he complied with these requests, as you can see, for the most part, I have been the one replying to comments and posts.

With a little further investigation I am sure you can uncover that our organization has a Class C license for roaming IPs that were made semistatic. We have rows of machines that could genereate addresses with the same address as they are linked through the same router cluster.

Please bear this in mind before jumping to conclusions.

GothicChessInventor

Ed, are you saying that people on other computers at your office know your Wikipedia password and log in as you? Mangojuicetalk 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarification, the vandalism I was referring to above was performed by an IP, User:24.127.161.27 (contribs), not by the account User:GothicChessInventor. Oli Filth 08:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


I have given my name and password and emailed text for someone to place on Wikipedia for me when I am travelling, yes. Only when I don't want my Gothic Chess Review editor embroiled in furthering an escalation, and only when a comment is being directed at me specifically when I am in voice communication away from the internet.

People who run companies do have assistants, I am no different in this regard.

I've rotated my password so it is never twice the same, but there has been, say, 24-36 hours that may have elapsed when the person accessing the account from the office had control prior to the new password taking effect. I can't believe anyone would do something akin to vandalism while using my account, they would be fired immediately without ceremony. If this is the case I need to know about it.

GothicChessInventor 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed, since you change your password I assume this is not an ongoing problem. However, Wikipedia policy is 1 person per account, and Role accounts are typically blocked once discovered. So, if you ask others to make edits for you, please ask them to create and use their own accounts, or edit anonymously, and preferably, to be open about your having requested the change. Mangojuicetalk 03:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


It's not a role account. It's when I get calls when I am in Iceland or England, and it involves something time sensitive, that I have asked someone to post for me. This has happened on only two occasions. For the most part, I have asked the other people I know to leave this page alone.

GothicChessInventor

[edit] Removing horizontal lines

It makes it harder to read discussions with horizontal lines all over the place, especially when there is absolutely no reason for them to be there. Note that nowhere have I actually changed any word of what you said. Note that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines asks you to "avoid excessive markup". Hut 8.5 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines also say if you have to scroll for "more than one page" that it is acceptable to place a delimter, such as horizontal lines, otherwise there would be no horizontal line formatter for wikipedia.

Since I am the one involved in most of the discussion, and I cannot find my remarks in some of these long diatribes, I must insist that you leave my remarks alone. GothicChessInventor 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see you aren't very familiar with syntax on talk pages. It is general practice to indent remarks by adding colons in front of them (as I am doing in this comment), or to use subheadings to break up long discussions (for example ===Example Subheading===). This is exactly what other people are doing at Talk:Gothic Chess. If you want to be able to find your comments more easily you could also customise your signature to make it stand out. Talk pages are not written just so one editor can find their comments more easily, and if you used indents it would make the discussion much easier to read.
Regarding your "warning" on my talk page, please don't insult my intelligence. Note also that I have not touched your comments since you complained. Hut 8.5 10:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Tough to insult what is not there.

GothicChessInventor 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Lkaufman quote.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Lkaufman quote.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hut 8.5 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It's a quote from a discussion board, and a screen shot of it.

GothicChessInventor 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the discussion board is probably copyrighted; claiming that it is released under the GFDL by yourself without proof it is yours to begin with is a copyright violation. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Agüeybaná 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion board has a link to the GFDL saying the material is free to be indexed by Google engines, and referenced by other sites. It would be nice if you guys did your job before jumping to conclusions.

GothicChessInventor 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't even provide a source for the image. How are we supposed to check that what you're saying is true? --Agüeybaná 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, you're wrong. The image is a copyvio. At the end of the page, it says "© 1999-2007 Markus Wichitill". I'll be requesting the image's speedy deletion shortly. --Agüeybaná 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Strong misnomer. Rybka did not even exist in 1999, how could a forum exist to discuss it? The "copyright" notice pertains to the script author who built the discussion board, NOT that he is privvy to the content of it. When I launch my computer, a Microsoft copyright comes up. Does that mean Microsoft owns the rights to whatever I create on my hard drive?

Again, more Wikipedia authors with "Chicken Little" syndrome.

You don't think, you just react, how typical.

GothicChessInventor 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. --Agüeybaná 14:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lkaufman quote.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lkaufman quote.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Oli Filth(talk) 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN

GothicChessInventor 04:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)