User talk:ZincBelief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] link

At the Tim Krabbe website you linked to, where is the part about how chess960/FRC will keep the Russians from fixing games? Bubba73 (talk), 00:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Entry 123. I can provide other references if you like.
No, that's fine. Ne said it, but I don't see how that keeps someone from fixing a game. Bubba73 (talk), 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Well if the position is set up on the day, they can't fix the opening moves.
They can't fix the opening moves, but if they had a pre-arranged result (draw or win for one of them), a random starting position won't prevent it. Bubba73 (talk), 01:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Bobby's allegation was that every move was fixed. He claimed he was going to write a book which proved this, but he never did. It was never a simple matter of just having the end result fixed.--ZincBelief 10:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think every move was fixed. Bubba73 (talk), 15:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither do I ! Bobby said it though. --ZincBelief 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go

Let me help you get this article back up to featured status. It's exceptionally well-written. Just tell me what's left to be done and we'll submit it. Not only should it be a featured article, it should be on the main page. NinaOdell | Talk 16:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi NinaOdell, I think it just needs a couple of references filled out. The entire article is pretty much complete.
I can get references - no problem. What specifics do you think you need? I'll try to copy edit today, but when I read it it was darn near perfect. I really want to re-submit this. It's ridiculous that it hasn't been up on the main page. NinaOdell | Talk 13:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Korean players have had an edge in the major international titles, winning 23 tournaments in a row between 2000 and 2002. this is the last one
I don't see why GoBase.org can't be used as a reference. It appears to be a well respected site. They seem to have stats - which titles are we talking about? It might be a tricky one to reference because it's such a broad statement. NinaOdell | Talk 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe GoBase could be used yes, I put a request on the article's discussion page for a reference.--ZincBelief 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok it seems Go now has zero citations needed. Should be ready for re-review

Excellent. Would you like for me to post it, or would you? In truth, you did all the work, so it should be you. I'll give it a once-over tonight. Really, it should be a main page article this year. Thanks for your hard effort! NinaOdell | Talk 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually Charles Matthews did the bulk of citation provision, I think in November or December. Please go ahead and submit the article yourself if you're happy with it :)

[edit] Thank you

Dear ZincBelief, Thank you for helping to fight vandalism, by noting the ongoing vandalism by User 24.249.105.184. Because his/her talk page showed a final warning had been given, I went ahead and submitted him/her for blocking. If you would ever like to do this yourself, please visit WP:AIV. (The instructions are a little cryptic but better than nothing.) I sleep better at night just knowing that page is there. -- JEBrown87544 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Talk:Northern Ireland

I noticed you voted in the debate Talk:Northern Ireland on the flag issue, you do realise that the proposal is that the former flag should be removed from the infobox as it is not a offical flag, the flag and coat of arms will remain in the article itself as they are historical.--padraig3uk 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, infoboxes are a lot of fluff really, so I don't think it is an important issue. I quite like the flag sitting there as it's of historical value. Yes it is in the article as well. I think the coat of arms is less worthy. Yes some people don't like it, but find me an emblem in Northern Ireland that has no political issues.--ZincBelief 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly the point why its removal is being discussed. You state it is a historical flag - that is the point some people are making - it is a historical flag and thats why is should be removed from the info box and put in the main body of the article. --Vintagekits 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow that point.--ZincBelief 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you read the discussion on its talk page it should be relatively clear (but a bit complex). The argument is that the info box should be used for the official flag of a country and my (and others) argument was that the Ulster Banner is historical the official flag but no long and therefore should be in the main body of the article and not the info box. From your comment you seemed to agree however you !voted to keep it to represent the official flag. I wasn't sure if it was just that you were trying to oppose my view because ofthe Brian Kelly thing or that you had misread what the !vote was about.--Vintagekits 15:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The inclusion of the flag and Coat of arms is POV, they have no offical status in Northern Ireland and haven't had for 35yrs. You say, you don't think its a important issue, but to many people from Northern Ireland the flag is highly offensive.--padraig3uk 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel that's really relevant. Many people find Northern Ireland's existance highly offensive, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on it. Virtually all flags in the UK and Ireland are perceived as offensive by some people. I think the flag is relevant to the article and I am happy for it to stay there. I don't think its presence is likely to offend people as it is not used in an inflammatory way.--ZincBelief 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is asking for its removal from the article, just that it isn't promoted in the infobox as a offical flag in the manner that it currently is, only offical flags should be used in the infoboxs of articles and Northern Ireland dosen't have an Official Flag.--padraig3uk 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is listed as a former official flag currently, so I don't think you're quite correct in how it's being used. --ZincBelief 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Only because I edited to say that as a temporary measure, and that envolved a huge debate before those pushing a certain POV accepted it had to be included in the discription.--padraig3uk 15:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Right I see, I am perfectly happy leaving it there as is. --ZincBelief 15:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Dispite the fact that WP is suppose give a NPOV in article, you are happy that certain users are promoting a POV that is offensive to many people born in Northern Ireland, and your vote is helping them to do so, on a issue that you state yourself you have no real interest in. Can I ask you to either withdraw your vote or alter it.—-padraig3uk 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I am happy with my vote. Looking over Wales, England, Isle of Man and Scotland it seems to me that NI is in tune with these infoboxes. The notion that this flag is going to offend people is simply incomprehensible to me. It is presently used in a responsible manner. In the commonwealth games this is what Northern Ireland uses, so it even has some current relevance.
Under British Law the flag has not been a offical flag since 1972, its use by a sporting body confers no status on the flag. England Scotland and Wales all have offocaly recognised National flags, as shown her List of British flags Northern Ireland dosen't.--padraig3uk 15:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't know why you're arguing over this here to be honest. Its use by a sporting body does confer something to the flag. It certainly has more validity than Ulster Scots in my opinion. When Northern Ireland has its own goverment this was the official flag. When a new goverment appears, perhaps after 10 years they can agree on a new national flag. Until that time I support the use of this emblem.--ZincBelief 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
All I can say is that some of us are trying to remove POV and political bias from article dealing with Northern Ireland, and ensure that articles are neutral and factual. As for the use by sporting bodies, if ths was article about sport and its use of the flag I would agree with you but not the main article about the State of Northern Ireland in a article that deals with the geopolitical.--padraig3uk 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Very good, as it stands, it appears to me the flag is used in a factual context. I fully support the continuation of that appproach.--ZincBelief 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Kelly

Hi- the Brian Kelly article is looking much better now! There is now lots of referenced material and he clearly meets WP:BIO. Astrotrain 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go edit

Hi ZincBelief. The reference to the number of chess moves wasn't where I thought it was (the Oxford companion to chess). It must be in one of my books in the attic, which will take some considerable time (not to mention personal danger :-) to retrieve. I'll go up there this weekend, family permitting.

Best wishes, Robinh 12:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Good luck in the attic.--ZincBelief 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Bentley

Hi there. I'm so sorry but I think I must have had Emma Bentley open for editing whilst you prodded it and have just relaised that I accidentally removed the tag. Could you replace it? I actually agree with you about it's notability but as it failed speedy I thought I'd at least tidy it up a bit - the original page was written by Emma's proud Dad and was far from neutral! His talk page is worth checking out for the saga of the speedy. Apologies again for the editing error. • nancy • talk to me • 12:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I wondered where it went to. I will re-add this.--ZincBelief 12:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Short

(moved from user page to talk page) I think I offered a reference (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3452), didn't I? As my columns were very frequently quoted on the largest chess news website, I can only assume it was because they were deemed to be interesting. Nigel Short

Yes but you didn't add the reference to the article.--ZincBelief 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for inadvertantly posting on the wrong page. I don't understand your point at all. In reverting to the original, older edit which has been around for months (see history) I cited the largest chess news website in the world (chessbase.com). The reference is in the edit history. By all means please attach the reference in the main body of text, if you think it is important. I just do not know how to do it. I presume most people thought it was self-evident, which is why no-one queried it before. With regards, Nigel Short.

I was just indicating that you should add it into the text at the bottom of the page, rather than putting it in the edit history. If you place it in the edit history you'll find somebody else goes and deletes it (as another editor did). Wikipedia articles should always have references to support facts and assertions, that's the policy. I would do it myself, but I have better things to be doing. :) --ZincBelief 14:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Fairbairn

"He has also been a Go player for over 30 years, holding the rank of amateur 3dan,"
The way you've worded that, it sounds like he's been 3dan for 30 years.
How about: "He has also been a Go player for over 30 years, holding the rank of amateur 3dan since yyyy,"?
(Provided, of course, you know when yyyy was. (I don't.)) Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'd interpret the sentence like that. http://www.britgo.org/rating/dans.html says he has been 3 dan for 7 years now.--ZincBelief 13:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your preference?

  • He has also been a Go player for over 30 years, holding the rank of amateur 3dan since 2001, and has
  • He has also been a Go player for over 30 years, holds the rank of amateur 3dan, and has
  • Something else?

Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe .. He has also been a Go player for over 30 years, and has obtained the rank of amateur 3 dan, blah blah.
 I'm not really that fussed about it :) --ZincBelief 13:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Go software

I have nominated List of Go software, an article you created, for deletion. Contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. However, I do not feel that List of Go software satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and I have explain why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the open discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Go software and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Go software during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Anshuk (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted before I had time to discuss it...--ZincBelief (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TibetBoard.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:TibetBoard.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)