Keirsey, David; Bates, Marilyn (1984). Please Understand Me: Character & Temperament Types (Fifth ed.). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. p. 182. ISBN 0-9606954-0-0.
|
(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)
Articles I've 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 I've developed from stubs
V. R. Parton · Dragonchess · Semi-Italian Opening
Shall we go
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)
- Secret admirer? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
More clue(s)? --
Three-Man Chess
Revision of edit, if the red pawn moves 2 steps it is out of range of the white pawn. If it moves a single step it can get taken Dalepgray (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rec'd your 'thank u'. Yeah an e.p. capture can occur only after a double-step. Thx for your interest in the article! --IHTS (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
After a double step it is out of range Dalepgray (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- No. Do you know about e.p.? (Read en passant.) --IHTS (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry you are quite correct, my error. Thanks for taking the time to reply Dalepgray (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
What have you gone and done this time?
Was kind of missing your contributions so I checked your user page... stay away from the drama boards you silly bugger, you just attacked the guy out of the blue in a conversation you weren't even involved in. What did you think was going to happen?? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macron is the editor who initiated the ANI thread that led to one of IHTS's previous indefs, so it's perhaps unsurprising that he has a low opinion of him. But still, inexcusable.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Very adept, P-K3 (except the "inexcusable" part; this editor has been holding a grudge & taking whatever shots possible to damage me ever since I offended his ego on Talk:Three-dimensional chess eons ago when a relatively new WP editor). --IHTS (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] --IHTS (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
More destruction
Quale, it's "Alice Chess", it's "Fischer Random Chess" (originally "Fischerandom", also "Fischerandom Chess"), it's "Capablanca Chess" (just like it's "Grand Chess"), "Capablanca Random Chess", it's "Chinese Checkers" (not Chinese checkers), and ... the inventor has a say in their game name/title, when an inventor names his game "Three-Man Chess", then that's the game name, not what somebody thinks is better for "consistency". The arguments given were terribly erroneous. One editor suggested the game names were chosen thoughtlessly just following what someone had done before. I'm careful editor and did what was carefully the right thing to do when authoring these variants. Do I need to get a letter from the inventor about "Parallel World's Chess" that THAT is his chosen game name?!? This is all insane. Meanwhile, Go should be go. Chess60 is not trademarked but is upper-case. Grand Chess wasn't touched, gosh I wonder why?!? This was pushed thru when I was blocked, I wonder why?!? This was started on Three-Man Chess, which is recently a subject line on my Talk, I wonder why?!? The proposal was put thru by an editor who wanted "Queen's Gambit" to be retitled to "queen's gambit", and who still undoubtedly thinks he's right. The editor who thought my game names were chosen thoughtlessly tried to change captures "x" to "×" (e.g. Nxe5 to N×e5) in all chess-related articles, would not bend to reason, and undoubtedly (also) still thinks he's right. Now we have the ridiculous "Balbo's game", gosh, did Balbo have favorite games or something, lots of games or something? (No. Balbo's Game is the game name/game title for his invented game. How ridiculous!) Alice Chess is in sources almost exclusively. What gives with all these destructive changes, and as mentioned, the timing was circumspect. --IHTS (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
SnowFire, thank u for opposing those changes at Talk:Three-Man Chess. The decision was wrong, & sucks! --IHTS (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment: You can't just count votes, even per WP policy you have to weigh the quailty of argument. And it MIGHT be a good idea to place more weight on arguments from individuals who know their field, as opposed to editors who push new MoS policies they had a hand in, for purpose of some sort of imagined sight-wide "consistency", when ignoring at the same time the inventor's chosen game names, also the preponderance what is in reliable sources. (I notice a sparsity of checks re reliable sources, e.g. for Alice Chess, Capablanca Chess; the others are more obscure, which just means the number of reliable sources is LESS, is all.) What a wrong decision! --IHTS (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Add'l comment: WP is a cesspool. --IHTS (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #27517 was submitted on Nov 07, 2019 17:47:30. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Hope you come back. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thx Max. Have enjoyed our recent collaborations, we work ok together methinks. (Gained respect thru time. And shared/common experiences re the crass ruthlessness of this place.) --IHTS (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- You'll be pleased to know a certain RfA failed anyway, for too long admins have been flouting the civility policy with impunity and it was good to see some pushback against that. A lot of his supporters were existing admins who clearly don't see a need to reform the culture whereby admins can be as uncivil as they like and then close ranks around each other if anyone raises a complaint. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I saw it. (But that user plans to re-apply and might get sympathy votes. Totally hypocritical how he took recent isolated incident of frustration and attempted to paint picture of "long term behavior", while dictating how own behavior must be judged from a recent point of time only. More example of hypocrisy & abuse on WP, making up rules as go along. It is Lord of the Flies here, or Calvinball, a crazy-making abusive environment. Admins under their cloak of other admins, as you point out, are the worst. Disgusting. This place is pre-historic jurisprudence. Totally backward & disgusting. ANI = A-hole Nihilism Insanity.) --IHTS (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- You'll be pleased to know a certain RfA failed anyway, for too long admins have been flouting the civility policy with impunity and it was good to see some pushback against that. A lot of his supporters were existing admins who clearly don't see a need to reform the culture whereby admins can be as uncivil as they like and then close ranks around each other if anyone raises a complaint. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- This place is pretty crazy, but not crazy enough w/o you. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thx Bruce. Frankly, get a pit in my stomach when even thinking of resuming. (Heavy-handed inconsiderate admins, e.g. the latest was my Talk access removed unwarrantedly; my appeal of that rejected unwarrantedly. ANI issues opened by uninvolved/unaffected parties; miffed editor egos from ages ago out of woodwork to pile to vote indef or WP-ban. Mob-rule by non-specialists in content changes, e.g. Three-Check Chess. And why are Alice Chess, Grand Chess, Capablanca Chess, Fischer Random Chess, and Chinese Checkers all in lowercase now?!? Very ill-considered and very wrong. Will I have to become wiki-lawyer to prove sky is blue, and then take shit for it as well?!? And is it me, or do you ever notice too, coming here and seeing recent edit changes to articles in one's WATCHLIST, is mostly, at least 85% of the time, a disappointing, demoralizing experience? All said, WP is like swimming in a polluted pool, and on top of it, being towel-snapped when cleaning yourself off. I don't know how you keep your attitude up. Perhaps you are "too nice"!?) --IHTS (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back IHTS. The lowercase move was the result of this discussion. P-K3 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I know that. And that incredibly questionable & clearly wrong decision was enshrined by Quale here, who previously advocated differently here. (Fuck me!) --IHTS (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- My Oct 28 edit to WP:CHESS didn't enshrine anything, it only announced in a neutral tone that a move discussion had just started. I had hoped that the announcement on WP:CHESS would interest some chess editors to participate while there was time to affect the outcome, particularly those who know more about chess variants than I do and those who actually edit chess variant articles and thus have skin in the game. Unfortunately that didn't happen, and of course you weren't able to participate either. My guess is that a few more chess editors in the move discussion wouldn't have been able to change the outcome, although editors who cared might have tried since it was clear which way the wind was blowing. The chess variant name spelling decision is one of three that I can recall that pain me because I think they were substantively harmful to chess coverage on Wikipedia, and it's certainly the one that affected the most articles. (The other two painful outcomes are https:/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_who_have_beaten_Bobby_Fischer_in_chess_(2nd_nomination) and the deletion of an article on a British chess journalist, although I'll be damned if I can remember who that was now. The journalist deletion sucked, but I just didn't know enough sources to demonstrate WP:GN to put up a reasonable fight to save it.) Quale (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- I know that. And that incredibly questionable & clearly wrong decision was enshrined by Quale here, who previously advocated differently here. (Fuck me!) --IHTS (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, my watchlist gives me access to the same vandals and doofuses that your watchlist gives you access to. But I take them for granted, whereas when I see a pleasant surprise, like some IP editor making an improvement that I hadn't thought of, I savor it. Anyway, it's only a hobby for me. I can see that a lot of people are putting in their 10,000 hours here, and Wikipedia depends on them a lot more than on people like me, but I can live with that. Collaboration is tough, or, as they say, "hell is other people". Enjoy your break! Bruce leverett (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back IHTS. The lowercase move was the result of this discussion. P-K3 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thx Bruce. Frankly, get a pit in my stomach when even thinking of resuming. (Heavy-handed inconsiderate admins, e.g. the latest was my Talk access removed unwarrantedly; my appeal of that rejected unwarrantedly. ANI issues opened by uninvolved/unaffected parties; miffed editor egos from ages ago out of woodwork to pile to vote indef or WP-ban. Mob-rule by non-specialists in content changes, e.g. Three-Check Chess. And why are Alice Chess, Grand Chess, Capablanca Chess, Fischer Random Chess, and Chinese Checkers all in lowercase now?!? Very ill-considered and very wrong. Will I have to become wiki-lawyer to prove sky is blue, and then take shit for it as well?!? And is it me, or do you ever notice too, coming here and seeing recent edit changes to articles in one's WATCHLIST, is mostly, at least 85% of the time, a disappointing, demoralizing experience? All said, WP is like swimming in a polluted pool, and on top of it, being towel-snapped when cleaning yourself off. I don't know how you keep your attitude up. Perhaps you are "too nice"!?) --IHTS (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Giuoco Piano
Want to review my mutilations updates? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, goin' outta town, maybe soon! --IHTS (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Max, have been thinking bout this, and realize am not having the heart in me, since the ANI, to do anything more than the trivial sorts of edits have been doing recently. The ANI over the Three-check chess content dispute left bad taste in my mouth. In that dispute I offered reasoned arguments along with documented examples, but no one in that dispute responded to any of the arguments or any of the suppporting examples. The opposition relied only on "this is the way it will be" statements without entering discussion, which is nothing less than bullying. Worst I said to anyone was that they "didn't know what they were talking about". And for that a non-participant holding long-term grudge opened an ANI & tried to make the dishonest case that it was "serious long-term behavior" issue by digging up diffs from early in my editing history and making that case. And of course multiple editors who had their feelings miffed by me in the past came out of the woodwork to vote for Wiki-execution (Indef block, even WP ban). You were the only editor who commented truthfully that my editing behavior had changed & evolved from the earlier days. But that was ignored, even the ANI instigator instructs others after his failed RfA that his editing behavior can only be judged in any future RfA from a current date forward. That is the kind of hypocrisy that rules the WP Lord of the Flies kind of prehistoric "jurisprudence". I don't want to be subject to it again. Committing editing time & good effort only to be tossed around like a rag doll in a gorilla cage. I also have a problem with the lower-casing of obvious proper names like "Alice Chess" and "Capablanca Chess" and "Fischer Random Chess" and "Chinese Checkers" and more, but am not going to invest time & effort into becoming a Wiki-lawyer to set them right just to face opposing "arguments" like "Not convincing". That effort should be a WP:CHESS community effort not individual effort, but chess variants don't get the interest or care enough for community effort, I guess. Thanks for your understanding, Max, and, good luck. --IHTS (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
WP is mob justice. Just like massive voter fraud. Both suck. --IHTS (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
WP, w/ its saturated Left bias in all political articles, based on "reliable sources" when the US press is corrupt and a political special-interest group, is not only disgusting, has lost credibility as an encyclopedia and probably cannot ever recover any claim to credibility, same as the liberal un-free press. It's disgusting to be here and has lowered motivation to contribute, even to my fav subj area. Meahwhile, WP ejects serious contributors like Eric Corbett. (Self-destruction much!?) Good luck & Merry Xmas. --IHTS (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Merry Xmas and happy new year to you, too. On earth, peace to all ... editors of chess-related Wiki articles. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- WP identified a gap in the US media landscape, a lack of moderate right of centre outlets with good factual basis. Only prominent example is WSJ. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Great puzzle!
Great puzzle on your userpage :) I saw mate in 4 after 1. Qg7 Rd8 2. Bf3 and so on, which is already a pretty weird starting move, but I wasn't creative enough to find the sheer ridiculousness of Qf4! - Astrophobe (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, thx for the feedback. Methinks the "ridiculousness" of the key might have something to do w/ the weirdness of the knight move. (Notice the key puts the Q a N-move away from both B & K.
) --IHTS (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
) --Example game removed from London System
Hi. Thanks for your cleanup of the article. I see 97.115.173.3 removed my example game there for being a "bad example game" and I was looking for a more expert opinion. Should example games be particularly notable for some brilliant moves or the level of the tournament? My simple (maybe naive) logic was that it's notable that the current World Champion plays it, and its better to have more examples in general. Dhalamh (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Magnus game seems fine to me. (I put it back.) "Example games" has never received objective criteria at WP:CHESS. "Notable games" in bios has been debated & discussed, methinks some conclusions have been drawn at WT:CHESS. The anon needs to give more than "bad example" as rationale to rmv. If more reverts this belongs at Talk:London System or WT:CHESS. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you sir. Pleasure doing business with you. Yes, those locations you list are the more orthodox venues for discussion in this case, just from looking at the IPs edit history I suspected I might not get a response any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhalamh (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary political correctness
This edit actually made it more politically correct. And better. It doesn't draw attention to gender or attempts to avoid mention of it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Don't get u. (White being referenced in "the order in which White advances", makes possessive "their" unnecessary/implied, & also potentially confusing since Black was mentioned in the prev sentence. The "political correctness" was in unnecessary effort to abolish "his", thus drawing attention to that overt effort evidenced by the text.) --IHTS (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Or maybe you were defining "politically correct" as a good thing (advantageous) here? (If so, thx! ;) ) --IHTS (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's actually more "politically correct" not to draw attention to how totally not-sexist you are, which "they" and "-person" tend to do. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Any thoughts on the current upheaval at Chess?
Too many changes too fast for my liking. It wasn't a bad article before all this. I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater just to please the wikipedia overlords and their Featured Article standards. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Been w/o Internet last wk & missed the drama, haven't gone over details. But when you & Bruce agree, methinks it's gotta be right. --IHTS (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think that when this new guy came along, he wasn't necessarily what Piotrus, DrKay, etc. had in mind. I would assume FA review usually involves the usual tweaks. Oh well, never a dull moment. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
OMG, this prob killed me
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |        | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
- Nice non-obvious key. Loyd was a genius, and quite a strong player too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Ihardlythinkso. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
 | The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been sanctioned per a complaint at AE. The level of debate, as encapsulated in "I don't try to reason w/ liberals" (diff) is well below par (obviously, to the point of constituting a provocation outright). This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAP2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
Indefinite block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 16:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- EL_C, "Major commitment/assurances necessary to rescind", probably ok, but it w/ be nice to have a clear understanding what is expected. As far as my comment on Talk:Lin Wood, no, I didn't assume him to be politician under 1932 restriction, only private attorney w/ his own beliefs & opinions. (I did not see or look for a tag on the article.) Frankly, I still do not understand, nor has anyone explained to me, why the 1932 restriction was applied to me. Tell you what, I have absolutely no interest whatever in getting involved in any way w/ any political article at all, save for correcting punctuation per MoS, etc., as I read them, for benefit of other WP readers. THAT seems like a "major commitment/assurance" to me! But I w/ like & want the 1932 ban(s) lifted, not to edit political articles, not to be free to make WP-unpopular political comments, it's not nice to edit with an active ban, one of the reasons is, then editors who are not your friends are scrutinizing your edits, looking for a way to strike at you, as here. Then anyone long ago you've had any negative interaction with, comes out of woodwork to ask for a head on a pike. In that hostile & unjust envinronment, I'm neither proud nor desirous of continuing being member here. I'm tired of appealing for justice, that burden isn't warranted either, and further discourages contributing editors. I don't trust being evaluated and decision rendered by unknown admin at an appeal board, without recourse, without discussion, where reasoning goes askew. So I'm in your hands. Good luck, take care. --IHTS (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- IHTS, the discussion at the AE complaint (direct link) is currently pending — I encourage you to review it closely. My read is that, like me, most participants are at a loss on how to reconcile between allowing you to continue editing when weighing that against the risk of not just minor violations to your 2017 American politics topic ban, but also to having you engage in outright provocations. As mentioned, I'm just not sure what else to do at this time. While I'm open to any out-of-the-box ideas and proposals, I nonetheless struggle to conceive of what might actually work — save, perhaps, doing the WP:PROXYING thing again, as I have suggested (independently) and which Pawnkingthree has pointed out, was already tried once before. Otherwise, again, like everyone else, I'm truly at a loss as to what else to do. Like, what will make this time different, compared to all the other times, in making the commitment stick? It's quite the unfortunate conundrum, one which I realize may be highly upsetting for you (it isn't fun for me, either, believe me). El_C 22:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I thought I had been clear above. (I.e. not touching political articles in any way whatsoever except MoS grammar/punc/etc. And wanting/asking to have the 1932 restriction lifted, since it draws undue burdens/unhealthy scrutiny.) So I don't understand what you are at loss about. My commitment/assurance was absolute. (In other words, if I violated, then impose a WP ban.) I also don't understand the PROXY thought, I don't see how that applies, maybe I'm missing something. Last, to be fair, one has to consider the entire context of my remark to Evergreen. Facts: 1) she has been a historical antagonist re my editorship, 2) my post at Talk:Lin Wood was a simple sympathetic comment to a new user who was doomed to failure due to the nature of the left-leaning bias coloring WP bios generally, 3) Evergreen posted to my attention, why? Why was she trying to engage me over the topic, and not the new user who opened the Talk section?, and 4) Evergreen knew already I had 1932 restriction and that Lin Wood fell under said restriction, so her engaging me as she did, was essentially a setup. (I could have responded normally, for example, Lin Wood subsequently amended his comment about VP Pence and firing squad by saying in a podcast that he was speaking "hyperbolically" and did not really mean it; however, that amendment occurs in the bio article nowhere. In addition, how is believing or stating that VP Pence did not uphold his oath of office and some consequence for that is warranted, a form of "conspiracy theory"?! Lin Wood is a prominent & successful attorney and his take on such matters is no doubt based on law, not conspiracy, which is a form of insult to his character & bio. But I wasn't bound to respond to Evergreen in the normal way, it wasn't my purpose for posting to that Talk, only to post to a new user as already stated.) The level of hostility & vindictiveness on WP is more than enough to push me away from closely reading the Enforcement thread, as you suggested. I think I've answered all your Qs & doubts. Perhaps you feel a pressure from others!? I do not know you, only by your actions/non-actions. (
Major commitment necessary to rescind
. Is there meaning associated!?) Good luck & take care. --IHTS (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I thought I had been clear above. (I.e. not touching political articles in any way whatsoever except MoS grammar/punc/etc. And wanting/asking to have the 1932 restriction lifted, since it draws undue burdens/unhealthy scrutiny.) So I don't understand what you are at loss about. My commitment/assurance was absolute. (In other words, if I violated, then impose a WP ban.) I also don't understand the PROXY thought, I don't see how that applies, maybe I'm missing something. Last, to be fair, one has to consider the entire context of my remark to Evergreen. Facts: 1) she has been a historical antagonist re my editorship, 2) my post at Talk:Lin Wood was a simple sympathetic comment to a new user who was doomed to failure due to the nature of the left-leaning bias coloring WP bios generally, 3) Evergreen posted to my attention, why? Why was she trying to engage me over the topic, and not the new user who opened the Talk section?, and 4) Evergreen knew already I had 1932 restriction and that Lin Wood fell under said restriction, so her engaging me as she did, was essentially a setup. (I could have responded normally, for example, Lin Wood subsequently amended his comment about VP Pence and firing squad by saying in a podcast that he was speaking "hyperbolically" and did not really mean it; however, that amendment occurs in the bio article nowhere. In addition, how is believing or stating that VP Pence did not uphold his oath of office and some consequence for that is warranted, a form of "conspiracy theory"?! Lin Wood is a prominent & successful attorney and his take on such matters is no doubt based on law, not conspiracy, which is a form of insult to his character & bio. But I wasn't bound to respond to Evergreen in the normal way, it wasn't my purpose for posting to that Talk, only to post to a new user as already stated.) The level of hostility & vindictiveness on WP is more than enough to push me away from closely reading the Enforcement thread, as you suggested. I think I've answered all your Qs & doubts. Perhaps you feel a pressure from others!? I do not know you, only by your actions/non-actions. (
- IHTS, the discussion at the AE complaint (direct link) is currently pending — I encourage you to review it closely. My read is that, like me, most participants are at a loss on how to reconcile between allowing you to continue editing when weighing that against the risk of not just minor violations to your 2017 American politics topic ban, but also to having you engage in outright provocations. As mentioned, I'm just not sure what else to do at this time. While I'm open to any out-of-the-box ideas and proposals, I nonetheless struggle to conceive of what might actually work — save, perhaps, doing the WP:PROXYING thing again, as I have suggested (independently) and which Pawnkingthree has pointed out, was already tried once before. Otherwise, again, like everyone else, I'm truly at a loss as to what else to do. Like, what will make this time different, compared to all the other times, in making the commitment stick? It's quite the unfortunate conundrum, one which I realize may be highly upsetting for you (it isn't fun for me, either, believe me). El_C 22:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Regrettable to see this happen to you. Wish you could've steered clear of that topic-in-question :( GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Plans?
I can't imagine you begging for forgiveness, but maybe if you came back a few months down the track and made a commitment to just stay away from US politics pages and talk pages instead of testing the boundaries... I dunno. You're an excellent copyeditor and I enjoy seeing my chess edits reviewed and improved by you. By the way I can't stand Donald Trump and I'm a leftist, not a "liberal", to me that's a code word for a conservative used by people like Jordan Peterson. :P But that doesn't matter when we're collaborating on chess articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Don't know your reasons for "can't stand", my response w/ depend on that. But am not permitted to discuss it here. Have never listened to Peterson for more than a few secs, don't really understand the distinction, but am sure you're right. Re my block, several at the discussion page expressed that it was harsh. The blocking admin seemed to be open to "major assurance/commitment", but also seems to have ignored/not read what have written here. Max, can you do me favor? On my user page, chg word "published" to abbrev "pub." in heading on first chess diag. (Doing so will reduce heading to 2 lines so both diags line up vertically.) Thx. --IHTS (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)