See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:Theemperor

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

G'day Theemperor, and welcome to aSK. We are glad to have you contribute. For more information about aSK, see our About statement. Please see the rules and regulations as soon as you can.
The following links are also useful.



Sorry, just trying to help. Ace McWicked 01:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ITS MINE!! MY EMPIRE!!! Seriously though, thanks for your help, but I'd rather create them alone. No hard feelings, I hope. Theemperor 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project, so it should not be a problem if you both want to work on it. --TimStalk 02:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have finished crying and now I am ready to forgive you. Ace McWicked 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't a queen more than just a chess piece? The same might be said of a king, a bishop and a knight. Do we need a disambiguation page? --Horace 02:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to rename it to Queen(chess)? That would be a better suggestion than creating a messy disambiguation page. Theemperor 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I guess. I was just trying to think of the future when someone wants to do an article for "queen" or "king" in the non-chess sense. --Horace 02:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The chess pieces should all be of teh form "Queen (chess)", with links to disambig pages at the main "Flaming homosexual" page. ħuman Number 19 04:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Chess game

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxd5 4.d4 Bg4 5.Bc4 e6 6.O-O Be7 7.h3 Bh5 8.Nc3 O-O 9. Ne4 Nc6 10.c3 a6 11.Re1 b5 12. Be2 Na5 13.Ng3 Bxf3 14.Bxf3 c6 15.Ne4 Nb7 16.b3 Rc8 17.c4 b4 Historian 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I resign; I had my moves recorded wrong but my position was difficult in any event. Well done! Historian 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to challenge Kendoll. Olé! Olé! Olé! Theemperor 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have a FIDE rating but my USCF rating is about 1610. Historian 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

USCF n/a, FIDE 2115, but I haven't played in a while. I gave up competitive chess. Theemperor 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a rematch, though it might be easier to conduct via email so as not to clutter the recent changes. Historian 05:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm not great, but I'll have a try at the resident chessmaster. --TimStalk 04:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

images for your chess pages?

Hi your Majesty! :-) I wanted to ask if you would like me to upload some images for your chess pages, there are a few good images of pawn, rook, etc, at Wikimedia commons that are ok for use, if you just wanted a few images for now, until Philip has a chance to move people into member category, then you could choose your own images to replace them. So would you like an image or two, or would you prefer to wait until you can choose your own images? I can understand if you want to choose your own, it's just an offer, please let me know if interested, thanks! Taj 21:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read your reply on my talk page. :-) Taj 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being around sooner

Sorry that you had to deal with this alone for a good while. Bad timing on my side. :( --Sid 01:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

<voice>You have failed me for the last time, Sid... </voice> JK :) The EmperorRise, my apprentice 01:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

PS Block rights would have come in handy- nudge nudge.

*Force-Choke'd* *gestures frantically before collapsing* :P
And yeah. Those, and CAPTCHA-avoid rights. It's somewhat silly that it takes NO check to quasi-blank an article with external links, but one to re-insert ones as you undo the vandalism. --Sid 01:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
EC ECEC Or even Rollback User 11speak to me 01:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
And I'd got "prompt for summary" checked User 11speak to me 01:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a "Holyrollers" group, like on RWW? Most of the people from RW could get it, and it would be useful. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 01:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Also saying thanks for the reverts on vandalism earlier, sorry I wasn't around either. Where's Phil's Guard Dog program when you need it? lol. Taj 02:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Membership nomination

Theemperor was nominated for membership, and was voted in. Voting is now closed. The voting can be seen by showing the box below.

7 votes means closed, yes? The EmperorRise, my apprentice 11:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It means that you've got enough votes (seven is our temporary number until we have more members), so it just remains for me to actually make you a member. Wait a moment... Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
... Done. Congratulations! Now it is closed. :-) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Membership voting results.

Hail, sire.

I would leave the voting open on membership votes and let Philip close it. Having a look at the template, when 10 votes are received the member is placed in a category ("10 votes, but not a member" basically) but voting is left open. I would think it best that the person changing the user-rights should thus change the result. The result would thus mean "yes, the person has become a member" rather than "yes, the person has sufficient votes", but the template copes with the sufficent votes anyway (or at least it will when we go back to 10 votes). BradleyF (LowKey) 00:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how it worked. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither am I entirely. The above is a suggestion based on my opinion. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the result should be changed by the bureaucrat actually changing the user rights. The template documentation says "The parameter is set to yes if the candidate is made a member". It doesn't say "The parameter is set to yes if the candidate gets sufficient votes". It's only a small and not-very-significant difference, but that is the intention. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Read documentation? It's a novel idea, but I don't think it will catch on. BradleyF (LowKey) 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Instructions are for losers. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeeves new articles

What do think, simply tag them as stubs? Initially I was going to delete them but then thought that his reason for creating them is not really relevant to whether they belong or not. My problem at the moment is that they are really dictionary entries rather than encyclopaedic articles. Some of the content is not quite right, but hey that's wikis. BradleyF (LowKey) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn. The articles themselves do not convey anything negative, most are decent dictionary entries, it was the user and the manner in which they were created that sent the message. Do as you see fit, I'd recommend deleting them, as they are not needed in the first place. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a bit of a dilemna. I think I will delete as non-encyclopaedic without prejudice. BradleyF (LowKey) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Gone, except for Void, which I stub-tagged as I thought we could make something of it. BradleyF (LowKey) 23:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the block was a bit over the top. It gives off the impression that you're just peeved that he made a point without actually breaking any precious rules. --Sid 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a little, but not as over the top as creating a handful of almost useless articles to repeatedly make the same point. A warning probably could have been given, but the last warning given to that user had no positive effect. With that in mind, the block (IMO) was not about being peeved, but had a significant injuctive component.BradleyF (LowKey) 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we have notability/usefulness standards? Who decides how long/useful an article has to be before it gets immediately deleted? I also can't find aSK:POINT, and I don't remember anybody blocking Human for him making a much more direct point in the Biblical Chronology article. With no rule (I know of) being broken and others not being punished for making a similar point, it does look arbitrary. --Sid 12:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no notability standard, by design. There are no explicitly stated uselufness standards that I am aware of. This was a judgment call, with discussion. The keep/delete of the articles is a separate issue to the block (as I already said). As to Human's "point", that was purely about the content of one article (and in fact was seking improvement of the content). I commented at the time that Human did not handle that well. As for it being "much more direct" that is a matter of opinion, and I for one don't share it. Human has a history of being respectful of the rules here, and though the Biblical Chronology edit was pointed, it was rather mild, was one-off and resulted in a better article (and the point was reasonably valid in that an article about Biblical Chronology lacked any actual chronology). Human also has a history of generally being respectful and co-operative. Jeeves only recently came off a block for insults, and proceeded to create multiple "themed" articles. I actually looked at each of the articles both before and after discussion about them, and deleted most of them them because they were stubs written with no apparent intent to improve them. I stated it was "without prejudice" meaning that if someone wants to either start again, or give a reason to restore, they can go ahead. As to the block, check who enacted it, and why (reasons given above). It was far from arbitrary. I personally would not have blocked without warning (and in fact was trying to decide on the best way to caution Jeeves when the block was instated), but I also would not expect a warning to have any positive effect (based on experience) so cannot really fault TheEmperor for not giving a warning. Jeeves seemed intent on disruption in article namespace (so although not nonsense or gibberish, it was still vandalism of sorts) and really only a block would stop that. Jeeves can appeal the block if he wishes, either by email to me or to PJR (there isn't actually a sanction review committee yet). In fact I will raise it on Philip's talk page (although I am sure he is aware of this discussion). BradleyF (LowKey) 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There are no notability standards because I think it's very hard to impossible to come up with good ones. I have said (agreed) before, though, that this is an {[enc}}, not a dictionary.
I agree with Bradley that Human's point about the Biblical Chronology article was quite different.
I will have to say that Theemperor exceeded his authority in blocking Jeeves. Blocking rights are for "clear" vandalism, which Jeeves' actions weren't. However, just as I've given people a fair bit (not total) leeway to not only criticise but to do so harshly, I'll take no action against Theemperor in this case, especially given that it was clearly done with good intentions, but I'm sure he'll read this and take notice. Given Jeeves' actions, the block was understandable, and even warranted.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Question on copying?

I was wondering if say I made an article on another site. WOuld it be alright to bring it over here? User:Order Believer

See aSK:Copying from other sites. The EmperorRise, my apprentice 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Experiment participation

Please participate in my experiment. Thanks! Sterile 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

Given your comments here that you don't agree with "parts" of your userpage, for the record, could you list which parts you don't (or do) agree with? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel1212 membership vote

If you are still watching, please read this. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools

visitor navigation
contributor navigation