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

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]