User talk:Puddleglum2.0

Archives (Index)

1 s/2019/November s 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

As new user here, I have no idea what to click on to respond to your message. Re message: I guess one should make small alterations in bits, since the explanation box is not really large enough to hold detailed explanations. Does that figure?

ChrisWhittington (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWhittington: Hi! Thank you for reaching out to me! The reason I reverted your edit is because it seemed like you deleted a whole ton of information in the article. If you can give me a good reason why you did that, I would be happy to revert my revert and restore your edits, but I didn't really understand your edit and it didn't seem helpful. Again, feel free to talk to me about it and I can answer your questions! Yours - Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for that, I am still struggling of course with all the Wiki ways and means and etiquettes, so thank you! In general, on that Rybka article, what we see is the sort-of patchy result of a (the) major argument and unpleasantness in the little field of computer chess. I guess I did indeed take too strong a delete brush to the Strelka and Ippolit sections without adequate explanation. Other than a passing reference, it's dubious either section belongs there at all. First the Strelka section( and NB this is a Rybka wiki page). Strelka chess engine was alleged to be a copy of Rybka. The evidence that it is a copy is patchy, unsourced and dubious. It's a maybe, maybe not. The author of Strelka is alleged to be some Uri Osipov, who may or may not actually exist, allegedly. So far, so gossipy.The Fruit chess engine author, stated that he thinks Strelka derives from his engine. So, we have sourced evidence that various people have made various allegation back in 2011 or so, but these have never been backed up with anything that can be sourced, and basically this makes, in my opinion(!) the Strelka section to be gossip that doesn't actually tell readers anything about Rybka, and no reason to connect it to the Rybka page. By all means leave it in the Strelka page. Or, an alternative edit, I'll suggest after Ippolit Section:

For the Ippolit section: Again, this is quite gossipy as it stands. Ippolit was/is a chess engine produced by (supposedly) a group of politically inspired Russian hackers. Maybe, maybe not. It's origins remain mysterious. Rybka author has written than he thinks Ippolit is a reverse engineered Rybka, although he may have backtracked on that, since the reference has been deleted from his own forum site. The remaining comments in the paragraph are gossip.

So, I guess a possible edit, would be to merge those two sections into one, giving sourceable facts, insofar as those facts connect somehow to the Rybka wiki page. So what do we have? 1. Rybka author has claimed that two chess engines, Strelka and Ippolit, were the result of decompilation of his chess engine, Rybka. No evidence has been provided by the Rybka author and one of the accusations has since been deleted from his web forum. 2. Fruit author has claimed Strelka chess engine is a copy of his chess engine, Fruit. No evidence has been provided for this claim.

I think that would be a factual history of sourced, Rybka relevent material.

Anyway, thanks again for your commenting. It is quite daunting as a newbie here knowing how it all works! It says I should sign with four tylda characters. And I'm not sure if this is how to 'reply', I looked around for a reply button, but to no avail. Is editing the page how one is supposed to do it?

ChrisWhittington (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWhittington: Wow, thank you for the long reply! Yes, I'm beginning to see your take on Rybka... I now actually think that it is maybe good to delete it, but it would be even better to source it and reword it so that it is true. either way, I guess that's fine. I will restore your edit. Yrs, you do just edit the page to reply to your messages. Generally you want to ping the person you are responding to; that gives them a notification that you responded. You can read the link to find out how. ALso, it will only work if you sign your post, so keep that in mind to. Again, thanks for the reply! Yours - Puddleglum2.0 \ /Have a talk? 15:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Puddleglum2.0,

I hereby invite you to discuss a possible new rule on whether or not the name of victims should be included on various articles (i.e. Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting.

The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Victims'_names_proposal_workshop

TheHoax (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheHoax: Thank you, I will look into it. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 18:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]