User talk:Yamla

Piotr Kamler page

Hi, Yamla. I just created a stub for Polish film director Piotr Kamler. The page name came with a warning that another page under that name had been removed by you in 2015 because it was created by a banned user in 2015. I couldn't find a reference to it in your logs so I proceeded, but thought it best to check and see if there is any issue I am missing. I believe my stub is all original content. Wrightjack talk

A question about closing SPIs with CU requests in place

Hello, Yamla. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jha09 there's a CU request still pending in a report dated 23 July, which has been languishing while several more reports have been filed & closed. My opinion is that the stated reasons are superficial, and other factors make it look very unlikely to be the same person. My inclination, therefore, is to just close the report. I usually hold back from doing so in this situation, thinking perhaps a request for CU should always be left for a clerk to review no matter how unnecessary an administrator may think it is. However, I feel that very often leaving it achieves nothing apart from contributing to the endless backlog, slowing down work on more useful reports, so occasionally, in what I think is a really obvious case, I make an exception. I would be grateful for your opinion; where do you think I should put this along the spectrum between "always leave a CU request to a clerk, no matter what", & "always feel free to close a case if you think there's nothing more to be done there"? JBW (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I suspect the same problem affects clerks at SPI as affects unblock reviewers at Cat:Unblock. The obvious cases are acted upon quickly. But the non-obvious cases, everyone hopes someone else will tackle it, so they often languish. What stands out to me here is the account was created around the same time as at least one other sock (Alexroybro) and what also stands out to me is that several subsequent CU's have found Jha09 socks, but none of them (including me) flagged this one. Of course, that doesn't clear the account, it just means it's not (technically) obviously a sock. So. I think this falls into a "feel free to close a case if you think there's nothing more to be done there". Let's step back a bit. If you, as an admin, thought this was a clear case of sockpuppetry on behavioural grounds, the path is obvious. Block and mark the request as closed. The only thing a checkuser could add would be to find some sleeper accounts. Here, though, you don't think there's enough to block. The clerks have had enough time to act, so I think it's reasonable for you to close it, indicating they are free to refile with additional information and noting this is a non-clerk action. I would suggest running this past a clerk you respect, though.

That's a long paragraph. Here's a lightly edited ChatGPT summarization: "It seems this case, like many non-obvious ones at SPI or Cat:Unblock, has languished because no one felt confident enough to act. The account was created around the same time as a confirmed sock (Alexroybro), and later checkusers found more Jha09 socks—but none flagged this one, including me. That doesn't clear the account, but it suggests it's not clearly a sock based on related technical evidence. If you, as an admin, don't see enough behavioral evidence to block, it's reasonable to close the case as a non-clerk, noting that it can be refiled with more info. Still, I'd suggest running my advice against a trusted clerk before generally following it." --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, which make very good sense. I did consider consulting both a CU and a clerk, and your comment encourages me to go ahead with part 2. JBW (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. If they disagree, let me know! --Yamla (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case it isn't clear from what I said, the particular circumstances of the particular SPI I mentioned aren't very relevant, because that was just an example; my query was meant to be about handling similar cases in general. JBW (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

As per WP:SPI/PROC, [a]ny administrator may make the decision in a case based on the evidence, if they feel capable, and tag as provisionally closed, changing {{SPI case status|<status>}} to {{SPI case status|close}}. A clerk will then review the case before archiving. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanjagenije, that is perfectly unambiguous. In almost 15 years as an administrator I had never known of the existence of that page. JBW (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Vanjagenije and JBW. Nice to see the clarity! --Yamla (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

My userpage

Hi, Yamla. Can you please protect my user page to just experiment and to prevent vandalism? (No reason really, I just want to see). Protect it to whatever extent you wish, but not administrator editing or extended confirmed, just confirmed. StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There's been no vandalism so there's no need to do so. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla I know, but please can you do it? Just as a test. [[User:StopLookingAtMe1|StopLookingAtMe1]] ([[User talk:StopLookingAtMe1#top|talk]]) (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

And by the way, my username is currently a bit wonky. I will fix it later. [[User:StopLookingAtMe1|StopLookingAtMe1]] ([[User talk:StopLookingAtMe1#top|talk]]) (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't do blocking as a test, sorry. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh. It’s ok. [[User:StopLookingAtMe1|StopLookingAtMe1]] ([[User talk:StopLookingAtMe1#top|talk]]) (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Also…

Can you please change my username to HQIQ please? Appreciated.

;D [[User:StopLookingAtMe1|StopLookingAtMe1]] ([[User talk:StopLookingAtMe1#top|talk]]) (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:RENAME. --Yamla (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla I already read the page, but it seemed kinda complicated. [[User:StopLookingAtMe1|StopLookingAtMe1]] ([[User talk:StopLookingAtMe1#top|talk]]) (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:CHU/SIMPLE. --Yamla (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

King's Gambit, Classical Variation

The claim you marked as unsourced originates from the identical claim made on the normal King's Gambit infobox, which I split off the new page from. I could add a source perhaps drawn from the history section of the old article (3...g5 is the traditional main line), but no other chess opening articles seem to do the same. I am not sure if you are more referring to general tendencies, where I have been trying to get advice from others about how to best integrate the resources I am using into citations (eg names of lines in opening databases, recordings of grandmaster talks, objectively high frequency lines in database, etc), but having trouble getting responses from people and when I do it seems to be not addressing most of the advice I'm asking for/is not very constructive. Wonder if you could help? Take a look at some discussions I've had on user talk pages/general talk pages (eg with MaxBrowne2, Quale, on Talk:King's Gambit, etc. Ie, on King's Gambit, I wanted to split that variation into a separate article due to how long and overly nested (eg several fifth layer headers, difficult to read) it was getting, and the lines look way more readable in their own article with their own second and third level header, but idk, just not sure how to proceed with resolving the conflict in a way other than just accepting a huge revert.

Also, someone is opposed to my addition of a line noting and correcting a common misconception about what the definition of the Fried Liver Attack is (which I had believed before beginning my edits), because it is "unsourced" that such a misconception exists. Since there is probably not a "reliable source" talking about modern alternative names, but you can google the Fried Liver Attack and find many threads of people using the term technically incorrectly, like at [1] (a few comments down, starting "Many seem to have"), but is that a good enough "source" to warrant correcting the misconception? Idk. I'm really just having trouble identifying what would be the best types of sources to use to sufficiently verify my additions. I also find an emphasis on physical books showing a single grandmaster's opinion to be problematic for chess openings, due to the massive advancements in opening theory over the last 20-30 years with the rise of engines, and just general progression of time, and there have been several outright false (or overly biased, or both) but cited (though paywalled and often outdated) claims I've had to correct. So, I feel like links to the videos of talks I am using are good, but not sure what else. I think citing database frequency should be fine as an objective obvious observation of a primary source as well, which already preexists on many opening articles but some seem skeptical of that. Regardless, I am confident that there are reliable sources to verify my additions, as I have seen the lines discussed by various grandmasters in videos, but I don't look at printed material. I think articles on chess.com would be good enough as well, but again some seem skeptical. Hoping you can assist because I'm having trouble getting constructive help from others. Dayshade (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, rather than answering your question directly, I'll do two things. First, I'll point you to WP:RS and WP:NOR. There's a very good chance you are aware of them. I'm just pointing them out to make sure we are grounded in policy and accepted guidelines. Second, consider me. A person who enjoys chess but whose rating won't ever come close to 2000. I can play chess. I know some opening book moves. I watch youtube videos (and can follow them, though not always predict moves). But then you come along and claim many people have a misconception about the Fried Liver Attack. How can I, an enthusiastic chess amateur, be sure you are correct? What I'd like to see is a reference to a respected chess book, or an article in a respected chess magazine. That is, something that meets WP:RS. What about a chat forum? That probably wouldn't work, it probably wouldn't meet WP:RS.

I still haven't answered your question. I have some thoughts on that but before I get to them, do you follow what I've said here? Do you understand WP:RS and WP:NOR (knowing that you very, very likely already understood these just fine, thank you very much)? Do you see that the goal should be making it easy for people like me, who know a bit about chess, to be able to verify (WP:V) the information you provide? My tone here is not to school you or correct you, just to make sure we approach the rest of the conversation from the same place! --Yamla (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's why I'm trying to get more advice on what would be appropriate reliable sources older than physical books, because the claims I am adding are demonstrably correct and I really think it is worth (from a promoting knowledge viewpoint) adding a sentence to correct what is a demonstrably widespread misconception, even though I'm not aware of a book that has done the same. In general, the scholarliness seems to be tripping me up. Chess openings aren't really something that have scholarly articles published about them, and the physical books about openings seem to be too outdated and specific to one grandmaster's view point. So I think links to videos/recordings of grandmasters would be sufficient. I think this is particularly problematic for chess in the 21st century as so much is analyzed and published online instead of in books. What remain respected printed sources today seem to be largely unrelated to openings (which evolve greatly), instead focusing on strategy and the like, and often primarily for historical reasons. And like I said, I've had to correct multiple incorrect but cited claims from books. And yes I understood, but having trouble figuring out how to best address. Dayshade (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, good. Right. Well, look, I'm a chess amateur. I'm not the best person to give specific advice on sourcing here. Unfortunately, the advice I can give you is what you already know. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess is the right place to go to discuss the sourcing.

Keeping in mind that I'm not a chess expert, I'd suggest WP:RS does not prohibit videos from, say, youtube if the source of the video is a reliable source. For example, BBC News is considered a reliable source. A video posted by BBC News to youtube could be used as a source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube goes into this in a bit more detail. But you need to be careful with WP:SYNTHESIS. For example, you couldn't link to five videos of grandmasters talking incorrectly about the Fried Liver Attack and then one video of a grandmaster correcting the misunderstanding in great detail, and use that to cite a claim of "many grandmasters misunderstand the Fried Liver Attack". It may also be the case that a number of chess websites might qualify as reliable sources within the context of chess analysis, even if they aren't currently listed at WP:RSN.

What I suggest is to take your question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess. Present a specific question about sourcing, but make clear that you are trying to figure out a good general approach within the confines of WP:CHESS. Point out the policies and guidelines. Make a suggestion. And try to get discussion happening. Look, there's a very real chance that there's simply no way that adheres to our policies and guidelines for you to add some of this information. That's a possible outcome here. But hopefully there is, if for no other reason than these additions and corrections are significantly helpful to people like me, people who enjoy chess and occasionally look up this sort of information on Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm having trouble getting input from anyone other than MaxBrowne2 though; I think there just are few interested chess editors, let alone those willing to wade into a debate. There is a discussion going on at Talk:King's Gambit if you'd like to add any thoughts there (or should we move it to the WP Chess talk? There was some activity there but still hasn't attracted any new users). And yes, MaxBrowne2 mentioned that too. I think the limited synthesis I am doing qualifies under the approved third example, as I'm not drawing new claims, just making claims in succession, noting what are objectively frequent DB moves, and perhaps a basic description of any obvious features in the position (eg "there is a pin on ____").

Also I'm specifically curious about some more input on the debate on whether Classical Variation should be split out or not lol. He seems to be very against it, but I'd strongly prefer it for readability purposes, and it allows a shorter summary on the main King's Gambit page. (you can compare my revision to his reversion in the history, if you like) Dayshade (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Just wanted to let you know I'm almost certain this particular sock [2] is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky - if you take a look at the edit history on Spellbound (Paula Abdul album) and Head over Heels (Paula Abdul album) they're constantly IP hopping (locations in Turkey and UK) and creating new accounts to add the exact same unsupported genres from the same refs that don't even state them. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree and had already come to that conclusion. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

CMLL vs. AEW & ROH

CMLL vs. AEW & ROH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a heads up, I don't think this article was G5able, because G5 requires "no substantial edits by others". If it was G5able, then we're in a pickle, because any new article will be functionally similar. In any case, given it is an encyclopaedic topic, I believe it should be undeleted, despite being created by a banned user. Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I've undeleted it by your request. Please note it'll almost certainly attract a certain prolific WP:LTA from North Carolina. --Yamla (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)