User talk:WorldOfChess

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, WorldOfChess! Thank you for your contributions. I am CAPTAIN MEDUSA and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic chess

Hi @WorldOfChess: The above article has reverted back the redirect, I think at least five times now, all with same reason that the article is insufficiently sourced. I reviewed the article as part of WP:NPP and I found it under-referenced and slightly promotional. Do not add it back in. You can recreate in draft at WP:AFC, you can have it reviewed and if it is good article it will go back into mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 20:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested page protection as clearly your going to add it back in.scope_creep^Talk 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gothic chess; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Deep fried okra 21:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promotional content

I have removed the promotional content from your user page. Please seeWikipedia:User_pages-- Deep fried okra 21:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expert knowledge

While we appreciate your feelings of expertise, as an encyclopedia we require significant coverage cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. That is, subjects of encyclopedia articles must meet notability requirements. Please feel free to use the WP:AfC process to draft an article and submit it for review. Please feel free to discuss your preferred version on the article talk page and seek consensus for it. Further edit warring will likely result in you being blocked from editing.-- Deep fried okra 21:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name

is, I see, the name of your book. That raises the possibility that you are using Wikipedia for self promotion. Please feel free to consider a change of user name. I can rename you if you ping me by placing {{ping|Deepfriedokra}} in your request and sign with 4 ~'s. -- Deep fried okra 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"anti-Gothic Chess trolls have no say other than their dislike for its extreme success as the "reason" for their vandalism"?

Oh, my. So much in one sentence. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Civility. Civility "is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars." Edit summaries such as this are regarded as a personal attack. Please discuss content based on its merits rather than making ad hominem's. Thanks, -- Deep fried okra 21:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Gothic chess. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gothic chess for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gothic chess is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothic chess until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive edits are on notice again

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The discussion can currently be seen by clicking here, and here is a permalink to the current state of that page.

--Just to clarify (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant discussion is now archived. Just to clarify (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]