Welcome!
Hello, Thewriter006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for The Lost Symbol. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Loves
Macs
(talk)
01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi – thanks for trying to fix the missing boldface for Lê Quang Liêm at Champions Chess Tour 2021, and for writing a detailed edit comment about the problem. The reason your edit didn't work was that you put the boldface markup on the wrong side of the column separator – you needed '''[[Lê Quang Liêm]]'''|'''3''' instead of '''[[Lê Quang Liêm]]|''' '''3'''. I fixed it. Joriki ( talk) 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Consider the claim that Judit Polgar was the first female player to have a rating above 2600. This is undoubtedly true. But to put it into Wikipedia, you would have to demonstrate that it is "notable", i.e. that people care about it. For instance, an article in the press mentioning that fact. This could be an article in the "chess press", e.g. something like chessbase (online) or some print chess magazine, or it could be an article in the mainstream press. I have not seen, or even looked for, such an article, but you are welcome to try your hand. The article, Judit Polgar, does not mention that statistic; if you think the statistic is notable, you might want to add it to that article, even more than adding it to this list article.
Likewise for the claim that Hou Yifan was the youngest ever female 2600+. Bruce leverett ( talk) 01:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
--> why do we do 2800 for open but not 2600 for females? /info/en/?search=List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating
Thewriter006 ( talk) 13:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Le Marteau. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wesley So, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wesley_So&type=revision&diff=1073923417&oldid=1073373212 Le Marteau ( talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'll reply in the 960 thread soon but I'll have to wait until the evening when I have enough time to write down my thoughts. Both you and IHTS have raised some interesting questions/points I feel need well-written replies. In the meanwhile, I thought I'd link Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to you, as you may be unfamiliar with the editing approach I took when editing the page. Bold edits are not unusual and reversion is one of the expected outcomes, which is why I later went to the talk page to discuss with other editors and see if consensus can be achieved. We may arrive at one, but if we don't I'll file a request for comment so that a wider group of editors can help reach a consensus. If I seem passive aggressive or uncooperative I can assure you it is not my intention :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Fischer random chess has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Please realize that inserting ridiculous claims in the article about "anal beads", by using as sources some anonymous posts on reddit, comes very close to vandalism. Your intentions might be honorable but the practice of reproducing unreliable sources is entirely unacceptable. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I think your edit summaries are often wildly inappropriate, so I'm asking that you read and consider WP:SUMMARYNO. I think your enthusiasm could be a benefit to wikipedia, but I have a very negative reaction to many of your edit summaries. Quale ( talk) 04:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You have been asked before, but I ask again: please remain civil in your edit summaries. These two are not appropriate [3]; [4]. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 ( talk) 13:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 ( talk) 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Stylez995 ( talk) 06:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Chess960 Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spike. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Please don't use social media sites or forums such as reddit, substack, youtube, twitter, telegram, facebook etc etc for references. These sites are user generated, meaning anyone can post anything they like with little or no oversight, therefore they contain a lot of garbage. They may never be used as a source for anything on wikipedia.
Also, please stop gossiping about chess players. This is not TMZ, we have a policy called "biographies of living persons" ( WP:BLP) which applies in all parts of wikipedia, including article talk pages, personal talk pages and even edit summaries. Any negative information about a living person must be backed by reliable sources or it will be immediately removed.
In general, note that wikipedia is not a social networking site. We're not here to hang out and talk crap, there are plenty of other sites where you can do that. Unless you are here to build an encyclopedia you are likely to end up blocked or banned. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 22:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 19:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Welcome!
Hello, Thewriter006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for The Lost Symbol. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Loves
Macs
(talk)
01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi – thanks for trying to fix the missing boldface for Lê Quang Liêm at Champions Chess Tour 2021, and for writing a detailed edit comment about the problem. The reason your edit didn't work was that you put the boldface markup on the wrong side of the column separator – you needed '''[[Lê Quang Liêm]]'''|'''3''' instead of '''[[Lê Quang Liêm]]|''' '''3'''. I fixed it. Joriki ( talk) 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Consider the claim that Judit Polgar was the first female player to have a rating above 2600. This is undoubtedly true. But to put it into Wikipedia, you would have to demonstrate that it is "notable", i.e. that people care about it. For instance, an article in the press mentioning that fact. This could be an article in the "chess press", e.g. something like chessbase (online) or some print chess magazine, or it could be an article in the mainstream press. I have not seen, or even looked for, such an article, but you are welcome to try your hand. The article, Judit Polgar, does not mention that statistic; if you think the statistic is notable, you might want to add it to that article, even more than adding it to this list article.
Likewise for the claim that Hou Yifan was the youngest ever female 2600+. Bruce leverett ( talk) 01:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
--> why do we do 2800 for open but not 2600 for females? /info/en/?search=List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating
Thewriter006 ( talk) 13:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Le Marteau. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wesley So, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wesley_So&type=revision&diff=1073923417&oldid=1073373212 Le Marteau ( talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'll reply in the 960 thread soon but I'll have to wait until the evening when I have enough time to write down my thoughts. Both you and IHTS have raised some interesting questions/points I feel need well-written replies. In the meanwhile, I thought I'd link Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to you, as you may be unfamiliar with the editing approach I took when editing the page. Bold edits are not unusual and reversion is one of the expected outcomes, which is why I later went to the talk page to discuss with other editors and see if consensus can be achieved. We may arrive at one, but if we don't I'll file a request for comment so that a wider group of editors can help reach a consensus. If I seem passive aggressive or uncooperative I can assure you it is not my intention :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Fischer random chess has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Please realize that inserting ridiculous claims in the article about "anal beads", by using as sources some anonymous posts on reddit, comes very close to vandalism. Your intentions might be honorable but the practice of reproducing unreliable sources is entirely unacceptable. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I think your edit summaries are often wildly inappropriate, so I'm asking that you read and consider WP:SUMMARYNO. I think your enthusiasm could be a benefit to wikipedia, but I have a very negative reaction to many of your edit summaries. Quale ( talk) 04:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You have been asked before, but I ask again: please remain civil in your edit summaries. These two are not appropriate [3]; [4]. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 ( talk) 13:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 ( talk) 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Stylez995 ( talk) 06:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Chess960 Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spike. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Please don't use social media sites or forums such as reddit, substack, youtube, twitter, telegram, facebook etc etc for references. These sites are user generated, meaning anyone can post anything they like with little or no oversight, therefore they contain a lot of garbage. They may never be used as a source for anything on wikipedia.
Also, please stop gossiping about chess players. This is not TMZ, we have a policy called "biographies of living persons" ( WP:BLP) which applies in all parts of wikipedia, including article talk pages, personal talk pages and even edit summaries. Any negative information about a living person must be backed by reliable sources or it will be immediately removed.
In general, note that wikipedia is not a social networking site. We're not here to hang out and talk crap, there are plenty of other sites where you can do that. Unless you are here to build an encyclopedia you are likely to end up blocked or banned. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 22:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 19:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.