User talk:Chess2050

Hi Chess2050, thanks for your recent edits to some chess articles. You might be interested in

I am sadly not a chess person, but I watch the article Stefan Zweig and I saw your edit adding that site with information about, of course, Schachnovelle. Now, without really understanding the ins and outs, I can see that this is potentially very interesting stuff, giving the technical background to Zweig's writing in that work, so I have no objection to it per se. But looking at your edit history I see many edits which add this same site to articles. Obviously you might just be doing this because you know and love chesshistory.com, you are unconnected with it, and you think it's a great resource and enhances the articles to have it linked. But if you are connected with the site it is a whole different situation, since it calls into question your motivation in adding it in so many articles – it then becomes a spectrum with entirely benign motivation at one end and something less acceptable at the other. I am certainly not a COI expert and I might be calling this wrong, (apologies in advance if this is the case) but I do feel mildly concerned and I wonder if you should perhaps read the COI link carefully, and if in doubt seek expert help on how best to proceed ... I am sure that the latter is readily available, but if you can't find it, please yell and I will try to find something for you. I hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. As a chess historian and author, I wish to help improve Wikipedia's chess articles by adding a range of corrections, additions and links. I have begun mainly with links to articles at chesshistory.com simply because that is widely recognized as the world's leading and most respected website on chess history. (Chess2050 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Brilliant – thank you for the nice and civilized reply. Happy editing, and thanks again for the Zweig bit! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, almost all of your contributions have been to add references to Mr. Winter's website, and so it is reasonable to ask if you are Mr. Winter or are otherwise closely connected to the website. In many cases, it is frowned upon to add references to one's own work to Wikipedia. I thought of that when I noticed what you were doing.

What distinguishes this from ordinary COI (Conflict of Interest) situations is that Mr. Winter's website is universally regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles (a general discussion of reliable sources can be found starting at this link:

WT:CHESS, the talk page for WikiProject Chess. In addition, I have already added citations to links you have provided, in two articles (Henry Bird (chess player), Fred Yates (chess player)

).

Hypothetically, if an editor thought that you were violating the rules laid down in

WP:COIN

). In the worst case, some administrator might apply some "administrative remedy", which might mean, for example, undoing your previous edits, and/or blocking your account from being used. (I mention these remedies because I have seen them applied in other cases.)

In saying all these things, I'm writing for an audience that potentially includes any Wikipedia editor or administrator. Every page, including this Talk page, is visible to everybody, and in all likelihood, many interested editors, besides myself, and some administrators have already noticed your work and will be watching this page. I am not experienced enough in these matters to know what "should" happen in this case, or even whether I should be scolding you (if you are Mr. Winter or connected to him) or thanking you. Above, I have stated my highly positive opinion of the quality and relevance of Mr. Winter's chess-related research. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I am not Edward Winter, but, like you, I have a "highly positive opinion of the quality and relevance of Mr. Winter's chess-related research". A while ago, I noted that that research at the chesshistory.com website has been severely under-represented on Wikipedia (perhaps precisely because of the sheer mass of high-quality, fully documented material that he presents), and I have been doing my best to redress that by adding due recognition on specific topics. The acid test, of course, is whether my individual edits are apposite, and I feel confident that anybody who looks at the detail of the links that I have added will be satisfied that they are indeed worthwhile. To take just my most recent edit as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate_(The_Prisoner). Adding a reference to Mr. Winter's feature article on that specific episode of "The Prisoner" seems to me important and overdue, as it contains a great amount of factual information, all directly relevant and all with exact sources. Many thanks again for your remarks.Chess2050 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Chess2050 and indeed Bruce leverett! I'm very sorry about the gap in comms while Real Life intervened. It has a horrible tendency to do that sometimes. I just wanted to say that everyone's been very civilized here (as befits chess players, I assume? I am a trumpet player so would know nothing of civilization!) and I think that we have pretty much talked this thing out and we are done here. Bruce and I have both wondered about Chess2050's edits using Winter cites, while agreeing that they are useful. Indeed, as I said up there ^ somewhere I personally was only attracted here because of the Zweig/Schachnovelle edit – I know so little of chess that you would laugh at me, or perhaps pityingly try to explain to me a little bit about the horsies and those ecclesiastical types, or whatever. (I do keep meaning to learn to play a little more properly but please do not hold your breath for updates. Your competitive rankings are safe from me.)

So we agreed that these edits are a substantial gain for the encyclopaedia. We have both politely wondered if Chess2050 was Winter, and we have been politely told that they are not. At this point, in accordance with Standing Orders, we

Assume Good Faith

because that is what we do, and it is what makes the world go round. I see no need for any further discussion or challenge, just a need to say thank you to Chess2050 and Bruce for being polite and sensible about this. I have been here many many years and have seen virtual blood on the virtual walls over far less. So, well done us, if you like! (Ahem: smugness is never attractive – sorry!)

And, oh yes, the one about The Prisoner is great isn't it? Thank you.

I am very aware what thin ice this is for us all here. I think that many of us tend to have a subject or two that we love and some resources that we know are useful and that we want to share. For example if I were tomorrow to discover a great new-to-me book on the

COI

and people might feel the need to check with me – politely I hope! – that all was kosher and tickety-boo. It is.

The only suggestion that I could make here, which I hope might help, is that Chess2050 might consider putting something on

AGF and they would need good justification for what might look like hostility otherwise. This, however, is purely advisory based on nothing more than my having been around here a while and wishing to help. I have no status or influence here and my suggestions are eminently ignorable, so please do as you wish. I am in no position to ask or require you to do anything: they are your pages. With apologies for the long waffle I am now going to stfu as I understand it is charmingly put, and wish you both, and all, happy editing. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

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) 07:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed it, since I was here, saw it, and was curious! DBaK (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Chess2050 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ken Whyld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Winter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Keene

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Raymond Keene. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MrMajors (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC) A revision has now been made which confines itself to quoting direct, neutrally and without comment, claims made by Raymond Keene himself. Exact sources are given, and they are all from websites which either belong to Raymond Keene or in which he is personally involved.Chess2050 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chess2050, I also have to ask you to stop violating

WP:BLP in the Raymond Keene article. Since you have been warned, if you do it again I will report the situation to the administrators and let them sort it out. Quale (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your comments. The "Titles claimed" section which you removed gave, without any editorial comment, Raymond Keene's own words. It was fully referenced with, exclusively, links to websites favorable to him, including his own webpage. Raymond Keene has made the same claims about those titles on other websites too, which indicates that he himself regards them as significant to his life and career.Chess2050 (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It still violates multiple Wikipedia policies. I actually suspect that you are smart enough that you realize this, but you hope to include as much negative material about Keene as possible in the article regardless of Wikipedia policy. I think that you should voluntarily stay away from the Keene page as I question your ability to maintain

WP:BLP

on that biography, but that is your decision.

I won't attempt an exhaustive list of all the problems with your edits to Raymond Keene, but we can start with the section title "Titles claimed". Using "claimed" in this way is prohibited by

WP:UNDUE weight considerations, but that can be considered if and when the other hurdles are overcome. Quale (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Andrew Soltis

reliable source. I have reverted your changes. If you introduce contentious content about Mr. Soltis again, I will report you. Samboy (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]