User talk:Amchess

"Vandalism"

I am warning you not to bandy this term about unadvisedly. --Dweller 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Chess Association

I've tried to combine what we can of your (repeatedly added) edits with the information about the historical ACA. You don't seem interested -- you are insisting on replacing the article with an (largely) unsourced plug for your ACA. (I say largely unsourced -- nothing about the modern ACA is sourced, only a couple of historical facts about the original ACA.) Since there is no evidence presented besides your assertion that the modern ACA has any relationship other then sharing a name with the historical ACA, I feel that the latest version of the artice that I have put together is a good start towards explaing both organizations. Your response is to replace it with a plug.

Throwing around charges of vandalism is not appreciated, to say the least. Please stop. -- ArglebargleIV 22:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have continuous records from verifiable and reliable sources dating back to 1857 and through the present, please produce them. Without that, we can't say anything more in the article than the original ACA is believed to be defunct (with a citation needed tag) and that the current ACA claims to be the original ACA. Unless the sources can somehow be accessed, we can't assume they exist. (Accessed doesn't necessarily mean via the internet, but they must be accessible somehow.) -- ArglebargleIV 15:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amchess, repeatedly replacing an article's content with your own text is vandalism. Editors are trying to keep this article nicely formatted, and are trying to work with you to incorporate any useful information you have about the historical ACA. I strongly recommend that you dont edit this article as you have a "conflict of interest"; rather, present any information you have on Talk:American Chess Association for others to incorporate. John Vandenberg 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to American Chess Association. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Voorlandt 20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American Chess Association. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Voorlandt 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are preventing legitimate updated info edits to the American Chess Association and replaced it with nonsense making it appear to viewers that this 151 year old organization is defunct. Am requesting unprotection, replacement with my last legitimate ACA historical info page and further protection to prevent reversions which are nonsense unless there is constructive historical info being added. This is NOT an edit war but pure vandalism by non ACA people that needs to stop.

You seem to forget I was the orginal person who created the very first historical Wiki entry. So rather than having legitimate edits to legitimate ACA info, rather YOU have allowed a bogus vandalized bogus creted page to stand where legitimate ACA historical info should be. You continue to ignore legitimate historical info such as easily verifiable copies of the organization's magazine from 1892 and 1893 from showing, records from early 1900's as well. STOP YOUR NONSENSE. Be professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amchess (talk • contribs)

You may want to make your case at Talk:American Chess Association instead of here -- while the article page is protected for the time being, the talk page is unprotected, and is where discussion of the article usually takes place. -- ArglebargleIV 14:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]