User talk:GothicChessInventor

COI

Ed, you knew the score, so I've listed you at the COI noticeboard; see WP:COI/N#User:GothicChessInventor at the Ed Trice article. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't keep telling me that Gothic Chess is not relevant when I have played many times more games of Gothic Chess than chess. I have a low chess rating for one purpose and one purpose only. To make lots of money in the World Open. You remove my Gothic Chess rating, I will replace it, again, and again, and again.

Ed, it's not a question of whether Gothic Chess is notable (and, yes, I happen to think that Gothic Chess is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article). It's a question of WP:COI. I have told you this before. So, again, please respect Wikipedia's rules. Please do not make edits that violate the WP:COI policy. Just to clarify (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the above notice has been archived and can be seen at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#User:GothicChessInventor_at_the_Ed_Trice_article Just to clarify (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Ed Trice

Hello Gothic. As a COI-affected person, you should not be editing aggressively on this article. You should be proposing your changes on the Talk page first, and trying to reach consensus there. I trust you do not need to be given the usual {{uw-3rr}} warning, since you already mentioned 3RR in one of your edit summaries. We expect people to follow our policies. Action by admins is possible if policy is not followed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why his edits were wrong in the talk page. If he makes another revert, it will be HIM doing the 3-RR, not me.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert the article again, you may be blocked. Please try to have a calm discussion on the Talk page. Though the subject of an article has the right to be concerned about it, particularly if any of it is wrong, they don't have the right to *add* stuff that others think is promotional. If you believe that Oli Filth has made errors, explain what they are in plain language. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has committed a 3-RR violation. Let's see if you apply your own rules and undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GothicChessInventor (talk • contribs) .

Permit me to reiterate and strengthen the warnings you have received: you may not make controversial edits to your own article. By all means contribute to the talk page, but leave the article alone, or you will be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir, but I will edit and change any misrepresentation or willful removal of relevant material that is well sourced. OliFilth is not my biographer, and he is living up to the "Filth" part of his name. He is a nobody is the analog world, so is trying to be a "somebody" in the digital world.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect us more and we'll respect you more. You've already been blocked once and I don't want to see you blocked again. For information to get in a Wikipedia article, it has to be both referenced WP:RS and be notable (WP:Notability). And, also, please do not post personal attacks like "he is living up to the "Filth" part of his name" WP:NPA. Just to clarify (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. To put it simply, OliFilth is not your biographer: neither he nor any other editor here is answerable to you as an employee would be. We will respect your wishes to the extent that this coincides with Wikipedia's interests. It is in Wikipedia's interests to have information on you be neutral and fully reliable. Wikipedia is independent, like a journalist would be, but more accountable to you because things we write can be changed. That doesn't mean you get to control Wikipedia content relating to you. Ed, this is your first block but far from your first incident of this kind of behavior. If it becomes clear that you are editing here in order to control content about yourself, you are going to end up blocked indefinitely. You need to learn to work within the strict boundaries placed on you as a person with a Conflict of Interest. Mango juice^talk 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OliFilth has commited a 3-RR Violation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oli_Filth

Original Version: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Trice&oldid=266126413>

Revert #1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Trice&oldid=266127009>
Revert #2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Trice&oldid=266130278>
Revert #3 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Trice&oldid=266137218>

Check WP:3RR. It takes four reverts. Regarding your own efforts on that article, check WP:Edit war, which only requires evidence of obstinacy, and an intention to get your ideas into Wikipedia simply by reverting. For example, "You remove my Gothic Chess rating, I will replace it, again, and again, and again." EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the obstinancy of OliFilth accepted by default? All he does is try to remove things which deserve credit. By the way, did you know The Sniper will become a permanent part of an exhibit of early chess software programs at the Museum of Computer History in Boston? Let me guess, not notable, right?

GothicChessInventor (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus"

Ed, "Consensus" is not the continual blanket reversions of three editors without reasonable justification, especially when one of them shouldn't be editing at all due to COI (you), one of them has been blocked for 3RR (and has a history of bullish POV pushing on Gothic Chess articles), and the other is a mysterious single-purpose account. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well "consensus" sure as hell ain't you either. I wasn't counting me in the 3 people. And you keep calling a "blanket revision", which is nothing more than reverting back to a PAGE OF YOUR OWN DESIGN if you hadn't even noticed.

You've been outvoted on the issue by other editors. References have been provided. You are just pigheaded, and incorrect. A guy who has been playing checkers for twice as long as you've been alive has been providing information you just elect to ignore. You are arrogant, just a "hack", and your social life is so empty you spend hours on here removing relevant material from this page that was originally written by someone who was nominated for a Pulitzer in the early 1990's. Do you actually believe anything in your life is worth something? It isn't. You can't make up for being a nobody by trying to pull 3RR on here.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you think this crap is going to get you, other than blocked? The inevitable outcome is that an admin will intervene due to the POV pushing, blatant COI editing, personal attacks, and tag-team disruptive editing. I asked nicely for, e.g. a reference to the ICGA journal article, but you neglected to give it, instead engaging in yet more pointless edit warring. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filth, the ICGA reference has been on the page for ages. Why not read what you removed?

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also added it BACK in the discussion page, along with many other references. Instead of REACTING why not try READING.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even from this version of the article from the end of last year, there's no ref to an ICGA paper about Gothic Chess Championship that I can see. Nor can I see any specific details that you've posted on the talk page. Could you please specify the actual article title, date and journal number? (Given that you're currently blocked, you'll have to do post it here.) Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2004 Gothic Chess Computer World Champion WAS A BIG DEAL!!!

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:t4vR1Rhxp7EJ:ticc.uvt.nl/icga/journal/pdf/toc27-4.pdf+ICGA+%222004+Gothic+Chess%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Yeah I wrote the article for Chessville.com but they also broadcast it to THE ENTIRE WORLD in their newsletter and on their website.

http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/ComputerWorldChampionships.htm

There are 676 chess variants listed in the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, how many were featured articles on Chessville.com? Oh yeah, only Gothic Chess.

It was the first time ever a corporate sponsor backed a chess variant since they added castling to the game of chess.

Since Gothic Vortex won, it rolled over to the next year, $10,000 in prize money to the winner!

The video feed was pumped into every CompUSA store, on a huge screen that had to be 36 square feet or more. People stopped shopping to watch, and there were people pressing their faces to the windows on the sidewalk from outside to see what was going on.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the ICGA ref was all I was ever after; you could've saved everyone a lot of hassle by just posting it in the first place! I will find a way to work it into the article shortly. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Disruptive editing. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Making a large and contentious revert at an article, Ed Trice, where he has a COI. Following a discussion at WP:COIN#User:GothicChessInventor at the Ed Trice article and a final warning. Extensive discussion of the problem with this editor has not led to any mellowing of his attitude.EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GothicChessInventor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OliFilth continually removes items from the aricle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Trice citing his "Wikipedia Reasons", yet none of these reasons bear a close resemblance to a Wikipedia or policy. As an example - "I wrote you a traffic ticket because you are were speeding, going 45 MPH in a 25 MPH zone." That's a well thought-out, fully verbose explanation. But the fact of the matter was I was not driving the car, and the driver was doing 25 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. Oli's rationalizations "sound good" but they're just off the mark, plain and simple. Furthermore, he was guilty of a 3-RR yesterday, reverting something more than 3 times, yet somehow he convinced someone that my 1st change, which was NOT A REVERSION of anything, should count. Does Wikipedia not even abide by its own rules? Another of case of "who you know" matters more than whether you are right or wrong? Special interest killed the Roman Empire. Lobbyists will be the demise of the United States of America. And when enough people who really are subject matter experts are overriden by Wikipedia moderators who are biased towards people they "know" whom they have never met, or are not even on the same continent, the whole system will eventually descend into anarchy. It is already the butt of jokes regularly on shows such as "The Office", and the decision to block me for adding back text to correct something is currently inaccurate on my own page here is, at best, a joke. Just today OliFilth made the BRILLIANT statement that only "tens of people" know about my chess program, The Sniper. Well 75,000 subscribers to Chess Life magazine saw it in the December 1991 issue. A software company known as Circumflex Software contacted me in 1992 and distributed itfor another six years, selling a total of just over 90,000 copies. My royalties were $6.50 per copy, or $585,000 before taxes. I took off for a year and travelled the world from November 1997 - July 1998. Yet, of course, OliFilth can't find it on the web, so therefore, it didn't exist. The Sniper computer program I wrote was the first chess software program to break a 2200 rating, the minimum to make "Master" in the United States Chess Federation. It will become a part of an exihibit at the Museum of Computer History in Boston this spring. Yet OliFilth feels it is not notable. He needs to do more research, rather than say "provide the links and I will add it to the article." He acts like he is my biographer. I would fire him in less time than it takes to say "You're fired!"

Decline reason:

Intermittently entertaining rant that nevertheless runs afoul of WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A software company known as Circumflex Software contacted me in 1992 and distributed itfor another six years, selling a total of just over 90,000 copies. My royalties were $6.50 per copy, or $585,000 before taxes. I took off for a year and travelled the world from November 1997 - July 1998. Yet, of course, OliFilth can't find it on the web, so therefore, it didn't exist. The Sniper computer program I wrote was the first chess software program to break a 2200 rating, the minimum to make "Master" in the United States Chess Federation. It will become a part of an exihibit at the Museum of Computer History in Boston this spring. - you know all that. But I hope you're able to see that *we* don't know all that. It can only go into a wiki article if its (a) uncontentious (clearly not) or (b) supported by a WP:RS. He needs to do more research, rather than say "provide the links and I will add it to the article." - no, you have it backwards, and unless you give this up you are liable to get blocked again. Before the material goes back in, someone needs to find evidence for it (doesn't have to be on the web, paper published sources are fine). You're probably in the best position to find those sources William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iotpcp table.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iotpcp table.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]