User talk:Hizzmatte

Chess.com
To Someone with a grudge against Chess.com.

Here is what you added (recent addition to chess.com article) "The site also takes active measures against those using engines or computer assistance. Chess.com is unique among internet chess venues in that it employs over thirty full-time staff to police and monitor its users for engine use and behavior in forums, chat, and even private messages and internal emails. Those members the site accuses of using an engine are banned and publicly "shamed" on a page branding them as "losers". The site never divulges any evidence against those banned nor will they divulge their methods of monitoring for engine use. Chess.com furthermore strictly prohibits, under penalty of a permanent ban, any discussion concerning engine use or other "cheating" methods on its forums. Aside from banning people suspected of using an engine, many more users are banned each day for what the site administration feels is inappropriate behavior, swearing, or even publicly questioning the site management. With the ratio of moderators to users low, the moderators have time to closely monitor the forum postings, chat logs, and even to read private messages between members. Chess.com's moderators employ standard IP bans regularly to enforce their dictates. These IP bans (unlike ones on mainstream internet sites like Wikipedia) are limited neither in scope nor duration, but are permanent. Furthermore, Chess.com often is willing to block known public, library, university, and corporate IP addresses and even public wireless "hotspots" simply because a banned member has accessed the site from those locations in the past.[4]"

Now let's see how much is wrong with this... Firstly, Neutral. Your additions are clearly biased against chess.com. "Chess.com is unique among internet chess venues in that it employs over thirty full-time staff to police and monitor its users for engine use..." Citation please. Yes there may be over thirty members of staff, and some do check for engine use. But that doesn't mean that all staff are detecting cheating. You can't put something like that without citing first. "in forums, chat, and even private messages and internal emails." I'd say that the first two are probably true, the latter two false. But again citations needed.

"Those members the site accuses of using an engine are banned and publicly "shamed" on a page branding them as "losers"." Yes, the "losers" part is correct, as I cited. (Although you incorrectly removed the citation). However "shamed" is clearly biased, so again you need to cite that.

" Chess.com furthermore strictly prohibits, under penalty of a permanent ban, any discussion concerning engine use or other "cheating" methods on its forums. "

This is true, apart from the permanent ban part. WTF? The only thing that happens is such threads are locked. Again citation definitely needed.

"Aside from banning people suspected of using an engine, many more users are banned each day for what the site administration feels is inappropriate behavior, swearing, or even publicly questioning the site management."

This needs a citation again. Some people are banned because of inappropriate behaviour but that is a huge exaggeration. And publicly questioning site management would never be a bannable offence unless there is something else (e.g. highly offensive language.)

" With the ratio of moderators to users low, the moderators have time to closely monitor the forum postings, chat logs, and even to read private messages between members. " Again seems highly unlikely; citation is definitely needed.

"Chess.com's moderators employ standard IP bans regularly to enforce their dictates. These IP bans (unlike ones on mainstream internet sites like Wikipedia) are limited neither in scope nor duration, but are permanent." May be true, but again no citation.

"Furthermore, Chess.com often is willing to block known public, library, university, and corporate IP addresses and even public wireless "hotspots" simply because a banned member has accessed the site from those locations in the past." Again no citation.

Your one citation was from an internet forum. Reliable_sources "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."

Finally, Vandalism. My edit was clearly not vandalism; if anything yours was.

I make that at least 10 violations of Wikipedia rules. Therefore I am removing the Site Administration section which you added. If you revert I may report you.

P.S. you wrote "obvious sockpuppet account. That was "Chessrat"'s first contrib. Will report to Arbcom with further violations" fyi, I did have an account "Schach0" but my password didn't work when I tried to log back in. So I created this one. I don't believe this is sockpuppetry as I'm not using multiple accounts in any harmful way. Hmm. That means when I remove that biased section, you'll report me to ArbCom. Good luck getting banned from Wikipedia by exposing yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessrat (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol I can beat you at chess, don't call me a patzer Anyway I forgot to sign the last post, but I'm signing this one. Now will you address my points? btw I reported youChessrat (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chess.com. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Cresix (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Hizzmatte for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Mdann52 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sinatra Club


The article Sinatra Club has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no indication of any coverage other than IMDB entry. fails WP:N. mere existence is not sufficient rational for film. the author of the book also appears non notable so no obvious merge/redirect targe

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)