User talk:Oz an

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Oz an! I am RP459 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 23:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

please sign
Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And you don't need to put "Oz_an" after it, just the four tildas, and it will fill in your user name. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Castling on Chess
Hi. It's an unfortunate thing on wikipedia that if you revert a small part of someone's work the edit summary makes it sound like you didn't like any of it. I thought your edits improved Chess quite a bit, and I thank you. In one specific part I thought it better to stick closer to the language that FIDE uses so I changed that back. That's just my opinion, and maybe it would be better to use a more straightforward description like the one you put in. (The "on the first rank" requirement is surprising to most people including me and has to be explained. "Not promoted" is easier to understand, but it isn't the way that FIDE words it.)  On Talk:Chess you and Bubba73 point out that the wording the section uses now isn't very close to FIDE's rulebook anyway, and I think I agree with both of you that we should fix that up. Anyway, thanks for your work improving chess articles and please don't be offended if I occasionally disagree with some small things. You should feel free to disagree with me too, as I think working through different editors' ideas makes an article better. Quale (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * no I really don't feel offended and what comes really enjoying in wiki is the discussion period to me. I feel no ego and one of my concerns which I didn't implement but discussed in the talk page implemented by ubba73 (the value of the king). But u said "In one specific part I thought it better to stick closer to the language that FIDE uses so I changed that back.". But it is not FIDE, it is the cited online source (which still I think of the reason why it is there instead of FIDE, as far as I see, the other parts quote the fide handbook of chess rules). I changed the wording of the statement to resemble the FIDE for u don't like mine(a rook not in the game by promotion) By the way, I still vote to mine cause it is simpler. Thank you. Oz an (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an