User talk:Pawnkingthree/Archive 10

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kotozakura Masakatsu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page You Only Live Twice ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Kotozakura_Masakatsu check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Kotozakura_Masakatsu?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asashio Tarō IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asashio Tarō ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Asashio_Tar%C5%8D_IV check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Asashio_Tar%C5%8D_IV?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That one was intentional, Mr. bot.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert
Why did you make this reversion at Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen Variation? Quale (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see you undid it. Sorry, I should have paid attention. Quale (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry about that Quale, I was on mobile and hit the wrong button! P-K3 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry about that. I've made mistaken edits while struggling with a mobile device. And I've made much worse edits intentionally sometimes, and I'm really sorry about those. Quale (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Zukertort
Have you even checked the sources? It is an official title acknowledged by FIDE itself in its regulations, and on player profiles (Muzychuk) , it’s used by chess.com (Lagno) , by chessbase.com (Zukertort) , Karjakin has it as the first thing on his website. You have not provided sources, only an opinion and you look to block other people from editing with sources, interesting concept.
 * No I haven’t. I would have reverted your edit even if your sources checked out, as it gave undue weight to an obscure factoid in the lead of the article, and also deleted the information about the 1872 match for no good reason. In any case, an editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. That’s why the article has been semi-protected. Now, instead of splitting the discussion by going to multiple editors’ talk pages, use the article talk page. Talk:Johannes Zukertort has not been edited since November 2017! Make your case there and I will examine the sources. The onus is on you, the editor who wants to make the change, to get consensus, not me. P-K3 (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s alright, I am familiar with the techniques you employ to enforce your policy, all good. There’s no point in wasting my time to improve articles. The 1872 match was not a world championship match in any regard -- according to that logic, his previous lost matches against Adolf Anderssen would have to be mentioned in the lead as well ... you said it all with your second sentence, thanks for the heads-up.
 * The only policy I am enforcing is WP:CONSENSUS. If you’re not willing to take part in the every day discussions on article talk pages then I can’t help you. P-K3 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for help
... with disruptive editing by Valereee. Although the discussion is closed, I appreciate the time it took to find, analyze, then comment on the blocks. Another point (in addition to the inappropriate block for lack of indents) is that the first block was supposedly for OS/OR - but, OS/OR discussions are permitted on talk pages. I was effectively blocked for discussing OS (video) in relation to RS for a topic. Not good. And both blocks, IMO, seemed inappropriate & arbitrary, then retaliatory and vindictive for unknown reasons. A point I would be making in the discussion is: the story of trying to help an inexperienced editor lost all credibility with the second block, and continued to be blown apart by each obsessive personal comment by Valereee which was off-topic/forked the content repeatedly by changing the topic's thread. I would also add the topics I introduced - the macing by Chauvin, the dragging of Floyd's body, the image of Chauvin & Floyd and its similarity to lynching postcards - received intense levels of disavowal, bordering on curious. In addition to Valereee's disruptions. Thus, I cruised around a few repeated users' talk pages and found at least one active law enforcement officer. Definitely NOT outing anyone, just wondering if 'blue lives matters' swarms onto pages like the Killing of George Floyd... Again, thanks for the help. Sorry for the lack of diffs, but I work on mobile equipment and its more challenging... Big thanks.Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem Pasdecomplot. I think everyone was acting in good faith, and I’m glad it was resolved amicably. American politics is a contentious editing area (one that I generally try to steer clear of) and it’s very important that everyone who does edit there does so without bias and follows the rules on quality sourcing and seeking consensus. P-K3 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, going to have to repeat this here:
 * This is a misrepresentation. was not blocked for lack of indents, or indenting incorrectly, and they were told that on multiple occasions.


 * From their earliest edits, Pasdecomplot has been receiving advice and warnings from other editors about what constitutes original research, reliable sources, and how to use talk pages. They just seemed to not want to read any of the policy we kept pointing them at.


 * They assumed bad faith on the part of people who were trying to help them learn our policies.


 * They simply ignored or misrepresented anything anyone told them that was not what they wanted to hear.


 * After two weeks of this kind of disruption, I blocked them for it. I shouldn’t have; while I wasn’t in any content disputes with them, I was heavily editing the same talk page of a highly contentious article and I should have just asked someone else. Not my best moment, probably won’t be my worst. It didn’t represent disruptiveness on my part, just a lapse in judgement, and when it was pointed out my attention my immediate reaction was, “That’s fair.”


 * And PK3, maybe you didn't notice the part above where they’re apparently wikistalking other editors at the article in question to see if they can figure out political motives for their arguments? —valereee (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee. I certainly don’t think you were being disruptive or deserving of sanctions; my comment at ANI was simply a narrow one about the mixing of editorial content on talk pages and administrative actions. If the thread had continued I would certainly have addressed Pasdecomplot’s actions as well. As I said above we should not be biased in our editing but we do all have our biases and looking at other editors pages to see where they might be coming from is not necessarily wikistalking, but it would certainly be a problem if it was to influence actual editing on that page. I don’t think it’s a good idea for inexperienced editors to jump straight into topics like this and they must take the time to understand our policies. I trust El C’s judgment in resolving any issues going forward. P-K3 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, PK3, I wasn't ascribing anything like that to you. I would have just moved on after the ANI close, even with the misrepresentations they made there, as I clearly was in the wrong making that block and didn’t think arguing about my very good reasons for doing the wrong thing was appropriate. But I couldn’t let them drop that followup on multiple pages without responding. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hum. Jus to state the obvious: The announcement I received about the 2nd block clearly stated it was from due to failure to indent. That can't be misinterpreted, and wasn't misinterpreted during the ANI. Thanks for halting the misrepresentation leveled at me about 'wikistalking', but it appears our conversation was, in fact, 'wikistalked'. I had hoped the behaviors would have been checked. Thanks for the time, again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ( a message for you above) Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"England world cup squad" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect England world cup squad. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment
I regret your disappointment. I've repeatedly stated why I felt there is a consensus. I've also said that I will accept whatever happens to the posting- so if you can find someone who agrees with you, you and they may do as they will. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And you've been told countless times that three people after three hours don't make a consensus. You supervoted, and you've dug your heels in ever since. It's a pathetic justification of something that can't be justified. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not going to debate you on someone else's talk page, thanks. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hi .This was the point at which you posted. I don't see how you can consider that enough consensus to go straight to blurb and bypass RD completely. The nominator said "possible blurb?" and a couple of others mentioned a blurb, but I'm sure several of the other votes were just assuming it would be posted as RD only. Three hours is ok to wait for a run-of-the-mill RD, but not for a death blurb, which always need a lot more discussion. You've seen all the arguing over the Thatcher/Mandela standard on the ITN talk page. Ultimately the decision not to revert is up to you, but I will point out that two other ITN admins, Amakuru and Black Kite, have already said they are in favour of pulling.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kitaharima Seiya
Hello! Your submission of Kitaharima Seiya at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Kitaharima Seiya
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Tangential notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- See section "Pasdecomplot continued WP:OR and other conduct problems" Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Van't Kruijs?
I've seen your name around for a while, and always wonder, so I'll just ask: is it because you're a particular fan of the Van't Kruijs Opening (or perhaps the French Defense)? Or is there some other meaning? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Rhododendrites, it's because I'm a fan of the French - it's my favourite opening as Black and I nearly always play it when I can (in the spirit of the late Wolfgang Uhlmann). As for the Van't Kruijs, never played it - I'm a usually queen's pawn player as White.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. I play Vant Krujis sometimes when I mouseslip on move 1 :) but also a long-time French player. Played it for years as my default, but Lately been playing more e5 since I felt like I was getting dodgy positions with the Winawer and then, a few years ago, it seemed like the whole world started playing these advance variations with a3 that are harder to crack than I feel like they should be. Hence more e5 lately. Anyway. I digress. Was just curious. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Threesom takes Bishop Takes Rook Pawn
Just want to clarify that my name isn't really threesome, but threesom, without the E. Which denotes the previous word. In any case, the actual reference isn't sexual. In today's world people twist and construe words to whatever their will pleases. Vocabulary, language is much more complicated and meaningful than that.

In previous views 666 was the actual view of offense. I find the whole thing hilariously offensive. In any case, I thank you for your support. &#34;Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation.&#34;&#34;Without strife, your victory has no meaning. Without strife, you do not advance. Without strife, there is only stagnation.&#34; (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The administrator who blocked you was responding to a complaint, but I think it's important in cases such as these to assume good faith, so I think it would have been preferable if someone had gone to your talk page first to discuss. But never mind, you're back editing now so no real harm done. P-K3 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

by luck. There was heavy damage done but I came from the grave. If you read his comments and his attitude. I don't think he was just responding. He obviously agreed and had intent to put me out. I wasn't just blocked from editing and I was blocked permanently. My intention is probably to continue to read but unfortunately based on this experience, I probably edit less now if at all, to keep A low profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesom666 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Begum v Home Secretary
Hi. The judgement of the court says “his” because it is talking about Sajid Javid and not Priti Patel. Moonraker (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, it wasn't quite clear from how it was written before whether it was a specific or a generic Home Secretary being referred to. P-K3 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken, I have added in the name of Javid to clear up any confusion. Moonraker (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL Query me!  04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Masaru Maeta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ozeki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. That should not be a disambiguation page. P-K3 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Table of contents for Sumo Stable pages
Hi Pawnkingthree, You probably don't remember me, but back in 2007 I also started to create a lot of Sumo Stable pages. I was thinking about creating a table of contents on the left hand side of all the sumo stables as a quick reference guide for all the stables. Just thought it would be good to get more input on the idea. I thinking of consolidating info like the founding dates, current stable master, current makunouchi rikishi, and other info that you might think important for the quick reference guide. What do you think? I also sent this same message to FourTildes. Leveni (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I remember you - we don't have too many sumo editors come along so I tend to remember the ones I come across! If you're thinking to do a reference guide that could be added to each page I think either an infobox or a template might be better. Infobox heya and Sumo navbox have been red links for some time. The template would go at the bottom of the article and could be subdivided into each ichimon, and provide easy access to each heya page. The infobox of course would go in the top right corner. A table of contents is automatically generated once an article has a certain number of sections, so isn't something we need to create as such. I know User:Zeyes worked on standardizing each heya article so they each had the same layout - that project wasn't finished I don't think. And there's also the List of sumo stables article that could be improved. So there's a few things to work on. P-K3 (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have realised that PK3 and Pawnkingthree are the same, oh well. The standardising of the pages is awesome, but I wonder what extra needs to be done for the automated infobox to be created. I'm really thinking about making infobox's, I didn't know they were called infoboxes so I just wrote 'table of contents'. But if there isn't enough info to put in them, they would look empty and therefore not too good. But also, when I look at the sumobeya pages they look kind of 'empty' without an info box. So I want to put infobox's in, preferably below the photo's of the stables, which are also awesome and make the wiki's look really good. If you start a discussion on WP:SUMO that'll be good to see if anyone is interested and what they think should be included. Leveni (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, you meant infoboxes, got you. Yes a stable infobox is desperately needed and if I had the technical knowledge I would've created one by now. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a Japanese wiki equivalent to copy. I'll ask at WP:SUMO if anyone is willing to give it a go. P-K3 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never done an infobox before so I wouldn't mind doing one. But we need to know what to put in it. If you could draw one up and post a picture of it on imgur that will make things a lot easier for me to then make one. Once a basic one is up, it'll make it a lot easier for you to edit and add things to. But the issue is what info do we put in the infobox. Leveni (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at drawing one up. The basic info would be location, ichimon, date founded, number of rikishi, number of coaches and so on.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was looking at some other sporting clubs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Mets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parramatta_Eels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennai_Lions These ones are all slightly different. I think the best that can be done is to just experiment with different layouts. Plus, getting the first layout to work, if you haven't done it before, is always difficult in itself. But once done, it'll be easy to copy and paste to all the stables.Leveni (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for clarifying this about me on Iridescent's talk page; regardless of what your thoughts are about my participation in that RfA, I do appreciate your fairness there. I would like to add to what I said in the RfA is that my bureaucrat principle, as is supposed to be the case with all bureaucrats, is that if I am in any way biased about a candidate - for or against - I participate in the RfA as a regular contributor and not in any way as a bureaucrat. In fact, I've even set set precedent for myself that I will recuse from my bureaucratic role if I had any thoughts either way about a candidate, even if I didn't actually participate. Those who think now think I'm a non-neutral bureaucrat honestly have nothing to worry about. Acalamari 01:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I felt I had to push back against the idea that because the work of a bureaucrat can involve closing an RfA, a bureaucrat cannot cast an oppose vote in one even if they are obviously recusing themselves. That view does not seem to be supported in any way by the INVOLVED policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer
Hi, why would you think that "Bobby Fischer" is not the byname of "Robert James Fischer"? The word byname is even used at Britannica for Fischer's name? In addition, if the article is called Bobby Fischer then the byname is the first name that should be used in the opening sentence. Blockhouse321 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit did not conform to our Manual of Style. The full name is always given at first mention. See MOS:FULLNAME. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right! Blockhouse321 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Totem of Communication and token of cooperation
 InedibleHulk has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protecter forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I heard you were from London and New Jersey, so figured you might not have one these yet. Don't worry, they're not all murdererous shapeshifters, and you don't even need to water this virtual breed. It does eat trolls, though, and you're still here, so sorry yet again for associating you with that bunch! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 InedibleHulk has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protector forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

That first one has a lame spelling defect and might get lonely, so here, have a pair! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hulk! Sorry about the misunderstanding - I could have worded that a lot better considering what a sensitive topic it is. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And I could have been less sensitive, read it more logically, like I usually do when rewording tragic histories. Guess this one hit close to home, or there's something in the water, or I'm getting soft in the head (or all three). You keep on writing how you do; even second-guessing can't please everyone! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Baker Street robbery
Hi Pawnkingthree, Just to further explain on the robbery revert. I wrote the article in the first place, and while I have left a few changes in place since I put it through FAC, these ones are backward steps. They include MoS errors, as well as a better explanation of what measure of inflation is being applied. These were in place at the time the article went through PR and FAC, and are far better than the replacements. Thanks - The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of WP:FAOWN but I don't think it should prevent a talk page discussion where necessary.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, it shouldn't, and if Serial number wants to start one, he can. If he had given an explanation for his edit (rather than just "WP:DENY" - thus calling me a troll) I may have thought about it, but his reversions have not been constructive and no proper rationale has been given. Thanks - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Terunofuji Haruo

 * Just saw this, didn't even think to make a news nomination. Thanks! JRHorse (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thanks for your help on the article and your sumo updates generally. (Incidentally a yokozuna promotion is listed at WP:ITNR, so its judged to be automatically notable for inclusion at In the News as long as the article quality is good enough.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have a diff...
...to a comedy of mistaken identity, please do add that. Always fun. EEng 16:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite right EEng - always cite your sources. No problem. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wakafutase Tadayuki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asahiyama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shōnanzakura Sōta
Hello! Your submission of Shōnanzakura Sōta at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer lead mention of mental health
Although not fully expressed in the brief edit comment, I think there's a good case to be made that speculation about Fischer's mental health isn't important enough to be mentioned in the lead. The lead should summarize the most important things in the article body. I think it's clear that mental health can be mentioned in the lead, bit I also think that it isn't so important that it must be in the lead. By way of comparison his antisemitism must be in the lead. That's why I reverted the anon's addition of a citation needed tag but left alone the removal of a sentence that really just teases a non-essential section in the article that reports different opinions about Fischer's mental health. I can understand why some editors might think that section deserves a sentence in the lead, but to me that final sentence just hangs there and sticks out a bit, and removing it might improve the lead very slightly. Or not. That's my impression, but I haven't really worked on this article the way others have Quale (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . You might be right, the lead should summarize the most important things, and it's not a very large section in the article body. I don't have strong feelings either way. The IP seemed to be arguing that any mention of his psychological condition is speculation and should be removed, which is a different debate and one that will likely need a talk page discussion. (The IP may the same editor that brought it up in July, without any response so far.) Any speculation in Wikipedia's voice would of course be inappropriate, but the section is only mentioning what has been brought up in secondary sources. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, I agree. Quale (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Shōnanzakura Sōta
Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Emma Raducanu’s Nationality
The common practice on wikipedia for dual nationals has always been to mention both their nationalities. Examples are numerous; even for those who gained their second citizenship through a parent. In case of Raducanu, regardless of the years she spent in UK, she is still a Canadian citizen too so it would be more accurate to state her nationality as British-Canadian. However to accommodate that she is playing for British now, I changed it to “Canadian-born British”. Hope that is a satisfactory compromise.
 * I think that's better, thanks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I very much appreciate your kind support and trust in my July RfA. My first few months have been mixed. Reversed my own first block. Temporarily lost my gumption somewhere. Getting better. Is there some obvious reason you've never run? At my first glance, you're fully qualified and seem a good sort. If I can be helpful, please call on me. If I get out of line, I'd appreciate your collaring me. I'm better when I know others have my back. Thanks for offering yours. BusterD (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thanks for stopping by. I'm glad to hear that you're finding your gumption again. As for not running myself, it was suggested many years ago, but while I do sometimes think I might have passed in 2009, it seems a much more daunting prospect today. The thought of my articles and other contributions being picked apart for a week seems quite terrifying. I think I would need a lot of preparation, and I don't have a huge amount of time at the moment. But thanks for kind words of encouragement. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

European chess
The game if chess you are referring to is called “European chess” not “Western Chess” or “international chess”. It is called European chess in all scholarly books even by H J Murray in ‘A history of Chess’. You are distorting the correct term for you’re own agenda by calling it western or international. Please change it to its correct name. Chaturaji (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no agenda, I just want you to stop edit-warring and discuss your proposed change on the Chess talk page. If you carry on reverting multiple editors and refusing to collaborate, you risk being blocked again. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion has already been done over a hundred years ago in h j Murray’s book @a history of chess”. I am merely quoting from that masterpiece and other scholarly texts. That is why it is called “European chess”. Historically that is what it is referred to. It is just a fact, not my opinion. Chaturaji (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion has to happen at Talk:Chess. See WP:CONSENSUS. That's how Wikipedia works. Many editors have worked on this article and the terms Western Chess and International Chess have been in the lead a long time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)