User talk:Azlan Iqbal

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. 00:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Chess appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello Azlan Iqbal. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you..

COI means "conflict of interest". You are adding material that is based on your own work. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing the exact same thing, to a much greater degree, in fact, on the "chess aesthetics" page. Why no COI there? Azlan Iqbal

I put a warning there 25 minutes ago. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it and I left it there. I think it's fair. What I don't think is fair is you (or anyone else) simply deleting my entry on *this* ("Chess") page on the same grounds. Put a warning on this page too, if you like. Azlan Iqbal

What do you mean, exactly, with that sentence?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part don't you understand? Azlan Iqbal 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Advances? Advances in what part of chess aesthetics? (Are you related to that software? If so, that's what it means to have a conflict of interest)Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advances based on the reputable publications (and yes the software) on the subject. Note that a COI warning has already been placed (by someone else) on the chess aesthetics page. Why is there still a problem? Azlan Iqbal 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(I was only clarifying COI to you). I'm asking, what advances?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're explained in the "chess aesthetics" link, but I've now added a summary to the "chess" page. Azlan Iqbal 02:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chess. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chesthetica901.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]