User talk:MyDiametrical

Your 24-page self-published book is full of absurdities. The queen in the center can reach 27 squares, but it isn't always in the center. Likewise for other pieces other than the rook. You don't take into account that a bishop can reach only half of the squares, which diminishes its effectiveness. The bishop isn't worth that much more than a knight. The pawn reaches 3 squares? In its starting position, it can reach two squares. Otherwise it can reach one square, unless it can make a capture. Your video shows two bishops plus a pawn as better than a queen, and that is certainly not true. And your comments about en passant are pretty strange. And you have a bishop plus a pawn as about the same as two knights, which is obviously ridiculous. And I see that your USCF rating is a lowish 1441 [USCF], which is below average for an adult tournament player. And you lost all of games at your last tournament, the under 1700 section of the Chicago Open in 2011. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you can test some of your theories by using one of the top chess programs. For instance, you think that two bishops plus a pawn is better than a queen. Take the opening position, remove the queen from one side and remove two bishops and a pawn from the other side, and let the program play against itself, and see which side wins. Similarly, test two knights versus a bishop and a pawn. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chess is an expression of Pi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Chess is an expression of Pi, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Pi. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Pi, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:MyDiametrical

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:MyDiametrical, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]