Hello, Jkmaskell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up some disruptive page moves of chess players a couple weeks ago, and for warning the editor not to do that. As an FYI, new talk page topics should be added at the end of the page. It's too confusing to follow the chronological sequence if you insert new topics at the top of a talk page, or worse insert them randomly somewhere in the middle. See WP:TOPPOST and the other sections on the WP:TALK guideline for more explanation. Thanks also for the other work you've done on the Leko biography and other chess articles. Quale (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a random kitten for your excellent work with the Peter Leko article.

Lord Matt (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done indeed. Can't wait to see if you've got plans for a follow-up! Brittle heaven (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for your work on Wesley So. You've made huge improvements to that article, and it looks like you aren't finished with it yet. Quale (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks A lot Jkmaskell I am much appreciated i am much appreciated You ARE THE MAN !! Elgandol (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Essam El-Gindy. I think a lot of editors aren't interested in doing cleanup on pages like that one because it isn't very glamorous, but I wanted you to know that I appreciate your fine work on it and other chess pages. Quale (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit to correct the GM title year for Antoaneta Stefanova. It's probably correct, but I thought I should alert you that the FIDE chess profile pages contain errors, including some that are quite large. Over the years FIDE's record keeping has been rather poor, although maybe it's in better shape now. I noted one example I encountered a few years ago at Talk:Viswanathan Anand/Archive_1#FIDE Rating Card vs reality, as the FIDE website was then reporting the wrong GM year for its world champion. I emailed the website administrators and they promptly fixed it, but they also asked me if there were other errors they should fix! That did not give me confidence in their data. Either they have many errors in their player database or the site doesn't accurately report what's in that database. Either possibility is dismal. Quale (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot another bit. She may have earned the GM title for her victory at the European women's chess championship in 2002. (This victory is not mentioned on her page yet, which is rather bare bones at the moment for a world champion.) Official FIDE title awards are (or maybe were?) made at FIDE meetings that were held twice a year, often resulting in the official title award to occur in the year following the earning of the needed results. That makes the title year a bit confusing, as it could be interpreted as the year that the GM results were attained or the (possibly different) year that the title was officially awarded. When computing ages of the youngest GMs the former is always used, but I don't know if we're consistent in general. I also don't know which of those years the FIDE website reports, or even if it itself is consistent. (I think I was told that they use the year of the official award.) It's also possible that GM titles are awarded more quickly now, and perhaps just affirmed at the FIDE meetings. Quale (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your reply. I have no idea about editing in Wikipedia, I'm just trying to figure out. :)Balu1996 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Balu1996[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your input regarding my edits. The World Cup Result tables follow the template of results from tennis and golf players. Many times the results contained in the tables are expounded upon within the article itself.

Thanks again for your comments, have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThothCreed (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not accurate to say he astonished the chess world? Zaostao (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you could back it up with objective sources, then yes. However, language like that isn't considered to be neutral point of view. It's a bit over the top. Jkmaskell (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re your editsum "will require refs for all variants listed" in this edit, isn't it pretty obvious in that short article that the two refs listed in Reference sec are the relevant refs? IHTS (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see I last thanked you for your work on chess pages about a year and a half ago, so it's probably time to thank you again. Over the last several months I think you and Sophia91 are improving chess articles more than all other chess editors combined. Quale (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with a change back to Pentala.

In case you weren't here at the time, the article was changed after someone advised that Pentala was a word (in some language) that could cause offence. Many editors believed this might be so, especially as the abbreviated version, P. Harikrishna, was very common all over the internet at the time; it gave the explanation some credibility, so no-one challenged it. However, some years on, Pentala is the only version you ever see, so I think we can assume that the change was based on a hoax, or was maybe just the concern of one person.

May I join User: Quale in thanking you for your work here btw. Keep it up! Brittle heaven (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah ... I see now it was you who queried this back in 2014. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I misclicked and so misread your edit at Judit Polgár's , thinking you removed more than you did. You did not change meaning, as I had thought, and I apologize for the edit summary that said you did.

However, I would still ask (i) that the tags calling for quotations and verification be allowed to remain in place, because the issue of the article was the misuse of prior quotes and the lack of clear support from the citations and quotes for the earlier firm conclusion (in favour of Polgár's view). Indeed, in the one case I could track a citation via URL, the source did not say what the sentence to which it was attach claimed it did. And (ii), since most editors will not read Talk before editing, I ask that the in-markup (invisible) notes be allowed, so that incoming editors are aware of why the tags were placed, and what is needed for the issues to be resolved. Thank you, and again, I apologise for the misread and overstatement regarding your otherwise conservative edit. (In those notes, use of all caps is not to shout, but simply to call attention to their presence, and separate them from the prose that is meant to appear in the article.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. MaxBrowne now want to delete the article, and as many of the citations have been removed it strengthens his case. I suggest you reinstate them. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC) MaxBrowne[reply]

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the issues I raised at the "Back to the issues" thread at Talk:Irregular chess opening. Also if you could hat the off-topic stuff that would be great, it is not conducive to productive content discussion when that kind of stuff is on display. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For consider: [2] IHTS (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butt out, it's nothing to do with you. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're so right, it's to do with you. IHTS (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil here. I'm looking at it afresh, MaxBrowne. Sorry for the delay...real life has cut down my Wikitime recently, but I've got the rest of the weekend free so looking to put some quality time in. Jkmaskell (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here Doc9871 hatted a thread where he was involved. I don't think it is against policy; have seen other editors do it also. The hatting template says do not hat "over the objections of other editors", presumably when others feel the content is relevant to discussion, not because they feel hatting is a "simple rule" where involved editors may not hat. IHTS (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stay. Out. Of. It. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you my master? IHTS (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. If you want to keep this going, take it to your own Talk pages.Jkmaskell (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irregular chess opening is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregular chess opening until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your attention on this regard and the feedback. I am a professional chess player. There is no doubt that Fisher is one of the greatest players of all time. And I respect it as a professional. But he is only peaked for 2 years time (1970 - 1972 till the world championship). Everyone in chess community widely agreed that Kaparov is the greatest player of all time.(You can have many dozen references in internet). Being the youngest world champion and being top ranked player for 20 years till retirement(in 2005) along with most number of consecutive tournament victories are nearly impossible to replicate. Though Fisher has his fare share he is not the greatest. This is not a fan page. This is wiki page. As contributors we are responsible to maintain it up to that level not being biased or showing favoritism. Yes people have different arguments. Some says Lasker is the greatest player of all time due to his extraordinary preservation and longitivitivy. And Alekhine is the greatest due to being the world champ due till his death. If you search just like for Fisher there are other people say their respective player is the greatest. Like People say Anand is the greatest because he became world champ in all the formats(rapid, tournament play and championship match). And you find some articles to back that claim. So if people go and change Anands wiki page citing some resources and say he is not one of the greatest but he is the greatest will bring different meaning. As a responsible contributors we shouldn't be bias or partial. But Fishers wiki page guarded by fans(Not contributors). I try to reason and add the right contents. But fan contributors vehemently rejected me. At least you paid some attention. As an experienced contributor I wish you at least you will be open enough to accept the facts(The truth). Any one can argue "Some says he is the greatest". That can be applicable to Lasker, Alekhine and Caplabanca and for Anand. And according to many they also greatest. But no one change their wiki pages to "Greatest". All are mentioned as "One of the greatest". Fisher is not the Greatest but Kasparov is. It's known fact. You can refer Chess Base or Chess games or any reference. I wish people act like mature people not act like fans especially contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkadira (talk • contribs) 16:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:185.24.68.68 is abusing his talk page. CLCStudent (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke talk page access. CLCStudent (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first when you write to someone's talk page for the first time, try to be more polite. second when I edit I usually check the "edit summary" and didn't see anything regards a possible move discussion there. also when you have a discussion you better notify others, maybe they have inputs. Anybody who understand her mother language know her name is Sara Khadem, this is also what she uses for her facebook page. specially that word "Sadat" is a title, not an actual part of her name. that was a mistake to not put a space between Sara and Sadat and since FIDE uses her official passport, they spread the mistake. and I am trying to improve wikipedia by correcting that mistake. but if you want to keep it wrong, that's fine for me, I check these articles randomly probably once or twice per year. Last but not least, don't bother yourself to answer specially at my talk page. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but the article is far from being complete. I did little upgrades, but it's better that a native speaker have a look at it. he won his first league as coach this year, and i haven't added that. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jkmaskell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit in 2016 you removed a range of Chess Olympiads, in which Bologan according to the reference has actually played. This edit was according to the reference incorrect, but I would be interested in your motivation for that edit. Bob.v.R (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]