Crisis!

Hi.

What is your opinion about  having a 'memberships comparison table' on Wikipedia.

I object to it since it hasn't got a justified reason. Any one support it?

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess.com

I think that discussion is better left to the entry's Discussion page.

it is. I just wanted to know what other chess.com members think.

just DONT get that page banned!!!!

ok, who can remove the price comparison ? and just replaced it with the link, simple ...is it ?

Excluding tournaments, all basic members can fully take part in other chess play.

This is not clear, free members CAN play in tournaments, that was the reason why I left all other chess sites.

I'm probaably a little slow, but I don't understand what the issue is here?

It's not that wiki is advertising site, so they think prices, and membership details should be removed from it.

It has been tagged for 'speedy deletion' already. Would someone PLEASE delete that section. I already done it a few times and this guy there insists on having the section and is threatening me.  My opinion is the same as kco.

i know who is doing it and i have let him know that it is NOT ok. i told him i would close his chess.com account if he continues to do it.

Thanks! Nice Work! There would always be many opportunities to expand the article in a positive way. I'll see to that. :)

Good ol' dictatorships, never let you down! Unlimited power to crush those against us... 

What's the issue here?

Some person keep on putting the memberships table on the wiki article on chess.com. It cannot be accepted by Wikipedia and the article has been tagged as 'blatant advertising', which I deleted after deleting the memberships table. But now some guy keeps putting the table on.

I'm am a trusted user there (User:Mm40) and the membership table should NOT be there. I will do my best to salvage the article, but much of the material is ad-like and may need to be removed.

Sounds like someone needs to be banned from Wikipedia first and foremost.  I don't know how the editing privileges are handed out there, but surely there's a way to revoke them for persistent, repeat abusers such as this.

Even if it happens to be the individual Erik's identified here the recourse for Erik is really secondary to the primary issue of repeated disregard for Wikipedia's policy and unfortunately might actually cause the user to exacerbate the issue if exercised here without corresponding consequences at Wikipedia.

Yes, true.