Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 411:

:::You haven't following the meaning in this thread. I'd suggest reading it again. The argument of others contending that Pritchard specifies alternate winning methods by omission, but assumption, by presumption, by default if not specified, has been refuted. The issue of "checkmate in Three-check chess" was not raised by Pritchard, since it was never a winning method. That topic was raised by others' WP:OR, based on their supposition that server sites are reliable sources who's software and posted rules, supplant Prithard rules, when only Pritchard rules are researched, and specfied by an expert in the field. Asking me to come up with language that specifically addresses something made-up and erronesous is like asking me to prove a piano does not orbit Saturn. (I can't and you know it.) The contextual material here was for those who have already argued their own thinking about "what Pritchard doesn't say" means. (Did that include you?) --[[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 22:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

::::You can't just claim that you have refuted everyone who disagrees with you. You actually have to convince someone. You might also want to consider whether there are any lessons to be learned from this page:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIhardlythinkso] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 03:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::Oh that's very disturbing. With you it's all about mob rule, isn't it. And not quality of argumment. --[[User:Ihardlythinkso|IHTS]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 05:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess]]. Please feel free to contribute there. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 04:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)