User talk:E1e10p

The term "hillbilly" is NOT the "correct" name for the line in question. It is a derogatory ethnic pejorative and has no place in chess lexicon or on Wikipedia, especially in an article that is supposed to be instructional. It is no different than calling some random combination the "nigger attack" or the "wetback attack" or the "Jew attack." Of course, in the deranged, illogical, brainwashed world of Political Correctness it's considered perfectly o.k. to insult Southerners by implying that they are too stupid to play chess.

How about we call the dull witted line in question the "Northern Liberal Attack?" Or the "Democrat Attack?" Or the "Urban Leftist Attack?" Any group of white people should be fair game. If it's good for one it's good for any and all. Or we can alternate between "Hillbilly Attack" and "Leftist Twit Attack," on alternate months. No? Why not? Because accuracy isn't the sole aim of this article, is it? No, it's more important to keep this nasty, utterly pointless gouge at Southerners in there than to provide thoughtful analysis of the Caro-Kann defense.

Why is there no mention of the "Illegal Alien Attack?" You know, where one of the players keeps sneaking pawns onto the board and the arbiter sits by and pretends there is nothing he can do about it? What? You've never heard of that one? It's from the same school of chess as the "Hillbilly Attack."

Better yet, why don't you people just stop the insults PERIOD and call the line something more appropriate?. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be promulgating and enabling this derogatory stupidity. E1e10p (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Your recent editing history at Caro–Kann Defence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:E1e10p reported by User:Oshwah (Result: ). Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Nthep (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens if you don't listen to others. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk" Doesn't Do Any Good.

I'm very well aware that there is nothing I can do about this issue and that actually wasn't even my point. My point was to let you people know that your bigotry toward my culture and people hasn't gone unnoticed. There are a lot of us out here who notice it. If the asshat who created this page had called the line in question the "Crackhead Attack" or the "Burly Negro Attack" I'm confident the "Three Edit Rule" would be out the window and you people would be shitting your little red panties to get it off there. Of course you would. But since it's my people who are being crapped upon - on a chess page, of all the ridiculous places - it's perfectly o.k., you'll just hide behind your asinine little "procedures" and red tape. Typical leftist twaddle: get up on your hind legs and proclaim your moral superiority and then do the exact opposite of what you say.

You can dig up some obscure nonsense from the 19th century and claim that as justification for your invective, but you know I'm right. Nobody without an ulterior motive or ideological axe to grind would object to calling the line in question the "2.Bc4 Attack" or something else as innocuous. But no, you're not willing to hit the "delete" button on a keyboard because it isn't a matter of accuracy: it's a matter of being an asshole and being enabled and encouraged to do so by Wikipedia.

I'm a member of a forum with over 200,000 members, the vast majority of them very conservative and probably upwards of half of them Southerners. There are a bunch of chess players who post there and we play each other online frequently. I could easily ask them to bombard this page with edits and no doubt at least 100 of them would do it (I've seen them do such on numerous occasions for far more obscure causes than this). However, I won't because this is my personal cause, not theirs. For that matter, I'm not stupid: I'm well aware that if I edit a page more than a few times Wiki will block my I.P. Duh. I couldn't care less if you block my I.P. I wanted you to know that your spiteful, ignorant bigotry hasn't gone unnoticed and that at least one person will call you out on it. E1e10p (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove that last paragraph, or would could be blocked indefinitely.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, you should remove that textwall at the top of this page per WP:POLEMIC and its use of slurs.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the anon IP had no business editing your talk page, and no authority to threaten blocks against you. You might be well advised to not get so 'het up' though, it just doesn't work here and staying calm more often does. Best wishes, I hardly know a King from a pawn, so I won't comment on the dispute. Pincrete (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]