CPL, I'd like to review the Chessmetrics discussion at Proj Chess page, you're making several assertions, and not knowing the background vis-a-vis Chessmetrics, can't form an opinion whether I think you're right or not. But I do think at this point you are incorrect in what you state about some of the content you've been removing from articles (more than what you said). Also, I don't undrstand why you are removing content, like matches and match records, based on "I can't find it and it wasn't sourced". (You should be using {{citation needed}} tag for that, rather than wholescale immediate deletion.) How do you suppose that content got there in the first place? (It seems there are three possibilities: 1) someone had a source they didn't identify, 2) someone had a source but got something mixed up, or 3) they invented it out of their head.) In any case, the thing to do is tag it and give the editor time to source it.

I have no interest or desire to "argue" with you, CPL. But when I see what are IMO bogus arguments intended to be the basis for removal of contents (be they article content, categories, whole articles via AfD), then I'm bound to express my thought which might counter your opinions. When you tried to stick words in Fischer's mouth he never said regarding his strength compared to Morphy's, an effort which ended up opposed by me & Quale and which you proved by contacting the author was taken out of context by you, you challenged me why I would "nit-pick even the slightest of [your] edits". I ended up protecting the article, did't I? (And, you violated policy understanding & execution of WP:BRD also, unacknowleged by you.) When you tried to insist an incendiary, accusatory Youtube video should be included in Dawn Marie Psaltis BLP, in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE, you reverted an IP user who removed the material calling the IP's removal an act of vandalism, and you reverted me (edit-warred) even though you were in the wrong about BLP policy and again dismissing the Talk I opened with edit summary explaining the material was a violation of BLP policy and please see Talk, since you reverted me without first going to Talk. Once again I helped protect that article (and Wikipedia since it was a BLP), against your efforts to compromise it. 

So you see, CPL, I have no interest in "arguing" with you or even engaging in debate with you. I've seen how you argue your points, and I thoroughly disagree with your tactics, and many times your logic. You want me to go into a corner and not speak up when I see you violating policy and compromising articles? If you find that a nuisance, then, good. 

No one on Wikipedia has called me anything other than my username, or abbreviation IHTS. What makes you think I'm gonna receive your informal "dude" anything but insulting? I do. (And you linked to your posts here to show example of your level of collaboration with me and avoidance of "squabbles"?!)