On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:21:31 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
wrote:

Jürgen R. wrote:


Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.

As you mainly gave an ad hominem attack, this was not very effective.

First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap. The question is
just: complete rewrite or delete. You call the author "psychopath", so
how credential is you claim, that who he is writing about, is irrelevant?

That's usually the trick with bold and open ad hominem attacks: most of
the time they fire back on the originator, make their other statements
less convincing.

Greetings,
Ralf

Here is what Jurgen wrote and posted on Wikipedia:

"DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a
psychopath who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. (Ju"rgen R.)"

Jurgen is relatively new to the chess discussion groups, but
nevertheless I cannot believe that he really thinks that Tom Dorsch is
a " unknown and irrelevant person".

It is because of comments like this that the article is in danger of
being deleted.

Both Jurgen and Ralf Callenberg a/k/a "Rook wave" are posting here
from Germany, so they should get along well together.

Sam Sloan

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:33:54 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
wrote:

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Nobody but you has said that the article is crap, and you do not know
Tom Dorsch.

Sam Sloan

I know Tom Dorsch. The article is crap.

Randy Bauer

Since you feel that way, kindly point to one statement in the article
which you feel is inaccurate or untrue.

Surely, if you know Tom Dorsch, there must be some point to the
article which you feel could be corrected or improved.

Have you ever met Tom Dorsch?

Sam Sloan

I finally understand what Randy Bauer said. He's right. It's a piece of
crap. I agree with the deletion.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:


It is because of comments like this that the article is in danger of
being deleted.

No, it's because of the article itself.

Both Jurgen and Ralf Callenberg a/k/a "Rook wave" are posting here
from Germany, so they should get along well together.

Well, I think it was you, who said, Tom Dorsch is known in the whole
world. Obviously it is not true.

Honestly, I really don't care about American chess functionaries at all
(I hardly care about German). But the Wikipedia is not American, it is
international, the readers come from all over the planet.

Would you please consider, that such an article is not just for regular
and year long readers of this newsgroup, but mostly for people, who
don't know Tom Dorsch - like me?

And what did they get to know as most remarkable facts about him? That
he went along with whores in Tijuana and didn't pay his rent somewhere
in the 60s. Only when wading through piles of gossip you can get some
facts, as small as they are. There is exactly zero information in this
article, why this man has an article in the first place. See, there is
an article about Eric Schiller. Somebody who doesn't know him, gets the
information that he has written a lot of books. So, he gets an idea,
what this person is about. You get not tired of repeating over and over,
how important Tom Dorsch is. Why the ****, don't you write about his
merits just at the beginning of his article? Give the reader an idea,
why Tom Dorsch is not only known to you and the readers of this newsgroup.

Greetings,
Ralf

Bill Brock has voted to delete the Biography of Tom Dorsch, on the
ground that Dorsch is not a notable person. In response to a comment
that Dorsch being the Treasurer of the USCF made him about as notable
as the treasurer of a national bowling league, Bill Brock posted the
following:

Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be
more notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill Brock is the first known chess player to cast a vote to delete. I
was not previously aware that Brock disliked Dorsch. We need for some
more real chess players to vote to keep the article.

To vote to keep the biography, please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch

Click on "edit this page" at the top.

Then, go to the bottom of the page and write "KEEP" forrowed by
whatever reasons you have for feeling that this biography should be
kept.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
Bill Brock has voted to delete the Biography of Tom Dorsch, on the
ground that Dorsch is not a notable person. In response to a comment
that Dorsch being the Treasurer of the USCF made him about as notable
as the treasurer of a national bowling league, Bill Brock posted the
following:

Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be
more notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill Brock is the first known chess player to cast a vote to delete. I
was not previously aware that Brock disliked Dorsch. We need for some
more real chess players to vote to keep the article.

To vote to keep the biography, please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch

Click on "edit this page" at the top.

Then, go to the bottom of the page and write "KEEP" forrowed by
whatever reasons you have for feeling that this biography should be
kept.

Sam Sloan

I have to respect Bill Brock's wish. He's right. Tom Dorsch's profile
should be deleted at once.

Sam Sloan

(Sam Sloan) writes:
Nobody but you has said that the article is crap, and you do not know
Tom Dorsch.

I know Dorsch and the article is crap.

Jürgen R. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:11:24 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

Help is desperately needed.

The vote is nearly 100% to delete my diography of Tom Dorsch on the
grounds that he is not a notable person. All of the voters are unknown
persons.

I need your help to keep this biography from being deleted altogether.

Please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch

Click on "edit this page" at the top.

Then, go to the bottom of the page and write "KEEP" forrowed by
whatever reasons you have for feeling that this biography should be
kept.

Sam Sloan

Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.

Same here.

Ralf Callenberg wrote:
Jürgen R. wrote:


Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.

As you mainly gave an ad hominem attack, this was not very effective.

How was that not an accurate description of Sloan?

First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap. The question is
just: complete rewrite or delete. You call the author "psychopath", so
how credential is you claim, that who he is writing about, is irrelevant?

That's usually the trick with bold and open ad hominem attacks: most of
the time they fire back on the originator, make their other statements
less convincing.

Greetings,
Ralf

The Historian wrote:

How was that not an accurate description of Sloan?

This vote is not about Sam Sloane, but about the article about Tom
Dorsch. In this context it simply doesn't matter who or what Sam Sloan is.

Greetings,
Ralf