"Sam Sloan" wrote in message ...

User:Howcheng made an unprovoked personal attack by calling my
political opponents my "meatpuppets". See

Interesting how Sloan, who made unprovoked attacks against Dorsch and
Winter via Wikeipedia is crying foul when he feels attacked. Well boo hoo!
Me thinks Sloans likes to dish it out, but cannot take it.

(Also, for you readers that have not done so, now is the time to go to Wikipedia
page and register your attack (I mean vote) for deleting Sloan's Winter article.
While Wikipedia may have its short-comings, we all should pitch in and get this
cesspit called Scam Sloan banned from using Wikipedia as a forum for personal
attacks.)

Sam Sloan wrote (Sat, 04 Mar 2006 03:18:00 GMT):

Here is what User:Howcheng wrote at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch
_
"The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets
call for deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09,
29 December 2005 (UTC)"
_
His reference to "meatpuppets" clearly referred to Randy
Bauer. ...
_
The other supposed "meatpuppet" was Louis Blair

_
I had no involvement in the decision to delete the Tom
Dorsch biography.
_
Reproduced from Wikipedia:
_
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion
of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments
should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the
article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should
be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets call for
deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005
(UTC)

[edit]Tom_Dorsch
delete: barely notable person, only for regular readers of chess
related usenetgroups and people interested in US-chess functionaries,
the article itself gives no hint, why Tom Dorsch should be notable
enough for a wikipedia entry; article is mainly vanity, filled with
personal accusations and rumors; the prime author has a long standing
quarrel with Tom Dorsch, well documented on his homepage(s) and obvious
in the arcticle; he is not able or willing to provide a NPOV, although
he has been explicitely asked to do so; I suggest deletion instead of
complete rewrite, as it is questionlable that anyobody is interested in
doing so Rook wave 11:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I've rewritten the article, or rather, I've deleted everything
that's either a personal attack, unencyclopedic and/or
unsourced/unreferenced. While I do not want to disrupt the deletion
process, I don't think it's nescessary to keep the article in it's old
form for a week longer, just because of this AfD. I don't know anything
about this guy (therefore, I will refrain from voting), nor have a been
involved in the discussion on the talk page, I'm just an editor
applying what I believe to be common sense and Wikipedia policy.
--JoanneB 11:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Tom doesn't appear to be active in chess recently. His FIDE card lists
no games this year and he doesn't have a world ranking. Is there
anything else that could make him worth including? (BTW, what's a chess
politician?) - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding chess politician: I prefer the notion chess functionary,
simply somebody involved in the organization of chess; Tom Dorsch was
for some time treasurer of the United States Chess Federation and twice
president of the Northern California Chess Association, and if the
article would not be deleted these were his only notable achievements,
and my first edits (regarded by the prime author as vandalism) indeed
reduced the article to just those facts. What he as achieved when being
in those positions, the primary author unfortunately did not consider
worth mentioning.
Regarding his rating: currently only a minority of players has a FIDE
rating or many entries to this card; Tom Dorsch has a United States
Chess Federation rating, but indeed he hasn't played for some time. His
rating is high, but not exceptional. Rook wave 12:40, 19 December 2005
(UTC)
Tom Dorsch was for some time treasurer of the United States Chess
Federation and twice president of the Northern California Chess
Association -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
MacGyverMagic (talk =B7 contribs) .
Keep has held several top positions in US chess organizations. -
Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, this might be a reason, but it still leaves the question: who is
going to provide the necessary facts? The original article did not even
give the complete years Tom Dorsch held those positions. There are
nearly no neutral facts in this article. Rook wave 14:20, 19 December
2005 (UTC)
Dorsch was treasurer of the USCF and president of the Northern
California association (Calchess). I don't see that as "several top
positions in US chess organizations". The USCF is the US national
federation but Treasurer is not a top position, and Dorsch served only
one term, in the early 90's. Calchess is a state organization (actually
half a state, there's a separate Southern California regional
organization), not a national one. Dorsch is a somewhat notable figure
in recent USCF history and should get a mention in an expanded USCF
page, but it's bizarre to say that every USCF ex-officer (there are
hundreds of them) rates their own Wikipedia article. The USCF itself is
not that important an organization. The person currently holding the
comparable office (Finance VP Jonathan Mariner) in Major League
Baseball, a much more noteworthy organization than the USCF, doesn't
have a Wikipedia article, let alone someone who held that office many
years ago. Imagine ex-functionaries of a national stamp collecting club
getting all this Wikipedia heat. The only reason it happens for the
USCF is because of the contentious personalities in the chess world
arguing over nonsense. Phr 11:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Like I've been discussing on the talk page, all of the POV junk
and attacks need removed, User:Sam Sloan disagrees -- that's why
there's a current RfC on the article. Nothing to suggest he's not
notable though. And thank you Joann for cleaning up the article again.
..:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Since there seems no chance to keep this article anything but a blatent
attack, changing vote to Delete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:19, 27
December 2005 (UTC)
The most noteworthy thing about Dorsch was his campaign for USCF
treasurer and what happened after he won the office (all his duties
were taken away by the opposing faction which still controlled the
policy board). Explaining this would require spending pages on stupid
USCF internal politics which almost nobody cares about. The reason
Sloan made this page at all is he's in the faction opposite the one
Dorsch was in. Having an article about Dorsch makes no sense at all
without a neutral treatment of those issues, but I don't think anyone
is likely to write such a treatment. Certainly not Sloan. (OK, quick
POV version: Dorsch ran on a financial reform platform against vested
interests that have controlled the USCF on and off for decades, made
accusations of mismanagement that turned out to be true, but was a
dorky enough personality that not enough people listened to him at the
time, partly because it was in their financial or factional interest to
not listen. That includes Sloan.) Trying to turn that into an article
would be one of those endless debates that would burn as much of
people's wiki-editing energy as the serious national politics articles
do, but on a subject of relevance to almost nobody. So creating this
article in the first place basically amounts to trolling. I hope
non-chess people who voted "keep" based on not understanding the
situation will consider changing their votes. Phr 11:23, 25 December
2005 (UTC)
Regarding the changes by Joann: ok, now the article is much shorter,
but it's still junk. Come on "He plays chess and has now become a poker
player" - what is this? As I said: my complaints about this article are
not primarly based on the notability of Tom Dorsch. It's the complete
emptyness of this article. And who is going to write something? Even
what Joann has left is not verified. If you remove this as well, only
the title tag remains. So the content of this article is: "There is a
man called Tom Dorsch." Bravo. Rook wave 18:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Dorsch is a former treasurer of the USCF, which is sort of like
being a former treasurer of the National Bowling League or a former
councilmember of some small city. He did have a role in the USCF's
transition to the one-member-one-vote system (he opposed it) and he
could reasonably get a mention in the USCF's article if it's expanded
to cover that history (edit: his treasurer campaign too, a related
topic). His highest chess rating was in the 2300's, probably around
1000th in the US--pretty good for an amateur, but nowhere near
professional level. The stuff about him getting more Google hits than
GM Vesselin Topolov was an error due to Sloan mispelling Topolov's name
as "Topalov" when Googling. FWIW, Googling "Tam Dorsch" or "Tom Darsch"
gets zero hits. Phr 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be more
notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sam Sloan is insisiting on reverting the article to his own
version, and as such, I call for a delete and a complete rewrite after
the delete has been done. Olorin28 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article is obviously in a crappy state, and I don't think
it is going to be fixed up any time soon. When there's an actual
article here, I might vote keep. But until then, no. Titoxd(?!? - help
us) 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Olorin28. I am not neutral WRT to Sam Sloan, and would note
to admins that I have no desire to inject my animus into the Wikipedia
project, except that this is the character of the Wikipedian in
question. Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete I don't know why this one wasn't speedied as an attack.
It seems to me, an unsourced and unverifiable statement like "....If he
won even more, he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out
the whorehouses and the strip clubs..." can only be construed as a
personal attack.TheRingess 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete: barely notable person -The preceding unsigned comment was
added by 69.149.49.251 (talk =B7 contribs) .
delete: I am a chess player from the USA and think this article is a
waste of everyone's time. In the world of chess Tom Dorsch is
insignificant and the article does not belong. This is yet another
attempt by Sam Sloan to get noticed by the world at large. Warren
66.32.15.53 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, based only in small part to the sorry state of the article and
based not at all on Sam Sloan, who I have never heard of or dealt with
as far as I am aware. I don't think Dorsch is all that notable, save
for what is mentioned by Phr (who makes some good points). -Parallel or
Together? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
User Rook wave, who started this discussion, has been going around
removing content from all of my postings. He has made 41 edits to my
pages, all of which have removed content, and he has done nothing else
on Wikipedia. He should be ordered to stop doing this and if he
persists, he should be blocked. Sam Sloan 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep--public figure based on own self-promotions, including on usenet
over a period of years. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
68.167.65.99 (talk =B7 contribs) .

It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator
of Sam Sloan.
Please refer to contrib history coinciding with Sloan's pet subjects
"USCF blacklist" and Damiano's Defense for evidence. See block log
..
Note Sloan has also attempted to recruit meatpuppets on Usenet [1],
though that attempt seems to have backfired--it attracted people here
who support deletion. I will say sockpuppets aren't really Sloan's
style since his ego is too large for that. He probably just forgot to
log in when he made those edits. Phr 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why you think that this poster is my "sockpuppet" or
even me. I have just looked at his postings and I do not agree with
what he has posted on any subject. I do not agree with what he has
written here either. However, he makes a valid point. If you look at
rec.games.chess.politics and do a search for postings by
you will see that he has posted 2,680 times to thst
group. Most of these postings took place from 1996 to 1999 and were
signed "Tom Dorsch USCF Treasurer". So, he was an official who posted
2,680 times to Usenet. Most of his postings accused others of financial
wrongdoing, theft and other crimes and misdemeanors. Please do a search
there and you will see what I mean. This is what made him so well known
in the chess community. Sam Sloan 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - Dorsch is well known in the world of chess, and deserves
recognition. The article itself could use some polishing, but it should
be fixed and maintained. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Cwcarlson (talk =B7 contribs) .


KEEP - Tom Dorsch is very well known in the chess world (nationally and
internationally) and has been instrumental in the United States Chess
Federation. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
207.215.30.18 (talk =B7 contribs) .

DELETE - I think this is a ridiculously inappropriate article -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by Ardy53 (talk =B7 contribs) .

Keep This issue shows the complete bankrupt and petty nature of
Wikipedia's modus operandi, members, and raison de etre, though I
support the proper construction of such an article I think Wikipeda is
a collective waste of time intellectually: Where they venerate the
"HOLY BIBLE" for some obscure legalist reason today from the stuff
cults are made of, but then next week they will burn and destroy those
same "holy" documents on some flimsy pretext merely because they have
enough votes in legalistic BOOK BURNING as part of some psychotic
adversial process that is run like some childishness for the sake of
integrity and fairness based merely on form and rules. WIKIPEDIA A
GRAND MIND F--K a pedantic idiots' paradise where which ever side you
are on you will win and tommarow upon the changing winds of shallow
fashion some other will. I suggest all chess articles be forwarded to
pushedpawn.org, deism to the templeofreason.org as without sure
consistent editorial focus beyond the instance of the moment Wikipedia
has the integrity of an adolescent fool. The focus of Wikipedia should
be substance not form, and it should be based on preservation of every
nuance of what may be a scintilla of what may pertain to knowledge
wisdom learning and pertinence not the pettiness that is Wikipedia. THE
ANTI_WIKI FOR I AM NOT FOOL --Andrew Zito 04:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a psychopath
who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. (J=FCrgen R.) -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk =B7 contribs) .

BLANK VOTE - Many professional biographers have noted the problems of
including even insignificant persons in a biographic dictionary ("what
is the use of this long procession of the hopelessly insignificant? Why
repeat the familiar formula about the man who was born on such a day,
was 'educated at the grammar school of his native town,' graduated
in such a year, became fellow of his college, took a living, married,
published a volume of sermons which nobody has read for a century or
two, and has been during all that time in his churchyard? Can he not be
left in peace ..."). Their problem is, on the other hand, almost always
related to the lack of space in printed editions -- if Wikipedia
suffers even remotely from such a problem, the solution is not to
refuse to accept material. My second concern is the relevance of the
subject: this is not something to be voted over, unless the voters can
be assumed to be reasonably knowledgeable about the context
(contemporary chess afairs), as well as fairly unprejudiced towards the
subject well as the author. I strongly suspect many voters on this
topic vote largely because of lack of confidence in the author. If
Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, a more stringent method to decide
the inclusion of a particular name is required. I can't decide from the
context if the voting is to deny the subject, or deny the article on
that subject. In any case, when the subject is judged it should be done
impartially. My third concern is with the article: I believe that a
biography of any kind needs much more than this particular article
shows ... but I also believe that neither biographers nor
Wikipedia-authors are born ready-made. A process frpm draft to finished
article seems to be called for. Wikipedia must have a procedure for
handling these situations: and that must be considered by all parts as
impartial and trustworthy. (A. Thulin)

That essay belongs in a discussion of grand wikipedia policy, not a vfd
about a particular article. Right now the policy is that non-noteworthy
biographies get deleted and there's guidelines for establishing
noteworthiness. Debating whether the policy and guidelines are good
belongs somewhere else. The vfd discussion is simply about whether
Dorsch meets the guidelines. Phr 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - While Tom Dorsch was a notable figure in the United States
Chess Federation, the article as written provides practically no
coverage of the issues that made Dorsch important. Instead, the author
relates us with tales of Dorsch's activities and proclivities from long
ago, which have very little relevance or place in an encyclopedia.
Sloan has often written disparaging comments about Dorsch -- and vice
versa. It serves no purpose to accept his characterizations of Dorsch
as anywhere near accurate enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As a
United States chess player and former executive board member of the
United States Chess Federation, I think it would be a travesty to allow
this interpretation of Dorsch stand.

DELETE - Mr. Sloan is using Wikipedia for settling scores and posting
his delusions of greatness. Have you folks learned nothing from the
Siegenthaler debacle?

Delete Doesn't seem that notable and original author seems to revert
any attempt at clean up, therefore can see no hope of this becoming a
substantial cited NPOV article --pgk(talk) 14:40, 24 December 2005
(UTC)
Are you paying attention? You just made six changes and I did not
revert any of them. I did, however, add three paragraphs to the top
which better explain why Tom Dorsch is a notable person. Every
tournament chess player in the world has heard of Tom Dorsch. Are you
one of them? Sam Sloan 15:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the diff from the "current" version to the one after I made my
first edit to remove the paragraph saying Sloan didn't believe that
Dorsch was involved in the JFK assassination attempt (since it wasn't
suggested anywhere else that he was, saying he wasn't seemed odd). This
is the diff from my last edit to the current version where indeed you
undo more of my edits, including removal of the cleanup tag. So yes I
was paying attention. --pgk(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, I did not intentionally remove the
cleanup tag. I am not sure how that happened, but it does seem that
sometimes changes are made that do not show up in the "history".
I have no objection to any real clean-up. I have not reverted any of
your changes. I do object when Rook_wave, JoanneB and Janeth, none of
whom know anything about chess, try to delete the entire article. Sam
Sloan 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article is almost complete nonsense, utterly inaccurate,
and defamatory.

DELETE - Articles which are about mostly unknown minor officials in
sporting associations, have no place on Wikipedia. Particularly ones
which are badly written, and are there for the wrong reasons. I would
think it hard to believe that there would be anybody else who would be
prepared to rewrite this, or replace it with another article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please
do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate
discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion
review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch"
Categories: Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Sam Sloan |
Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets

delete ... Rook wave 11:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep ... Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Phr 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Olorin28 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...TheRingess 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
69.149.49.251 (talk =B7 contribs) .
delete ... Warren 66.32.15.53 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... -Parallel or Together? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
68.167.65.99 (talk =B7 contribs) .
KEEP ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Cwcarlson (talk =B7 contribs) .
KEEP ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
207.215.30.18 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Ardy53 (talk =B7 contribs) .
Keep ... --Andrew Zito 04:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE ... (J=FCrgen R.) -The preceding unsigned comment
was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE
DELETE
Delete ... --pgk(talk) 14:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete
DELETE

delete ... Rook wave 11:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep ... Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Phr 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Olorin28 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...TheRingess 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
69.149.49.251 (talk =B7 contribs) .
delete ... Warren 66.32.15.53 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... -Parallel or Together? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
68.167.65.99 (talk =B7 contribs) .
KEEP ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Cwcarlson (talk =B7 contribs) .
KEEP ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
207.215.30.18 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Ardy53 (talk =B7 contribs) .
Keep ... --Andrew Zito 04:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE ... (J=FCrgen R.) -The preceding unsigned comment
was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE
DELETE
Delete ... --pgk(talk) 14:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete
DELETE

Sam Sloan wrote (Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:44:07 GMT):

... Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion"

_
The material has been removed from that location.
_
A note placed on Sam Sloan's talk page explained:
_
"... the dispute you're having is with more than one
person, so isn't really appropiate for a third opinion
(designed for between exactly two editors). If you
are unhappy with the deletion of the Tom Dorsch
article, you can refer it to a Wikipediaeletion
review. Your description of the disagreement with
the other editor seems to be over several articles,
(none of which are specified, except the deleted
one) which also makes it impossible to give a
third opinion, if you see other entries, there are of
the format "Article - two ideas, please choose". If
you have a specific situation where you need a
third opinion, please post it there, rememembering
the format is a "short (one line), neutral description",
signed only by date. the dispute you have raised
looks more suitable for an RFC than a third opinion."

Sam Sloan wrote (Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:44:07 GMT):

... Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion"

_
The material has been removed from that location.
_
A note placed on Sam Sloan's talk page explained:
_
"... the dispute you're having is with more than one
person, so isn't really appropiate for a third opinion
(designed for between exactly two editors). If you
are unhappy with the deletion of the Tom Dorsch
article, you can refer it to a Wikipediaeletion
review. Your description of the disagreement with
the other editor seems to be over several articles,
(none of which are specified, except the deleted
one) which also makes it impossible to give a
third opinion, if you see other entries, there are of
the format 'Article - two ideas, please choose'. If
you have a specific situation where you need a
third opinion, please post it there, rememembering
the format is a 'short (one line), neutral description',
signed only by date. the dispute you have raised
looks more suitable for an RFC than a third opinion."

More from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...m_Dorsch.5D.5D
_
Keep deleted, valid AfD per process. The funny thing
is, even if you count all the invalid votes, you still get
something like 17d 4k. I don't think we need to salt
the earth on this one yet. --Deathphoenix Ê• 14:59,
4 March 2006 (UTC)
_
Keep deleted. Sloan's spew about meatpuppets
suggests he didn't read the link [2] explaining what
meatpuppets are. FWIW, Sloan's vendetta against
Dorsch continues in Edward G. Winter where he says
Dorsch wrote articles as "Edward Spring" [3]. "Edward
Spring" was a pseudonymous troll in a chess-related
Usenet group several years ago (the name was an
obvious take-off on Edward Winter). Sloan claimed
in 2002 that "Spring" was Dorsch [4] but that was
nothing but conjecture, and others were skeptical.
The Spring=Dorsch claim in the Winter article has
been removed repeatedly by other editors but Sloan
continues to restore it. Sloan seems to have latched
onto Wikipedia as a new venue to carry on his ancient
personal squabbles (Dorsch, an ex-roommate of Sloan
from the 1960's, hasn't been heard from in years and
Sloan continues to hound him). If Sloan insists on
pursuing those petty dramas, that's his business,
but it's best if he did it on his own site instead of on
Wikipedia. Phr 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
_
I hope that people will forgive me for intruding to
correct one small point. Sam Sloan has repeatedly
and falsely connected me with the decision to delete
the Tom Dorsch article. I had no involvement in that
decision. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch)
- Louis Blair (4 March 2006)

Some comments that people sent to Sam
Sloan's talk page:
_
"Engaging in an edit war is not the correct
way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent
reverts in the Edward G. Winter violate the
three-revert rule. Instead of reverting the
page, post your comment on the
appropriate talk page. Continuing to
engage in the acts prescribed could result
in a block."
_
_
"You are in danger of violating the three-revert
rule. Please cease further reverts or you may
be blocked from further editing."
_
_
"Policy on edit warring applies regardless of
the truth or otherwise of the disputed content
or the expertise of the enforcing admin. The
cycle is: be bold (once), revert (once), talk. If
someone else is not following that rule it does
not mean you should too, there is no hurry,
no deadline to meet. Take it to the Talk page,
achieve consensus, and if the contentious
material is still being pushed you will then
have the backing of others in enforcing the
consensus. Unles, of course, it's you doing
the pushing."
_
_
"Your statements at WPRV, and some
of your comments on Talk pages of various
chess articles, are incivil and could justifiably
be interpreted as personal attacks. Wikipedia
is not usenet, the two operate very differently
and long-time Usenet users often have a hard
time adjusting. Usenet thrives on dispute,
Wikipedia is about building an encyclopaedia
by consensus, which means engaging
constructively with your opponents to state
the basis of dispute and not advocate either
point of view. On Usenet you can 'win' by
shouting your opinion loudest, on Wikipedia
all points of view must be fairly and neutrally
represented without undue weight given to
any one view. And neither is Usenet a court
of law - you cannot make a statement based
on your credentials and have it accepted as
reliable testimony. Everything should be
verifiable from reliable secondary sources
because Wikipedia is not a publisher of first
instance. You are behaving in an adversarial
manner (understandably given your past),
but that is not how Wikipedia works, we have
a collaborative, not an adversarial method.
_
You seriously need to calm down and take a
less aggressive approach to subjects on
which you clearly have strong feelings. If you
continue as you are you will end up in trouble,
and will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia,
which will ensure that your point of view gets
less coverage, not more. State your case
neutrally and with proper citations, and above
all stop personalising things. Nobody disputes
that you know a lot, but neither do you dispute
that you have very strong views, and those
views are not necessarily neutral. We have to
be especially careful in the case of living people."
_
_
"You are personalising things on Wikipedia (I
don't dispute that they are personal outside WP).
Why should Howcheng care one way or the other?
Howcheng is here only to make sure that people
play by the rules, and although there is much
beef about 'rouge admins' (sic) I have yet to see
any evidence that the average sysop is doing
anything other than refereeing in these situations.
Put simply, I trust Howcheng. Your biggest
problem to my mind is that you often seem to
state things in combative language, which makes
it hard to see past the bluster and find the core
of fact. If you state things in a calm and neutral
manner, and above all do not edit-war, you will
achieve results with less friction. It is an
unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia
works that simply knowing somethign to be true
is not enough, you have to show that reliable
secondary sources have reported it as such.
We are not supposed to weight he relative truth
of different versions, we are not supposed to
have analytical and research skills, we are
supposed to collect and document that which
is verifiable from reliable secondary sources in
a neutral way. A dispute exists? Dosument
both sides. Describe the evidence they have.
And if someone removes that evidence, discuss
it with them on the Talk page and see what their
issues are. Discussion by edit summary simply
does not work. It's fine to have storng opinions,
and its cool to state them on the Talk page (in
terms which do not offend). But when they go
into an article, care is needed, and balance
must be struck. I think you know this. You are
known as being disputatious and as having
deep-rooted views about certain people (who
may or may not be obnoxious charlatans). I
really think you need to amke it easier for
disinterested parties to discount that."

Some comments that people sent to Sam
Sloan's talk page:
_
"Engaging in an edit war is not the correct
way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent
reverts in the Edward G. Winter violate the
three-revert rule. Instead of reverting the
page, post your comment on the
appropriate talk page. Continuing to
engage in the acts prescribed could result
in a block."
_
_
"You are in danger of violating the three-revert
rule. Please cease further reverts or you may
be blocked from further editing."
_
_
"Policy on edit warring applies regardless of
the truth or otherwise of the disputed content
or the expertise of the enforcing admin. The
cycle is: be bold (once), revert (once), talk. If
someone else is not following that rule it does
not mean you should too, there is no hurry,
no deadline to meet. Take it to the Talk page,
achieve consensus, and if the contentious
material is still being pushed you will then
have the backing of others in enforcing the
consensus. Unles, of course, it's you doing
the pushing."
_
_
"Your statements at WPRV, and some
of your comments on Talk pages of various
chess articles, are incivil and could justifiably
be interpreted as personal attacks. Wikipedia
is not usenet, the two operate very differently
and long-time Usenet users often have a hard
time adjusting. Usenet thrives on dispute,
Wikipedia is about building an encyclopaedia
by consensus, which means engaging
constructively with your opponents to state
the basis of dispute and not advocate either
point of view. On Usenet you can 'win' by
shouting your opinion loudest, on Wikipedia
all points of view must be fairly and neutrally
represented without undue weight given to
any one view. And neither is Usenet a court
of law - you cannot make a statement based
on your credentials and have it accepted as
reliable testimony. Everything should be
verifiable from reliable secondary sources
because Wikipedia is not a publisher of first
instance. You are behaving in an adversarial
manner (understandably given your past),
but that is not how Wikipedia works, we have
a collaborative, not an adversarial method.
_
You seriously need to calm down and take a
less aggressive approach to subjects on
which you clearly have strong feelings. If you
continue as you are you will end up in trouble,
and will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia,
which will ensure that your point of view gets
less coverage, not more. State your case
neutrally and with proper citations, and above
all stop personalising things. Nobody disputes
that you know a lot, but neither do you dispute
that you have very strong views, and those
views are not necessarily neutral. We have to
be especially careful in the case of living people."
_
_
"You are personalising things on Wikipedia (I
don't dispute that they are personal outside WP).
Why should Howcheng care one way or the other?
Howcheng is here only to make sure that people
play by the rules, and although there is much
beef about 'rouge admins' (sic) I have yet to see
any evidence that the average sysop is doing
anything other than refereeing in these situations.
Put simply, I trust Howcheng. Your biggest
problem to my mind is that you often seem to
state things in combative language, which makes
it hard to see past the bluster and find the core
of fact. If you state things in a calm and neutral
manner, and above all do not edit-war, you will
achieve results with less friction. It is an
unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia
works that simply knowing somethign to be true
is not enough, you have to show that reliable
secondary sources have reported it as such.
We are not supposed to weight he relative truth
of different versions, we are not supposed to
have analytical and research skills, we are
supposed to collect and document that which
is verifiable from reliable secondary sources in
a neutral way. A dispute exists? Dosument
both sides. Describe the evidence they have.
And if someone removes that evidence, discuss
it with them on the Talk page and see what their
issues are. Discussion by edit summary simply
does not work. It's fine to have storng opinions,
and its cool to state them on the Talk page (in
terms which do not offend). But when they go
into an article, care is needed, and balance
must be struck. I think you know this. You are
known as being disputatious and as having
deep-rooted views about certain people (who
may or may not be obnoxious charlatans). I
really think you need to amke it easier for
disinterested parties to discount that."
_
A comment that was sent to Howcheng's talk page:
_
"Sam_Sloan (talk · contribs · page moves · block
user · block log) has taken Tom Dorsch to WPRV.
I guess you've looked at Sam Sloan's web page?
this is an example. This goes some way to explain
why the article was so very bad - Sloan evidently
bears considerable personal animosity toward sthe
subject. This Google search is also instructive.
Expect some crap from Sam Sloan, feel free to
ask me (email or Talk) if you need additional
backup, but I have a feeling you can handle a POV
pusher well enough :-)"

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Some comments that people sent to Sam
Sloan's talk page:
_
"You are in danger of violating the three-revert
rule. Please cease further reverts or you may
be blocked from further editing."

Repeat, Scam. Repeat! Please repeat.


"Your statements at WPRV, and some
of your comments on Talk pages of various
chess articles, are incivil and could justifiably
be interpreted as personal attacks.

Right on!


point of view. On Usenet you can 'win' by
shouting your opinion loudest, on Wikipedia
all points of view must be fairly and neutrally
represented without undue weight given to
any one view.



.... You are behaving in an adversarial
manner (understandably given your past),

Hehehe.

You seriously need to calm down and take a
less aggressive approach to subjects on
which you clearly have strong feelings.

You can say that again!

If you
continue as you are you will end up in trouble,
and will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia,
which will ensure that your point of view gets
less coverage, not more.

Please, let that happen.

..
Put simply, I trust Howcheng.

I trust Howcheng too.

Your biggest
problem to my mind is that you often seem to
state things in combative language, ...

No ****?