The Edward G. Winter entry at Wikipedia is now
quite different from what Sam Sloan posted on
Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:46:37 GMT.
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter
_
In the discussion section, a Wikipedia administrator
wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
_
"Attention Sam Sloan
...
Please read the content at the following links
very carefully:
_
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Cite your sources
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
...
Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
you have your own web site to do that already."

I like the newer Edward G Winter entry.

Who do we have to thank for?


"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
The Edward G. Winter entry at Wikipedia is now
quite different from what Sam Sloan posted on
Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:46:37 GMT.
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter
_
In the discussion section, a Wikipedia administrator
wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
_
"Attention Sam Sloan
...
Please read the content at the following links
very carefully:
_
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Cite your sources
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
...
Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
you have your own web site to do that already."


ROTFL

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sam Sloan wrote (Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:50:06 GMT):

Louis Blair was one of the posters, along with Bill Brock,
Randy Bauer, and "Rook wave", who got my highly
acclaimed biography of Tom Dorsch deleted from
Wikipedia.

_
Another false statement from Sam Sloan. I had no
involvement in the decision to delete the Tom Dorsch
biography.
_

I wonder what Sloan's supporters think / feel every time they read
"another false statement from Sam Sloan?" Seems to happen a lot.

Louis Blair wrote:
The Edward G. Winter entry at Wikipedia is now
quite different from what Sam Sloan posted on
Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:46:37 GMT.
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter

Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from the Leonard biography, which is
solely Dr. Hilbert's work. I've deleted it from the book list.

In the discussion section, a Wikipedia administrator
wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
_
"Attention Sam Sloan
...
Please read the content at the following links
very carefully:
_
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Cite your sources
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
...
Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
you have your own web site to do that already."

Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 15:48:05 -0800):

Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from ...

_
I had no involvement in the composing of a new
Wikipedia entry (unless one counts my complaint
about what Sam Sloan contributed).

Louis Blair wrote:
Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 15:48:05 -0800):

Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from ...

_
I had no involvement in the composing of a new
Wikipedia entry (unless one counts my complaint
about what Sam Sloan contributed).

Dr. Blair, I merely commented it was "much improved". I don't recall
writing you made the improvements.

Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 15:48:05 -0800):
Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from ...
_
I wrote (4 Mar 2006 17:20:13 -0800):
I had no involvement in the composing of a new
Wikipedia entry (unless one counts my complaint
about what Sam Sloan contributed).

_
Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 17:29:38 -0800):

I don't recall writing you made the improvements.

_
I don't recall writing that Neil Brennen wrote that I
made the improvements. It looks we are facing
yet another potential infinite exchange. I propose
that we consider all further I-don't-recall statements
to be entered into the record without actually
attempting to post them all.
_
"I don't recall writing that you wrote that I wrote
that you made the improvements."
_
"I don't recall writing that Neil Brennen wrote
that I wrote that Neil Brennen wrote that I
made the improvements."
_
"I don't recall ..."

Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 15:48:05 -0800):
Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from ...
_
I wrote (4 Mar 2006 17:20:13 -0800):
I had no involvement in the composing of a new
Wikipedia entry (unless one counts my complaint
about what Sam Sloan contributed).

_
Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 17:29:38 -0800):

I don't recall writing you made the improvements.

_
I don't recall writing that Neil Brennen wrote that I
made the improvements. It looks like we are facing
yet another potential infinite exchange. I propose
that we consider all further I-don't-recall statements
to be entered into the record without actually
attempting to post them all.
_
"I don't recall writing that you wrote that I wrote
that you made the improvements."
_
"I don't recall writing that Neil Brennen wrote
that I wrote that Neil Brennen wrote that I
made the improvements."
_
"I don't recall ..."

Here is some more from the discussion section:
_
"Howcheng may or may not know anything about
chess journalism, but it's clear that he knows what
a cite is and Sloan doesn't. ... (... Kingston is a
Usenet poster who Sloan likes to flame against
and this Winter article seems to be mainly a
vehicle for Sloan to attack Kingston by alleging
that Kingston is Winter's alter ego.)"
_
"If you want to write some personal memoirs
giving your half-baked factoids and warped opinions,
that's just swell. Publish them on your own site,
not in Wikipedia."

Just some quick notes. Including links to "anonymous" reviewers on
some random internet page is not a source. Including links to a
website about Bobby Fischer to back up a fictitious claim, is not a
source. Injecting Keene, into practically every paragraph, when the
subject is Winter, can only be construed as an agenda to smear one or
the other, or both. ?\The preceding unsigned comment was added by
70.31.49.240 (talk . contribs) 14:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

You're right, I still know nothing about chess, so look at it from my
perspective. I'm reading this article to learn something about the
subject and I come across all these sentences I listed above. My first
thought is, "Is that right??" But there's no way for me to verify what
you've written. The onus should not be upon me as a reader to do the
research to verify your information. It is your responsibility as an
editor to provide these links or citations so that someone who wants
to verify it can do so. Let me give you an example from an article I
contributed to, John Rollin Ridge. In this edit another user changed
"abolitionist" to "antiabolitionist" because that's what was in the
reference I cited (I had misread it when I originally wrote the
article). Because I had that citation in there, someone was able to
correct my mistake. If you don't cite your sources, there's no way for
anyone to know that you just didn't make the whole thing up. If what
you're writing is all true and accurate, then provide the proof.
Citing a blog or a random post in a newsgroup is not proof, because we
as readers don't know that they didn't make it up either. But
newspapers and magazines employ fact-checkers so their information is
reliable (outside of writers like Jayson Blair). Get it? howcheng
{chat} 08:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong again. You have just allowed an unregistered
user who is a well known Internet troll from Canada and who vandalized
almost the entire article, to influence your opinion without checking
it. The quote above is NOT from some unknown person's Blog. It is from
the magazine of the New Jersey State Chess Federation. Obviously, you
did not take a close look at the cite. A quick search of the Internet
will produce a dozen other quotes from other chess players who say
much the same thing. The tendency of Winter to dwell upon spelling
mistakes by Keene is well known. If Keene writes "principle" when he
should have written "principal", Winter will make a big issue over it.

The fact that Bobby Fischer said that Winter is not a real person was
big news in the chess world. Anything Bobby Fischer says, rightly or
wrongly, is news. The link was not to a website about Bobby Fischer.
It was to Bobby Fischer's personal website. By the way, I am a close
personal friend of Bobby Fischer. I have known him since 1956. See
http://www.samsloan.com/post1956.htm

The only thing notable about Winter is that he attacks Keene all the
time. Keene has written 140 books, mostly about chess. All of them
have been attacked by Winter. To write about Winter without mentioning
Keene would be like writing about Boswell without mentioning Samuel
Johnson.

You should be a man about this and admit that you made a serious error
by deleting the Tom Dorsch biography. You should reinstate it, call
for another vote, and allow a non-biased administrator pass upon it.
The fact that the same person made a request for deletion and then
voted six times to delete (you should count them) was a violation of
protocol. Several people on the chess groups have pointed out that the
fact that you deleted the biography of a very well known person like
Tom Dorsch, while allowing Wikipedia to remain filled with biographies
of complete nobodies, shows how ridiculous Wikipedia can be.

I just noticed that you became a Wikipedia administrator only on
December 25, 2005. You deleted the Tom Dorsch biography only four days
later. You should acknowledge that your lack of experience caused you
to make a serious error and reverse it. Sam Sloan 12:30, 5 March 2006
(UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_G._Winter"