![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: controversy, dorsch, tom, wikipedia |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Ads |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ralf Callenberg wrote:
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. Nonsense. Knowing what Sloan is helps the reader judge the article. Greetings, Ralf |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Historian wrote:
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. Nonsense. Knowing what Sloan is helps the reader judge the article. No you are completely wrong. The article speaks for himself, and he should do so. I am sure, the administrators don't care who Sam Sloan is. They just look at the article and the subject of it. You just have to imagine you are somebody who doesn't know Sam Sloan or Tom Dorsch and reads this article and has to decide what to do. Then some other guy, probably unregistered user, just pops up and claims that the author is a psychopath. Why should you believe him? Maybe he has his own quarrel with him, you don't know about. At least I would give **** about what others say about the author, if I had to judge a text. And if other opinions are provided by people who obviosly have a bias against the author, I would be very sceptic about any judgement they offer. Greetings, Ralf |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with you Ralf. I'm sorry I'm just a prick. Please delete it.
Sam Sloan |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
3 March 2006
Tom Dorsch User:Howcheng who admitted that he knew nothing about the subject matter of this article, which was chess, deleted my highly acclaimed and popular article about Tom Dorsch, who is one of the best known chess players in the world. Ever since, any time anybody does not like one of my articles, they write to User:Howcheng and he continues to harass me. Prior to being deleted, my article on Tom Dorsch was modified by a dozen different editors who in some cases added more information. Therefore, I cannot simply reinstate the article I wrote. I need to recover what everybody else contributed. In addition, User:Howcheng showed his utter ignorance of the people involved, with the following statement: "User:Sam Sloan is free to request a review of the deletion at WP RV.I suppose I did not need to make the snarky comment about meatpuppets, but Mr Sloan clearly does not understand AfD is not a vote." However, it is rather User:Howcheng who does not understand. 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. This is the problem when User:Howcheng intervenes not knowing the subject matter. Randy Bauer was the Budget Director of the State of Iowa. He ran against me for election to the USCF Executive Board. Here are the results of the election on July 22, 2005 (which can be found through an Internet search): Randy Bauer 1591 Sam Sloan 1064 The other supposed "meatpuppet" was Louis Blair, an Internet gadfly who attacks me all the time. In addition, User:Rook_wave, who made the deletion request, voted six times for deletion, and User:Billbrock who put me on a list of Pedophiles in Wikipedia voted three times for deletion. At the same time, there were a number of famous International Chess Masters and chess personalities who voted to keep the article. If you discount the six votes by Rook wave, the three votes by Billbrock and the other votes by persons who clearly dislike me or Dorsch, then a majority voted to keep the article. The act by User:Howcheng to delete my Tom Dorsch article was clearly wrong. Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is a notable person. The fact that some people dislike me or dislike Tom Dorsch is not a proper grounds for deletion. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I need an order of protection telling [[User:Howcheng}} to stay from my articles until he learns something about chess. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
In addition, User:Howcheng showed his utter ignorance of the people involved, with the following statement: User:Howcheng showed good judgment in deleting the Tom Dorsch diatribe as submiited by Scam Sloan. The other supposed "meatpuppet" was Louis Blair, an Internet gadfly Pot calling the kettle black. The act by User:Howcheng to delete my Tom Dorsch article was clearly wrong. The act by User:Howcheng to delete your Tom Dorsch article was clearly right. Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is a notable person. Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is not a notable person - just a former USCF functionary. I need an order of protection telling [[User:Howcheng}} to stay from my articles until he learns something about chess. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I wish User:Howcheng continued success in deleting Scam Sloan's garbage from Wikipedia. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Active disagreements
Add new conflicts at the bottom. Use short (one line), neutral descriptions, and provide links to locations where more information is available. Do not sign your name, but add a date (using "~~~~~" - five tildes). Please do not discuss the disagreement on this page. It will help if everyone who lists something here weighs in on another disagreement. Listings that do not follow instructions may be removed. User:Howcheng made an unprovoked personal attack by calling my political opponents my "meatpuppets". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch By calling Randy Bauer, who was the Budget Director of the State of Iowa, my "meatpuppet", he insulted him. Had User:Howcheng spent just five minutes searching the Internet, he would have found that Randy Bauer was my election opponent for the Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation. Randy Bauer got about 1500 votes, I received 1051 votes. Based upon his claim that Randy Bauer was my "meatpuppet", User:Howcheng blanked my biography of Tom Dorsch. Tom Dorsch is one of the best known chess personalities in the world and is far better known than most of the persons who have biographies posted on Wikipedia. Because of User:Howcheng doing this, I stopped posting content for three months. Finally last night, I posted a new biography, and less than ten minutes later User:Howcheng threatened to block me. So, User:Howcheng violated two Wikipedia rules. First, he called a person who ran against me for election my "meatpuppet" and then he completely blanked and erased the history of a person who is one of the best known chess players in the world. Since User:Howcheng has done this repeatedly over a long period of time, I am asking that he be reprimanded and told to stay away from my articles. Wikipedia policy is to encourage the posting by experts. I am clearly qualified as an expert on chess. There have been hundreds of published articles by me about chess. Every major chess magazine in the world has published articles by me. On the other hand, User:Howcheng admits that he knows nothing about chess, except that he played one game while in high school. He should be directed not to interfere in a subject he knows nothing about. Sam Sloan 11:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion" Category: Wikipedia dispute resolution |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wikipedia policy is to encourage the posting by experts. I am clearly
qualified as an expert on chess. There have been hundreds of published articles by me about chess. Every major chess magazine in the world has published articles by me. On the other hand, User:Howcheng admits that he knows nothing about chess, except that he played one game while in high school. He should be directed not to interfere in a subject he knows nothing about. Sam Sloan 11:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion" Category: Wikipedia dispute resolution Sam you have my support. You write fantastic articles on chess not only here on usenet. Regards |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you discount the six votes by Rook wave, the three votes by
Billbrock and the other votes by persons who clearly dislike me or Dorsch, then a majority voted to keep the article. The act by User:Howcheng to delete my Tom Dorsch article was clearly wrong. Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is a notable person. The fact that some people dislike me or dislike Tom Dorsch is not a proper grounds for deletion. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I need an order of protection telling User:Howcheng to stay from my articles until he learns something about chess. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) * Where would you propose we get an order of protection from? -Splashtalk 03:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC) * Strongly endorse closure, keep deleted and salt the earth. Here is the AFD debate, see also Sam Sloan's attack page and this thread on Usenet. It seems that the complainant may possibly have ownership issues and is very obviously anything but neutral. But since this is allegedly one of the most significant figures in chess it should be trivially easy to verify that significance. The assertion is not borne out by numerous well-argued "delete" statements in the (validly closed) AfD. Howcheng seems to have no prior involvement with the article, and is just the janitor here, closing a rather messy AfD but one with a decent number of contributions from which consensus can be established. Looking at the article and its history, and the AfD, I can quite believe that deletion might be followed by intense acrimony, but that is not Howcheng's doing. The content itself is an unpleasant mixture of snide innuendo and blatant attack, and very clearly has no place on Wikipedia in this form. Even pre-Seighenthaler we would have deleted or at least aggressively pruned this article, essentially to a stub of verifiable information (which verifiable information conspicuously fails to establish notability). Absent any willingness on the part of the subject's supporters to substantiate notability, and on the part of his detractors to allow WP:NPOV, I would say that this is best gone, and there is no doubt in my mind that this DRV is vexatious and should be speedily closed as such. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I need to point out that two of the pages cited by Just zis Guy you know? were NOT written by me. There are at least two FAKE SAM SLOANS trolling Usenet, especially on rec.games.chess.politics . Regular readers of Usenet can quickly tell the difference between the real and the fake Sam Sloan's, but Wikipedia administrators probably will not be familiar with this problem and will not realize that they are reading something by an imposter. Also, the article cited above at http://www.samsloan.com/tomswife.htm called "Sam Sloan's attack page" is not an attack at all. Tom Dorsch wrote that my mother was insane in California. My mother was a psychiatrist, treating insane people, and she was from Virginia and had never been to California. The attack by Tom Dorsch on me was apparently provoked by a posting from one of the Fake Sam Sloans. Back then, it was not as well known as it is now that there were fake Sam Sloans trolling around and Dorsch probably did not realize it. Sam Sloan 12:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...iew#Tom_Dorsch |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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.) |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Tom Dorsch Wikipedia Controversy | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 85 | March 11th 06 12:51 AM |
| Wikipedia Biography of Tom Dorsch | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 4 | December 17th 05 12:51 AM |
| Wikipedia Biography of Tom Dorsch | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 4 | December 17th 05 12:51 AM |
| Sam Sloan's US History for Wikipedia | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 12 | November 7th 05 02:38 AM |
| Wikipedia Page for John Peters | Sam Sloan | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 3 | October 18th 05 03:35 AM |