Main
Date: 06 Jan 2008 12:01:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_Greengard

Mig Greengard is definitely one of my favorite people. However, he
easily meets the standards of notability set for inclusion on
Wikipedia. Among many other things, he was director of the New York
Office of the Kasparov Chess Foundation and recently he was awarded
"Chess Journalist of the Year" by the Chess Journalists Association.

Being nominated for deletion is a matter of serious concern.

In ch, 2006, Paul Rubin, who posts on Wikipedia as "Phr", deleted
my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha, and Geoffrey Borg. I doubt that Paul Rubin even knew who
these people are. They are the most important chess officials in their
respective countries. Thus, they are easily qualified to be listed on
Wikipedia. In addition, the USCF had nominated these four people as
candidates for election to the FIDE Board, Paul Rubin is an anti-USCF
person, which perhaps explains why he nominated them for deletion.

After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair wrote
letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam Sloan administrators
asking them to reinstate the removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar
Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. The result was that
one of those 19, an especially quarrelsome administrator named
User:Jzg a/k/a Guy Chapman, who spends all his time arguing with other
Wikipedia administrators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG

The result was that User:JzG did not merely delete the biographies, he
"salted the earth", meaning that biographies of these four people can
never be re-instated again.

As a result, they lost the election. User:JzG also deleted the
biography of Robert Tanner.

Since Louis Blair has been known to claim that this was not the fault,
I call upon him now to write to User:JzG and ask him to un-salt the
earth on the biographies of Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg.

The point is that if somebody does not go in right now and defend Mig
Greengard, It is likely that he will be the subject of "salting the
earth".

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 10 Jan 2008 19:24:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How the Queen Survived, was Mig
On Jan 10, 9:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> The proper whiskey runs through 30 miles of bracken-bog with hopefully and
> least one decaying sheep in it, then passes by numerous dungyards, before
> crossing a burnt heather-moor.

Ah-- a sheep herder! I thought I smelled something
foul. Better keep yer sheep away from my cow
pasture, or there'll be Hell to pay.


> Jack Daniels tastes like it ran through Detroit.

Is that in Kentucky? Come to think of it, the
Ohio river could have been contaminated from
that far off, with all this rain.


> Perhaps someone will now write in to tell us that, in their language the
> chess pieces themselves are altogether masculine, neuter, or feminine - or,
> given any group of pieces containing one masculine piece, they are all
> masculine, but if the queen alone is referenced, she is permitted to be
> feminine.
>
> Indeed, I wonder if there are male pieces and female pieces, and also
> neutral ones? In English we must make do with the King being masculine, the
> Queen being feminine - the bishops, knights and rooks being don't-knows.

Generally speaking, Knights are males, Rooks
can be of either sex (elephants) or sexless (turrets),
while Bishops as we know are mainly pedophiles.


> But what of the pawns? They are so often portrayed as little [male]
> soldiers - but on the cusp of the seventh rank can undergo a gender change
> to become wimmin!

A titanic promotion, so I'm told; not only from
the inferior sex to the better one, but there is
too, a simultaneous large gain in intelligence.


> The first serious chess historian of the modern game, a Gent named Hyde, who
> later helped found the Royal Society - actually thought this gender changing
> ridiculous! Immoral! Insufferable! - and sought to ban the Queen!

This tells volumes about Mr. Hyde's "issues",
but who really cares what such fools thought?
At one time, folks thought that lightning came
from an Arnold Swarzenneger-type fellow tossing
bolts down from the heavens.


> They should all be blokes, [I paraphrase] saith he, since chess is a war
> game and women have no part in it!

Are you nuts? Take the battle of Troy, for
instance. Do you believe for one second that
Helen had no part? That it was just about
money and power? Or take WWII: the women
in Japan trained to fend off an impending
invasion by the USA, while women here
worked in factories to make guns and ammo.
And what about the female nurses? What
point is there in getting wounded, if not for
them? That guy simply didn't understand
what war is all about.


> Dammit! He continued, soon we will see a WGM named tha Stewart, or
> something, who will be out there stencilling the chess board with pretty
> flower patterns! Of course, there are pretty flowers on a battle field,
> but...

Where have all the flowers gone?

Where have all the young girls gone?

Where have all the young men gone?

Where have all the soldiers gone?

Where have all the graveyards gone?

Where have all the flowers gone?


> and in his confusion abandoned his metaphor completely, and so the Queen
> survived, checking happily into the future.
>
> Isn't this a lovely story for the New Year?

It would make for a good story, but who is
going to "buy" the idea that this one person
had the power to decide the Queen's fate?


> > Obviously, the accusation: "what is it you did do,
> > Loueiee?" means nothing whatever to a newbie, apart
> > from just what it says (and the proof of poor spelling
> > skills). I just want to raise the bar off the ground; I'm
> > not aiming for perfection here... .
>
> should one hurdle the bar or do that other thing underneath it, and hope
> your pants don't split?

Same problem here: last year's pants keep
getting smaller, and tighter! I have coats that
won't zip, shirts that have shrunk up in the
midsection, and belts that must be used two
at a time. Try placing the bar six inches off
the ground, and then stumble over the top,
doing a Fosbury flop with your feet at the end.
Oh-- don't try this on cement!


-- help bot



  
Date: 11 Jan 2008 09:25:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How the Queen Survived, was Mig

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 10, 9:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Jack Daniels tastes like it ran through Detroit.
>
> Is that in Kentucky?

No, its in Canada, and from the Old French, De troité, meaning 'the trots'.


>> Indeed, I wonder if there are male pieces and female pieces, and also
>> neutral ones? In English we must make do with the King being masculine,
>> the
>> Queen being feminine - the bishops, knights and rooks being don't-knows.
>
> Generally speaking, Knights are males, Rooks
> can be of either sex (elephants) or sexless (turrets),
> while Bishops as we know are mainly pedophiles.

In consideration of the above, Rooks should be replaced by something clearly
more indeterminate and therefore scientific [see chess ratings thread], like
single-celled amoeba [which will look like big fried eggs], I suppose
Knights are still all blokes, though these days down at Smith College, there
may well be some gender-busters. I expect they would want to be called
Nighties?

The difficulty is with the Bishops, which I think are still all white
males - itself the worst combination of things. And I can't think of how to
fix them - so conclude they gotta go.

What do we replace them with? After several seconds of thinking, the only
item popping into my mind are Elvises. You could have a pair of Elvises,
with guitars of course [Fenders] - apart from the drugs he was pretty clean,
cleaner than bishops, anyhow.

Maybe other readers have better ideas?

>> But what of the pawns? They are so often portrayed as little [male]
>> soldiers - but on the cusp of the seventh rank can undergo a gender
>> change
>> to become wimmin!
>
> A titanic promotion, so I'm told; not only from
> the inferior sex to the better one, but there is
> too, a simultaneous large gain in intelligence.

True. Look at all us men writing here! pfft! Dumber 'n 2 short planks. And
our collective wit can't entrance a single wimmin to write here, or not for
more than 10 minutes at a time. Course not everyone here likes wimmin, and a
few don't know what they are. Even so... you would think we would have some
sort of attractive possibilities, no?

Maybe we have bad feng shui?

>> The first serious chess historian of the modern game, a Gent named Hyde,
>> who
>> later helped found the Royal Society - actually thought this gender
>> changing
>> ridiculous! Immoral! Insufferable! - and sought to ban the Queen!
>
> This tells volumes about Mr. Hyde's "issues",
> but who really cares what such fools thought?

He was not atypical of his times. England had just got rid of a real queen
who died from death, and men were breaking out again! I know Hillary just
won New Hampshire, but, can you imagine listening to her voice for 30 years?
:((

> At one time, folks thought that lightning came
> from an Arnold Swarzenneger-type fellow tossing
> bolts down from the heavens.

Thank you for sharing, but I hardly see the relevance to the Bishop problem.
Unless you are suggesting Swarzenneggers instead of Elvises?

<curs some boring comments >

>> Dammit! He continued, soon we will see a WGM named tha Stewart, or
>> something, who will be out there stencilling the chess board with pretty
>> flower patterns! Of course, there are pretty flowers on a battle field,
>> but...
>
> Where have all the flowers gone?
>
> Where have all the young girls gone?
>
> Where have all the young men gone?
>
> Where have all the soldiers gone?
>
> Where have all the graveyards gone?
>
> Where have all the flowers gone?

That's very lovely, Greg.

>> and in his confusion abandoned his metaphor completely, and so the Queen
>> survived, checking happily into the future.
>>
>> Isn't this a lovely story for the New Year?
>
> It would make for a good story, but who is
> going to "buy" the idea that this one person
> had the power to decide the Queen's fate?

All men? But you digress: unless anyone else comes up with a new name for
the Bishop, then we could have a vote for Swarzenneggers instead of
Elvises - which is dumb, but very practical [see ratings threads again], and
people can enjoy pretending to be stupid by acutally voting, whereas, as we
discussed, we know they are dumb anyway. You see the perfectly poised logic
of my dissertation?

>> > Obviously, the accusation: "what is it you did do,
>> > Loueiee?" means nothing whatever to a newbie, apart
>> > from just what it says (and the proof of poor spelling
>> > skills). I just want to raise the bar off the ground; I'm
>> > not aiming for perfection here... .
>>
>> should one hurdle the bar or do that other thing underneath it, and hope
>> your pants don't split?
>
> Same problem here: last year's pants keep
> getting smaller, and tighter! I have coats that
> won't zip, shirts that have shrunk up in the
> midsection, and belts that must be used two
> at a time. Try placing the bar six inches off
> the ground, and then stumble over the top,
> doing a Fosbury flop with your feet at the end.
> Oh-- don't try this on cement!

We have no cement on the farm; in order to sell organic free-range gerbils
you had to be cement-free by 2003. Same is true of hamster-ranches
throughout Vermont.

Phil Innes

> -- help bot
>




 
Date: 10 Jan 2008 14:30:44
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 10, 11:17=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Eric Johnson, former Acting USCF Executive Director, has posted an
> excellent critique on Louis Blair.

It strikes me as weak at best.
> Sam, it is hopeless with Mr. Blair. =A0He likes to argue that all he
> does is make the facts known to the decision-makers -- he doesn't ask
> them to do anything.
>
> Thus, if he writes to a Wikipedia official and points out things that
> would/could/should get a listing deleted -- all he says he is doing is
> making Wikipedia "aware" of the situation. =A0When Wikipedia takes the
> obvious step, Mr. Blair thinks he has clean hands.
>
> Sort of like saying "all I did was yell fire -- I didn't ask anyone to
> stampede the door -- that was their own decision."

But pointing out the facts or "making them known" means there is a
fire. Thus, a warning is appropriate.


 
Date: 10 Jan 2008 09:17:56
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
Eric Johnson, former Acting USCF Executive Director, has posted an
excellent critique on Louis Blair.

Since Eric Johnson never posts here, I will post it for him:

Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia

In a message dated 1/8/2008 6:57:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Let's make it simple, Mr. Blair:

1. Did you or did you not write postings to 19 Wikipedia
administrators or editors pointing out that I had reinstated
biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg?

Answer that question "yes" or "no".


Sam, it is hopeless with Mr. Blair. He likes to argue that all he
does is make the facts known to the decision-makers -- he doesn't ask
them to do anything.

Thus, if he writes to a Wikipedia official and points out things that
would/could/should get a listing deleted -- all he says he is doing is
making Wikipedia "aware" of the situation. When Wikipedia takes the
obvious step, Mr. Blair thinks he has clean hands.

Sort of like saying "all I did was yell fire -- I didn't ask anyone to
stampede the door -- that was their own decision."

Causal chains of behavior have no impact on Mr. Blair.

ECJ


 
Date: 10 Jan 2008 06:56:58
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: How the Queen Survived, was Mig
On Jan 10, 9:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > As if Irish whiskey could even begin to compare
> > to home-brew corn still output over here! Ever
> > heard of a fellow named Jack Daniels?
>
> I've tried. Its like maidens water.
>
> The proper whiskey runs through 30 miles of bracken-bog with hopefully and
> least one decaying sheep in it, then passes by numerous dungyards, before
> crossing a burnt heather-moor.
>
> Jack Daniels tastes like it ran through Detroit.

Credit where credit is due. Between this quip and his brilliant
response to JKH about the CJA I have been surprised at the
intelligence Mr. Innes has shown this morning. True, his post on drug
testing was his usual 'standard', but that might have been his 'before
coffee' posting.


 
Date: 09 Jan 2008 20:41:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 8, 6:55 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Let's make it simple, Mr. Blair:
>
> 1. Did you or did you not write postings to 19 Wikipedia
> administrators or editors pointing out that I had reinstated
> biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
> Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg?
>
> Answer that question "yes" or "no".
>
> In other words, stop playing games with swords.
>
> 2. Is it not a fact that promptly after you wrote these 19
> administrators, User:JzG "salted the earth" with respect to the
> biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
> Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg, meaning that
> no biography of those persons can ever be posted to Wikipedia again?
>
> Answer "yes" or "no".
>
> 3. Is it not a fact that Bill Goichberg rewarded you for this deed by
> appointing you as a member of the Forum Oversight Committee thereby
> giving you the power to remove postings by Sam Sloan from the USCF
> Issues Forum?
>
> Answer that question "yes" or "no".
>
> We will await your answers.


This posting makes it clear that SS has no clue what
he is talking about.

AFTER having already issued accusations, he now
"inquires" whether or not they were justified! It is as
though the man were traveling in time, and like Merlin
the wizard, he knows nothing of the past, yet he can
"see" crimes from the future, or at least he thinks he
can.

Traditionally, the accusation comes after-the-fact,
and the accused is never asked to testify against
himself. Indeed, the compilation of evidence of the
crime is the job of the accuser. In this "case", I get
the sense of a paranoid nutter who accuses people
of conspiring against him, hoping they will "confess"
and thereby justify his irrational fears.

Nearly-an-IM Innes has given his bizarre version of
the story, claiming that SS wrote four perfectly good
biographies which were then maliciously deleted by
LB et al. To this I can only respond: "why does
Wikipedia allow such malicious deletions?" I ask
this because it makes no sense for Mr. Sloan's vast
creative work to be maliciously deleted, yet that is
precisely what he and his few supporters maintain.
The plot has Wiki as the setting, SS as hero and
artist, with LB as evil villain? Who would pay to see
such lunacy? Even if Kurt Russel can be snagged
to play Sam Sloan's character, you would need an
acid-scarred, malformed dwarf with a German or
Russian accent for the part of Louis Blair. I say it
won't fly-- not unless you can get Halle Barry or
someone like that to play the love interest of both
SS and LB.


-- take three




 
Date: 09 Jan 2008 20:19:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

[much ad hom. deleted]


> In Wales they take to Men-of Harlech - but in Scotland its the whiskey and
> lemon, and as you recover, gradually ease off the lemon.

As if Irish whiskey could even begin to compare
to home-brew corn still output over here! Ever
heard of a fellow named Jack Daniels?


> > Unfortunately, my
> > chess play has fallen off a cliff. I can barely
> > see the board, and this would probably be a
> > perfect time for the ratpack to challenge for
> > another grudge match, even if SS is the best
> > you can offer. Heck, maybe even Rob the
> > robber Mitchell can beat me right now... .
>
> He is busy selling time-shares on Io, a very respectable little moon of
> Jupiter to raise money to buy a couple of small Caribbean Islands and create
> FantasyChessIsland.com which will have its own HD TV channel. I believe he
> will call the Io joint, Lex-ville or Lex City, so the golf course will be
> the Lex City Links, et ca.

Again, more poor Latin. Nearly-Innes lucked into
the correct spelling of "et", meaning "and", yet
whiffed on "cetera" by confounding the abreviation
"ca." which of course stands for california (or
maybe "circa" (around). Generally speaking, the
normal abbreviation for "et cetera" is given as "etc.",
as in Yul Brenner's famous line from The King and I:
"Et cetera, et cetera, etc."

These elementary errors are tell-tale signs of a
dire weakness in the dead languages area. The truth
is, no matter how well you may know still-spoken
languages like figurine algebraic or Chinese, a grasp
of the morbid and forgotten can widen one's overall
perspective; this is why I still make a point to study
British English and Owen's Defense-- for perspective.


Some of my comments did not pertain, as assummed
by nearly-Innes, to everything ever written here under
any thread on the matter of SS vs. LB; to the contrary,
I expect at least a brief sumy of positions in any
newly-created thread on such matters, since only the
deeply-wounded parties are wont to recall every sordid
detail of life-histories betwixt the Hatfields and MacCoys.

You certainly must realize that there are newbies
reading these newsgroups; that they are not merely
the playground of long-time flame-warriors, or nutters.
Obviously, the accusation: "what is it you did do,
Loueiee?" means nothing whatever to a newbie, apart
from just what it says (and the proof of poor spelling
skills). I just want to raise the bar off the ground; I'm
not aiming for perfection here... .


hep blot





  
Date: 10 Jan 2008 09:21:04
From: Chess One
Subject: How the Queen Survived, was Mig

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [much ad hom. deleted]

or an equation met!

and on to pro hominem,

>> In Wales they take to Men-of Harlech - but in Scotland its the whiskey
>> and
>> lemon, and as you recover, gradually ease off the lemon.
>
> As if Irish whiskey could even begin to compare
> to home-brew corn still output over here! Ever
> heard of a fellow named Jack Daniels?

I've tried. Its like maidens water.

The proper whiskey runs through 30 miles of bracken-bog with hopefully and
least one decaying sheep in it, then passes by numerous dungyards, before
crossing a burnt heather-moor.

Jack Daniels tastes like it ran through Detroit.

---
> Again, more poor Latin. Nearly-Innes lucked into
> the correct spelling of "et", meaning "and", yet
> whiffed on "cetera" by confounding the abreviation
> "ca." which of course stands for california (or
> maybe "circa" (around). Generally speaking, the
> normal abbreviation for "et cetera" is given as "etc.",

Nevermind the fine-point differences there - etc being itself an abbreviated
form of the abbreviation, et ca, for people who find 4 letters a labor; and
how fortunate I did not say 'et alii' which as ani fule no, is abbreviated
to et al. whose meaning is 'and others' [masc.] other women being et aliae.

HERE'S THE GIST

Perhaps someone will now write in to tell us that, in their language the
chess pieces themselves are altogether masculine, neuter, or feminine - or,
given any group of pieces containing one masculine piece, they are all
masculine, but if the queen alone is referenced, she is permitted to be
feminine.

Indeed, I wonder if there are male pieces and female pieces, and also
neutral ones? In English we must make do with the King being masculine, the
Queen being feminine - the bishops, knights and rooks being don't-knows.

But what of the pawns? They are so often portrayed as little [male]
soldiers - but on the cusp of the seventh rank can undergo a gender change
to become wimmin!

NO WIMMINS

The first serious chess historian of the modern game, a Gent named Hyde, who
later helped found the Royal Society - actually thought this gender changing
ridiculous! Immoral! Insufferable! - and sought to ban the Queen!

They should all be blokes, [I paraphrase] saith he, since chess is a war
game and women have no part in it!

Dammit! He continued, soon we will see a WGM named tha Stewart, or
something, who will be out there stencilling the chess board with pretty
flower patterns! Of course, there are pretty flowers on a battle field,
but...

and in his confusion abandoned his metaphor completely, and so the Queen
survived, checking happily into the future.

Isn't this a lovely story for the New Year?

----

> Some of my comments did not pertain, as assummed
> by nearly-Innes, to everything ever written here under
> any thread on the matter of SS vs. LB; to the contrary,
> I expect at least a brief sumy of positions in any
> newly-created thread on such matters, since only the
> deeply-wounded parties are wont to recall every sordid
> detail of life-histories betwixt the Hatfields and MacCoys.

showing away with the smoothing iron! look at this - he can bleedin rite if
he wunts two!

> You certainly must realize that there are newbies
> reading these newsgroups; that they are not merely
> the playground of long-time flame-warriors, or nutters.

a call for sobriety, and on topical meditations not medications - no
penances yet, except for the sobriety

> Obviously, the accusation: "what is it you did do,
> Loueiee?" means nothing whatever to a newbie, apart
> from just what it says (and the proof of poor spelling
> skills). I just want to raise the bar off the ground; I'm
> not aiming for perfection here... .

should one hurdle the bar or do that other thing underneath it, and hope
your pants don't split?

Phil Innes

>
> hep blot
>
>
>




 
Date: 09 Jan 2008 06:44:26
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What did Louie do at Wikipedia?
THE BLAIRIAN-KNOT

Louie will answer a question with a question, but he won't answer the
question. He even will CUT the question from his question.

And so it goes.

Chess One wrote:
> "Louis Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 8, 7:07 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > NEVER YES, NEVER NO
> >
> > Louie Blair can never seem to answer a simple question with yes or no.
>
> _
> Does Larry Parr think that Sam Sloan specifically identify
> what evidence he has to support the charges that he has
> posted? (That is a yes or no question.)
>
> Does Larry Parr think that by answering the questions which Louis Blair
> already cut, with this new question about proof, will obtain a yes or no
> answer from Louis Blair, who by this Blairian-means can still answer with a
> further 30,000 words [plus the originals!] which not even St. Anthony,
> supported by a small squadron of learned nuns, the entire Greek pantheon,
> nor Alexander himself could unravel?
>
> In his honor we should rename this form of dialog; the Blairian-knot.
>
> Phil Innes


 
Date: 08 Jan 2008 19:18:04
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: What did Louie do at Wikipedia?
On Jan 8, 7:07 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:
7 NEVER YES, NEVER NO
7
7 Louie Blair can never seem to answer a simple question
7 with yes or no.

_
Does Larry Parr think that Sam Sloan should specifically
identify what evidence he has to support the charges that
he has posted? (That is a yes or no question.)


 
Date: 08 Jan 2008 19:10:27
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: What did Louie do at Wikipedia?
On Jan 8, 7:07=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> NEVER YES, NEVER NO
>
> Louie Blair can never seem to answer a simple question with yes or no.

_
Does Larry Parr think that Sam Sloan specifically identify
what evidence he has to support the charges that he has
posted? (That is a yes or no question.)


  
Date: 09 Jan 2008 09:18:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What did Louie do at Wikipedia?

"Louis Blair" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On Jan 8, 7:07 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> NEVER YES, NEVER NO
>
> Louie Blair can never seem to answer a simple question with yes or no.

_
Does Larry Parr think that Sam Sloan specifically identify
what evidence he has to support the charges that he has
posted? (That is a yes or no question.)

Does Larry Parr think that by answering the questions which Louis Blair
already cut, with this new question about proof, will obtain a yes or no
answer from Louis Blair, who by this Blairian-means can still answer with a
further 30,000 words [plus the originals!] which not even St. Anthony,
supported by a small squadron of learned nuns, the entire Greek pantheon,
nor Alexander himself could unravel?

In his honor we should rename this form of dialog; the Blairian-knot.

Phil Innes




 
Date: 08 Jan 2008 19:07:13
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re:What did Louie do at Wikipedia?
NEVER YES, NEVER NO

Louie Blair can never seem to answer a simple question with yes or no.

<The Russian dialectic is not yes or no but rather "it is possible" or
"it is not altogether impossible." > -- GM Larry Evans in THIS CRAZY
WORLD OF CHESS (page 171) about his visit to the USSR with the
American chess team in 1955.


Louis Blair wrote:
> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)):
>
> 7 ...
> 7
> 7 Answer that question "yes" or "no".
> 7
> 7 We will await your answers.
>
> _
> Why are we seeing questions when be should seeing an
> identification of specific evidence? Is samsloan
> ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154)
> retracting the previous claims? If so, why isn't there an apology?
> If not, why isn't there evidence?
> _
> "...
> After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis
> Blair wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
> Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
> removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
> Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
> ..." - samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
> 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
> _
> _
> "...
> The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair
> wrote messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia
> administrators complaining about my biographies of Ali
> Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha
> and Geoffrey Borg ...
> ..." - samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
> 22:29:58 -0800 (PST))
> _
> _
> "...
> ... on ch 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and Louis
> Blair tried to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted.
> See:
> _
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bessel_Kok&action=history
> ..." - samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
> 09:37:03 -0800 (PST))
> _
> _
> "...
> It is possible to go back to ch 2006 and see Louis
> Blair asking User:JzG to take a look at those five
> biographies. However, I do not know how to do this."
> ..." - samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
> 09:37:03 -0800 (PST))


 
Date: 08 Jan 2008 18:49:51
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7
7 Answer that question "yes" or "no".
7
7 We will await your answers.

_
Why are we seeing questions when be should seeing an
identification of specific evidence? Is samsloan
([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154)
retracting the previous claims? If so, why isn't there an apology?
If not, why isn't there evidence?
_
"...
After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis
Blair wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
..." - samsloan ([email protected])
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
_
_
"...
The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair
wrote messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia
administrators complaining about my biographies of Ali
Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha
and Geoffrey Borg ...
..." - samsloan ([email protected])
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
22:29:58 -0800 (PST))
_
_
"...
... on ch 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and Louis
Blair tried to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted.
See:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bessel_Kok&action=history
..." - samsloan ([email protected])
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
09:37:03 -0800 (PST))
_
_
"...
It is possible to go back to ch 2006 and see Louis
Blair asking User:JzG to take a look at those five
biographies. However, I do not know how to do this."
..." - samsloan ([email protected])
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
09:37:03 -0800 (PST))


  
Date: 09 Jan 2008 09:11:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia

"Louis Blair" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)):
>
> 7 ...
> 7
> 7 Answer that question "yes" or "no".
> 7
> 7 We will await your answers.
>
> _
> Why are we seeing questions when be should seeing an
> identification of specific evidence?

That is an extraordinary reply! In these circumstances it is unclear what
Dr. Blair is saying he did or not do. That is why the question exists. To
ask for 'evidence' so that honest-Louie can further obfusticate whatever he
did is an absurdity!

Louis Blair even CUT the question(s) he is being asked - just to confuse the
issue more, since which questions does he ask for evidence thereof?

The evidence I know is of his own writing on this subject, the 30,000 words
on the Fide-Yahoo group. It seems to me from that writing that Louis Blair
did conduct various activities with Wikipedia, and I draw my conclusions
about his 'action'.

If Dr. Blair cannot even allow any question put to him to stand, but instead
asks questions himself about 'proof', there it is! That is priy
obfustication to a simple direct inquiry - and why would anyone do that?

ROFL! The funny thing about this is that I exited the 'debate' on Fide-Chess
with the //prediction// that Louis Blair would bring the entire USCF Forum
to its knees, all by himself - and /how/ they deserved each other!

Phil Innes

> Is samsloan
> ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154)
> retracting the previous claims? If so, why isn't there an apology?
> If not, why isn't there evidence?
> _
> "...
> After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis
> Blair wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
> Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
> removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
> Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
> ..." - samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
> 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
> _
> _
> "...
> The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair
> wrote messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia
> administrators complaining about my biographies of Ali
> Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha
> and Geoffrey Borg ...
> ..." - samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Sun, 6 Jan 2008
> 22:29:58 -0800 (PST))
> _
> _
> "...
> ... on ch 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and Louis
> Blair tried to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted.
> See:
> _
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bessel_Kok&action=history
> ..." - samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
> 09:37:03 -0800 (PST))
> _
> _
> "...
> It is possible to go back to ch 2006 and see Louis
> Blair asking User:JzG to take a look at those five
> biographies. However, I do not know how to do this."
> ..." - samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) (Tue, 8 Jan 2008
> 09:37:03 -0800 (PST))




   
Date: 09 Jan 2008 16:04:54
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
Chess One wrote:
> "Louis Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
>> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
>> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)):
>>
>> 7 ...
>> 7
>> 7 Answer that question "yes" or "no".
>> 7
>> 7 We will await your answers.
>>
>> _
>> Why are we seeing questions when be should seeing an
>> identification of specific evidence?
>
> That is an extraordinary reply! In these circumstances it is unclear what
> Dr. Blair is saying he did or not do.


Having reached the first error in Phil's post, we can stop reading.

This is not "extraordinary" at all; this is the absolute gold standard
of Louis Blair's posts here. Nothing at all extraordinary about it!


--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


 
Date: 08 Jan 2008 15:55:39
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
Let's make it simple, Mr. Blair:

1. Did you or did you not write postings to 19 Wikipedia
administrators or editors pointing out that I had reinstated
biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg?

Answer that question "yes" or "no".

In other words, stop playing games with swords.

2. Is it not a fact that promptly after you wrote these 19
administrators, User:JzG "salted the earth" with respect to the
biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg, meaning that
no biography of those persons can ever be posted to Wikipedia again?

Answer "yes" or "no".

3. Is it not a fact that Bill Goichberg rewarded you for this deed by
appointing you as a member of the Forum Oversight Committee thereby
giving you the power to remove postings by Sam Sloan from the USCF
Issues Forum?

Answer that question "yes" or "no".

We will await your answers.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 08 Jan 2008 15:19:43
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):
7 ...
7 After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair
7 wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
7 Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
7 removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
7 Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
7 ...
_
I wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:43:02 -0800 (PST)
7 That is false.
_
_
We then saw a claim that did not mention the idea of
19 administrators being "known anti-chess and
anti-Sam Sloan" and being asked by me "to reinstate"
"removals ...".
_
_
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:29:58 -0800 (PST)):
7 The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote
7 messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators
7 complaining about my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar
7 Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg ...
_
I wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:53:18 -0800 (PST)):
7 No such record exists.
_
_
Now (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)) we see claims
that no longer connect me to 19 Wikipedia administrators.
_
_
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 ... on ch 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and Louis Blair tried
7 to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted. See:
7
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bessel_Kok&action=history
7 ...
_
_
On that page, one can see records of notes by: Afasmit,
213.220.214.99, Seaaron, 83.77.224.195, Cydebot, CmdrObot,
Jtinezot, Ulysses Zagreb, 88.14.48.169, RussBot, Stefan64,
Dionyseus, (:Julien:), Ioannes Pragensis, Zargulon, Phr,
Billbrock, Rook wave, and Sam Sloan. None of those people
are me.
_
_
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 Here you can see where Louis Blair posted to Paul Rubin's
7 talk page:
7
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phr/Archive-2006-08-01#Sam_Sloan_announcement
7 ...
_
_
Indeed, one can and the post does not even mention Bessel
Kok, Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar, Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha, or Geoffrey Borg.
_
_
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 It is possible to go back to ch 2006 and see Louis Blair
7 asking User:JzG to take a look at those five biographies.
_
_
Notice that, in this claim, we no longer have the idea of me
supposedly "asking" for the "removal" of any biography.
_
_
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 However, I do not know how to do this.
_
_
Then what justification does he have for asserting that it is
possible?
_
_
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)):

7 It would be much simpler if Louis Blair would just come
7 clean on his nefarious activities.
_
_
I can not "come clean" on things that I did not do. It would
be much simpler if samsloan ([email protected])
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) identified exactly
what evidence he has that I supposedly: "wrote letters to 19
known anti-chess and anti-Sam Sloan administrators asking
them to reinstate the removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio
Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg."


 
Date: 08 Jan 2008 09:37:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
In case anybody here has any doubt that "the Earth has been salted"
with respect to these three individuals, try to create a Wikipedia
biography for any of them and see what happens. Go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoffrey_Borg&action=edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panupand_Vijjuprabha&action=edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julio_Cesar_Ingolotti&action=edit

In addition, at the same time, on ch 19, 2006, Phr (Paul Rubin) and
Louis Blair tried to have the biography of Bessel Kok deleted. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bessel_Kok&action=history

Here you can see where Louis Blair posted to Paul Rubin's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phr/Archive-2006-08-01#Sam_Sloan_announcement

To get an idea of the activity of User:JzG in deleting pages and
blocking users, take a look at his talk page, just for the past 6
weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&user=JzG&page=&pattern=&limit=500&offset=0

It is possible to go back to ch 2006 and see Louis Blair asking
User:JzG to take a look at those five biographies. However, I do not
know how to do this.

It would be much simpler if Louis Blair would just come clean on his
nefarious activities.

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 23:42:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 7, 9:13 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> > The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
> > to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
> > my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> > Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
> > not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
> > biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
> > Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?
>
> (1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since, as
> anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such a file
> referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at all!

Maybe LB's bluntness was in reaction to being
"attacked" here? SS came from out of nowhere
with a new thread accusing LB of wrongdoing.


> (2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all
> paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either

That makes two of you! Neither the accused
nor the first piler-on ratpacker is willing to state
what LB actually did on Wikipedia which was
so objectionable.


> (3) Apart from records of the 4 players mentioned here, I should like to
> know what other activities Louis Blair conducted with Wikipedia - and since
> I keep my send & receive e-mails, can check against public responses he made
> in the Fide-Yahoo group on the topic of forwarding messages from the
> False-Sloan to Wiki. I believe Louis Blair /has/ deigned to term some or all
> of these things, his 'action.' Of the 30,000 words describing them, that is
> all the detail he admits.

Everything here is second-hand; all I see is that
SS is miffed, and that apparently, LB has driven
the roads of Wiki-ville while observing their quirky
speed limits and laws. SS "creates", his critics
destroy; but /what/ is it that SS creates? What is
it his critics on Wiki destroy? Example: the
destruction of influenza is not a bad thing, is it?


> (4) It was because of such actions that Chessville chose to preserve any
> similar attempts of biographical sketchs or anecdotes in its column,
> 'Vignettes', so that matters of fact can be corrected or clarified, rather
> than these wholesale destructions of materials by malicious anons and
> pseuds, we read about here.

Are you saying that you do not object to the
destruction of SS materials per se, but only
on account of the destroyer being anonymous?!!

If he is anonymous, than how can SS accuse
LB -- a real person -- of the "crime"? I read
articles on Wiki all the time, and there are always
comments that some parts need verification or
redoing, lest they eventually be deleted as sub-
standard. It's not just chess; the whole thing is
this way.


> (5) I do not particularly like Sam Sloan, nor his general behaviors - and
> surely there is plenty of material to complain about! But I dislike even
> more this destructive attitude to his fair work, which deserves, IMO, a bit
> of praise

Wiki seems to differ; I see rules regarding the
creation of materials from thin air as objectionable,
yet if cr*p is taken from a "reputable source", it is
deemed both edible and nutritious! My own views
are not in accord with this thinking-- especially
since what is a "reputable" resource is open to
interpretation. For instance, Chess Lies magazine
could be considered a reputable resource, and so
it goes.


> - a factor which is actually likely to firm and recalibrate
> anyone's compass, and which [transfigures any] genus est mortis male vivere,
> [from its] malsueda fames.

Your Latin is horrific. You can't just cheat by
inserting brackets whenever you don't know
the proper words! BTW, my rigor mortis is
better -- thanks for asking. I got some pain
killer from Skippy, narcotics mixed with aceto
and Boris Men-o-phen. Unfortunately, my
chess play has fallen off a cliff. I can barely
see the board, and this would probably be a
perfect time for the ratpack to challenge for
another grudge match, even if SS is the best
you can offer. Heck, maybe even Rob the
robber Mitchell can beat me right now... .


-- hep blot






  
Date: 08 Jan 2008 12:42:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 7, 9:13 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]m...
>>
>> > The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
>> > to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
>> > my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
>> > Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
>> > not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
>> > biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
>> > Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?
>>
>> (1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since, as
>> anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such a
>> file
>> referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at all!
>
> Maybe LB's bluntness was in reaction to being
> "attacked" here? SS came from out of nowhere
> with a new thread accusing LB of wrongdoing.
>
>
>> (2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all
>> paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either
>
> That makes two of you! Neither the accused
> nor the first piler-on ratpacker is willing to state
> what LB actually did on Wikipedia which was
> so objectionable.

Not true. I stated it plainly enough - LB did not agree - that is, with my
necessary paraphrase of his 30,000 word confessions. He denied nothing,
while asking for the usual citations. An absurd stance, since it would be
necessary to cite all 30,000 words.

Therefore LB wrote 30,000 words on what he did, which cannot be reduced by
any amount, not even by himself - and his denial is merely to how his
self-named 'action' is understood by readers - and not actually contesting
that he performed an 'action'.
>
>> (3) Apart from records of the 4 players mentioned here, I should like to
>> know what other activities Louis Blair conducted with Wikipedia - and
>> since
>> I keep my send & receive e-mails, can check against public responses he
>> made
>> in the Fide-Yahoo group on the topic of forwarding messages from the
>> False-Sloan to Wiki. I believe Louis Blair /has/ deigned to term some or
>> all
>> of these things, his 'action.' Of the 30,000 words describing them, that
>> is
>> all the detail he admits.
>
> Everything here is second-hand; all I see is that
> SS is miffed, and that apparently, LB has driven
> the roads of Wiki-ville while observing their quirky
> speed limits and laws. SS "creates", his critics
> destroy; but /what/ is it that SS creates?

You sound like a politican, a drunk one. 4 reasonable attempts at player
biographies, is the answer.

> What is
> it his critics on Wiki destroy? Example: the
> destruction of influenza is not a bad thing, is it?

Neither is the destruction of fatuous metaphors! You have started to argue
too early, not even acquainting yourself with the material, nor, naturally,
taking the word of those who have. zzzzzzz

>> (4) It was because of such actions that Chessville chose to preserve any
>> similar attempts of biographical sketchs or anecdotes in its column,
>> 'Vignettes', so that matters of fact can be corrected or clarified,
>> rather
>> than these wholesale destructions of materials by malicious anons and
>> pseuds, we read about here.
>
> Are you saying that you do not object to the
> destruction of SS materials per se, but only
> on account of the destroyer being anonymous?!!

Not, that would be an understanding of what I wrote and what people who
actually care about chess wish to do, which could only be understood by
someone of extreme;ly poor comprehension, who furthermore, didn't give a
damn.

> If he is anonymous, than how can SS accuse
> LB -- a real person -- of the "crime"?

You think you are clever, but only if you know nothing can you ask that
question. Being clever while knowing things is much harder! Did I not write
here that someone forwarded the FSS material to Wiki, without identifying it
as being the False-Sloan's material?

> I read
> articles on Wiki all the time, and there are always
> comments that some parts need verification or
> redoing, lest they eventually be deleted as sub-
> standard. It's not just chess; the whole thing is
> this way.

Complete destruction of fair work is very far from making any /necessary/
amendments to it - and this was the subject that I challenged LB upon, and
which occassioned the 30,000 words. While /some/ amendments seemed justified
in these instances, others seemed merely the preferences of other people -
and competetive rather than complimentary to the original materials.
Competitive to the extent that they were entirely destructive of it.

>> (5) I do not particularly like Sam Sloan, nor his general behaviors - and
>> surely there is plenty of material to complain about! But I dislike even
>> more this destructive attitude to his fair work, which deserves, IMO, a
>> bit
>> of praise
>
> Wiki seems to differ; I see rules regarding the
> creation of materials from thin air as objectionable,
> yet if cr*p is taken from a "reputable source", it is
> deemed both edible and nutritious!

What Greg Kennedy, who cannot admit his own name [!] 'sees all the time' is
sublimely unimportant to the specifics of these instances, which he seems to
have seen, never. And why he should continue to mock people who can sign
their names is a peculiarity of his own, relegating his often sensible
comments to the usual invective-strewn gutter of people who only exist here
to trash everything they can.

So Greg Kennedy should get it into his head that fair, by my opinion, being
as I say, nor friend of Sloan at all! materials should be destroyed by the
acts of pseudonymous people of unknown chessic intelligence without any
debate nor right to fair appeal whatsoever. That is what Greg Kennedy is
currently waffling about and defending by his abstractions of 'what he
sees.'

He has even seen nefarious things in the posts of Taylor Kingston where no
one else has seen them. All he has not seen is the book they come from - but
surely, he has argued, they are in there! The damned cheaters!

This rather relegates any ability to comment on particular issues by the
twin factors of literally not knowing the material on which he comments,
supplemented by a parano response on every issue about cheating everywhere.

> My own views
> are not in accord with this thinking-- especially
> since what is a "reputable" resource is open to
> interpretation. For instance, Chess Lies magazine
> could be considered a reputable resource, and so
> it goes.
>
>
>> - a factor which is actually likely to firm and recalibrate
>> anyone's compass, and which [transfigures any] genus est mortis male
>> vivere,
>> [from its] malsueda fames.
>
> Your Latin is horrific.

Nonsense! You mean it is horrid. They have similar but distinguishable
stems~ [look them up, and don't bristle because you must do something] apart
from your English using the wrong part of speech :()

Vergel is horrific! Look at how I spell it, the old-fashioned way, before
new-phonetics turned Peking into Beerchin, and the old order passed away.

> You can't just cheat by
> inserting brackets whenever you don't know
> the proper words!

[The] proper [words] are redundant in Latin, which so very often requires
one to make one's own way from one sentence to another without
lead-directing and linking prepositions.

> BTW, my rigor mortis is
> better -- thanks for asking.

You are very welcome. But I thought that meant a stiff lock? [I quote that
wag, Mortise and Tenonson, a chip off the English romantic writers block]

O ha ha ha!

> I got some pain
> killer from Skippy, narcotics mixed with aceto
> and Boris Men-o-phen.

In Wales they take to Men-of Harlech - but in Scotland its the whiskey and
lemon, and as you recover, gradually ease off the lemon.

> Unfortunately, my
> chess play has fallen off a cliff. I can barely
> see the board, and this would probably be a
> perfect time for the ratpack to challenge for
> another grudge match, even if SS is the best
> you can offer. Heck, maybe even Rob the
> robber Mitchell can beat me right now... .

He is busy selling time-shares on Io, a very respectable little moon of
Jupiter to raise money to buy a couple of small Caribbean Islands and create
FantasyChessIsland.com which will have its own HD TV channel. I believe he
will call the Io joint, Lex-ville or Lex City, so the golf course will be
the Lex City Links, et ca.

Philippus von der Vermont


> -- hep blot
>
>
>
>




 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 23:13:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 7, 6:47 am, [email protected] wrote:

> Help bot is improving his style.

Style? Check out this game-fragment:

help bot -- hapless

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dc
3. Nf3! (I calculated some sixty moves ahead,
concluding that Qa4+ was sub-optimal.)

3. ... b5?
4. a4! and wins.


> He must be thinking about that job
> Kirsan offered him. The last employee
> Actually got to meet Sadam Hussein, but he died in a car bomb.

He dies /inside/ a bomb? I'm not sure I
would even fit inside a car bomb. Maybe
a Cadillac Expedition bomb.


> Help bot finally makes a little sense.
> The conflict can make a crazy poster sane, and bring out the best in
> us.

Did you even look at the game? I began with
1.d4 -- hardly my best.


> I think that this chess war did r.g.c.p good, in the quality of our
> regular posters. We all seem to work harder when everyone
> Is watching - or has the potential to watch - very soon. At the end,
> the fake posters will loose confidence, with the FBI
> and all, and what is left several quality intelligence analysts, and
> one shit vat operator in Indiana :-)

Here in Indiana, we have no need of "operators"
for our sh*t vats; that is Vermont you are thinking
of. Here, we recycle the stuff back into the ground,
producing corn, beans and even tobacco. Instead
of cooking vats, we think of spreaders. Look, if it's
quality you want, go read "New in Chess". This ng
is for nutters and their more rational critics; it's for
the separation of the wheat from the chaff, the
lunatic fringers from the rational thinkers.

It's clear which group you belong to; anyone who
cannot appreciate Monsanto [MON] or Potash [POT]
might as well just buy an index fund. Loser. ; >D


-- help bot


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 14:31:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What did Louie do at Wikiipedia?
BLAIR'S EVASIONS

<(1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since,
as anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such
a file referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at
all!

>(2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either > -- Phil Innes

Dear Phil and Sam,

If you begin with the assumption that Louie
Blair is a stinker and slinker -- the kind of little
rotter who as a kid would tie tin cans to the tails of
dogs -- then you will likely have a fair idea of what
our Louie was up to at Wikipedia re Sam's work.

Yours, Larry Parr




Chess One wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> > The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
> > to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
> > my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> > Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
> > not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
> > biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
> > Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?
>
> (1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since, as
> anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such a file
> referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at all!
>
> (2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all
> paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either
>
> (3) Apart from records of the 4 players mentioned here, I should like to
> know what other activities Louis Blair conducted with Wikipedia - and since
> I keep my send & receive e-mails, can check against public responses he made
> in the Fide-Yahoo group on the topic of forwarding messages from the
> False-Sloan to Wiki. I believe Louis Blair /has/ deigned to term some or all
> of these things, his 'action.' Of the 30,000 words describing them, that is
> all the detail he admits.
>
> (4) It was because of such actions that Chessville chose to preserve any
> similar attempts of biographical sketchs or anecdotes in its column,
> 'Vignettes', so that matters of fact can be corrected or clarified, rather
> than these wholesale destructions of materials by malicious anons and
> pseuds, we read about here.
>
> (5) I do not particularly like Sam Sloan, nor his general behaviors - and
> surely there is plenty of material to complain about! But I dislike even
> more this destructive attitude to his fair work, which deserves, IMO, a bit
> of praise - a factor which is actually likely to firm and recalibrate
> anyone's compass, and which [transfigures any] genus est mortis male vivere,
> [from its] malsueda fames.
>
> Cordially, Vergel et Phil Innes
>
> > Apparently, you are playing games with words, saying that you did not
> > specifically request User:JzG to "salt the earth" with respect to
> > those four people. However, in view of the record of User:JzG of doing
> > that to other people, you obviously must have known that this was
> > going to be the consequence of your postings.
> >
> > After a long struggle, I finally was able to get the earth "unsalted"
> > with respect to Ali Nihat Yazici, who, by the way, was the organizer
> > of the World Youth Championships recently concluded.
> >
> > Since you, Louis Blair, are the person who caused this entire problem,
> > I am calling upon you to write to User:JzG and ask him to unsalt the
> > earth with respect to the other three biographies.
> >
> > By the way, I have no connection with Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> > Vijjuprabha or Geoffrey Borg. I have never knowingly met them. They
> > are not my friends or associates in any way. I just think that this
> > black k on their names that was put there by Louis Blair should be
> > removed.
> >
> > Sam Sloan


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 04:37:50
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 6, 7:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Louis Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):
>
> 7 ...
> 7 After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair
> 7 wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
> 7 Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
> 7 removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
> 7 Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
> 7 ...
>
> _
> That is false.
>
> **But what did you do Louis? - you spent 30,000 words on the Fide-chess
> newsgroup saying something, and no-one understands you still. You did do
> something, <right?> Phil Innes

Are you still beating your ex-wives, Philsy?


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 03:47:56
From:
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 7, 2:41=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:53 am, Louis Blair <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> > 69.120.149.154) wrote (Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:29:58 -0800 (PST)):
>
> > 7 The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote
> > 7 messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators
> > 7 complaining about my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar
> > 7 Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg ...
>
> > _
> > No such record exists.
>
> =A0 What's the theory: is SS on drugs? =A0Has SS confused
> LB with another Wiki-salter? =A0Is LB denying having
> written under the moniker "JzG"? =A0Or has the evidence
> been destroyed, hence it no longer "exists"? =A0Maybe
> SS's count was off, so he is wrong by virtue of poor
> arithmetic?
>
> =A0 The more I learn about the way Wikipedia is managed,
> the more I wonder that it has survived this long; I mean,
> what if somebody "salted" Sam Sloan, but he later won
> the world championship? =A0According to the description
> above, nobody could write about him, even as he
> defeated GMs Kramnik and Anand in title defenses,
> followed by a 6-0 walkover of Rybka 4.3.LK.
>
> =A0 One thing is certain, however: it is not good for the
> sole source of "information" in an encyclopedia to be
> one rgc nutter. =A0When nutters get involved, the result
> is a profusion of biased opinions, often as not crowding
> out any actual facts which might otherwise have crept
> in.
>
> =A0 In this thread, we have an accusation by SS, followed
> by an information-less denial by LB, followed up by a
> pile-on by the Evans ratpack. =A0Nobody expects SS to
> back up his accusation or even provide a link; nobody
> can decipher the cryptic denial; and all that seems to
> matter is personal feelings of ratpacker-loyalty.
>
> =A0 I would have preferred a sumy by nearly-Innes,
> indicating what /he thought/ was the participation of
> LB in the matter, and a no-nonsense response from
> LB (i.e. Sam Sloan is a nutcase, who has me
> confused with Jessabelle George, aka JzG). =A0What a
> bunch of nutters.
>
> =A0 -- hep blot

Help bot is improving his style. He must be thinking about that job
Kirsan offered him. The last employee
Actually got to meet Sadam Hussein, but he died in a car bomb. Help
bot finally makes a little sense.
The conflict can make a crazy poster sane, and bring out the best in
us.

I think that this chess war did r.g.c.p good, in the quality of our
regular posters. We all seem to work harder when everyone
Is watching - or has the potential to watch - very soon. At the end,
the fake posters will loose confidence, with the FBI
and all, and what is left several quality intelligence analysts, and
one shit vat operator in Indiana :-)



cus Roberts


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 00:41:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 7, 1:53 am, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:29:58 -0800 (PST)):
>
> 7 The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote
> 7 messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators
> 7 complaining about my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar
> 7 Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg ...
>
> _
> No such record exists.

What's the theory: is SS on drugs? Has SS confused
LB with another Wiki-salter? Is LB denying having
written under the moniker "JzG"? Or has the evidence
been destroyed, hence it no longer "exists"? Maybe
SS's count was off, so he is wrong by virtue of poor
arithmetic?

The more I learn about the way Wikipedia is managed,
the more I wonder that it has survived this long; I mean,
what if somebody "salted" Sam Sloan, but he later won
the world championship? According to the description
above, nobody could write about him, even as he
defeated GMs Kramnik and Anand in title defenses,
followed by a 6-0 walkover of Rybka 4.3.LK.

One thing is certain, however: it is not good for the
sole source of "information" in an encyclopedia to be
one rgc nutter. When nutters get involved, the result
is a profusion of biased opinions, often as not crowding
out any actual facts which might otherwise have crept
in.

In this thread, we have an accusation by SS, followed
by an information-less denial by LB, followed up by a
pile-on by the Evans ratpack. Nobody expects SS to
back up his accusation or even provide a link; nobody
can decipher the cryptic denial; and all that seems to
matter is personal feelings of ratpacker-loyalty.

I would have preferred a sumy by nearly-Innes,
indicating what /he thought/ was the participation of
LB in the matter, and a no-nonsense response from
LB (i.e. Sam Sloan is a nutcase, who has me
confused with Jessabelle George, aka JzG). What a
bunch of nutters.


-- hep blot






 
Date: 06 Jan 2008 22:53:18
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:29:58 -0800 (PST)):

7 The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote
7 messages to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators
7 complaining about my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar
7 Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg ...

_
No such record exists.


 
Date: 06 Jan 2008 22:29:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 6, 7:43 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):
>
> 7 ...
> 7 After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair
> 7 wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
> 7 Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
> 7 removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
> 7 Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
> 7 ...
>
> _
> That is false.
>
> _
> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):
>
> 7 ...
> 7 Since Louis Blair has been known to claim that this was
> 7 not the fault, I call upon him now to write to User:JzG and
> 7 ask him to un-salt the earth on the biographies of Julio
> 7 Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg.
> 7 ...
>
> _
> I call upon samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) to stop making
> false statements about me.

The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?

Apparently, you are playing games with words, saying that you did not
specifically request User:JzG to "salt the earth" with respect to
those four people. However, in view of the record of User:JzG of doing
that to other people, you obviously must have known that this was
going to be the consequence of your postings.

After a long struggle, I finally was able to get the earth "unsalted"
with respect to Ali Nihat Yazici, who, by the way, was the organizer
of the World Youth Championships recently concluded.

Since you, Louis Blair, are the person who caused this entire problem,
I am calling upon you to write to User:JzG and ask him to unsalt the
earth with respect to the other three biographies.

By the way, I have no connection with Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
Vijjuprabha or Geoffrey Borg. I have never knowingly met them. They
are not my friends or associates in any way. I just think that this
black k on their names that was put there by Louis Blair should be
removed.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 07 Jan 2008 09:13:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...

> The record on Wikipedia clearly shows that Louis Blair wrote messages
> to User:JzG and to 18 other Wikipedia administrators complaining about
> my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg and that immediately thereafter User:JzG
> not only deleted those four biographies but "salted the earth" so that
> biographies of those four persons can never be posted again. Do you,
> Louis Blair, deny writing such messages?

(1) There is no point asking Louis Blair a straight question, since, as
anyone can already read by his retort, there is 'no record' of such a file
referencing User:JzG . Which does not answer the question at all!

(2) I have asked Louis to state what he /did/ do, since he dislikes all
paraphrases of that - but he doesn't answer that either

(3) Apart from records of the 4 players mentioned here, I should like to
know what other activities Louis Blair conducted with Wikipedia - and since
I keep my send & receive e-mails, can check against public responses he made
in the Fide-Yahoo group on the topic of forwarding messages from the
False-Sloan to Wiki. I believe Louis Blair /has/ deigned to term some or all
of these things, his 'action.' Of the 30,000 words describing them, that is
all the detail he admits.

(4) It was because of such actions that Chessville chose to preserve any
similar attempts of biographical sketchs or anecdotes in its column,
'Vignettes', so that matters of fact can be corrected or clarified, rather
than these wholesale destructions of materials by malicious anons and
pseuds, we read about here.

(5) I do not particularly like Sam Sloan, nor his general behaviors - and
surely there is plenty of material to complain about! But I dislike even
more this destructive attitude to his fair work, which deserves, IMO, a bit
of praise - a factor which is actually likely to firm and recalibrate
anyone's compass, and which [transfigures any] genus est mortis male vivere,
[from its] malsueda fames.

Cordially, Vergel et Phil Innes

> Apparently, you are playing games with words, saying that you did not
> specifically request User:JzG to "salt the earth" with respect to
> those four people. However, in view of the record of User:JzG of doing
> that to other people, you obviously must have known that this was
> going to be the consequence of your postings.
>
> After a long struggle, I finally was able to get the earth "unsalted"
> with respect to Ali Nihat Yazici, who, by the way, was the organizer
> of the World Youth Championships recently concluded.
>
> Since you, Louis Blair, are the person who caused this entire problem,
> I am calling upon you to write to User:JzG and ask him to unsalt the
> earth with respect to the other three biographies.
>
> By the way, I have no connection with Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> Vijjuprabha or Geoffrey Borg. I have never knowingly met them. They
> are not my friends or associates in any way. I just think that this
> black k on their names that was put there by Louis Blair should be
> removed.
>
> Sam Sloan




 
Date: 06 Jan 2008 20:20:42
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
CEASE AND DESIST

>I call upon samsloan to stop making false statements about me.> -- Louis Blair

<But what did you do Louis? > -- Phil Innes

I, too, urge Sam Sloan to cease and desist
making any false statements about Louie Blair.
On the other hand, he ought to continue making
numerous true statements about the man.

As Myasoyedov wrote in Woe from Wit, "I will
tell such truth about you that lies will be eclipsed."

Without Louie, the truth suffices. One always
enjoys hearing him hiss as the holy water of veracity
sprays him.




Chess One wrote:
> "Louis Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3762fd4[email protected]
> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):
>
> 7 ...
> 7 After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair
> 7 wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
> 7 Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
> 7 removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
> 7 Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
> 7 ...
>
> _
> That is false.
>
> **But what did you do Louis? - you spent 30,000 words on the Fide-chess
> newsgroup saying something, and no-one understands you still. You did do
> something, <right?> Phil Innes
>
> _
> samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):
>
> 7 ...
> 7 Since Louis Blair has been known to claim that this was
> 7 not the fault, I call upon him now to write to User:JzG and
> 7 ask him to un-salt the earth on the biographies of Julio
> 7 Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg.
> 7 ...
>
> _
> I call upon samsloan ([email protected])
> (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) to stop making
> false statements about me.


 
Date: 06 Jan 2008 16:43:02
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair
7 wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
7 Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
7 removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
7 Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
7 ...

_
That is false.

_
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 Since Louis Blair has been known to claim that this was
7 not the fault, I call upon him now to write to User:JzG and
7 ask him to un-salt the earth on the biographies of =A0Julio
7 Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg.
7 ...

_
I call upon samsloan ([email protected])
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) to stop making
false statements about me.


  
Date: 06 Jan 2008 19:59:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia

"Louis Blair" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair
7 wrote letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam
7 Sloan administrators asking them to reinstate the
7 removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
7 Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. ...
7 ...

_
That is false.

**But what did you do Louis? - you spent 30,000 words on the Fide-chess
newsgroup saying something, and no-one understands you still. You did do
something, <right? > Phil Innes

_
samsloan ([email protected]) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.120.149.154) wrote (Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)):

7 ...
7 Since Louis Blair has been known to claim that this was
7 not the fault, I call upon him now to write to User:JzG and
7 ask him to un-salt the earth on the biographies of Julio
7 Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg.
7 ...

_
I call upon samsloan ([email protected])
(NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) to stop making
false statements about me.




 
Date: 06 Jan 2008 15:34:13
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
Sam,

I have seen a number of your postings about disagreements with the
Wikipedia people. This is understandable to me as they try to cover a
very broad range which necessarily means that they have to limit the
depth in any particular area.

However there is an obvious answer. Create a chess history Wiki
yourself, or with collaborators. It could have a companion Chess Theory
Wiki as well. To my knowledge, the software is free. I am surprised
this hasn't already been done. If we had a respectable, functional
USCF, this would be an excellent and appropriate project for them to pursue.

I see there is a limited Chess Wiki in Malaysia at:
http://wiki.gilachess.com/

There is a Chess Variants Wiki at: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/

There appear to be several other minor efforts at chess wikis. So,
there is an open opportunity for a more comprehensive approach to a
Chess Wiki. Will anyone go for it?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"



samsloan wrote:
> Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_Greengard
>
> Mig Greengard is definitely one of my favorite people. However, he
> easily meets the standards of notability set for inclusion on
> Wikipedia. Among many other things, he was director of the New York
> Office of the Kasparov Chess Foundation and recently he was awarded
> "Chess Journalist of the Year" by the Chess Journalists Association.
>
> Being nominated for deletion is a matter of serious concern.
>
> In ch, 2006, Paul Rubin, who posts on Wikipedia as "Phr", deleted
> my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> Vijjuprabha, and Geoffrey Borg. I doubt that Paul Rubin even knew who
> these people are. They are the most important chess officials in their
> respective countries. Thus, they are easily qualified to be listed on
> Wikipedia. In addition, the USCF had nominated these four people as
> candidates for election to the FIDE Board, Paul Rubin is an anti-USCF
> person, which perhaps explains why he nominated them for deletion.
>
> After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair wrote
> letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam Sloan administrators
> asking them to reinstate the removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar
> Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. The result was that
> one of those 19, an especially quarrelsome administrator named
> User:Jzg a/k/a Guy Chapman, who spends all his time arguing with other
> Wikipedia administrators:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG
>
> The result was that User:JzG did not merely delete the biographies, he
> "salted the earth", meaning that biographies of these four people can
> never be re-instated again.
>
> As a result, they lost the election. User:JzG also deleted the
> biography of Robert Tanner.
>
> Since Louis Blair has been known to claim that this was not the fault,
> I call upon him now to write to User:JzG and ask him to un-salt the
> earth on the biographies of Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg.
>
> The point is that if somebody does not go in right now and defend Mig
> Greengard, It is likely that he will be the subject of "salting the
> earth".
>
> Sam Sloan




 
Date: 06 Jan 2008 12:03:14
From:
Subject: Re: Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
On Jan 6, 2:01=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mig Greengard has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_Greengard
>
> Mig Greengard is definitely one of my favorite people. However, he
> easily meets the standards of notability set for inclusion on
> Wikipedia. Among many other things, he was director of the New York
> Office of the Kasparov Chess Foundation and recently he was awarded
> "Chess Journalist of the Year" by the Chess Journalists Association.
>
> Being nominated for deletion is a matter of serious concern.
>
> In ch, 2006, Paul Rubin, who posts on Wikipedia as "Phr", deleted
> my biographies of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> Vijjuprabha, and Geoffrey Borg. I doubt that Paul Rubin even knew who
> these people are. They are the most important chess officials in their
> respective countries. Thus, they are easily qualified to be listed on
> Wikipedia. In addition, the USCF had nominated these four people as
> candidates for election to the FIDE Board, Paul Rubin is an anti-USCF
> person, which perhaps explains why he nominated them for deletion.
>
> After I got these four biographies reinstated, Louis Blair wrote
> letters to 19 known anti-chess and anti-Sam Sloan administrators
> asking them to reinstate the removals of Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar
> Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg. The result was that
> one of those 19, an especially quarrelsome administrator named
> User:Jzg a/k/a Guy Chapman, who spends all his time arguing with other
> Wikipedia administrators:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG
>
> The result was that User:JzG did not merely delete the biographies, he
> "salted the earth", meaning that biographies of these four people can
> never be re-instated again.
>
> As a result, they lost the election. User:JzG also deleted the
> biography of Robert Tanner.
>
> Since Louis Blair has been known to claim that this was not the fault,
> I call upon him now to write to User:JzG and ask him to un-salt the
> earth on the biographies of =A0Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand
> Vijjuprabha and Geoffrey Borg.
>
> The point is that if somebody does not go in right now and defend Mig
> Greengard, It is likely that he will be the subject of "salting the
> earth".
>
> Sam Sloan

At least your biography is safe, Sam. You made a place in hell for
yourself!