User talk:Sam Sloan

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Sam Sloan! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan. 15:27, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sam, your user page should be different from that article. Think of it this way: Your user page should be written in first person, how you perceive yourself. Your biograhy should be written in third person, how others perceive you.

This has occurred before. See User: William M. Connolley and William M. Connolley. They are the same person, but have two very different pages.

It's best that you write and format your own user page. Ryan 05:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Thank you.

I am still a beginner at this.

Hi Sam. Your article on Richard Bozulich is at Votes for Deletion. It couldn't be speedied for reasons given on the talk page article, it needs to go to VfD. However, your input into the discussion is important. Can you give other editors an idea of why Bozulich wanted it deleted? Please stop by and share your view. Denni☯ 02:13, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

since when did sam sloan become an expert on why the american nuns in el salvador were murdered? it sounds like he's not even an expert in what he claims to be an expert in...chess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.98.16 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was living in El Salvador when the events in question took place. That certainly makes me more of an expert than anybody who was not there. Sam Sloan (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam! Just thought I'd drop a line to thank you for your contributions to the chess articles. I am not a particularily strong chess player myself (Elo at 1188) so I'm glad there are some stronger players around here as well. My only contribution to the Sam Sloan article was mention your playing of the Damiano, which I thought was too interesting a fact to leave out. I seem to remember Mikhail Chigorin also playing that line, but personally, I think I'll stick with the Alekhine. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I had been wondering who you are. I looked at your biography and could not find anything to indicate that you were a known tournament chess player.

The Damiano's Defense is not suitable for anyone except somebody like myself. Chigorin did not play it the way I do. He played 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 Qe7. This recovers the pawn and sets a trap but no strong player will fall into the trap.

My way of playing it sets a lot of traps. White can easily lose his queen in the opening if not careful. However, I rely on the element of surprise. I have yet to prove that I can use it successfully against an opponent who knows that I am going to play it and is prepared.

• Indeed, I am definitely not a "known" tounament player. An article about me in the encyclopedia would like the article on you, be nominated for deletion, but unlike yours, it would actually wind up being deleted, and rightly so! My best achievement was finishing runner-up in the U1500 (B-group) in this tournament. But I have some games published on the internet [1]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this chess tournament crosstable from Norway. This is interesting to me because I had not seen one like that from Europe before.

Regarding the repeated efforts to delete my biography, these all seem to come from Bill Brock. He is clearly obsessed with me and nobody knows the reason. If you go to http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics and search for postings by politikalhack@gmail.com about Sam Sloan you will find that he has attacked me 124 times in just the past few months. And these are just postings from his new email address at politikalhack@gmail.com . He has been doing this from other email addresses for years.

Bill Brock started the first Vdf and when that was not successful tried NOPV and this new VdF comes from somebody either in contact with or in sympathy with Bill Brock. I wish there were some way to stop this, but I am not aware of any.

Thank you again,

Sam Sloan

Because of the feedback in the vfd discussion, I decided to just cut the whole section on Shemema. It is easy to put back, but I figured that something had to go keep the vfd'ers at bay. 20:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would put back the entire section on "International Custody Dispute" the way you originally wrote it. The two sentences you have now create a very misleading impression of what really happened. However, there were two errors in what you wrote previously. One is that Charles Roberts was a former Marine. I had believed that too, and you probably got that from something I wrote. However, Shamema has since informed me that Roberts was rejected by the military because he is color blind. I doubt that is really what happened. He was probably rejected for other reasons. In any case, he never served in the military. However, he dresses in military style with crewcut and pants because he wanted to be in the military. Also, Roberts never adopted my daughter, nor could he have done so, because he was too old, 56, at the time he kidnapped her in 1990. He was given her custody in 1991 but never adopted her.

Right now I am working on genealogy. I just created a Wikipedia page on M343. I got back the DNA test results on my baby yesterday which proved that I am the real father of my daughter, Sandra.

Please note this link: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/sloan/ 69.181.82.221 21:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I was not previously aware of this site. However, I am a participant. That is me right on top. I am number 13599.

As you can see, I am almost a match with number 7. The others are too far away. I just yesterday ordered the 37-marker test which should clarify things.

I just posted at Wikipedia:Third_opinion a request that user:Billbrock be barred from posting to Wikipedia. Bill Brock has attacked me 127 times on rec.games.chess.politics in just the past three months. Here in Wikipedia, he had posted two vFd, one NPOV and he has repeatedly deleted what others have written and substituted his own, usually false, version. 13:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the work you have been doing. I was not even aware that there were several other websites about Bloodgood. What I wrote was just based on my memory, as I knew him when I was a kid. The story about how he went to Niagara Falls but did not cross into Canada was told to me by Col. Edmondson.

BB has been fairly active on rec.games.chess.politics. Perhaps he has decided to lay off from here for a while or perhaps he just has not noticed. I wish I knew why he is so obsessed with me. 03:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please combine multiple sequential edits into a single edit by taking advantage of the "Show Preview" button. This makes editing and history lists more managable and is a kindness to your fellow editors. Hu 04:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam: This is the guy who introduced you to Wikipedia. I am back, but on the quiet. Feel free to contact me. You may want to read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references . Basically, stuff about Wikipedia remains on the Talk pages and the articles are about notable, "encylicopeadic" subjects.

Fplay 14:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to speak to you. Do you have a contact number? My number is 917-507-7226

Hi, the copy-and-paste move you just did on Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) is really discouraged, for two reasons: the history of the new article now gives the wrong impression that you wrote all of it, and the discussion page of the new article omits all the discussion that had been going on at Talk:Brian Chase (hoaxer). At the very least, you should use an edit summary (always a good idea!), telling people about where the material came from and where the old discussion can be found. Cheers, AxelBoldt 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do it the other way that you just suggest, but it would not move. Perhaps somebody had somehow blocked it from moving in the normal way.

The old discussion has been moved in just the same way that the article was moved back to where it was. However, for some reason the history has been deleted.

I think that removing the word "Wikipedia" from "Wikipedia hoaxer" has been an unsuccessful idea. Note that the number of edits and page views dropped dramatically after the word "Wikipedia" was deleted. Without the word "Wikipedia", nobody can find the article unless they somehow rememnber the name "Brian Chase". Sam Sloan 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just did another copy-and-paste move on the same article. Please stop that and learn how to move articles properly, using the move feature. If you use the move feature, the whole history and Talk will be moved as well. Because of your two copy-and-pastes, the history of the article is now completely mangled. If you don't understand how to move an article, you can always ask someone to do it for you. The key is: to move an article from A to B, you have to make sure that B is deleted first.

If you look at [2] you will see that Merovingian moved properly, and the whole history was moved to the new location [3]. Then you moved it back improperly using cut-and-paste, and so the history stayed behind and is now all but inaccessible. AxelBoldt 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum for your personal problems. The article has been edited to remove all attacks and other biased information. You may wish to review the verifiability, neutral point-of-view and no personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong. If you will go to the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics and search for postings by tomdorsch@aol.com you will find that he has posted 2680 times to that group. That is two thousand six hundred eighty times. Tom Dorsch has written and posted extensively on such subjects as bargirls in Tijuana. There is nothing in my biography of him that can be considered a personal attack, especially since it is based on what Dorsch himself wrote. In addition, Dorsch has run for election and been elected several times to public office in chess. Thus, others have a right to express their views. Dorsch himself is aware of this biography can modify it himself if he disagrees. Sam Sloan 11:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. As I noted before, you have posted no references for your claims in this article and thus it does not meet the verifiability requirement. I will be redacting the article again and moving those statements which require a source or a change in wording to the talk page of the article. You're welcome to discuss the statements there or provide verifiable sources. There is no requirement that Dorsch edit the article -- this is Wikipedia, anyone can edit, especially when procedure is not followed. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a "verifiable source". I have known Tom Dorsch since 1962. We were roomates in college. You on the other hand do not know him at all. I note that you have been involved in edit wars with several other people.

I would appreciate if you would refrain from vandalizing my user page. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly vandalized the Tom Dorsch page, when you know nothing about Tom Dorsch, nothing about chess, nothing about me and nothing about anything in any related to this subject.

You stop vandalizing this page, and I will stop posting warnings on your user page. Sam Sloan 14:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're talking about the reasons for the merge on the talk page, which is at Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer). If you disagree, I'd like to hear why. My reasons for supporting a merge have been given there. Friday (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the {{unsourced}} tags from articles unless you have repaired the lack of sourcing in the article. Articles must conform to WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOR regardless of it they are under AFD or not. If you are unable to conform to that requirement then the uncited/unverifiable/original research material should be removed from the article, again regardless of its current AFD status. --pgk^(talk) 13:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When linking languages, please be sure to pipe the link to the correct article (e.g. [[English language|English]], [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]), otherwise it creates more errors to be corrected at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can reference the existece of the Blacklisted Authors? This portion seems to be edited and removed often, and it's Verifiability seems to be in question. --DaiTengu 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to [[4]] Right now there is an extensive discussion on this issue. Or, if you happen to know any of the authors involved, they will all tell you that they have been blacklisted. It is obvious. The new manager of USCF Sales is a political person and he stopped the sales of books by these authors, who happen to be the most popular chess authors in the world, for political reasons. Sam Sloan 01:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC) I forgot to mention, over on [5] there are several Fake Sam Sloan's trolling. Just ignore them. They are not me. Sam Sloan 01:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article could be revised, the blacklist is being presented as factual, yet it appears most of the discussion around it is speculation. --DaiTengu 04:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the discussion over there revolves around one person:Louis Blair, whose IP Address is the same as the one who is making all these attempted deletions here. He has posted 29 times to that group. I just counted them. I think you will see that except for him, everybody agrees that a blacklist exists, other than Taylor Kingston who works for USCF Sales a/k/a chesscafe.com .

Louis Blair seems to be complaining about Karpov being on the blacklist. I suppose that one name could be taken off if that will satisfy him.

Sam Sloan 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

do you understand what sources are? talking to them or a discussion group arent sources. and i would definitely have to disagree that they are popular authors, and at least one of them is a known plagiarist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.196.161 (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that you the Dorch article got whacked. It happens. The reality is that the way to bolster an article is to point to a moderate number of external web sites (and I do not mean messaging archives like newsgroups). Dorch does not meet that criteria.

Just to provide some examples: Elizabeth Morgan used to take only one page but it she takes up three pages. It got massively truncated in July because her page had too may links at bottom. But her case is special: there are three notable events involved.

You might also want to see the current state of Facts of Life. It got whacked six month ago because it was still an "essay". Now, while it still has a small essay-like component to it, it is much better balanced and, in my estimation, will hold up to an AfD.

I also note that List of female surgeons went through quite a struggle but that it did survive an AfD. Of course, it also evolved during the process. -- Fplay 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Lists of people to get an idea of the different ways you can be looked up on W. I was not sure if you wanted to by listed by nationality or as a "chess player". -- Fplay 08:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I personally prefer to be listed as both a "chess player" and an "American chess player". This is because chess players often change their nationally. A German football player will always be a German football player. However, it is not uncommon for chess players to change their nationality three or four times. Often, the public does not know the nationality of a particular chess player. Therefore, I have listed the biographies of chess players I have created as both "chess player" and Country-X chess player". Sam Sloan 02:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is you-known-who. It would seem that the account called "Fplay" has met its demise. Same set of admins as the last time. You can check out WP:AN/I, if you are curious. It seems that admins of a certain demographic have no accountability to speak of. Even more ridiculous premise than the last time. You had best streer clear of them. -- Pinktulip 04:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it and it seems to say that Fplay will be unblocked if he stop using a bot. What is the problem? What is a bot? Sam Sloan 08:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bot is short for robot. I was using a program I wrote to do some repetative updates. Normally a useful thing to do but I was merely "touching" a set of files because I was trying to figure something out about why some dependencies (like "what links here") do not always get updated. It had just finished when I got blocked, but I did figure out the answers I was looking for. I am just reacting badly to being blocked and being stubborn and stupid. I made a fuss, but it is no big deal. I keep telling people anyway that these silly-named accounts mean little to me. -- Pinktulip 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I put that tag up there because I believe that the World Chess Federation, Inc. thing is bogus. However, I didn't want to make World Chess Federation a redirect to FIDE again until there is some sort of discussion and possible vote about it. It would be better to have an open debate about it, settle the issue and then hopefully we won't have a situation where Stan Vaughan comes through and blanks/reverts pages and we have an extended edit war. I may start a Request for comment on the matter, let some neutral parties evaluate what's going on, and see what they come up with. As of right now, I have no idea how we should proceed except to do an RfC. Please let me know what you think. And Happy New Year! -- MicahMN | μ 18:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I had the same idea as you. If you check the history, you will see that I started a discussion and left it there for several months. Finally, when nobody said anything I took it down and made it a redirect. Are you in Las Vegas?? You seem to be. Sam Sloan 18:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

I request User:Howcheng block, ban and bar User:Billbrock. All that User:Billbrock ever does on Wikipedia is go around deleting content by User:Sam_Sloan. He did it again this morning. User User:Billbrock used to do the same thing on rec.games.chess.politics until he lost the famous Chess Politics Grudge Match in Chicago on June 26, 2005 and Sam Sloan won $1000 cash from Bill Brock. If user User:Howcheng does not block Brock and withdraw his threat to block Sloan, I shall appeal to the higher authorities to have User:Howcheng removed from being an administrator. User:Howcheng has admitted that he knows nothing abour chess. If he knows nothing about a subject, he should not be making edits concering that subject. Sam Sloan 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that User:Billbrock has deserved to be blocked, please cite the relevant portion of the blocking policy. I fail to see how it is possible for him to delete content from r.g.c.p as that is a Usenet group and messages posted to the group are not deletable by users. As for my "threat" to block you, it is no such thing; it is simply a statement of fact: If you are in violation of the blocking policy then you will be blocked. If you are not, then you won't. Additionally, I have not made any edits to any chess articles. My only purpose in intervening (yes, on the request of User:Billbrock) was to make sure that Wikipedia policies are applied properly. So far, IMHO you have been in acting in violation of said policies repeatedly without any attempt to understand or honor them. I provided you a number of links on Talk:Chess Life that you don't seem to have even read. You are certainly free to appeal to higher authorities if you wish. To do so, you may open a request for comment and other neutral third parties will evaulate the situation (as I am trying to do now). I bear no ill will towards you nor do I have any favoritism towards User:Billbrock. My job is simply to keep the peace. This really seems like a feud that you two have been having for a while that's now spilling into Wikipedia and I highly suggest you two come to some sort of agreement and iron out your differences. Best regards, howcheng {chat} 20:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the Usenet deletion accusation refers to fake cancel messages. Nimmo 08:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had spent five minutes researching this question you would not be making your abasimally stupid above remarks. With a little research you would have found out that Bill Brock has spent years attacking me, and I have never attacked him. If you search the newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics you will find that Bill Brock has posted 580 times on that group under his persona politikalhack@gmail.com and almost all of his postings were attacks on me. That it just one of his email addresses. It got so notorious that outside third parties put up $1000 cash (one thousand dollars) to see a grudge match between me and Brock. I traveled to Chicago to play the match and I won the $1000.

Since then, because of numerous complaints about his bad behavior, Bill Brock has stopped posting to rec.games.chess.politics . Instead, he has moved over to Wikipedia. Again, almost all of his postings here have been attacks on me. He even added my name to a list of pedafiles on Wikipedia.

Now, User:Billbrock has found an ally in User:Howcheng. User:Howcheng has become the alter ego and willing agent of Billbrock. If User:Howcheng does not cease and desist from this activity, I will appeal to the higher authorities to remove the administrator status of User:Howcheng and ultimately to block User:Howcheng from Wikipedia. Sam Sloan 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this is mind while editing. Thanks, --Nlu (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please see WP:CIVIL. There is no point in making any baseless accusations for either of us. With regards to Bill Brock attacking you for years, I DON'T CARE. It is none of my business. My only aim is to make sure everyone is in line with policy. You allege that he added your name to a list of pedophiles. If this is true, that is probably an actionable offense. Please show me proof by giving me a URL to the diff -- view the history of the page by clicking the "history" tab and clicking the "diff" link to his edit. I examined the List of alleged pedophiles (which was deleted -- see Special:Undelete/List of alleged pedophiles) and his name shows up nowhere in the history. As I am an administrator, I can view the deleted content and I don't see your name anywhere on it. I am not an ally of Bill Brock. I am here to enforce policy only. So far you have been throwing around wild accusations without any proof. Show me proof that he has violated policy and I will take action against him. If it appears that I am on his side, it's because I have witnessed your actions myself and I have no knowledge of his behaving in an inappropriate manner. Again, if you want to appeal to higher authorities, please open a request for comment. I certainly have no objection to having my actions reviewed. Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan is correct. I did however cite Sloan's own web pages as sources, and would contend that "category:pedophiles" was descriptive, though he himself rejects the label. Even if true, is it appropriate for Wikipedia? Most likely not, for the same reason "category:schmucks" isn't that useful. My point was to not-so-gently suggest to Sloan that it would not be wise for a felon, habitual liar, and child molester such as himself to habitually use WP to defame others. (I have repeated invited Sloan to sue me: one would think that a non-child molester with $1,000 in hand and with two witnesses present, including a member of the Illinois Bar, would have served me on the spot. Heh.) Normally, I wouldn't bother, and I REALLY have no desire to drag this (rather trivial) feud into Wikipedia. However, others use Sloan for dirty tricks, and he's using WP as one of his platforms for same. E.g., check out Beatriz_Marinello. The typical Sloan entry involves an imagined "controversy" with an incredibly idiosyncratic POV. (The hilarious problem with Sloan's Chess Life edits is that even if his account of a blacklist were accurate and verifiable, it would properly belong in another article.)

Life is complicated: Sloan is a very intelligent and articulate person, and some of his contributions to Wikipedia are quite useful--I leave those alone....

The broader issue: some sort of karma / content quality rating system for editors might be appropriate for WP to consider. Billbrock 10:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Howcheng did not look very hard. All he had to do was look at [[6]] and he would have seen that twice on December 20, 2005 User:Billbrock added my name to a list of pedophiles. Also, above, User:Billbrock calls me "a felon, habitual liar, and child molester". He has called me the same things hundreds of times in the past, as User:Howcheng would have known if he had only spent five minutes researching this subject before deleting two of my biographies. Sam Sloan 16:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You described it as him putting you on a list, when the action performed him putting the article about into a category, thus I was looking in the wrong place. That is indeed a violation of the no original research policy and the edits were properly reverted by Nagaflas, but that does not warrant a block. For the record, I've only deleted one article you started, which was Tom Dorsch, and that was deleted per the deletion policy. I'll have a conversation with him as well and hopefully you two will behave. Please note however that any edits you make are not verifiable via reliable sources or which do not conform to the NPOV policy will likely be reverted by others. Hopefully, my involvement in this is coming to a close. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a few minor responses to your (User:Sam Sloan) comments. Firstly, Wikipedia does not care who is a nobody in the world of chess. Secondly, threats to have a dispute arbitrated are not appreciated, and are considered Personal Attacks, which are not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you are not satisfied with the way an administrator has treated you, please feel free to request arbitration or mediation, but do not make empty threats to Administrators just to try and make them do as you tell them. It is not appreciated at all, and I would assume that Arbitrators would not remove his administrator status, nor block him from wikipedia, based on what I would consider a petty edit war, in which he is trying to mediate. Furthermore, it is not up to you to determine who is permitted to make edits regarding what subjects on Wikipedia. You are not in charge in any capacity on Wikipedia, and you should respect that. The behaviour of User:Bill Brock is another issue, however I suggest you change your tone and Assume good faith on User:Howcheng's part, and politely request that he look into User:Bill Brock's contributions. In summary, a change of attitude on your part is in order. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, Billbrock put up a request for mediation with you at WP:RFM#Beatriz Marinello. Is this something you would be interested in doing, and was the original request in good faith? If not, I'll remove it, since mediations are only possible when both parties are trying to come to an agreement together. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The request for mediation is not a bona fide request. The only notability of Bill Brock is that he has been attacking me for years. He has nothing to contribute. Here, he has been warned not to edit my biographies or he will be blocked. Therefore, he tries to evade this by posting a "request for mediation". Sam Sloan 13:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, this is AWM. I am at the "Happy Donuts" shops [7] on El Camino Real in Palo Alto. I go here because it is openned 24 hours and has Internet. It is about 8 PM. There are two middle-aged guys here playing chess (one is a teacher of chess of some sort) and I started to talk with them and mentioned your name and the teacher knew you. He referred to you as "local" but I mentioned that you are in NYC now. He also mentioned that he voted for you in one of your runs for office in the chess orgs. He also mentioned your USSC case and I mentioned that I created your article at W. -- Pinktulip 04:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Yes, it is funny but not that surprising. I lived in San Francisco and Berkeley for years. I know several strong players in Palo Alto. Would you mind telling me their names? Sam Sloan 13:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were busy playing and we never got to even intoducing ourselves to each other. This was the second time I have seen them. I think that they show up on Friday nights, so perhaps I will see them again sometime. -- Pinktulip 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two strong players I know in the Palo Alto area are Tom Maser and Richard Koepcke. Both are masters. Tom Maser knows Tom Dorsch both longer and better than I do, one of the few who can say that. If you see Tom Maser, ask him what he things of my biography of Tom Dorsch, which was deleted. Sam Sloan 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently read your book on origin of chess. It is very well written and interesting to read, still I think your hypothesis that 9x9 go board was the first chess board is probably wrong. This theory doesn't explain satisfactory misterious special markers found on Chaturanga board, see e.g. diagram in Chaturanga article. Positions for go-handicaps on 9x9 board are completely different. Much more probably seems to be the theory that chess board was taken from Liubo board. Please see Liubo picture on this page. Markings on Liubo board are remarkably resemble those on Chaturanga board! Andreas Kaufmann 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this article's history is a bit messed up, and this is why. On January 7, User:Merovingian moved the article from Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) to Brian Chase (hoaxer), this copies across the all the article history from the originating article to the newly "moved to" one. You tried to revert this move by doing a copy-paste, this does not resolve the article history, and now all the article history is at Brian Chase (hoaxer) because it was never moved back.

This is not a good thing, people looking at the article at Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer), now have no idea where the history is. I'm not sure about the ramifications of the GFDL authorship requirements that Wikipedia is under, but I know that this can't be an ideal situation. If you are certain that the article Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) is the correct one, then you should post something at WP:RM and tell them to move article correctly, which the admins can do. Being that Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) has hardly been edited since you recreated it, you could probably get an admin to tag it as speedy and then move Brian Chase (hoaxer) back. Note that even non-admins have the handy move button at the top of the page.

Personally, I don't care where the article is. I'd probably prefer Brian Chase (hoaxer), as there aren't any other Brian Chase hoaxers around, but hey, it ain't a big deal. Have fun! - Hahnchen 07:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just gave Merovingian a little Heads Up on the thing, hopefully he'll sort it out without needing it to queue up on WP:RM, which can take a while. - Hahnchen 07:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. The problem seems to be fixed now. Everything seems to be OK. Sam Sloan 11:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam:

Some self-appointed MIT math grad has decided that your own web site is not a proper source of documentation for your aticle and deleted some of your page. I put back the custody info. -- Pinktulip 09:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This person appears to go about randomly deleting stuff from various pages. As far as I know, the original author either did not know about my website or else did not use it, because nothing here seems to come from there. My recommendation is just remove samsloan.com as a source (which was just added recently anyway) and substitute the ChessBase magazine article at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1539 as a source, which may mollify him. I thought that this guy was a Billbrock surrogate at first, but now I think he is just a random nut.

It is traditional to point to the person's primary web site(s). I think the samsloan.com link is useful and, in the typical style. -- Pinktulip 10:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not already seen this, you might be amused: [8] -- Pinktulip 10:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam: I went ahead and created a SFL article and wikified your article accordingly. -- Pinktulip 10:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody who knows more will come in and add information. I left Berkeley on Christmas Eve 1967 and went to New Jersey to play in the US Intercolegiate Championship in Hoboken. I Never returned to California until 1981. The East Bay League had died when I left. However, the San Francisco Sexual Freedom League continued for a few years more. It was headed by Margo St. James, who later ran for San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Interestingly, Dorchen Leidholdt attacks Margo St. James in her speech linked at the bottom of the Dorchen Leidholdt biography. I do not know if Dorchen realizes my connection with Margo St. James or if it is just a coincidence. You may add this information if you wish, but I will not as my biographies are now always being targeted or modified. Sam Sloan 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for stability in biography, it is best to boil things down to only what is Important. That leaves little room to talk about family, hobbies or commentary. -- Pinktulip 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consdier voting in the AfD on his page. -- Pinktulip 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you edited the Walter Browne article on 13 December 2005 to add the category Category:American poker players. The article does not reference his poker playing. Could you expand a bit please, or reference somewhere that identifies this? Essexmutant 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Good point. Browne has been a professional poker player for 30 years (and a chess grandmaster on the side). He plays several times a week at the Oaks Club in Emeryville, California. I will add this. Sam Sloan 14:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Since you state that User:Billbrock has engaged in personal attacks against you, and your dispute with an admin is itself the result of those attacks and harassment, shouldn't you also ask the ArbCom to take action against Bill Brock? I just don't quite understand your approach. Robert McClenon 18:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a good one. The answer is that Bill Brock has been attacking me for years. He is obsessive-compulsive about attacking me. Many others, including his friends, have tried to stop him from attacking me. He will not stop. I am sure that as long as he lives, Bill Brock will continue to attack me. Even if he is blocked permanently from Wikipedia, he will find other ways and other forums to attack me. Therefore, I felt that it was appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to be concerned with the fact that User:Howcheng, who probably did not even check and learn this background, intervened on behalf of Bill Brock by deleting the Tom Dorsch article. Sam Sloan 18:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's perfect. Billbrock 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam: This is you-know-who. The 100,000 mile tumbler on the odometer of Pinktulip finally turned over and he is blocked forver. You know, they just do not build Wikipeida accounts like they used to. What can I say? The man puts the accelerator to floor of these accounts, never runs out of gas, and everyone is surprised when the engine blows at around the 2 to 3 month mark. Seems like the non-surprising outcome to me. I KNOW that I have seen this on the Internet somewhere. Instead of demolition derby or monster truck show, somewhere out in the mid-West, some sub-genre of this form of entertainment involves taking big-assed engines, standalone, max out on the cable that corresponds to the acceleration and just do it for the minute or two it takes for the engine to blow. The rural crowd interest in this sub-genre loves it! They assign points and prizes for artistry everying. Only in America! -- 67.127.58.57 06:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. But, do you believe in reincarnation? In life after death? I do. Sam Sloan 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me put it this way: others will still be alive after I am dead, but that does not really count now, does it? -- 68.122.119.128 05:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very cute message has been posted at User:68.122.119.128. Better be discrete. Play dead. Sam Sloan 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Play dead or play Death? YKW. Oh! I met Elliott (last name?) at Happy Donuts the other night. Obese 40-ish guy. We chatted for a while. He knew a Gary Armstrong that got into the higher-ups of Scientology before he escaped? Anyway, he says "Hello". -- Oingoboingo 11:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Winslow is a 60 year old International Master of Chess who is also one of the strongest backgammon players in the world. (I think he is ranked number 4 in the world.) He is an old friend of mine. He wrote me two days ago that he had met you. I am sorry to hear that he has put on weight. I offered to write a biography of him on Wikipedia but he says that he prefers to remain anonymous for now, which is understandable since he is a professional gambler. Perhaps you can get him to change his mind. Sam Sloan 12:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say "Hi!" to Elliot when next I see at HD. -- 68.122.73.143 15:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider moving, or at least getting a new IP. I understand Las Vegas is a good place. Sam Sloan 18:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created Gerry Armstrong because Elliot pointed out this very interesting man to me. On that last episode we talked about: Somehow slipping some mention of claiming that you were Napolean might add some colour to the storyline. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 06:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging in an edit war is not the correct way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent reverts in the Edward G. Winter violate the three-revert rule. Instead of reverting the page, post your comment on the appropriate talk page. Continuing to engage in the acts prescribed could result in a block. joturner 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. howcheng {chat} 22:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This os an issue that I need to take up with you, Mr. Howcheng. We need to go to the arbitration board about this. You know nothing about this subject. I know everything about it. Even a simpole Internet search will demonstrate that I am correct.

Here os a quote from International Master Hans Ree:

"Nobody is spared, but one man is singled out for Winter's attacks: English GM Raymond Keene. Keene as an organiser, a chess politician, a journalist, a chess writer. Found defective in all respects. Careless mistakes, outright lies, by the dozen, by the hundred, according to Winter. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans05.txt

There are dozens of such referenced about Winter on the Internet and Winter has been attacking Keene since the 1970s before there was even an Internet. You do not know this because you are writing about a subject you know zero about. Sam Sloan 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Policy on edit warring applies regardless of the truth or otherwise of the disputed content or the expertise of the enforcing admin. The cycle is: be bold (once), revert (once), talk. If someone else is not following that rule it does not mean you should too, there is no hurry, no deadline to meet. Take it to the Talk page, achieve consensus, and if the contentious material is still being pushed you will then have the backing of others in enforcing the consensus. Unles, of course, it's you doing the pushing. Just zis Guy you know? 10:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements at WP:DRV, and some of your comments on Talk pages of various chess articles, are incivil and could justifiably be interpreted as personal attacks. Wikipedia is not usenet, the two operate very differently and long-time Usenet users often have a hard time adjusting. Usenet thrives on dispute, Wikipedia is about building an encyclopaedia by consensus, which means engaging constructively with your opponents to state the basis of dispute and not advocate either point of view. On Usenet you can "win" by shouting your opinion loudest, on Wikipedia all points of view must be fairly and neutrally represented without undue weight given to any one view. And neither is Usenet a court of law - you cannot make a statement based on your credentials and have it accepted as reliable testimony. Everything should be verifiable from reliable secondary sources because Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. You are behaving in an adversarial manner (understandably given your past), but that is not how Wikipedia works, we have a collaborative, not an adversarial method.

You seriously need to calm down and take a less aggressive approach to subjects on which you clearly have strong feelings. If you continue as you are you will end up in trouble, and will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia, which will ensure that your point of view gets less coverage, not more. State your case neutrally and with proper citations, and above all stop personalising things. Nobody disputes that you know a lot, but neither do you dispute that you have very strong views, and those views are not necessarily neutral. We have to be especially careful in the case of living people. Just zis Guy you know? 10:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your letter and I appreciate your remarks.

However, please understand that I am not personalizing things. They are.

Over and over again, over a period of months, every time I post something to Wikipedia, the same people come back and delete substantial parts of it. They include User:Howcheng, User:Rook_wave, User:Billbrock and User:Samscomb. (The last, whose real name in Neil Brennen, has been blocked from Wikipedia.)

Take a look at the edit history of User:Rook_wave. He has made 41 edits and ALL OF THEM deleted content from my postings. He has contributed nothing, zero.

This small group obviously have me on a watchlist so that any time I post anything, they come in and delete the major part of it.

Because of this happening over and over again, I basically stopped posting biographies to Wikipedia in December. This posting about Edward G. Winter was almost my first contribution in three months.

Only five minutes after I had posted the Edward G. Winter article, one of the small group who deletes everything I write, came in and deleted most of the article. A few minutes after that, User:Howcheng threatened to block me. Please note that I have previously complained to the arbitration committee about the repeated misconduct of User:Howcheng including his calling well known opponents of me my "meatpuppets".

What do you supposed that I do? Do you think that I should go away and stop posting on Wikipedia? Should I be required to go into a long winded battle with User:Howcheng, User:Rook_wave, User:Billbrock and User:Samscomb every time I want to post something here? Sam Sloan 10:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are personalising things on Wikipedia (I don't dispute that they are personal outside WP). Why should Howcheng care one way or the other? Howcheng is here only to make sure that people play by the rules, and although there is much beef about "rouge admins" (sic) I have yet to see any evidence that the average sysop is doing anything other than refereeing in these situations. Put simply, I trust Howcheng. Your biggest problem to my mind is that you often seem to state things in combative language, which makes it hard to see past the bluster and find the core of fact. If you state things in a calm and neutral manner, and above all do not edit-war, you will achieve results with less friction. It is an unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia works that simply knowing somethign to be true is not enough, you have to show that reliable secondary sources have reported it as such. We are not supposed to weight he relative truth of different versions, we are not supposed to have analytical and research skills, we are supposed to collect and document that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources in a neutral way. A dispute exists? Dosument both sides. Describe the evidence they have. And if someone removes that evidence, discuss it with them on the Talk page and see what their issues are. Discussion by edit summary simply does not work. It's fine to have storng opinions, and its cool to state them on the Talk page (in terms which do not offend). But when they go into an article, care is needed, and balance must be struck. I think you know this. You are known as being disputatious and as having deep-rooted views about certain people (who may or may not be obnoxious charlatans). I really think you need to amke it easier for disinterested parties to discount that. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you've mentioned above, the dispute you're having is with more than one person, so isn't really appropiate for a third opinion (designed for between exactly two editors). If you are unhappy with the deletion of the Tom Dorsch article, you can refer it to a Wikipedia:Deletion review. Your description of the disagreement with the other editor seems to be over several articles, (none of which are specified, except the deleted one) which also makes it impossible to give a third opinion, if you see other entries, there are of the format "Article - two ideas, please choose". If you have a specific situation where you need a third opinion, please post it there, rememembering the format is a "short (one line), neutral description", signed only by date. the dispute you have raised looks more suitable for an RFC than a third opinion. Regards, MartinRe 12:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I consider this just to be a dispute between me and User:Howcheng is that every time any of my critics see something by me that they do not like, they go to User:Howcheng. The request to delete the Tom Dorsch article was made by User:Rook wave whose postings to Wikipedia are ALL delitions of content from my articles. User:Rook wave has posted 41 times to Wikipedia and every one of these postings removed content that I wrote. However, Rook wave is not an administrator, so he went to Howcheng and got him to blank the page.

It was only User:Howcheng who called Randy Bauer and Louis Blair my "meatpuppets". This is clearly a personal attack plus User:Howcheng should have first done an internet search whereby he would have found that Randy Bauer had run against me for election. Sam Sloan 12:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They go to Howcheng because Howcheng is an admin who knows your history, so it saves time in investigations. The same happens with me and certain problem editors. This does not indicate a personalisation of any dispute other than by you. Just zis Guy you know? 09:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out that User:Howcheng had no prior knowledge of me and deleted the article and its history after only a few minutes thought and based on the berlief that my well known opponents were my "meatpuppets". At least three other administrators had looked at the Tom Dorsch biography and none had deleted it. I have posted more than 100 biographies on Wikipedia and this is the only one that has been deleted. If User: Howcheng were any sort of man, he would admit his mistake, reinstate the article and let somebody else pass on it. Sam Sloan 11:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unhappy with the deletion decision, the correct procedure is to take it to a Wikipedia:Deletion review, as I mentioned above. What is not an acceptable response is to post personal attacks against the admin who made that decision, like your comment above. Regards, MartinRe 12:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng did not delete it on the basis of thought or belief in any quantity or nature, Howcheng deleted it because the AfD ended in clear consensus for deletion. Which, given the content, is hardly a surprise. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rubin was an obvious attack page, and has been speedy deleted. You can't claim notability based on your own problems with the person in question rather than anything in policy, and please don't cause such troubles in article space over your apparent disagreement with another editor. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong. Paul Rubin has been attacking various chess officials and the chess bureaucracy for more than ten years since the early 1990s. I am not a chess official and he has not been attacking me. However, he has deleted the biographies I wrote of various chess officials. By his long campaign against the chess bureaucracy, Paul Rubin has made himself notable. Sam Sloan 16:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Sam, I agree with you that Elena's move from the Soviet Union can be accurately described as a defection, but still, try to avoid calling other users for "mealy-mouthed mud-fish". Use of such terms makes Wikipedia a rather hostile place to work, and it tends to reflect badly on people using such terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a direct quote from somebody else, who had far worse words to say but I edited them out, but since you ask, I will go back and edit that out too. Sam Sloan 14:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is you-know-who. I was wrong. Jefferson is living at the Hotel Jefferson on Eddy St.

http://www.insiderpages.com/b/3710608115

I called and mentioned room 512 and then they knew who I was talking about. I avoided using his "Clitlick" name, but I was trying to be discrete. perhaps with "too much information" but please edit as you see fit. Anyway, it occurred to me to leave a message for him in your name, but I figure that you can afford to make the call to resume contact with your old friend.

I may choose to visit him at some time anyway, just to let him know that I am aware that being on that Megan's Law web site is a burden and that it is unclear to me if having such a web site in California is such a good thing and that, while he has made mistakes, he is still a human being in the eyes of Allah and in the eyes of most thinking people.

Pleaes check out the Jefferson's "talk" page also. I am going to the Queen's gambit, so to speak. -- Pro123tester 18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see Jefferson please ask him what ever happened to Michelle, Burt Kohl, and ask the address of the pad where he used live near the corner of Haight and Ashbury with all the naked hippie chicks, and also ask the name of the girl whose pad it really was who paid the rent. See if you can find out if any of the girls are still alive, or if they have all died of some loathsom disease. Sam Sloan 07:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:DakotaKahn and then licking. I am sorry Jimbo: it is all perfectly NPOV. Oh! I should NEVER have downloaded her picture (before she removed it from her uesr page). 26 years old an super-duper cute. I have removed her photo from my hard drive forever. I struggle, just as William Chester Minor did, so long ago. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is YKW. Oh, do vote in the AfD on that page, naturally, however you see fit. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a mediocre chess player" - Can we be more accurate without going into numbers (alone)? I.E. most people would doubtless consider him "very good", but is he strong club player, weak tournament player or what? Thought you might know. Rich Farmbrough 16:20 24 April 2006 (UTC).

I have analyzed chess with him and I would say that he is a 1700 player. His daughters agreed with me. In actual competition, he might be weaker, but certainly not much stronger.Sam Sloan 13:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=476897

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but No, I prefer that it stays where it is.

Ultimately, it's not your decision. This page isn't an extension of your personal website. The reasons for optimizing Wikipedia page length/filesize are laid out in the link BD2412 provided; you are advised to familiarise yourself with them.

A bit like his own personal website, very long. The one main page could do with being cut down into sections, likewise so could this. Archiving perhaps? Think about it. Mathmo ^Talk 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam: Hello again. I see that are going for govenor now or at least the LPNY nomination? I liked the video at Google. I agree about your stance on the drug laws, but you should probably find a second point to your compaign message. Also: you books make you notable and demonstrate your talent and intelligence, but the average voter sees them as dealing with the subjects of obscure history and games. You could have said as much by simply saying how many books you have published and that they are non-fiction. -- 67.116.253.187 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add links to your own website to articles in Wikipedia, this is considered spamming. Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 09:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I reverted your recent edit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. You edited the page in a manner which broke it. Please read the instructions on that page before editing it. You can access the text you added to the page in the page history. Thanks and happy editing! Weregerbil 10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you have plenty of contributions to the chess articles. Can you expand Rogelio Antonio Jr.? Well, thanks in advance!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.55.189 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Are you a famous grandmaster from the Philippines? Sam Sloan[reply]

---> This entire dialogue is amuzing, yet, I know that some will take it personally, so may I suggest that everyone lighten up and perhaps consider enrolling in an accredited 4-year Liberal Arts college while majoring in English and minoring in Sociology and Psychology? You will feel better about life, trust me.

It's not showing up because you didn't remove the comment lines (the lines that have BEGIN TEMPLATE and END TEMPLATE in them). You're supposed to remove those lines, like they say. Just a friendly reminder... -- ArglebargleIV 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. I can no longer find my request for arbitration. Could you please tell me where it is or how to reinstate it? Sam Sloan 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been removed, since it was hidden in a comment and looked like an incomplete addition -- a nbormal thing to do, really.

I've taken the liberty of extracting it from the history of the arbitration request page, and copied it below inside of a <nowiki> tag so that the formatting will NOT show on this page. Note that this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of this arbitration request. -- ArglebargleIV 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===[[Sam Sloan]] vs. [[User:JzG]] === : '''Initiated by --[[User:Sam Sloan]] ~~~ '''at''' ~~~~~ ==== Involved parties ==== *{{userlinks|Sam Sloan}} *{{userlinks|JzG}} ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request ; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried ==== Statement by {party 1} ==== [[User:JzG]] has repeatedly deleted my biographies of chess personalities. Today, for example, he deleted my biography of [[Julio César Ingolotti]] who is the Chess Champion of Paraguay and a candidate for Vice-President of [[FIDE]], the [[World Chess Federation]]. [[User:JzG]] has admitted in the past that he knows nothing about chess. He just keeps doing this because of his nasty and vindictive nature. I am a member of the Board of Directors of the [[United States Chess Federation]], so I certainly know something about the field of chess. I request that the administrator privileges of [[User:JzG]] be revoked so that he cannot do this any more. ==== Statement by {party 2} ==== ==== Clerk notes ==== : (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.) ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ==== * ----

OK. I have posted it again on Requests for Arbitration. Please go look again and thank you very much. Sam Sloan 10:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Blunder on my part. I was the person that removed it since I had no clue whether it was an accident or not (which I assumed good faith and only restored the template), but I forgot to leave a message here. Sorry! - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of copying text from another website, you could use the information these articles contain to write entries in your own words based on the information rather than the text. That would stop any copyright problems and result in articles that will be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I did that already. If you are able to go back and look at the various deletions by JzG over the past one and a half years you will see that I even cut my biographies down to bare facts such as place and date of birth and positions currently held, such as President of the Turkish Chess Federation. User: JzG acting at the behest of Louis Blair who is a political opponent in chess deletes them anyway.Sam Sloan 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Three things: First, bullshit, I review my deletion log periodically looking for blue links. Of the thousands of deletions I have performed, only a tiny percentage are currently blue links, most are never re-created, some are and are then deleted again either by me or by others. Sometimes I am prompted by others to review my deletion log, but I am nobody's puppet and people who have tried to pull my strings in the past have on occasion received very different results form those they desired. Second, your repeated reposting of material which violates copyright is a serious problem, it places the entire project in legal jeopardy and if I find you doing it again I will block you. Third, you have initiated vexatious processes against a number of other Wikipedia editors, every one of which, as far as I can tell, has been adjudged baseless. If you initiate any further processes against other Wikipedia editors without good grounds, you may also be blocked for disruption. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask User:JzG to delete anything. - Louis Blair (March 17, 2007)

Hi. On what grounds do you believe this article to be nonsense? It's not apparently nonsense from the text. --Dweller 11:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no evidence that an organization called the "American Chess Association" ever existed, even in 1857. There was a tournament won by Paul Morphy in New York in 1857, with Louis Paulsen second, which was the only tournament Morphy ever played in.

The problem is that Stan Vaughan has a long history of forming organizations with the same identical name as existing organizations and then claiming to BE that organization. The USCF won a court case against Vaughan in 2000 and got a court injunction prohibiting him from doing this.

That is the reason that there has been no activity since 2000.

His claims are patent nonsense. For example he claims 71,000 members. However, he just "declared" all USCF members to be members of his organization, even though they never joined or even heard of his organization.

Also, amchess is the email address for Stan Vaughan. He is basically posting his own Wikipedia page which is against the rules.

He claims affiliation with the "World Chess Federation". However, that is his own World Chess Federation incorporated in Nevada, not the Real World Chess Federation, better known as FIDE, with headquarters in Switzerland.

Vaughan has been doing this sort of thing for more than 20 years. Before doing it in Nevada he did it in South Carolina and Oklahoma and one or two other states. He will keep doing this as it his major scam. He always catches a few people who send him money, confusing him with the real organization, the USCF. Sam Sloan 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please take a look at the stubbed article. If you have difficulties with it continuing to exist, please do take it to AFD... this needs more scrutiny than can be applied in speedy deletion. --Dweller 15:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Randall Hough, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. THF 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am surprised that you want this link in the Susan Polgar article. Have you read what he writes about you? Regards, IP-user 83.176.231.198 22:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have read what he writes about me. That is how he had me defeated in the election campaign. He mailed more than 16,000 postcards to the voters with these statements. Nevertheless, his statements about her were accurate and since he is the current USCF President they belong in her biography, although perhaps in a different place. Sam Sloan 12:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you or somebody should mention the 16,000 to 17,000 postcards Bill Goichberg mailed to the USCF voters (by far the largest mailing in USCF history) and the impact it had on the election campaign, bringing about my defeat and causing cries of outrage from her on her blog. http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com The statements on http://www.checkmate.us/summary.htm are what was on the postcard. Also should be mentioned is the fact that during the election campaign she concealed her marriage to Truong until it was revealed by a newspaper reported in Lubbock, Texas. None of her three campaign statements published in Chess Life mentioned her marriage to Truong, who was her running-mate in the election, and to this day few USCF members know of it. Sam Sloan 12:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Leuko 13:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harassing Guy. This is your final warning -- one more time and you'll be blocked. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask Guy to stop harassing me? Sam Sloan 01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Xie Jun, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've reverted your links to copyrighted youtube vids. Please see WP:EL and WP:COPY, specifically:

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

If editors wish to watch those programs, they can go to youtube themselves and view them. But even if you are the one who uploaded those videos to youtube, it's still against the rules to link to them because they are copyrighted videos uploaded in violation of copyright. Kolindigo 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that youtube.com violates somebody else's copyright? How do you know this? By linking to the youtube.com video I am not copying their work. I am simply directing the viewer to them. This is something youtube wants, to get people to come to their site. Are you some sort of official person? You have failed to cite any Wikipedia rule against linking to these videos. Sam Sloan 12:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did just cite a wikipedia rule against linking to those videos. Those videos are copyrighted parts of telecasts and are uploaded to youtube in violation of copyright law. Since those videos were obviously not filmed, produced, etc, by the ones who uploaded them to youtube, they are on youtube in violation of copyright. Kolindigo 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should complain to youtube, not to me. Copyright law is complex and was not intended to deal with the expansion of the Internet. I imagine that youtube has some defense, but I do not see how you can complain to me about linking to youtube, unless, of course, you are an employee or agent of the company that holds the copyright. Are you?? Sam Sloan 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't youtube, it's Wikipedia. The problem as relevant to wikipedia is not that the videos exist on youtube, it's that the videos exist on youtube in violation of copyright and therefore should not be linked to from Wikipedia. Kolindigo 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, how do YOU know that they exist on youtube in violation of copyright? Sam Sloan 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three skating videos you linked to, one of them credits at the beginning the illegal downloading site where they got it from, and the other two are from serial uploaders who upload videos they like. These videos were from three different channels, so it's not like ABC decided to upload their Olympic coverage to youtube. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that these three video uploaders have any connection to the copyright holders. NBC, for example, uploads their videos under a Director account called, appropriately enough, NBC. Kolindigo 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure than NBC will take quick action to protect their rights. These videos are about one year old. Therefore, I fail to understand why you are so sure that youtube.com is acting so illegally by allowing these videos to remain on their site. Sam Sloan 21:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what I'm saying at all. The problem here is that Wikipedia policy is to not link to videos on youtube that are uploaded in violation of copyright. This has nothing at all to do with what Youtube allows or doesn't allow. Kolindigo 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedian and thanks for all the improvements you put in Wikipedia. I have recently tumbled on the Ishi Press article you created, and I just wanted to inform you that I have put a question on its Talk page asking for the notability of this company to be assessed. Happy editing! SyG 08:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried doing a Google search on Ishi Press? Do not you think that would be a good idea before posting such a notice? Do not you think it makes you look silly when even a casual reader will quickly find out that Ishi Press has published more than one hundred books since 1968 plus several magazines? Sam Sloan 10:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam Sloan! Please do not take personnally my question for notability, I am asking this question on a lot of articles as I would like to generally enhance the level of sourcing on Wikipedia. I am not completely convinced that having published 100 books in 40 years is really that notable, because that would practically mean all publishing companies are worth an article on Wikipedia. On the other side, would you know if someone has written a book about Ishi Press ? It would constitute a good proof of notability. SyG 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your definition of notable is different from the Wikipedia definition of notability. As long as you are on their site you should use their definition of notable, or you can go form your own site and then you can use any definition you want.

For example, Wikipedia defines a person who had written a published book that has sold 5,000 copies as notable. Obviously, a publishing company that has printed and sold one hundred thousand books is notable. By the way, few companies have sold as many books as Ishi Press has, mainly because most publishing companies go out of business after just a few books. You obviously do not know that and you obviously know little about the publishing business. Sam Sloan 00:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability concern might be legitimate.

• Most of the Google hits for "Ishi Press" seem to be about books, not the company itself.
• I don't think the number of copies of a book by an author is a fair comparison to the number of books printed by a publisher. It is not obvious that a publishing company that has sold 100,000 books is notable. (Is that world wide, U.S.A, or what?)
• I would guess that most Wikipedians don't know much about the publishing business. Would you care to enlighten us? (You might edit the article on publishing, if you can do so in a way that improves the article.)

Syg's question about books being written about Ishi Press may have to to with Wikipedia's policies: Articles should not be used for promotion; Authors should cite sources; "Original Research" is prohibited. So, unless there are non-Ishi / non-Sam Sloan sources about Ishi, there may be difficulty with an article about Ishi.

SlowJog 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC) and ammended SlowJog 13:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... of Ali Nihat Yazici. You're absolutely right. My sincere apologies! Your original DRV request was heavily modified by an editor, now banned and I made a bad call on that. My mistake - sorry! - Alison ^❤ 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mahjong Horoki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. You "speedily deleted" this article less than 30 seconds after I first created it. Who are you and what is this all about? Sam Sloan 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A concern regarding possible conflicts of interest in your editing has been posted on the Administrator's Noticeboard. A link to the notice is here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you per WP:NLT due to your ongoing lawsuit involving another wikipedia editor. Viridae^Talk 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protest. This lawsuit has been reported in newspapers around the world, including five articles in the New York Times:

• NY Times: Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to Hurt Rivals
• NY Times: Interview With the U.S.C.F. President; a Chess Sponsor Says He's Had Enough
• NY Times: Founder of AF4C: The Chess Federation Needs a New Structure
• NY Times: Polgar Responds on her Blog
• NY Times: The Lawsuit against Polgar and Truong, A Closer Look

European Newspapers such as the Independent:

The Independent: Chess contest turns nasty as rivals try to checkmate smears

Local newspapers in Texas:

• Lubbock Advance Journal: Former chess federation board member sues Tech chess institute

• Lubbock Advance-Journal: Tech gets more response time in chess lawsuit

• The Daily Toreador, Texas Tech University Student Newspaper: Lawsuit Creates Problems for Local Chess Tournament

• The Daily Toreador, Texas Tech University Student Newspaper: University Named as Defendant in Identity Theft Lawsuit

And there are at least thirty independent blogs, newsgroups, forums and discussion groups with hundreds of postings that are covering this lawsuit. For example:

Mig Greengard's Daily Dirt: Slime Spillover

Your reliance on WP:NLT is misplaced because that means "No Legal Threats". I have not posted anywhere on Wikipedia a legal threat to sue anybody. Also, the main person supporting your block is User:JzG who is a "retired" administrator with a long history of attacking me.

All I have done is report the existence of these newspaper articles. In addition Polgar and Truong are not known Wikipedia Editors and this lawsuit has nothing to do with postings on Wikipedia. What is wrong with reporting this? Sam Sloan 13:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, since part of your lawsuit alleges misbehavior of a Wikipedia editor at Wikipedia, WP:NLT applies: If you must take legal action ... we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.

Please contact the Wikimedia Foundation if you want to discuss further, as this matter is beyond the purview of wikipedia administrators. --Duk 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KMO 070476 00003 1m.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Mig Greengard, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mig Greengard (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Regularly I try to improve the article on the World Youth Chess Championship. Quite often while googling, I end up on your website. A lot of winners are missing from the early years (Like 1983 U16 -girls). Do you know when these championships started? A lot of questions left, so if you have any information, I would be most grateful! Best regards, Voorlandt (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Sloan vs. Truong is in today's New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/crosswords/chess/15chess.html

The New York Times has declared the lawsuit by Sam Sloan against Paul Truong and Susan Polgar as one of the memorable chess events for the year 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/crosswords/chess/30chess.html

It is most unfair that I have been blocked from posting to Wikipedia because of this lawsuit, as the court case has nothing to do with Wikipedia.Sam Sloan (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam - you might want to contact the foundation office and talk to someone in person about your block (if you haven't already done so). They are going to need this link to the ANI discussion. I think User:Cary Bass would be a good person to start with. He's the Volunteer Coordinator. --Duk 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ban saved a tiresome ArbCom. He can challenge it by mailing the committee, but frankly he's probably wasting his time. Sam has treated Wikipedia as a battleground, a venue for self-promotion and a soapbox ever since he arrived. Guy (Help!) —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the arbcom has any legitimate providence when there is a lawsuit is involved. Sam, you should take this to the office if you want to discuss, not the arbcom. But I wouldn't get my hopes up. --Duk 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim made by Guy above is utterly false. I have never engaged in an edit war with anybody. If somebody wants to edit or change my work they are more than welcome to do so. I am here to learn more about the people I write about. I challenge Guy to produce even one example to support the claim he makes above about me. Guy attacks me constantly without any reason. It was for that reason that I twice tried to commence an arbitration proceeding against Guy.

Another lie told by Guy is that I engaged in copyright violations. I am a published author and I write my own stuff. The copyright violations he claims were articles originally written by me which somebody else copied with my permission and thus appeared on another website. I challenge him to prove his claims. Guy seems to be fighting wars with just about everybody. Just take a look at his own talk page where there are endless battles with almost the entire world going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archives/January_2008 Sam Sloan (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacious argument, as always. I have previously documented the problems with your conduct and have no desire to do so again, but suffice it to say that I provided evidence for each and every accusation. When it comes to accusations of disputatiousness you are living in the very flimsiest of glass houses (even the thread title shows this), so it's probably better not to go there. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Charles Weldon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eddore writes: "I reverted an edit by anon 66.191.71.115. The reports he mentions came out long after the filing of Sloan's lawsuit, and implying that Sloan had independent support for his claims in advance is clearly a distortion. Also, the fact that some EB members have called for Truong's resignation is not relevant to the Sloan article (belongs under Truong). In this context, it's just a gratuitous attack. Eddore (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

This is not true. In the first place User:Eddore implies that anon 66.191.71.115 is me. I do not know who it is, but I know it is not me. I also do not know who User:Eddore is, since he refuses to register. It is not true that the "reports he mentions came out long after the filing of Sloan's lawsuit". Brian Mottershead reported his findings to USCF President Bill Goichberg on September 20, 2007. Goichberg's response was to tell Mottershead to keep quiet about it except to file a complaint with the USCF Ethics Committee. After waiting for a week and finding that the USCF President was going to do nothing about it, Mottershead made his findings publicly known. After waiting another week and with the USCF President still doing nothing about it, and it becoming increasingly obvious that Bill Goichberg was in league with the impersonator of me all along, I filed suit in federal court on October 2, 2007.

It is true that an anonymous poster leaked and posted the Mottershead Report after I filed my lawsuit, but the report and its findings were known before the time I filed my lawsuit.

I fail to understand why I am banned from posting to Wikipedia for filing this suit. A simple search will show that User:Billbrock has stated on Wikipedia numerous times that I am a "child molester". Those postings are still up. Is it a Wikipedia Rule that it is OK to call somebody a "child molester", but if the target sues the perpetrator for calling him a "child molester" the target gets banned from Wikipedia? Note that I have never posted a legal threat of any kind on Wikipedia. Rather, I filed an actual lawsuit in federal court against User:Billbrock for calling me a "child molester" thousands of times on the Internet. Most of those times were on rec.games.chess.politics. Only a few of those times were on Wikipedia.

My federal lawsuit against Brock, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Bill Goichberg et al is still pending in federal court now, eight months later, and in all likelihood will continue to be before the courts for several more months or years. It is a big case, which is the reason why there have been ten articles in the New York Times about it. Does this mean that I will be banned from Wikipedia for the next several years while this case winds its way through the courts? Sam Sloan (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The reports quoted by the anon (I accept that it wasn't you) were not Mottershead's opus, but rather the two "independent analyses" of the Mottershead report. Never mind their merits, they came out in December or January, while you filed your (frivolous/turgid/insane/harassing/choose one) lawsuit in October. Are you going to argue that your actions were justified because of things that hadn't happened yet? If so, let's send you to jail because you might commit a crime some day.

2) Preposterous comments like "... it becoming (sic) increasingly obvious that Bill Goichberg was in league with the impersonator of me all along" illustrate clearly enough why you shouldn't be writing for Wikipedia. Your paranoia is showing, Sam.

3) "Does this mean that I will be banned from Wikipedia for the next several years while this case winds its way through the courts?" In a word: yes. This was explained to you last November, but you apparently chose not to read it. There's a price for abusing the legal system, albeit it's not nearly high enough. Eddore (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Joseph Dobrian, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Dobrian. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Joseph Dobrian, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Dobrian. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam Sloan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 34 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Mike Goodall - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. George Dean - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Dimitrije Bjelica - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Julian Simpole has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content other then a name. Various content has been removed by various editors.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article George Dean has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. William Avery (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Frank Niro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, WP:GNG, of WP:BIO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mikko Markkula is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikko Markkula until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sophia91 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jim Berry (chess player) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable chess player: not a grandmaster nor a national champion, never played for his country's team, never took part in a World Championship cycle event

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sophia91 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mike Goodall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not receive significant coverage in external sources. Mentions are brief, and usually in the context of systematic collections of chess statistics.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wikiacc (¶) 20:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gary Popkin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Internet search did not produce sources substantial enough to meet notability guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dennis Monokroussos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dennis Monokroussos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Monokroussos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]