Talk:Chess Life

message: * Convicted felon Sam Sloan wrote in the edit summary, 11:23, 29 December 2005 Rv Billbrock again. Billbrock will violate the 3RR rule soon. He has attacked me hundreds of times over on rec.games.chess.politics He was asked to leave that group and did so. Now he has moved here.) Heh.  OK, we'll let the statements of the specialfriend http://www.ishipress.com/daa.htm to http://www.ishipress.com/lim.htm young http://www.samsloan.com/pokeplot.htm girls] stand unchallenged.  See [] for a related discussion of Sam Sloan's attitude towards NPOV. Further, less controversially, if authors are banned by USCF Sales, why is that covered in the Chess Life article?  More properly belongs in the USCF article.  If one must spread alternate versions of reality, then at least spread them in a more systematic fashion. Billbrock 01:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR Billbrock 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The best lack all conviction; the worst have two convictions (after Yeats) 

message: First off, let me state that I have absolutely no knowledge of the USCF or Chess Life and am only looking at this as an outside observer. In short, Wikipedia policy is clear: No original research. If Sam Sloan is basing his contribution of a blacklist based on conversations (newsgroup or otherwise), emails, or his own suspicions that such a blacklist exists, that is by definition original research and is not allowed. However, if he were to cite reliable sources that declare its existence, then its mention may be included. This is non-negotiable. If Sam Sloan continues his attempts to include this in the article against the consensus formed by other editors on this page, I will reluctantly have to impose a block. howcheng  {chat} 06:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  Edited accordingly.  I have let the NPOV tag stand for the time being. Billbrock 04:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr Sloan, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore is not suitable for original research. The official minutes of the USCF are a primary source and therefore may not be used as references in compiling the article. Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources, reporting only what others have felt important to report. If you can cite any reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS for examples), then by all means reinstate the blacklist to the article. Your standing in the USCF is of absolutely no relevance here. I have absolutely no stake in this article or Tom Dorsch. I don't even play chess (although I was in my high school's chess club -- I was the worst one there). My only goal here is to have all contributors comply with Wikipedia policies. The so-called "threat" to block is completely within the blocking policy (either under the "Excessive reverts" or "Users who exhaust the community's patience" clauses). In my talk page you also stated that I deleted Tom Dorsch on the complaint of User:Billbrock, which is incorrect; the article was deleted as a result of the deletion policy and follows the procedures outlined in the guide to deletion. If you disagree with its deletion, you may take it to deletion review where other administrators will review it. Regards, howcheng  {chat} 07:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to be a complete nobody in the world of chess than [balance of original text redacted to comply with WP policy]. Billbrock 20:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research 

message: I added a Contributors section for notable contributors to Chess Life.  My idea is to include only people who wrote regularly or at least semi-regularly, and whose columns or other contributions were well known enough to became associated with Chess Life in readers minds.  The ideal entry would be the author's name, years of writing for Chess Life, and the name(s) of the column(s) written.  Unfortunately none of my initial entries have all of that information.   Also I have never been a regular reader of Chess Life and have not seen any of the issues at all before about 1979, so the list needs a lot of expansion.  Perhaps a better section title would be "Columnists"?  All of the notable contributions (outside of editors who are already listed in the appropriate section) that I am familiar with are in columns, so I don't know if the more specific term would be better.  165.189.91.148 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributors section 

message: Just added exact dates that all Chess Life editors served, going back to December 1966.  Can anybody take it back farther than that? -- Burke Devlin
03:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess Life Editors 

message: Wasn't Luděk Pachman a regular contributor to Chess Life? Bubba73 (talk), 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he was, added to article.  Bubba73 (talk), 06:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributor?