You people should try to work on expressing your ideas more clearly. Writing and communication skills do not seem to be very common here.
How many chess.com accounts are you up to now? In spite of our poor communication you can't seem to stay away heh.
There is some massive sockpupetting going on in the Valeri Lilov deletion discussion on Wikipedia.
what's sockpuppeting?
If I was arguing something in a thread and decided to open a new account to make it seem like someone agreed with me, that would be sockpuppeting. If a few of Ivanov's friends are pretending to be other people who don't know him and posting on his behalf with multiple accounts that would also be sockpuppeting.
Yep, but in this case its "Tiger" Lilov that is doing the sockpupetting, creating a bunch of fake Wikipedia accounts to oppose the deletion of his own article on there, which he wrote himself. He has a years-long history of doing this on Wikipedia.
Yep, but in this case its "Tiger" Lilov that is doing the sockpupetting, creating a bunch of fake Wikipedia accounts to oppose the deletion of his own article on there, which he wrote himself. He has a years-long history of doing this on Wikipedia.
A year's long history of sock pupetting... a truly pathetic hobby don't you think?
Yep, but in this case its "Tiger" Lilov that is doing the sockpupetting, creating a bunch of fake Wikipedia accounts to oppose the deletion of his own article on there, which he wrote himself. He has a years-long history of doing this on Wikipedia.
@Thomas Hauser. What you write doens't make sense. On the Lilov wikipedia page there's all kinds of postings from today and yesterday, against Lilov/ for deleting his page. Are you suggesting that he is making fictitious accounts on wikipedia in order to argue for deleting his own page on wikipedia? Since that can't be what you're arguing, I suggest you read some of the previous posts in the thread before you post, and/or the wikipedia article that is being discussed; it would help the flow of the conversation.
@Adam You clearly do not know how to read a Wikipedia page. You should try out the "view history" tab as well if you want to see all the edits concerning a particular page.
yes, the view history tab shows the edits.
Or do you just think that anyone that argues that the Lilov article should be deleted is a sockpuppet?
no. I think it very unlikely that Lilov will be a sockpuppet arguing for the deletion of his own page, esp given his interest in self promotion.
yes. I'm not going to go check the names again, but yes, there is a discussion with arguments for and against deleting the article. That is precisely my point.
So I guess the poster above who predicted that you would be happy with the Lilov article deleted was correct. As for me, there are guidelines on wikipedia, and it seems to me that both the Ivanov and Lilov articles should be kept, esp with the obvious interest in both of them, for obviously different reasons; Ivanov because his career is behind him, and Lilov because his career is apparently still nascent.
it is. i sure have seen people take it far too seriously, and i'm not talking about these articles...
so well, if he gets an article or doesn't... as long as it doesn't read like an ad, who really cares? i don't.
and the wikipedia criteria for "notability" is ambiguous at best.
What's the 411 or 499 or whatever the number is when you want the scoop on something on this Borislav Iwannaknowya chap? Never mind.
I don't really know the guidelines enough to cite them, and don't really feel like looking them up, but it seems to me, as someone wrote above, that there's no harm done if either of them have a page as long as there's interest in them, and as long as the contents of the page is in keeping with the guidelines, which I'm sure the readership will hold them to.
I think you should start a new thread on wikipedia guidelines.
I think they both deserve their pages on wikipedia. FIDE created a chess committee, because of events like Borislav Ivanov. He has made the newspaper, came in a television show all because of the games he played and the accusations of cheating he received as a consequence.
Valeri Lilov should get a page, because he made some videos about the games of Borislav Ivanov and those videos have contributed a lot to the whole situation. If he would have not done that, then would Borislav Ivanov not have received so much attention.
They belong together and their pages should have links to each other. If Lilov is trying to get the page of Borislav Ivanov deleted then does he not understand that that is the sole reason for him to have a page on wikipedia. If one person on earth next to Borislav Ivanov has a reason to blow this whole situation out of proportion, then is that Valeri Lilov. His fame has risen because of Borislav Ivanov. I think the saying 'love your enemy' applies here on a strange way.
Both men do not get a page for having a title in chess. That is not enough. A page on wikipedia requires coverage of independent media. They both have received that based on the same situation.
Compare it to this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Capehart_O%27Kelley (English version.)
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Capehart_O%27Kelley
The man who shot the man who shot Jesse James. That is why he has a wikipedia page.
well argued Loek. Not because of titles, certainly. And yes, Loek, I heard of Lilov because of the thread on Ivanov on chess.com, and I heard of Ivanov just from surfing forums to read on chess.com.
And the analogy to the murderer of the killer of Jesse James, just brilliant. I read up on the O'Kelley man on the English wikipedia; there's a lot more on him in the English than in the Dutch, and its worth the read.
Not a few players attempt to use en.wikipedia to self promote themselves or their products.
Should chess.com have an article on Wikipedia?