What does it mean when a forum topic gets "locked?"


Busted again! At least Wikipedia takes action to stomp these goobers.


I remember harassing people online after getting home from school lol.  Of course this was about 15 years ago and there wasn't nearly as much to do online in terms of harassment.  It was usually online game like starcraft (which had just come out) oh and starsiege tribes.

I remember it all seeming pretty badass until I grew up and realized I was just wasting a lot of people's time and it's very likely no one found it clever but me.

Oh remember winnuking?  All you needed was an IP address and you could crash someone's computer immediately at will (force a reboot).  lol.  Good times for kids online for sure.


Don't give them ideas. Laughing

Although I imagine that a way has been invented to prevent that?


Even at the time you could block it.  So you'd be in a chat room and if someone disagreed you'd say
"shutup or I'mma winnuke you!"
and they'd be like "I have the protection so you can't!"
and you'd be all "I have the NEW winnuke and I can!"

So you'd try it and it'd fail or work depending on who had the latest version.  I think they fixed whatever bug that was over a decade ago :p


Out of curiosity, I looked this up :

Chess.com is actually not mentioned in Patrick Wolff's "Idiot's Guide to Chess,"  but is casually mentioned in James Eades' "Chess for Dummies."  Alexey Root also casually mentions this site in "The Living Chess Game"  and in "People, Places, Checkmates: Teaching Social Studies With Chess."  It's also mentioned in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Backyard Adventures" by Nancy Worrell (in the appendix for resources about games, as the source where people can find good information about chess). "How to Make Your Long-Distance Relationship Work and Flourish" by  Tamsen Butler actually suggests chess.com and a good meeting place to separated couple to connenct and play some chess. "Real Kids, Real Stories, Real Change: Courageous Actions Around the World"  by Garth Sundem, suggests chess.com as does "Computers For Seniors For Dummies" by Nancy Muir and "Ensembles in Machine Learning Applications" by Oleg Okun, Giorgio Valentini, Matteo Re.

Surprisingly, I found two books that cited two blog articles I posted on chess.com.  Go figure.


sounds pretty ___ing stupid to me. I for one would have never gone online at all. how is that even possible that that could happen?

kohai wrote:

Generally because of this;

The following topics are not allowed in the main public forums or chat rooms:

offensive/vulgar language personal attacks religious or political debate spammy/pointless/distracting posts discussion of illegal activities (drugs, etc) advertising competitive sites cheating

How do you become a staff member on Chess.com? 


Windows 95 wasn't exactly the pinnacle of reliability or security.


You must slay the seven dragons of Uisghuzuurl and recover the Gem of Ylstrynvzy. Which is kind of impossible since Kohai already did it.


@ the OP...

...it isn't open for discussion...

ivandh wrote:

You must slay the seven dragons of Uisghuzuurl and recover the Gem of Ylstrynvzy. Which is kind of impossible since Kohai already did it.

Yeah, she had the gem ground down into powder and sprinkles it on her yogurt.


Wikipedia is a great starting point for research on most topics - controversial issues or people are different, it is virtually useless.  But because it can be edited by anyone, much depends on the last edit's reliability.

Also, while most of the editors make a serious effort at objectivity, it's really beyond human ability.  Others let their authority go to their heads.  And some take the guidelines as if they were etched in stone by the Hand of God and handed down from On High.

I think this is what happened with Chess.com:  at some point we were ruled "a commercial site" (as if all the others were non-profit or something) and disallowed.  The Powers That Be over this area of subject matter won't reconsider (it might indicate fallibility).

So, sadly, all the fools seeking misinformation on us won't find it there.

Estragon wrote:
So, sadly, all the fools seeking misinformation on us won't find it there.

lol, when you put it that way...

Fianchetto1967 wrote:

And thank you, Batgirl, for doing some real research into sources.  It's cool you've actually been cited in print. Kudos.

So when she's brought this up before, and written wiki articles before, it means nothing.  But she mentions it in this thread and she gets your thanks?  I don't understand.

Fianchetto1967 wrote:

If Batgirl has posted those books and sources anywhere before she mentioned them in her post today please kindly show me where batgirl has cited or posted those sources.   If you will do that for me I be the first to concede to your point.


From post 63:

batgirl wrote:

. . .
About 5 years ago, on request, I wrote a totally objective and dispassionate entry for Chess.com.   I say "on request" because admin here had tried earlier only to have the entry deleted.  Mine was also deleted.  I have noticed over the years several more attempts that were also summarily deleted.  In the archived example someone posted a link for in this thread, it was noted that the entry was to commercialized.

. . .

I assumed she had it in the wiki articles she wrote.  I also noticed some of these sources mentioned on the wiki talk page (how else would I come up with chess for dummies book that I don't own?)... and you criticize me but thank her... I was trying to give you information not win a childish argument.  But to each their own.

If you mean on chess.com then no, I don't know of anywhere on this site she's given that list.


Yes, and also I was just assuming... I never even read those chess.com articles she's talking about.

And like I said, I don't know how those talk pages work (or really even what they are...) but I assumed (again) that you would know how to find that page and read it for yourself.  Maybe they are hard to find?  Maybe they get deleted after so long?  I really don't know.


Oh, so the info Batgirl gave in this topic is actually useful!  Thats neat.  Ok so maybe it was good to thank her and not me Wink

If she took the time (again) to go on wiki about it would wiki people care?  That's also something I don't know about.  I know anyone can edit stuff, but some articles not everyone can.  I've made some small changes to chess articles before and they've stayed.  One time all I did was tidy up a paragraph that repeated itself later on, it was changed back the next day though and I never knew why or how (or maybe I never hit "submit" or however it works).  That was the last time I did anything on wiki (a few years ago).


The one thing about wikipedia pages is that if you know a lot about a subject they seem to say nothing useful, while if you are unexperienced in a subject they are extremely complicated and impossible to understand.


After reviewing the WP Verify section, I note that it says citations must be added for "material challenged or likely to be challenged." 

Why exactly is the fact that "chess.com is an internet chess server" likely to be challenged? 


Also, I note that in the talk page


OGBranniff has been reprimanded for using the "sourcing" issue too forcefully. 

The warning was bluster and inappropriate. User:OGBranniff should review WP:VERIFY:

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...]

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.

With his failed AfD re Andy Soltis, which SNOW-closed over vociferous protests about others not following WP:VERIFY, OGBranniff has established a clear pattern of demanding immediate deletion of anything he likes to challenge re sourcing. "[...] challenged or likely to be challenged", but the notability of Andrew Solits was not "likely to be challenged", except, apparently, by User:OGBranniff, so that is perhaps why that article lacked sourcing for the time it did. Ditto with Chess.com's membership in List of Internet chess servers. The appropriate thing to do was to tag with "citation needed", instead of throwning delete bombs and accusing editors of being "vandals" and "idiots", in addition to all the other numerous insults and slurs at User talk: and User talk: policiesIhardlythinkso (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This forum topic has been locked