waffllemaster

Feb 10, 2013

0

#41

DrSpudnik wrote:

This all is a big tempest in a teapot by some web sociopath who has nothing better to do than pester Chess.com and Wikipedia about nonsense while claiming great injustices and a string of horrible and incomprehensible abuse aimed at his poor little self.

This troll has made several reincarnations here with the exclusive purpose being to raise nonsense issues about inflated misbehavior toward the spiders that exist solely in his skull.

I say the troll should be ignored.

From what I've seen this seem to be an excellent summary.

+1

corrijean

Feb 10, 2013

0

#42

Fianchetto1967 wrote:

I quoted directly from a Wikipedia policy page and your reponse is a quote from a quibble between two other editors.

Care to address the substance of the policy I cited?

Yes.

A. "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...]" Why is it likely to be challenged that chess.com is an internet chess server? Anybody with any common sense would go to chess.com and see that it is an internet chess server.

B. The objections you raise would perhaps apply to a full article on chess.com, but they do not apply to its inclusion in a list of internet chess servers.

C. If everything on wikipedia had to be sourced the way you are claiming, as an example, every song listed on every album mentioned in every music article would need such a citation from a book or article. I'm sure there are many other similar examples.

Your argument is foolish.

nameno1had

Feb 10, 2013

0

#43

I wouldn't trust a wikipedia article about something I could verify myself from personal experience, especially where money is involved....

ivandh

Feb 10, 2013

0

#44

Fianchetto1967 wrote:

I am not making an "argument." I am directing you to the Verfiability policy of Wikipedia, which is:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

I'm saying that the information that Chess.com is a chess server must come from a "reliable source." I dont see why you have to resort to ad hominem attacks when I bring this up. I guess the mere fact that the outside world doesn't simply bow down and tremble when the name "chess.com" is mentioned just offends you in some way. I'm sorry.

Do you have a reference or citation for that in a scholarly book or article?

netzach

Feb 10, 2013

0

#45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

''A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about himself while pretending to be another person. The term now includes other uses of misleading online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities have a policy of blocking sockpuppets.''

waffllemaster

Feb 10, 2013

0

#46

Fianchetto1967 wrote:

I am not making an "argument." I am directing you to the Verfiability policy of Wikipedia, which is:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

I'm saying that the information that Chess.com is a chess server must come from a "reliable source." I dont see why you have to resort to ad hominem attacks when I bring this up. I guess the mere fact that the outside world doesn't simply bow down and tremble when the name "chess.com" is mentioned just offends you in some way. I'm sorry.

lol, you really give yourself away with posts like this. Ad hominem attacks? Well you caught him, he only accepts those who bow down to chess.com

I say give away because "outside world bows down." I strongly suspect that's how your mind works. If someone disagrees with your point of view, you can't handle it. You need outside verification that you're right and they're wrong. So much so that you make an account to come on chess.com and talk about it even more. Sometimes people disagree, that doesn't mean you're a bad or foolish person. Claiming a book about chess.com is required to verify chess.com is a chess server is what makes you a foolish person.

I'm assuming a lot about you, but that's what I think about you anyway...

kco

Feb 10, 2013

0

#47

hopefully they can use that to block muscha.

corrijean

Feb 10, 2013

0

#48

Fianchetto1967 wrote:

I am not making an "argument." I am directing you to the Verfiability policy of Wikipedia, which is:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

I'm saying that the information that Chess.com is a chess server must come from a "reliable source." I dont see why you have to resort to ad hominem attacks when I bring this up. I guess the mere fact that the outside world doesn't simply bow down and tremble when the name "chess.com" is mentioned just offends you in some way. I'm sorry.

(And I see Corrijean has edited out her intial point "A," which was the only point that directly addressed the issue of verifiability of information added to it, namely that "ts content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.")

If you prefer "discussion" over "argument," that is just a matter of semantics.

Ad hominem would be attacking you. In fact, I am not. I am attacking your argument, which is demonstrably foolish.

[Edit: I edited out point A because it was completely redundant with point B (which is now point A).]

ivandh

Feb 10, 2013

0

#49

Fianchetto1967 wrote:

Also C.J. said "If everything on wikipedia had to be sourced the way you are claiming . . . ."

I'm not claiming anything. I merely cited governing Wikipedia policy. Which you choose to totally ignore. Unless you can construct an argument that rebuts this policy and supports your position, your position is nil.

[citation needed]

batgirl

Feb 10, 2013

0

#50

I'm not sure chess.com's status as chess server falls under the umbrella of items needing verification, any more than if I would write, "A house is a structure" would I need outside validization. Chess.com is a chess server by definition, pure and simple. If you look at the Paul Morphy entry, you'll see that he was born on June 22, 1837 - no verification offered, none needed. But he is called an unofficial world chess champion - this does need verification.

ivandh

Feb 10, 2013

0

#51

Wikipedia's policy cannot be verified unless it is explicitly referenced in another reputable source.

waffllemaster

Feb 10, 2013

0

#52

Do you really think semantic arguments like this are clever or even interesting? This is how kids behave, but you don't seem to be as young as 13. Clearly the policy is not to have every statement sourced as batgirl notes above you.

[edit] and below me lol.

batgirl

Feb 10, 2013

0

#53

Fianchetto1967 wrote:

So unless you can craft an argument that Wikipedia's policy that "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" should be somehow ignored especially just for Chess.com, your argument advances nothing.

That policy, as interpretted, is ignored in every single article on Wiki.

nameno1had

Feb 10, 2013

0

#54

I wish they would do a better job of looking into multiple accounts and possible IP bans....I am tired of the same angry lowlifes causing trouble and seeing accounts with joeblow1 , joeblow1768, etc...

AlCzervik

Feb 10, 2013

0

#55

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

You'll see pretty soon.

batgirl

Feb 10, 2013

0

#56

nameno1had wrote:

I wish the would do a better job of looking into multiple accounts and possible IP bans....

Actually, they do an amazingly good job of that.

kco

Feb 10, 2013

0

#57

AlCzervik wrote:

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

You'll see pretty soon.

haha yeah soon.

nameno1had

Feb 10, 2013

0

#58

batgirl wrote:

nameno1had wrote:

I wish the would do a better job of looking into multiple accounts and possible IP bans....

Actually, they do an amazingly good job of that.

They close the multiple accounts, but don't ban the IP's....it is possible for a person to really cause a lot grief and have several accounts here. If they don't get banned for cheating, it is likely they will continue unabated...

corrijean

Feb 10, 2013

0

#59

To quote LPS:

http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/why-banning-ip-is-a-really-bad-idea

In a nutshell: these addresses are completely unreliable as means of identification, and would prevent legitimate users from accessing the website.

It would be improper to ban shared computers in libraries, universities, etc.

kco

Feb 10, 2013

0

#60

ban IP, ? like the ones at schools, cafes, libraries etc?