|
Home > Archive > Chess forum > March 2006 > Edward G. Winter from Wikipedia
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Edward G. Winter from Wikipedia
|
|
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
| Edward G. Winter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edward Winter is a noted journalist and author about chess. Winter is
primarily known for always attacking Grandmaster Raymond Keene. Keene
is the chess columnist for the The Times and The Spectator in London
and has written more than one hundred chess books. For the past more
than 30 years, every time a new book by Keene has come out or a new
article by Keene has been published, Edward Winter has written
articles attacking it.
There is no known or verifiable biographical information on Winter,
not even a birth year, because, for the past 30 years, nobody has met
or seen Edward Winter. Winter writes from a house address in Geneva,
Switzerland. Private detectives, hired by the victims of his frequent
attacks, have staked out that house, hoping to catch a glimpse of
Edward Winter, but nobody has seen him there. There is a difference of
opinion between whether Edward Winter is a real name or a pseudonym.
Keene is convinced that the Edward Winter who attacks him all the time
is the same person as a tournament chess player by that name who had
some run-ins with Keene in the early 1970s. However, the majority view
seems to be that Edward Winter is a pseudonym.
In just the past few years, Edward Winter has branched out and
diversified his activities. Now, he does not only attack Keene. Winter
also attacks Bobby Fischer, Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, although
Keene remains the principal subject of his attacks.
In a radio broadcast from the Philippines in 2003, Bobby Fischer
expressed the opinion that Edward Winter does not exist.
Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
Vermont. Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be.
Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to
be from. Kingston writes in the same style as Winter. Kingston attacks
the same people that Winter attacks, although Kingston also attacks a
few additional people, mostly Americans, that Winter does not attack,
such as Larry Parr and Don Schultz. Also, if anybody writes anything
bad about Edward Winter, Kingston will attack that person while
defending Winter.
Parodies have appeared. Chess politician Tom Dorsch writes articles as
Edward Spring, parodying the style of Edward Winter.
In 1986 at World Chess Olympiad in Dubai, Raymond Keene backed a
candidate for FIDE President. Edward Winter filed an ethics complaint
with the FIDE Congress accusing Keene of unethical conduct in writing
books almost exclusively about opening theory, whereas Winter said
there should be more books about chess history. Keene's opponent was
Florencio Campomanes who Winter supported. Campomanes had Winter's
ethics complaint translated into all five FIDE languages, including
Arabic, and distributed to all the delegates. The showdown came at the
FIDE General Assembly in Dubai. With one hundred FIDE member nations
represented there, not one delegate was willing to speak or to vote in
favor of Winter's ethics complaint.
Winter publishes a regular column called Chess Notes. This column is
exactly what it claims to be, because it contains brief commentaries
usually not more than one or two paragraphs in length attacking
usually insignificant errors and spelling mistakes made by this or
that chess writer. If a book by Keene contains a spelling mistake,
Chess Notes will point it out.
Assessment of the qualities of Edward Winter varies widely. John
Donaldson has called him "the world's greatest chess historian".
However, one reviewer notes: "His attention to the most insignificant
detail is more than apparent. . . . His reviews and criticisms as
contained within this volume can be biting to say the least. In fact
he will probably leave some readers wondering whether the almost
gleeful maliciousness he exhibits in his frequent negative assessments
is perhaps worse than the chess culprits he is critiquing."
In the last few years, the attacks by Winter on his increasingly long
list of perceived enemies has increased, and more and more chess
publications have refused to publish the articles by Edward Winter.
Most recently, ChessCafe' and Hanon Russell Enterprises stopped
publishing anything by Winter and apparently removed the book reviews
by Winter from the archives. Prior to that, from 1998 to 2001, New In
Chess magazine had carried Chess Notes, subject to the strict
condition that Winter not say anything about Keene. It was about that
time that Winter branched out and started attacking other people
instead of just attacking everything by Keene.
Nowadays, no chess magazine in the world is willing to publish Chess
Notes, but Winter is publishing books.
Although Winter has attacked Keene hundreds and possibly even
thousands of times, Keene has rarely said anything about Winter.
However, at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1013565 Keene
comments at some length. Keene believes that Winter is the same person
as a student who was born in 1956. Keene writes, "Actually I really
don't follow Edward Winter at all. I just see him as a naughty
schoolboy who likes annoying his elders. He was a schoolboy at
Cardinal Newman School in Brighton and taught chess by my friend
Julian Simpole who could beat him with his eyes closed literally.
Winter was about 15 years old when I was already British Champion.
Since Keene became British Champion in 1971, this puts Winter as
having been born in 1956. If true, this means that Winter started
attacking Keene when Winter was in his late teens or early 20s. This
puts Winter at almost exactly the same age as Taylor Kingston (whose
name may also be a pseudonym).
[edit]
Books
Chess Facts and Fables ISBN 0786423102
Commoners and Knaves Further Chess Explorations ISBN 1888690046
Chess Explorations (1996) ISBN 1857441710
A Chess Omnibus ISBN 1888690178
Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence,
Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Cuban Chess
Genius Jose Raul Capablanca, 1888-1942 ISBN 0899504558
Tragic Life And Short Chess Career of James A Leonard, 1841-1862 (with
John S, Hilbert) ISBN 078642298X
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter"
Categories: Living people | British chess players | Chess players
| |
| samsloan 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
| This is my version of his bio. It's a personal attack toward Edward
Winter. Remember never to XXXX with me or I'll write crap about you. I
have nothing to lose and people know that I'm a scumbag anyway.
Sam Sloan
| |
| John J. 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
| It looks like any fool can write up junk on Wikopedia and a worse fool
reapeats it.
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:4408728a.228890437@ca.news.verio.net...
quote:
> Edward G. Winter
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> Edward Winter is a noted journalist and author about chess. Winter is
> primarily known for always attacking Grandmaster Raymond Keene. Keene
> is the chess columnist for the The Times and The Spectator in London
> and has written more than one hundred chess books. For the past more
> than 30 years, every time a new book by Keene has come out or a new
> article by Keene has been published, Edward Winter has written
> articles attacking it.
>
> There is no known or verifiable biographical information on Winter,
> not even a birth year, because, for the past 30 years, nobody has met
> or seen Edward Winter. Winter writes from a house address in Geneva,
> Switzerland. Private detectives, hired by the victims of his frequent
> attacks, have staked out that house, hoping to catch a glimpse of
> Edward Winter, but nobody has seen him there. There is a difference of
> opinion between whether Edward Winter is a real name or a pseudonym.
>
> Keene is convinced that the Edward Winter who attacks him all the time
> is the same person as a tournament chess player by that name who had
> some run-ins with Keene in the early 1970s. However, the majority view
> seems to be that Edward Winter is a pseudonym.
>
> In just the past few years, Edward Winter has branched out and
> diversified his activities. Now, he does not only attack Keene. Winter
> also attacks Bobby Fischer, Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, although
> Keene remains the principal subject of his attacks.
>
> In a radio broadcast from the Philippines in 2003, Bobby Fischer
> expressed the opinion that Edward Winter does not exist.
>
> Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
> Vermont. Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be.
> Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to
> be from. Kingston writes in the same style as Winter. Kingston attacks
> the same people that Winter attacks, although Kingston also attacks a
> few additional people, mostly Americans, that Winter does not attack,
> such as Larry Parr and Don Schultz. Also, if anybody writes anything
> bad about Edward Winter, Kingston will attack that person while
> defending Winter.
>
> Parodies have appeared. Chess politician Tom Dorsch writes articles as
> Edward Spring, parodying the style of Edward Winter.
>
> In 1986 at World Chess Olympiad in Dubai, Raymond Keene backed a
> candidate for FIDE President. Edward Winter filed an ethics complaint
> with the FIDE Congress accusing Keene of unethical conduct in writing
> books almost exclusively about opening theory, whereas Winter said
> there should be more books about chess history. Keene's opponent was
> Florencio Campomanes who Winter supported. Campomanes had Winter's
> ethics complaint translated into all five FIDE languages, including
> Arabic, and distributed to all the delegates. The showdown came at the
> FIDE General Assembly in Dubai. With one hundred FIDE member nations
> represented there, not one delegate was willing to speak or to vote in
> favor of Winter's ethics complaint.
>
> Winter publishes a regular column called Chess Notes. This column is
> exactly what it claims to be, because it contains brief commentaries
> usually not more than one or two paragraphs in length attacking
> usually insignificant errors and spelling mistakes made by this or
> that chess writer. If a book by Keene contains a spelling mistake,
> Chess Notes will point it out.
>
> Assessment of the qualities of Edward Winter varies widely. John
> Donaldson has called him "the world's greatest chess historian".
> However, one reviewer notes: "His attention to the most insignificant
> detail is more than apparent. . . . His reviews and criticisms as
> contained within this volume can be biting to say the least. In fact
> he will probably leave some readers wondering whether the almost
> gleeful maliciousness he exhibits in his frequent negative assessments
> is perhaps worse than the chess culprits he is critiquing."
>
> In the last few years, the attacks by Winter on his increasingly long
> list of perceived enemies has increased, and more and more chess
> publications have refused to publish the articles by Edward Winter.
> Most recently, ChessCafe' and Hanon Russell Enterprises stopped
> publishing anything by Winter and apparently removed the book reviews
> by Winter from the archives. Prior to that, from 1998 to 2001, New In
> Chess magazine had carried Chess Notes, subject to the strict
> condition that Winter not say anything about Keene. It was about that
> time that Winter branched out and started attacking other people
> instead of just attacking everything by Keene.
>
> Nowadays, no chess magazine in the world is willing to publish Chess
> Notes, but Winter is publishing books.
>
> Although Winter has attacked Keene hundreds and possibly even
> thousands of times, Keene has rarely said anything about Winter.
> However, at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1013565 Keene
> comments at some length. Keene believes that Winter is the same person
> as a student who was born in 1956. Keene writes, "Actually I really
> don't follow Edward Winter at all. I just see him as a naughty
> schoolboy who likes annoying his elders. He was a schoolboy at
> Cardinal Newman School in Brighton and taught chess by my friend
> Julian Simpole who could beat him with his eyes closed literally.
> Winter was about 15 years old when I was already British Champion.
>
> Since Keene became British Champion in 1971, this puts Winter as
> having been born in 1956. If true, this means that Winter started
> attacking Keene when Winter was in his late teens or early 20s. This
> puts Winter at almost exactly the same age as Taylor Kingston (whose
> name may also be a pseudonym).
>
>
> [edit]
>
> Books
>
> Chess Facts and Fables ISBN 0786423102
>
> Commoners and Knaves Further Chess Explorations ISBN 1888690046
>
> Chess Explorations (1996) ISBN 1857441710
>
> A Chess Omnibus ISBN 1888690178
>
> Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence,
> Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Cuban Chess
> Genius Jose Raul Capablanca, 1888-1942 ISBN 0899504558
>
> Tragic Life And Short Chess Career of James A Leonard, 1841-1862 (with
> John S, Hilbert) ISBN 078642298X
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter"
>
> Categories: Living people | British chess players | Chess players
| |
| samsloan 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
| Just remember, if I put enough crap out there, some fools will believe
it.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
|
John J. wrote:
quote:
> It looks like any fool can write up junk on Wikopedia and a worse fool
> reapeats it.
I got a big kick out of two passages:
"Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
Vermont. Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be.
Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to be
from." - Wow, I didn't know that Vermont (where I live now) and
San Diego, California (where I was born and lived until 1980) are part
of England.
"This puts Winter at almost exactly the same age as Taylor Kingston
(whose name may also be a pseudonym)." - Boy, that age similarity
is the clincher. Case closed! And I'm shocked to learn that for the
last 57 years I've been using a wrong name!
Sam, thanks for the best laugh I've had all week.
| |
|
|
Użytkownik "John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:OX%Nf.52319$g47.14333@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
quote:
> It looks like any fool can write up junk on Wikopedia and a worse fool
> reapeats it.
>
I can see more and more morons here in rec.games.chess groups.
| |
| John J. 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
| Don't forget both of your names contain the letters 'i,n,t'. Very
suspicious. lol
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141413928.525665.303100@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> John J. wrote:
>
> I got a big kick out of two passages:
>
> "Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
> Vermont. Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be.
> Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to be
> from." - Wow, I didn't know that Vermont (where I live now) and
> San Diego, California (where I was born and lived until 1980) are part
> of England.
>
> "This puts Winter at almost exactly the same age as Taylor Kingston
> (whose name may also be a pseudonym)." - Boy, that age similarity
> is the clincher. Case closed! And I'm shocked to learn that for the
> last 57 years I've been using a wrong name!
>
> Sam, thanks for the best laugh I've had all week.
>
| |
| samsloan 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
| Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
>
> I got a big kick out of two passages:
>
> "Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
> Vermont. Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be.
> Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to be
> from." - Wow, I didn't know that Vermont (where I live now) and
> San Diego, California (where I was born and lived until 1980) are part
> of England.
>
> "This puts Winter at almost exactly the same age as Taylor Kingston
> (whose name may also be a pseudonym)." - Boy, that age similarity
> is the clincher. Case closed! And I'm shocked to learn that for the
> last 57 years I've been using a wrong name!
>
> Sam, thanks for the best laugh I've had all week.
Taylor,
Since you are the only person who claims to know Edward Winter
personally, why don't you "correct" my biography by providing
information about him, such as his date and place of birth, so that we
can verify whether he is a real person or not?
Sam Sloan
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
|
"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141418377.548702.155910@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Taylor,
>
> Since you are the only person who claims to know Edward Winter
> personally,
Wrongo Sam. Ray Keene wrote of Mr. Simpole who used to beat Winter easily
while simultaneously marking homework. I have also encountered him
elsewhere. He is not Taylor Kingston.
quote:
> why don't you "correct" my biography by providing
> information about him, such as his date and place of birth, so that we
> can verify whether he is a real person or not?
You really invite people to take apart your work by writing such [funny! but
untrue] stuff.
Phil Innes
quote:
> Sam Sloan
>
| |
| samsloan 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
| I'm a liar. Everyone knows that. If people piss me off, I write crap
about them. If you pay me, I'll write crap about anyone you want.
Sam Sloan
| |
| samsloan 2006-03-03, 7:34 pm |
| Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141418377.548702.155910@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Wrongo Sam. Ray Keene wrote of Mr. Simpole who used to beat Winter easily
> while simultaneously marking homework. I have also encountered him
> elsewhere. He is not Taylor Kingston.
>
>
> You really invite people to take apart your work by writing such [funny! but
> untrue] stuff.
>
> Phil Innes
Wait just one cotten pickin' minute.
Are you saying that you, Phil Innes, have actually met Edward Winter?
And are you saying that he is the same person who always writes screeds
attacking Ray Keene?
Sam Sloan
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
|
samsloan wrote:
quote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> Taylor,
>
> Since you are the only person who claims to know Edward Winter
> personally, why don't you "correct" my biography by providing
> information about him, such as his date and place of birth, so that we
> can verify whether he is a real person or not?
Uh, Sam (if this is actually Sam Sloan and not some impostor), I have
never met Edward Winter. I have only exchanged e-mails with him. I am
unable to assist on the particulars you request.
Also, I am not "from England," except in the sense that some of my
ancestors were. In my entire life, I personally have spent a total of
about four days on English soil, in London, on a vacation in 1976. Saw
Buckingham Palace, the Tower and such. Never met Edward Winter.
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
| Ahh, but some of us are _accurate_ morons....
| |
| pjdbad@aol.com 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
|
politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> Ahh, but some of us are _accurate_ morons....
I'm a moroff!!!
| |
| pjdbad@aol.com 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
|
politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> Ahh, but some of us are _accurate_ morons....
I'm a moroff!!!
| |
| pjdbad@aol.com 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
| I'm a moroff!!
| |
| pjdbad@aol.com 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
| I'm a moroff!!
| |
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
| I am truly shocked to learn that Louis Blair knows nothing about
chess. I had always assumed that in view of these frequent postings
where Blair posts quotes from other people, that he was a regular
reader of this group and had been following the discussions.
However, Blair has just posted something over on Wikipedia that
demonstrates that Blair knows nothing.
Here is what Blair wrote at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Howcheng :
Edward Winter biography
Once again, Wikipedia is being used to publicize an unverifiable
attack. In this case, the target is Edward Winter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter
Some sample ridiculous statements:
(1) "For the past more than 30 years, every time a new book by Keene
has come out or a new article by Keene has been published, Edward
Winter has written articles attacking it."
(2) "Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is
believed to be from." ("Wow, I didn't know that ... San Diego,
California (where I was born and lived until 1980) [is] part of
England." - Taylor Kingston comment)
(3) "Edward Winter filed an ethics complaint with the FIDE Congress
accusing Keene of unethical conduct in writing books almost
exclusively about opening theory, whereas Winter said there should be
more books about chess history."
(4) "Keene's opponent was Florencio Campomanes who Winter supported."
(5) "Chess Notes ... contains brief commentaries usually not more
than one or two paragraphs in length attacking usually insignificant
errors and spelling mistakes made by this or that chess writer."
(6) "If a book by Keene contains a spelling mistake, Chess Notes will
point it out."
At rec.games.chess.politics, samhsloan@gmail.com has referred to this
as "my biography". Sam Sloan is the one who contributed the
subsequently deleted supposed USCF blacklist. See discussion at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_...d_by_USCF_Sales
He also contributed the subsequently deleted Tom Dorsch "biography".
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...tion/Tom_Dorsch
It should not be necessary for anyone to do a point by point
refutation of the Edward Winter "biography". The "verifiable" sources
do not exist and the author will not be able to produce them, as even
a minimal amount of inquiry would reveal. I apologize once again for
not being acquainted with the details of Wikipedia procedure. I have
no interest in Wikipedia beyond the hope that those in charge will
take measures to prevent its use for the promotion of garbage. I am
posting this note here because you have some past experience with Sam
Sloan. I imagine that you will know the best way to procede. - Louis
Blair (March 3, 2006)
----- End of quote ----
Of the six items that Louis Blair complains about above, the only one
of which there is the even slightest doubt is #2. The other five are
all very well known and widely reported. It is difficult to believe
that there is any regular reader of this group who does not know this.
This matter is made serious by the fact that Louis Blair was one of
the posters, along with Bill Brock, Randy Bauer, and "Rook wave", who
got my highly acclaimed biography of Tom Dorsch deleted from
Wikipedia.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Say No To g4 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
|
quote:
>
> It should not be necessary for anyone to do a point by point
> refutation of the Edward Winter "biography". The "verifiable" sources
> do not exist and the author will not be able to produce them, as even
> a minimal amount of inquiry would reveal. I apologize once again for
> not being acquainted with the details of Wikipedia procedure. I have
> no interest in Wikipedia beyond the hope that those in charge will
> take measures to prevent its use for the promotion of garbage. I am
> posting this note here because you have some past experience with Sam
> Sloan. I imagine that you will know the best way to procede. - Louis
> Blair (March 3, 2006)
>
> ----- End of quote ----
>
I agree 100% with Louis Blair. He's doing his part to help rid Wikipedia
of Scam Sloan's garbage. More of us should jump on the bandwagon and
work to get Scammie's diatribe deleted in its entirety. Scam's artciles are a
kin to a cancer that keeps coming back. Hopefully, Dr. Blair will keep the
cancer in remission.
quote:
> Of the six items that Louis Blair complains about above, the only one
> of which there is the even slightest doubt is #2. The other five are
> all very well known and widely reported. It is difficult to believe
> that there is any regular reader of this group who does not know this.
>
> This matter is made serious by the fact that Louis Blair was one of
> the posters, along with Bill Brock, Randy Bauer, and "Rook wave", who
> got my highly acclaimed biography of Tom Dorsch deleted from
> Wikipedia.
>
Highly acclaimed? By whom? The TD article was panned. It's amazing how
delusional Scam Sloan gets when off his meds.
| |
| Andrew Zito 2006-03-03, 11:33 pm |
| He attacks anyone who is more successful than he is. That's just about
everyone.
| |
| help bot 2006-03-04, 5:33 am |
| "Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
Vermont. Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be.
Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to be
from." - Wow, I didn't know that Vermont (where I live now) and
San Diego, California (where I was born and lived until 1980) are part
of England.
"This puts Winter at almost exactly the same age as Taylor Kingston
(whose name may also be a pseudonym)."
Vermont, eh? Clearly, there is a possibility that Taylor Kingston is
really Phil Innes, who is aka Edward Winter!
Detectives are already on their way to stake out your pad in S.D.,
England; we will soon have all the proof we need of your three
identities.
BTW, don't you think it is possible -- just POSSIBLE -- that Raymond
Keene was responsible for Capablanca's surprise match loss to Alekhine?
I think you should have mentioned this in your (i.e. EW's) book. 
| |
| Skeptic 2006-03-04, 7:33 pm |
| Sam's "detective work" reminds one of the old MAD magazine spoof about
Ripley's "believe it or not": "Ms. Jones and Ms. Smith both LIVE IN
CLEVELAND and have TWO CHILDREN, a BOY AND A GIRL!!!"
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-04, 7:33 pm |
| Sam Sloan wrote (Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:50:06 GMT):
quote:
> Louis Blair was one of the posters, along with Bill Brock,
> Randy Bauer, and "Rook wave", who got my highly
> acclaimed biography of Tom Dorsch deleted from
> Wikipedia.
_
Another false statement from Sam Sloan. I had no
involvement in the decision to delete the Tom Dorsch
biography.
_
Reproduced from Wikipedia:
_
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion
of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments
should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the
article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should
be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets call for
deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005
(UTC)
[edit]Tom_Dorsch
delete: barely notable person, only for regular readers of chess
related usenetgroups and people interested in US-chess functionaries,
the article itself gives no hint, why Tom Dorsch should be notable
enough for a wikipedia entry; article is mainly vanity, filled with
personal accusations and rumors; the prime author has a long standing
quarrel with Tom Dorsch, well documented on his homepage(s) and obvious
in the arcticle; he is not able or willing to provide a NPOV, although
he has been explicitely asked to do so; I suggest deletion instead of
complete rewrite, as it is questionlable that anyobody is interested in
doing so Rook wave 11:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've rewritten the article, or rather, I've deleted everything
that's either a personal attack, unencyclopedic and/or
unsourced/unreferenced. While I do not want to disrupt the deletion
process, I don't think it's nescessary to keep the article in it's old
form for a week longer, just because of this AfD. I don't know anything
about this guy (therefore, I will refrain from voting), nor have a been
involved in the discussion on the talk page, I'm just an editor
applying what I believe to be common sense and Wikipedia policy.
--JoanneB 11:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Tom doesn't appear to be active in chess recently. His FIDE card lists
no games this year and he doesn't have a world ranking. Is there
anything else that could make him worth including? (BTW, what's a chess
politician?) - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding chess politician: I prefer the notion chess functionary,
simply somebody involved in the organization of chess; Tom Dorsch was
for some time treasurer of the United States Chess Federation and twice
president of the Northern California Chess Association, and if the
article would not be deleted these were his only notable achievements,
and my first edits (regarded by the prime author as vandalism) indeed
reduced the article to just those facts. What he as achieved when being
in those positions, the primary author unfortunately did not consider
worth mentioning.
Regarding his rating: currently only a minority of players has a FIDE
rating or many entries to this card; Tom Dorsch has a United States
Chess Federation rating, but indeed he hasn't played for some time. His
rating is high, but not exceptional. Rook wave 12:40, 19 December 2005
(UTC)
Tom Dorsch was for some time treasurer of the United States Chess
Federation and twice president of the Northern California Chess
Association -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
MacGyverMagic (talk =B7 contribs) .
Keep has held several top positions in US chess organizations. -
Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, this might be a reason, but it still leaves the question: who is
going to provide the necessary facts? The original article did not even
give the complete years Tom Dorsch held those positions. There are
nearly no neutral facts in this article. Rook wave 14:20, 19 December
2005 (UTC)
Dorsch was treasurer of the USCF and president of the Northern
California association (Calchess). I don't see that as "several top
positions in US chess organizations". The USCF is the US national
federation but Treasurer is not a top position, and Dorsch served only
one term, in the early 90's. Calchess is a state organization (actually
half a state, there's a separate Southern California regional
organization), not a national one. Dorsch is a somewhat notable figure
in recent USCF history and should get a mention in an expanded USCF
page, but it's bizarre to say that every USCF ex-officer (there are
hundreds of them) rates their own Wikipedia article. The USCF itself is
not that important an organization. The person currently holding the
comparable office (Finance VP Jonathan Mariner) in Major League
Baseball, a much more noteworthy organization than the USCF, doesn't
have a Wikipedia article, let alone someone who held that office many
years ago. Imagine ex-functionaries of a national stamp collecting club
getting all this Wikipedia heat. The only reason it happens for the
USCF is because of the contentious personalities in the chess world
arguing over nonsense. Phr 11:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Like I've been discussing on the talk page, all of the POV junk
and attacks need removed, User:Sam Sloan disagrees -- that's why
there's a current RfC on the article. Nothing to suggest he's not
notable though. And thank you Joann for cleaning up the article again.
..:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Since there seems no chance to keep this article anything but a blatent
attack, changing vote to Delete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:19, 27
December 2005 (UTC)
The most noteworthy thing about Dorsch was his campaign for USCF
treasurer and what happened after he won the office (all his duties
were taken away by the opposing faction which still controlled the
policy board). Explaining this would require spending pages on stupid
USCF internal politics which almost nobody cares about. The reason
Sloan made this page at all is he's in the faction opposite the one
Dorsch was in. Having an article about Dorsch makes no sense at all
without a neutral treatment of those issues, but I don't think anyone
is likely to write such a treatment. Certainly not Sloan. (OK, quick
POV version: Dorsch ran on a financial reform platform against vested
interests that have controlled the USCF on and off for decades, made
accusations of mismanagement that turned out to be true, but was a
dorky enough personality that not enough people listened to him at the
time, partly because it was in their financial or factional interest to
not listen. That includes Sloan.) Trying to turn that into an article
would be one of those endless debates that would burn as much of
people's wiki-editing energy as the serious national politics articles
do, but on a subject of relevance to almost nobody. So creating this
article in the first place basically amounts to trolling. I hope
non-chess people who voted "keep" based on not understanding the
situation will consider changing their votes. Phr 11:23, 25 December
2005 (UTC)
Regarding the changes by Joann: ok, now the article is much shorter,
but it's still junk. Come on "He plays chess and has now become a poker
player" - what is this? As I said: my complaints about this article are
not primarly based on the notability of Tom Dorsch. It's the complete
emptyness of this article. And who is going to write something? Even
what Joann has left is not verified. If you remove this as well, only
the title tag remains. So the content of this article is: "There is a
man called Tom Dorsch." Bravo. Rook wave 18:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Dorsch is a former treasurer of the USCF, which is sort of like
being a former treasurer of the National Bowling League or a former
councilmember of some small city. He did have a role in the USCF's
transition to the one-member-one-vote system (he opposed it) and he
could reasonably get a mention in the USCF's article if it's expanded
to cover that history (edit: his treasurer campaign too, a related
topic). His highest chess rating was in the 2300's, probably around
1000th in the US--pretty good for an amateur, but nowhere near
professional level. The stuff about him getting more Google hits than
GM Vesselin Topolov was an error due to Sloan mispelling Topolov's name
as "Topalov" when Googling. FWIW, Googling "Tam Dorsch" or "Tom Darsch"
gets zero hits. Phr 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be more
notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sam Sloan is insisiting on reverting the article to his own
version, and as such, I call for a delete and a complete rewrite after
the delete has been done. Olorin28 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article is obviously in a crappy state, and I don't think
it is going to be fixed up any time soon. When there's an actual
article here, I might vote keep. But until then, no. Titoxd(?!? - help
us) 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Olorin28. I am not neutral WRT to Sam Sloan, and would note
to admins that I have no desire to inject my animus into the Wikipedia
project, except that this is the character of the Wikipedian in
question. Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete I don't know why this one wasn't speedied as an attack.
It seems to me, an unsourced and unverifiable statement like "....If he
won even more, he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out
the whorehouses and the strip clubs..." can only be construed as a
personal attack.TheRingess 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete: barely notable person -The preceding unsigned comment was
added by 69.149.49.251 (talk =B7 contribs) .
delete: I am a chess player from the USA and think this article is a
waste of everyone's time. In the world of chess Tom Dorsch is
insignificant and the article does not belong. This is yet another
attempt by Sam Sloan to get noticed by the world at large. Warren
66.32.15.53 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, based only in small part to the sorry state of the article and
based not at all on Sam Sloan, who I have never heard of or dealt with
as far as I am aware. I don't think Dorsch is all that notable, save
for what is mentioned by Phr (who makes some good points). -Parallel or
Together? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
User Rook wave, who started this discussion, has been going around
removing content from all of my postings. He has made 41 edits to my
pages, all of which have removed content, and he has done nothing else
on Wikipedia. He should be ordered to stop doing this and if he
persists, he should be blocked. Sam Sloan 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep--public figure based on own self-promotions, including on usenet
over a period of years. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
68.167.65.99 (talk =B7 contribs) .
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator
of Sam Sloan.
Please refer to contrib history coinciding with Sloan's pet subjects
"USCF blacklist" and Damiano's Defense for evidence. See block log
..
Note Sloan has also attempted to recruit meatpuppets on Usenet [1],
though that attempt seems to have backfired--it attracted people here
who support deletion. I will say sockpuppets aren't really Sloan's
style since his ego is too large for that. He probably just forgot to
log in when he made those edits. Phr 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why you think that this poster is my "sockpuppet" or
even me. I have just looked at his postings and I do not agree with
what he has posted on any subject. I do not agree with what he has
written here either. However, he makes a valid point. If you look at
rec.games.chess.politics and do a search for postings by
tomdor...@aol.com you will see that he has posted 2,680 times to thst
group. Most of these postings took place from 1996 to 1999 and were
signed "Tom Dorsch USCF Treasurer". So, he was an official who posted
2,680 times to Usenet. Most of his postings accused others of financial
wrongdoing, theft and other crimes and misdemeanors. Please do a search
there and you will see what I mean. This is what made him so well known
in the chess community. Sam Sloan 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - Dorsch is well known in the world of chess, and deserves
recognition. The article itself could use some polishing, but it should
be fixed and maintained. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Cwcarlson (talk =B7 contribs) .
KEEP - Tom Dorsch is very well known in the chess world (nationally and
internationally) and has been instrumental in the United States Chess
Federation. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
207.215.30.18 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE - I think this is a ridiculously inappropriate article -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by Ardy53 (talk =B7 contribs) .
Keep This issue shows the complete bankrupt and petty nature of
Wikipedia's modus operandi, members, and raison de etre, though I
support the proper construction of such an article I think Wikipeda is
a collective waste of time intellectually: Where they venerate the
"HOLY BIBLE" for some obscure legalist reason today from the stuff
cults are made of, but then next week they will burn and destroy those
same "holy" documents on some flimsy pretext merely because they have
enough votes in legalistic BOOK BURNING as part of some psychotic
adversial process that is run like some childishness for the sake of
integrity and fairness based merely on form and rules. WIKIPEDIA A
GRAND MIND F--K a pedantic idiots' paradise where which ever side you
are on you will win and tommarow upon the changing winds of shallow
fashion some other will. I suggest all chess articles be forwarded to
pushedpawn.org, deism to the templeofreason.org as without sure
consistent editorial focus beyond the instance of the moment Wikipedia
has the integrity of an adolescent fool. The focus of Wikipedia should
be substance not form, and it should be based on preservation of every
nuance of what may be a scintilla of what may pertain to knowledge
wisdom learning and pertinence not the pettiness that is Wikipedia. THE
ANTI_WIKI FOR I AM NOT FOOL --Andrew Zito 04:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a psychopath
who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. (J=FCrgen R.) -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk =B7 contribs) .
BLANK VOTE - Many professional biographers have noted the problems of
including even insignificant persons in a biographic dictionary ("what
is the use of this long procession of the hopelessly insignificant? Why
repeat the familiar formula about the man who was born on such a day,
was 'educated at the grammar school of his native town,' graduated
in such a year, became fellow of his college, took a living, married,
published a volume of sermons which nobody has read for a century or
two, and has been during all that time in his churchyard? Can he not be
left in peace ..."). Their problem is, on the other hand, almost always
related to the lack of space in printed editions -- if Wikipedia
suffers even remotely from such a problem, the solution is not to
refuse to accept material. My second concern is the relevance of the
subject: this is not something to be voted over, unless the voters can
be assumed to be reasonably knowledgeable about the context
(contemporary chess afairs), as well as fairly unprejudiced towards the
subject well as the author. I strongly suspect many voters on this
topic vote largely because of lack of confidence in the author. If
Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, a more stringent method to decide
the inclusion of a particular name is required. I can't decide from the
context if the voting is to deny the subject, or deny the article on
that subject. In any case, when the subject is judged it should be done
impartially. My third concern is with the article: I believe that a
biography of any kind needs much more than this particular article
shows ... but I also believe that neither biographers nor
Wikipedia-authors are born ready-made. A process frpm draft to finished
article seems to be called for. Wikipedia must have a procedure for
handling these situations: and that must be considered by all parts as
impartial and trustworthy. (A. Thulin)
That essay belongs in a discussion of grand wikipedia policy, not a vfd
about a particular article. Right now the policy is that non-noteworthy
biographies get deleted and there's guidelines for establishing
noteworthiness. Debating whether the policy and guidelines are good
belongs somewhere else. The vfd discussion is simply about whether
Dorsch meets the guidelines. Phr 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - While Tom Dorsch was a notable figure in the United States
Chess Federation, the article as written provides practically no
coverage of the issues that made Dorsch important. Instead, the author
relates us with tales of Dorsch's activities and proclivities from long
ago, which have very little relevance or place in an encyclopedia.
Sloan has often written disparaging comments about Dorsch -- and vice
versa. It serves no purpose to accept his characterizations of Dorsch
as anywhere near accurate enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As a
United States chess player and former executive board member of the
United States Chess Federation, I think it would be a travesty to allow
this interpretation of Dorsch stand.
DELETE - Mr. Sloan is using Wikipedia for settling scores and posting
his delusions of greatness. Have you folks learned nothing from the
Siegenthaler debacle?
Delete Doesn't seem that notable and original author seems to revert
any attempt at clean up, therefore can see no hope of this becoming a
substantial cited NPOV article --pgk(talk) 14:40, 24 December 2005
(UTC)
Are you paying attention? You just made six changes and I did not
revert any of them. I did, however, add three paragraphs to the top
which better explain why Tom Dorsch is a notable person. Every
tournament chess player in the world has heard of Tom Dorsch. Are you
one of them? Sam Sloan 15:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the diff from the "current" version to the one after I made my
first edit to remove the paragraph saying Sloan didn't believe that
Dorsch was involved in the JFK assassination attempt (since it wasn't
suggested anywhere else that he was, saying he wasn't seemed odd). This
is the diff from my last edit to the current version where indeed you
undo more of my edits, including removal of the cleanup tag. So yes I
was paying attention. --pgk(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, I did not intentionally remove the
cleanup tag. I am not sure how that happened, but it does seem that
sometimes changes are made that do not show up in the "history".
I have no objection to any real clean-up. I have not reverted any of
your changes. I do object when Rook_wave, JoanneB and Janeth, none of
whom know anything about chess, try to delete the entire article. Sam
Sloan 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article is almost complete nonsense, utterly inaccurate,
and defamatory.
DELETE - Articles which are about mostly unknown minor officials in
sporting associations, have no place on Wikipedia. Particularly ones
which are badly written, and are there for the wrong reasons. I would
think it hard to believe that there would be anybody else who would be
prepared to rewrite this, or replace it with another article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please
do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate
discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion
review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch"
Categories: Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Sam Sloan |
Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-04, 7:33 pm |
| The Edward G. Winter entry at Wikipedia is now
quite different from what Sam Sloan posted on
Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:46:37 GMT.
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter
_
In the discussion section, a Wikipedia administrator
wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
_
"Attention Sam Sloan
...
Please read the content at the following links
very carefully:
_
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Cite your sources
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
...
Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
you have your own web site to do that already."
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-04, 7:33 pm |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> The Edward G. Winter entry at Wikipedia is now
> quite different from what Sam Sloan posted on
> Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:46:37 GMT.
> _
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter
Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from the Leonard biography, which is
solely Dr. Hilbert's work. I've deleted it from the book list.
quote:
> In the discussion section, a Wikipedia administrator
> wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
> _
> "Attention Sam Sloan
> ...
> Please read the content at the following links
> very carefully:
> _
> Wikipedia:Verifiability
> Wikipedia:Cite your sources
> Wikipedia:Reliable sources
> Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
> ...
> Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
> no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
> a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
> own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
> you have your own web site to do that already."
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-04, 11:33 pm |
| Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 15:48:05 -0800):
quote:
> Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from ...
_
I had no involvement in the composing of a new
Wikipedia entry (unless one counts my complaint
about what Sam Sloan contributed).
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-04, 11:33 pm |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 15:48:05 -0800):
>
>
> _
> I had no involvement in the composing of a new
> Wikipedia entry (unless one counts my complaint
> about what Sam Sloan contributed).
Dr. Blair, I merely commented it was "much improved". I don't recall
writing you made the improvements.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-04, 11:33 pm |
| Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 15:48:05 -0800):
quote:
> Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from ...
_
I wrote (4 Mar 2006 17:20:13 -0800):
quote:
> I had no involvement in the composing of a new
> Wikipedia entry (unless one counts my complaint
> about what Sam Sloan contributed).
_
Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 17:29:38 -0800):
quote:
> I don't recall writing you made the improvements.
_
I don't recall writing that Neil Brennen wrote that I
made the improvements. It looks we are facing
yet another potential infinite exchange. I propose
that we consider all further I-don't-recall statements
to be entered into the record without actually
attempting to post them all.
_
"I don't recall writing that you wrote that I wrote
that you made the improvements."
_
"I don't recall writing that Neil Brennen wrote
that I wrote that Neil Brennen wrote that I
made the improvements."
_
"I don't recall ..."
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-04, 11:33 pm |
| Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 15:48:05 -0800):
quote:
> Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from ...
_
I wrote (4 Mar 2006 17:20:13 -0800):
quote:
> I had no involvement in the composing of a new
> Wikipedia entry (unless one counts my complaint
> about what Sam Sloan contributed).
_
Neil Brennen wrote (4 Mar 2006 17:29:38 -0800):
quote:
> I don't recall writing you made the improvements.
_
I don't recall writing that Neil Brennen wrote that I
made the improvements. It looks like we are facing
yet another potential infinite exchange. I propose
that we consider all further I-don't-recall statements
to be entered into the record without actually
attempting to post them all.
_
"I don't recall writing that you wrote that I wrote
that you made the improvements."
_
"I don't recall writing that Neil Brennen wrote
that I wrote that Neil Brennen wrote that I
made the improvements."
_
"I don't recall ..."
| |
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-05, 7:39 pm |
| Just some quick notes. Including links to "anonymous" reviewers on
some random internet page is not a source. Including links to a
website about Bobby Fischer to back up a fictitious claim, is not a
source. Injecting Keene, into practically every paragraph, when the
subject is Winter, can only be construed as an agenda to smear one or
the other, or both. \The preceding unsigned comment was added by
70.31.49.240 (talk . contribs) 14:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC).
You're right, I still know nothing about chess, so look at it from my
perspective. I'm reading this article to learn something about the
subject and I come across all these sentences I listed above. My first
thought is, "Is that right??" But there's no way for me to verify what
you've written. The onus should not be upon me as a reader to do the
research to verify your information. It is your responsibility as an
editor to provide these links or citations so that someone who wants
to verify it can do so. Let me give you an example from an article I
contributed to, John Rollin Ridge. In this edit another user changed
"abolitionist" to "antiabolitionist" because that's what was in the
reference I cited (I had misread it when I originally wrote the
article). Because I had that citation in there, someone was able to
correct my mistake. If you don't cite your sources, there's no way for
anyone to know that you just didn't make the whole thing up. If what
you're writing is all true and accurate, then provide the proof.
Citing a blog or a random post in a newsgroup is not proof, because we
as readers don't know that they didn't make it up either. But
newspapers and magazines employ fact-checkers so their information is
reliable (outside of writers like Jayson Blair). Get it? howcheng
{chat} 08:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong again. You have just allowed an unregistered
user who is a well known Internet troll from Canada and who vandalized
almost the entire article, to influence your opinion without checking
it. The quote above is NOT from some unknown person's Blog. It is from
the magazine of the New Jersey State Chess Federation. Obviously, you
did not take a close look at the cite. A quick search of the Internet
will produce a dozen other quotes from other chess players who say
much the same thing. The tendency of Winter to dwell upon spelling
mistakes by Keene is well known. If Keene writes "principle" when he
should have written "principal", Winter will make a big issue over it.
The fact that Bobby Fischer said that Winter is not a real person was
big news in the chess world. Anything Bobby Fischer says, rightly or
wrongly, is news. The link was not to a website about Bobby Fischer.
It was to Bobby Fischer's personal website. By the way, I am a close
personal friend of Bobby Fischer. I have known him since 1956. See
http://www.samsloan.com/post1956.htm
The only thing notable about Winter is that he attacks Keene all the
time. Keene has written 140 books, mostly about chess. All of them
have been attacked by Winter. To write about Winter without mentioning
Keene would be like writing about Boswell without mentioning Samuel
Johnson.
You should be a man about this and admit that you made a serious error
by deleting the Tom Dorsch biography. You should reinstate it, call
for another vote, and allow a non-biased administrator pass upon it.
The fact that the same person made a request for deletion and then
voted six times to delete (you should count them) was a violation of
protocol. Several people on the chess groups have pointed out that the
fact that you deleted the biography of a very well known person like
Tom Dorsch, while allowing Wikipedia to remain filled with biographies
of complete nobodies, shows how ridiculous Wikipedia can be.
I just noticed that you became a Wikipedia administrator only on
December 25, 2005. You deleted the Tom Dorsch biography only four days
later. You should acknowledge that your lack of experience caused you
to make a serious error and reverse it. Sam Sloan 12:30, 5 March 2006
(UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_G._Winter"
| |
| David Ames 2006-03-05, 7:39 pm |
|
The Historian wrote:
quote:
> Louis Blair wrote:
>
> Much improved, Dr. Blair, aside from the Leonard biography, which is
> solely Dr. Hilbert's work. I've deleted it from the book list.
>
Is Edward G. Winter in any way related to William Winter, author of
Chess for Match Players?
David Ames
| |
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-05, 7:39 pm |
| I change my mind. Please delete all my posts on wikipedia. I just go
banana when I forget to take my meds. To safeguard against my
questionable behavior in the future, can you please permanently ban me
from wikipedia?
Yours truly,
Sam Sloan
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-05, 7:39 pm |
|
David Ames wrote:
quote:
> Is Edward G. Winter in any way related to William Winter, author of
> Chess for Match Players?
To my knowledge, E. Winter has never answered that question. I recall
one Chess Notes item, in which a reader asked him if the Winter playing
in a 1920s tournament was he. E. Winter replied "No, we had retired by
then."
William Winter (1898-1955), British Champion for 1935 and 1936 and
4-time Olympiad team member for England, was the nephew of Sir James
Barrie, author of "Peter Pan." Beside his chess play, he was noted for
his pro-communist political activities, bohemian lifestyle, and
fondness for drink. He was an excellent writer -- besides the book you
mention he wrote "Kings of Chess," "Modern Master Play" (with F.D.
Yates), "The World Chess Championship 1951" (with R.G. Wade), and
"World Championship Candidates Tournament, 1953" (with D.V. Hooper).
His most famous game is probably his win over Bronstein in the 1946
UK-USSR radio match:
[Event "ENG-URS radio"]
[Site "Soviet Union"]
[Date "1946.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Bronstein, David I"]
[Black "Winter, William"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B76"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[EventDate "1946.??.??"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "2"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3
Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Nb3 Be6 10. Nd5 Bxd5 11. exd5 Ne5 12. Be2 Qc7 13. O-O
Nc4 14. Bxc4 Qxc4 15. Rad1 Rfc8 16. Rf2 Nd7 17. Bg5 Bxb2 18. Bxe7 Nb6
19. Bxd6 Rd8 20. Na5? (better 20.Qb4=) 20... Qa6 21. Qb4 Rxd6! 22. c4
(22. Qxd6 Qxa5) 22... Bg7 23. Rfd2 Bh6 24.Rd3 Rad8 25. a4 Bf8 26. Qb5
Qxb5 27. axb5 R6d7 0-1
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-03-05, 7:39 pm |
| DOES THE SHOE FIT?
Edward Winter probably isn't related to William Winter, but
who knows for sure? Edward is camera-shy and I have never
seen a photo of "the world's greatest chess historian" (pace
IM John Donaldson).
I do know for a fact that someone who sent a letter to Edward
Winter mistakenly addressed the envelope to William Winter.
In his response to this harmless error Edward had a fit.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-05, 7:39 pm |
| Comments at Wikipedia:
_
"You ... keep insisting that because I know
nothing about chess, I don't have the authority
to act on those articles. Guess what, you're
wrong. It's about time you learned this fact."
- Howcheng (08:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
_
"Keep Deleted the editor requesting undeletion
has a personal disagreement with the subject
of the article, so while it's not autobiographical,
I believe it still falls under the guideline of not
writing about 'subjects in which you are
personally involved' as per WP:AUTO due to
the same potential problems of bias, unverifibilty
and OR." - MartinRe (13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
| |
| Ange1o DePa1ma 2006-03-07, 2:32 am |
| Sam,
Who gives a shit about an "encyclopedia" that is written by committee by
anyone with a computer?
adp
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:4408728a.228890437@ca.news.verio.net...
quote:
> Edward G. Winter
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> Edward Winter is a noted journalist and author about chess. Winter is
> primarily known for always attacking Grandmaster Raymond Keene. Keene
> is the chess columnist for the The Times and The Spectator in London
> and has written more than one hundred chess books. For the past more
> than 30 years, every time a new book by Keene has come out or a new
> article by Keene has been published, Edward Winter has written
> articles attacking it.
>
> There is no known or verifiable biographical information on Winter,
> not even a birth year, because, for the past 30 years, nobody has met
> or seen Edward Winter. Winter writes from a house address in Geneva,
> Switzerland. Private detectives, hired by the victims of his frequent
> attacks, have staked out that house, hoping to catch a glimpse of
> Edward Winter, but nobody has seen him there. There is a difference of
> opinion between whether Edward Winter is a real name or a pseudonym.
>
> Keene is convinced that the Edward Winter who attacks him all the time
> is the same person as a tournament chess player by that name who had
> some run-ins with Keene in the early 1970s. However, the majority view
> seems to be that Edward Winter is a pseudonym.
>
> In just the past few years, Edward Winter has branched out and
> diversified his activities. Now, he does not only attack Keene. Winter
> also attacks Bobby Fischer, Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, although
> Keene remains the principal subject of his attacks.
>
> In a radio broadcast from the Philippines in 2003, Bobby Fischer
> expressed the opinion that Edward Winter does not exist.
>
> Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
> Vermont. Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be.
> Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to
> be from. Kingston writes in the same style as Winter. Kingston attacks
> the same people that Winter attacks, although Kingston also attacks a
> few additional people, mostly Americans, that Winter does not attack,
> such as Larry Parr and Don Schultz. Also, if anybody writes anything
> bad about Edward Winter, Kingston will attack that person while
> defending Winter.
>
> Parodies have appeared. Chess politician Tom Dorsch writes articles as
> Edward Spring, parodying the style of Edward Winter.
>
> In 1986 at World Chess Olympiad in Dubai, Raymond Keene backed a
> candidate for FIDE President. Edward Winter filed an ethics complaint
> with the FIDE Congress accusing Keene of unethical conduct in writing
> books almost exclusively about opening theory, whereas Winter said
> there should be more books about chess history. Keene's opponent was
> Florencio Campomanes who Winter supported. Campomanes had Winter's
> ethics complaint translated into all five FIDE languages, including
> Arabic, and distributed to all the delegates. The showdown came at the
> FIDE General Assembly in Dubai. With one hundred FIDE member nations
> represented there, not one delegate was willing to speak or to vote in
> favor of Winter's ethics complaint.
>
> Winter publishes a regular column called Chess Notes. This column is
> exactly what it claims to be, because it contains brief commentaries
> usually not more than one or two paragraphs in length attacking
> usually insignificant errors and spelling mistakes made by this or
> that chess writer. If a book by Keene contains a spelling mistake,
> Chess Notes will point it out.
>
> Assessment of the qualities of Edward Winter varies widely. John
> Donaldson has called him "the world's greatest chess historian".
> However, one reviewer notes: "His attention to the most insignificant
> detail is more than apparent. . . . His reviews and criticisms as
> contained within this volume can be biting to say the least. In fact
> he will probably leave some readers wondering whether the almost
> gleeful maliciousness he exhibits in his frequent negative assessments
> is perhaps worse than the chess culprits he is critiquing."
>
> In the last few years, the attacks by Winter on his increasingly long
> list of perceived enemies has increased, and more and more chess
> publications have refused to publish the articles by Edward Winter.
> Most recently, ChessCafe' and Hanon Russell Enterprises stopped
> publishing anything by Winter and apparently removed the book reviews
> by Winter from the archives. Prior to that, from 1998 to 2001, New In
> Chess magazine had carried Chess Notes, subject to the strict
> condition that Winter not say anything about Keene. It was about that
> time that Winter branched out and started attacking other people
> instead of just attacking everything by Keene.
>
> Nowadays, no chess magazine in the world is willing to publish Chess
> Notes, but Winter is publishing books.
>
> Although Winter has attacked Keene hundreds and possibly even
> thousands of times, Keene has rarely said anything about Winter.
> However, at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1013565 Keene
> comments at some length. Keene believes that Winter is the same person
> as a student who was born in 1956. Keene writes, "Actually I really
> don't follow Edward Winter at all. I just see him as a naughty
> schoolboy who likes annoying his elders. He was a schoolboy at
> Cardinal Newman School in Brighton and taught chess by my friend
> Julian Simpole who could beat him with his eyes closed literally.
> Winter was about 15 years old when I was already British Champion.
>
> Since Keene became British Champion in 1971, this puts Winter as
> having been born in 1956. If true, this means that Winter started
> attacking Keene when Winter was in his late teens or early 20s. This
> puts Winter at almost exactly the same age as Taylor Kingston (whose
> name may also be a pseudonym).
>
>
> [edit]
>
> Books
>
> Chess Facts and Fables ISBN 0786423102
>
> Commoners and Knaves Further Chess Explorations ISBN 1888690046
>
> Chess Explorations (1996) ISBN 1857441710
>
> A Chess Omnibus ISBN 1888690178
>
> Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence,
> Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Cuban Chess
> Genius Jose Raul Capablanca, 1888-1942 ISBN 0899504558
>
> Tragic Life And Short Chess Career of James A Leonard, 1841-1862 (with
> John S, Hilbert) ISBN 078642298X
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter"
>
> Categories: Living people | British chess players | Chess players
| |
| help bot 2006-03-07, 2:32 am |
| Sam, you may have made several good points in your long post, but you
really mucked up with regard to Edward Winter. Attempting to define
Winter only in relation to his (very frequent) attacks on Keene is akin
to describing Sherlock Holmes as merely the arch-enemy of Moriarty; it
misses the forest for the trees. Keene is simply not so important that
everything revolves around him.
Winter would be better described as a historian (or antiquarian), who
happens to have a long-running feud with Keene (and vice versa). His
constant nitpicking steps on a lot of toes, since spelling errors and
the like are so common. [Thank goodness he never attacks me; but then
I never make such errors.]
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-07, 7:36 pm |
| Hello,
it might be interesting to have a look at the current version of this
article. It underwent some heavy editing the last days, meanwhile nearly
completely emptied. But some anonymous author has provided now a very
well written version from scratch. From the original version just the
first sentence "Edward Winter is a noted journalist and author about
chess." is left. Starting as a completely crappy article it has become
some positive example of what can be found in Wikipedia. The author
seems to be quite fond of Winter, but he provides pro and contra and at
least it's somebody who knows how to write.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
|
| Ralf Callenberg napisal(a):
quote:
> Hello,
>
> it might be interesting to have a look at the current version of this
> article. It underwent some heavy editing the last days, meanwhile nearly
> completely emptied. But some anonymous author has provided now a very
> well written version from scratch. From the original version just the
> first sentence "Edward Winter is a noted journalist and author about
> chess." is left. Starting as a completely crappy article it has become
> some positive example of what can be found in Wikipedia. The author
> seems to be quite fond of Winter, but he provides pro and contra and at
> least it's somebody who knows how to write.
I don`t think so.
The version by Sam Sloan was full of improtant details that are not
shown in this version.
Now Wiki readers do not know where and what E.Winter wrote and writes
and what specifically are pro and cons of his writings.
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-08, 5:32 am |
| Jerzy wrote:
quote:
>
> I don`t think so.
> The version by Sam Sloan was full of improtant details that are not
> shown in this version.
> Now Wiki readers do not know where and what E.Winter wrote and writes
> and what specifically are pro and cons of his writings.
>
In Sloan's version you could only read, whom he attacked, who was
against him, or not, and there were some speculations about persons who
might be the 'real' Winter. Only gossip. It is now, that you can
actually get an idea what he is writing about, which was only hinted at
in the first version.
I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are joking here.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
|
| Ralf Callenberg napisal(a):
quote:
> In Sloan's version you could only read, whom he attacked, who was
> against him, or not, and there were some speculations about persons who
> might be the 'real' Winter. Only gossip. It is now, that you can
> actually get an idea what he is writing about, which was only hinted at
> in the first version.
>
> I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are joking here.
No, in Sloan`s version there were important details which are missing
in the present version.
Hypothesis about reality of E.Winter is important too. We do not know
much about him, he is an anonym to most of us. It`s not the case with
majority of real chess writers.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-08, 7:33 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> Ralf Callenberg napisal(a):
>
>
> No, in Sloan`s version there were important details which are missing
> in the present version.
I agree with Ralf that Jerzy must be joking here. Some of Sam's
"important details" from his original Wikipedia article:
"Attention has focused on Taylor Kingston, a chess journalist in
Vermont." -- Making it sound like the FBI is investigating whether I am
Winter's "real" identity. In fact, the only "attention" thus "focused"
has been Sloan's, because he's the only person deluded enough to think
so.
"Kingston is about the same age that Winter appears to be." -- Since
Sam does not know Winter's age, how can he be sure? I would guess that
Winter could be anywhere from about 10 years younger to decades older
than I.
"Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to
be
from." - I think Sam must be the only person in the world who thinks
that Vermont (where I live now) and San Diego, California (where I was
born and lived until 1980) are part of England. And what "part of
England" is Winter supposedly from? Sloan does not know.
quote:
> Hypothesis about reality of E.Winter is important too. We do not know
> much about him, he is an anonym to most of us. It`s not the case with
> majority of real chess writers.
I will admit to some curiousity myself, but if Winter wishes privacy,
it should be respected. As far as chess literature is concerned, what
matters is the quality of Winter's contribution. That is considerable.
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-08, 7:33 pm |
| Jerzy schrieb:
quote:
> No, in Sloan`s version there were important details which are missing
> in the present version.
For instance?
quote:
> Hypothesis about reality of E.Winter is important too.
Not if it is just based on pure phantasy and wild speculations.
Look, Sam spends all his lines with telling about who is attacking
whom, who defends whom, who is saying something about somebody. But
what is this all about, he seems not be interested in. In the current
version we can read:
"In particular, two prolific authors--Raymond Keene and Eric
Schiller--have been severely criticized by Winter for what Winter
claims is an inordinate amount of historical and typographical mistakes
in their books."
Aha, here we see, what the dispute is about, what Sam simply calls
"attacks" without any more details. It is open to the reader to decide
now, whether it is due to Winter's demand of accuracy - or it is
already just pedantry.
The current article provides a much better impression about what Winter
appears like as writer and reviewer. So, we also learn that in his
chess notes Winter "tells us about the existence of an obscure game,
position, player, etc., that deserve to be better known, or proves that
a certain 'well-known fact' about a famous chess player, game, or
position is an invention." Whereas in the original version Sam doesn't
bother to give the reader the slightest idea, what Winter is actually
writing. He is just obessed with disputes around Winter, but not the
slightest interested in what Winter actually stands for.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
|
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141825954.834391.301840@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> I will admit to some curiousity myself, but if Winter wishes privacy,
> it should be respected. As far as chess literature is concerned, what
> matters is the quality of Winter's contribution. That is considerable.
How do you know that he wishes privacy ?
He writes about chess books, he criticizes their authors, he criticizes
chess players. How could such a person remain anonymous in the chess world
for so long ?
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-08, 7:33 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1141825954.834391.301840@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> How do you know that he wishes privacy ?
Well, for one thing, he told me. This matter is such common knowledge
that the question is like asking "How do you know that apples grow on
trees?"
quote:
> He writes about chess books, he criticizes their authors, he criticizes
> chess players. How could such a person remain anonymous in the chess world
> for so long ?
Anonymous? He is not anonymous -- as far as I know, Edward G. Winter
is his real name. He simply is not forthcoming with personal details.
Compared to, say, Sam Sloan, this is a refreshing contrast.
BTW, criticism constitutes a relatively small part of Winter's
writings. Most of "Chess Notes" deals with interesting games and
positions, historical research, biography, interesting oddities,
memorable quotes, debunking of myths, answers to readers' questions,
etc. Those who characterize Winter as purely a pedantic nit-picker are
uninformed about his work, or misrepresenting it.
| |
| samsloan 2006-03-08, 7:33 pm |
|
Ralf Callenberg wrote:
quote:
>He is just obessed with disputes around Winter, but not the
> slightest interested in what Winter actually stands for.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf
What does Winter actually syand for?
Sam Sloan
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-08, 7:33 pm |
| samsloan wrote:
quote:
> What does Winter actually syand for?
For checking carefully the facts of what one publishes, as a contrast to
people who carelessly distribute false claims and lies and don't even
bother commenting when they are openly proven to have talked nonsense.
Otherwise, go and read the article.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
|
| >> How do you know that he wishes privacy ?
quote:
>
> Well, for one thing, he told me. This matter is such common knowledge
> that the question is like asking "How do you know that apples grow on
> trees?"
So Sam Sloan is right claiming that you are the only person who claims to
know E.Winter personally :-)
quote:
>
>
> Anonymous? He is not anonymous -- as far as I know, Edward G. Winter
> is his real name. He simply is not forthcoming with personal details.
> Compared to, say, Sam Sloan, this is a refreshing contrast.
> BTW, criticism constitutes a relatively small part of Winter's
> writings. Most of "Chess Notes" deals with interesting games and
> positions, historical research, biography, interesting oddities,
> memorable quotes, debunking of myths, answers to readers' questions,
> etc. Those who characterize Winter as purely a pedantic nit-picker are
> uninformed about his work, or misrepresenting it.
No doubt E.Winter is over-pedantic in his pursuit for details what is his
main obstacle in finding the truth.
The devil hides himself in details.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-09, 7:33 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
>
> So Sam Sloan is right claiming that you are the only person who claims to
> know E.Winter personally :-)
Non sequitur, Jerzy. He told me by e-mail. That and letters have been
my only means of communication with him.
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-09, 7:33 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141931688.887100.81110@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Jerzy wrote:
>
> Non sequitur, Jerzy. He told me by e-mail. That and letters have been
> my only means of communication with him.
Yes, that's right. Taylor Kingston did say that, and didn't indicate
anything else. I have also encountered him in e-mails, to Adorjan, for
example.
Phil Innes
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-09, 7:33 pm |
| Jerzy schrieb:
quote:
> So Sam Sloan is right claiming that you are the only person who claims to
> know E.Winter personally :-)
His wife and his baker might have similar claims.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
|
| >>> >> How do you know that he wishes privacy ?
quote:
>
> Yes, that's right. Taylor Kingston did say that, and didn't indicate
> anything else. I have also encountered him in e-mails, to Adorjan, for
> example.
I`ve seen lately the classic film by Alfred Hitchcock North By Northwest.
I can feel the same suspense here. We are chasing an unseen entity whose
realms are far beyond our imperfect humane recognition :-)
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-09, 7:33 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> I`ve seen lately the classic film by Alfred Hitchcock North By Northwest.
> I can feel the same suspense here. We are chasing an unseen entity whose
> realms are far beyond our imperfect humane recognition :-)
Yes, a great film, one of several about invisible and/or fictitious
men. Inspires me to pose a multiple-choice quiz:
Q: "Edward Winter" actually is:
a. George Kaplan
b. Archibald Leach
c. Capt. William Martin
d. Jack Griffin
e. Bruce Wayne
f. Harvey
g. Godot
h. Keyser Soze
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-09, 7:33 pm |
| Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
>
> Yes, a great film, one of several about invisible and/or fictitious
> men. Inspires me to pose a multiple-choice quiz:
>
> Q: "Edward Winter" actually is:
You forgot one obvious choice! Come on, an Englishman in Switzerland -
this can only be
Professor Moriarty
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-09, 7:33 pm |
|
Ralf Callenberg wrote:
quote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> You forgot one obvious choice! Come on, an Englishman in Switzerland -
> this can only be
>
> Professor Moriarty
Excellent! Laughing out loud!
| |
|
|
quote:
>
> Yes, a great film, one of several about invisible and/or fictitious
> men. Inspires me to pose a multiple-choice quiz:
Well, there was only one fictitious man. No one was invisible.
quote:
>
> Q: "Edward Winter" actually is:
>
> a. George Kaplan
> b. Archibald Leach
> c. Capt. William Martin
> d. Jack Griffin
> e. Bruce Wayne
> f. Harvey
> g. Godot
> h. Keyser Soze
>
Of course we should add you, Taylor as the mastermind of this plot.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-10, 7:35 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
>
> Well, there was only one fictitious man. No one was invisible.
In my list, Jack Griffin was. He was played by Claude Rains in the
film adaptation of H.G. Well's "The Invisible Man."
quote:
>
> Of course we should add you, Taylor as the mastermind of this plot.
No, it was a team effort by Lex Luthor and Ras Thavas, working on
behalf of the Secret Amish World Government.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-10, 7:35 pm |
| samsloan (samhsloan@gmail.com)
wrote (8 Mar 2006 14:35:48 -0800):
quote:
> What does Winter actually syand for?
_
Writing Interesting Notes To Educate Readers
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-10, 7:35 pm |
| samsloan (samhsloan@gmail.com)
wrote (8 Mar 2006 14:35:48 -0800):
quote:
> What does Winter actually syand for?
_
Writing Interesting Notes To Educate Readers
:-)
|
| |
|
|