Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

Main

Date: 10 Oct 2007 17:48:06
From:
Subject: Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

Wikipedia needs your help!

We need fair and balanced contibutions to the Sam Sloan entry
documenting the latest lawsuit and the claims by LSloan and Polgar.

Please study the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Neutral point of
view page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov and the
Wikipedia Biographies of living persons page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
first, and start slowly with comments on the talk page before doing
any edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Sloan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sloan

Date: 11 Oct 2007 00:15:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

On Oct 10, 5:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:45:03 -0700, Taylor Kingston
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to have articles only on people
> > >of some importance?
>
> > It's his turn for 15 minutes. Why are you begrudging him that?
>
> Because he's abusing the legal system with (yet another) frivolous
> lawsuit in order to get the attention he craves? He's a worthless
> parasite ("I am a bum. I live off my wife, who works ... I think that
> just about covers it." -- Sam Sloan on the USCF Forums, ch 14,
> 2007), and should be treated like any other unwashed sidewalk
> screamer. Ignore him.

The anti-Sloan bias here is overwhelming.

Let's try to be just a tad more objective, shall we?
I read one complaint that Mr. Sloan was changing
diapers at the chess board, distracting/annoying
his opponents to no end. Now other critics want
to pretend that he does nothing at all, that he is a
"bum". You can't have it both ways, people. If SS
is changing diapers in front of witnesses, then he is
certainly not "a bum" who does nothing; this may
not make him, technically, a housewife, but by
golly it makes him a care-giver or homemaker or
baby-sitter or something besides just a bum.

The encyclopedias may be better off to leave the
issue of frivolousity alone until after the matter is
settled. What's the big rush? Is it not sufficient
to just mention that there are lawsuits in progress,
and sumize what they are in regard to? It is
OK to say that the Sloan suit has been dismissed
by defendants as frivolous, but there is no hurry to
make a final pronouncement here; time will tell.

-- help bot

Date: 11 Oct 2007 00:03:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

On Oct 10, 1:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:45:03 -0700, Taylor Kingston
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to have articles only on people
> >of some importance?
>
> It's his turn for 15 minutes. Why are you begrudging him that?

I could swear that Sam Sloan's allocated fifteen minutes of
fame already transpired, some time after his success in
front of the Supreme Court?

Surely, this cannot trump that.

-- Justice bot

Date: 11 Oct 2007 07:07:21
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:03:04 -0700, help bot <[email protected] >
wrote:

>On Oct 10, 1:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:45:03 -0700, Taylor Kingston
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to have articles only on people
>> >of some importance?
>>
>> It's his turn for 15 minutes. Why are you begrudging him that?
>
> I could swear that Sam Sloan's allocated fifteen minutes of
>fame already transpired, some time after his success in
>front of the Supreme Court?
>
> Surely, this cannot trump that.
>
>
> -- Justice bot

Good point. Maybe it's deja vu all over again. Or the great wheel
has turned full circle.

Date: 10 Oct 2007 15:19:26
From:
Subject: Re: Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:45:03 -0700, Taylor Kingston
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to have articles only on people
> >of some importance?
>
> It's his turn for 15 minutes. Why are you begrudging him that?

Because he's abusing the legal system with (yet another) frivolous
lawsuit in order to get the attention he craves? He's a worthless
parasite ("I am a bum. I live off my wife, who works ... I think that
just about covers it." -- Sam Sloan on the USCF Forums, ch 14,
2007), and should be treated like any other unwashed sidewalk
screamer. Ignore him.

Date: 11 Oct 2007 02:11:54
From: Anonymoose
Subject: Re: Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

<jkh001@He's a worthless parasite ("I am a bum. I live off my wife, who
works ... I think that just about covers it."), and should be treated like
any other unwashed sidewalk screamer. >

What makes Wikipedia the ultimate worthless trash encyclocrapedia is the
fact that any skumhole with a computer can sign in and create an entry. The
fact that Sloan and his bios of various unknown chess losers shows up on
Wiki all the time is a testament to why Wikipedia is useless. Ignore
Wikipedia.

Date: 10 Oct 2007 11:45:03
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

On Oct 10, 1:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Wikipedia needs your help!
>
> We need fair and balanced contibutions to the Sam Sloan entry
> documenting the latest lawsuit and the claims by LSloan and Polgar.
>
> Please study the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Neutral point of
> view page athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npovand the
> Wikipedia Biographies of living persons page athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
> first, and start slowly with comments on the talk page before doing
> any edits.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Sloan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sloan

Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to have articles only on people
of some importance?

Date: 10 Oct 2007 11:58:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Wikipedia article on Sam Sloan

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:45:03 -0700, Taylor Kingston
<[email protected] > wrote:

> Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia to have articles only on people
>of some importance?

It's his turn for 15 minutes. Why are you begrudging him that?