User talk:166.82.205.115

Please stop your disruptive editing on the page List of Internet chess servers. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia forever.

Chess.com

No problem, I'll be happy to explain the distinction to you. Right now I'm watching the Super Bowl so give me a few hours but I promise I will return. Are you a member of chess.com by any chance? OGBranniff (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This question of the IP user is also inappropriate. (What if he is or isn't? It's irrelevant, and also none of your business.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate? I was just attempting to humanize the guy. OGBranniff (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh, yeah? That's why you have that garbage about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and the thing from the Cleveland Plain Dealer on your page, you hypocritical blowhard. OGBranniff (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you don't get out much. It is very common for editors to have some info about themselves on their User pages. That is not the same thing what you were attempting to do with the IP. (You were attempting dialogue. How is posting info about myself attempting dialogue with anyone? It isn't. Your comparison is invalid. So to call me names, "hypocritical blowhard", based on your invalid thinking ... what would you call that?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I call that a pretty accurate assessment of your personality traits. OGBranniff (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just keep it up, User:OGBranniff; see how far slurring others on WP will get you. Good show. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing policies

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. The encyclopedia has a few basic requirements for adding content:

1. The material must be verifiable. That means that anything you add has to be reported in a reliable source independent of its subject. Wikipedia is not for "original research." Therefore, you may have personal knowledge that a certain website exists, but unless you can cite an independent source for this claim, it cannot be added to Wikipedia. The verifiable policy for sources is an absolute must on Wikipedia. For more information, see WP:V and WP:RS.

2. The subject of the addition must be "notable." For web content, this generally means that the subject be covered in a substantial, non-trivial way by independent, reliable sources. (Think peer-edited books, newspapers like the Washington Post, New York Times, even reputable computer magazines like "Wired.") For more information on this requirement, see WP:WEB.

3. The problem with adding chess.com to the list is that the addition of the material violates the Wikipedia policies for "Verifiable Sources," "Notability for web content," and "Reliable Sources." WP:V WP:WEB and WP:RS. Another issue is that "chess.com" gets no leeway to further violate these policies since the consensus of the Wikipedia editorial membership is that "chess.com" has not demonstrated notability on a scale sufficient to warrant mention here. see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chess.com(As opposed to Internet Chess Club or Chesscube, both of which have been extensively covered in reliable, peer-edited sources.)

Thank you and if you have any questions feel free to contact me anytime.

OGBranniff (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a member at chess.com. I'm also a member at gameknot, and schemingmind, and I've had an account at most or all of those sites at one time or another. That said, would you mind showing me where gameknot is "verified"? Certainly chess.com is more notable than schemeingmind, right? 166.82.205.115 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

OGBranniff, the criteria of notability for an article, is not the same, different from, the criteria for article content. (So to equate the two, is not correct.) Also, you should pull back from accusing the IP user of vandalism ... it was in no way interpretable as other than a good-faith edit -- vandalism is something altogether different. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, even article content is subject to WP:V and Reliable Sources. Unless an independent reliable source can be produced that states that "chess.com" is an internet chess server then it cannot be added to the list. OGBranniff (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You have a black & white view of this ("cannot" is not right), and, were misleading the IP user. You don't have an accurate understanding of WP:V IMO, and are using it like a club. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding it is nothing more that WP:OR. You might happen to think that passing "information" that no sources at all is fine, but this is an encyclopedia, not scribbles on a bathroom wall. You are the one seeking to inculcate negative editing habits in our new users, obviously. OGBranniff (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Back up. What are you saying is WP:OR, specifically? Verifiability and references are used in articles, to support claims or assertions made. What specific assertion or claim is being made, do you say, by including chess.com in this List? (Also, are you really applying the WP:V criteria for this list uniformly to the other members in the list? Maybe you have, I dunno. The IP asked a fair question about that, or don't you think so?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Back up. You say "What specific assertion or claim is being made, do you say, by including chess.com in this List?" Are you that dense? You probably are. That's not my problem. OGBranniff (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You're full of unnecessary insults. Try and be nicer. Okay, I see you already answered one of my Qs ... "Unless an independent reliable source can be produced that states that "chess.com" is an internet chess server then it cannot be added to the list." Well, that shouldn't be hard to do. (Because, Chess.com is a privately owned company. For example: company profile.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ooohhh... I know you're probably giving yourself a major hard-on acting like you're all "cool" and "rebel" by being contrarian. Try to enjoy your junior high school years, they are certainly fleeting. However, this "Crunchbase" rubbish is certainly not a reliable source. Check out what they say about themselves: [1]. All it is is a directory that anyone can add stuff to; it's no more reliable than a blog or myspace page.

It is flabbergasting that someone with over a year of experience on Wikipedia has such a wanton ignorance over key policies and such a cavalier attitude over sources. OGBranniff (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Drop the insults and stick to discussion argument(s). The source I provided is verifiable and reliable enough, to support that chess.com is an internet chess server. So, why doesn't that satisfy you? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't satisfy me because unlike an idiot like you, I actually attempt to verify these dodgy web sources. Look at what "Crunchbase" says about itself in its FAQ: "How do I know the data is accurate?

You do not know if the data is accurate. As multiple people edit CrunchBase profiles of companies, financial organizations and people, some mistakes might be added. Information might also be out of date. If you notice anything that needs changing you can go ahead and edit the page. Read more: http://www.crunchbase.com/help/faq#q5#ixzz2JuIkG4Ag"

So the information is not reliable nor verifiable at all. Find something like the NY Times and I will agree. Next. OGBranniff (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You're exaggerating the worthlessness of that ref. Here is another as well, that evidences chess.com is not WP:OR:

[2]

What exactly is "pevc.dowjones.com"? In any case, this is the entire content of that page: "Chess.com has acquired the name Chesspark.com in a deal involving two online chess companies.

The deal does not include the technology, servers or team behind Chesspark, according to a Chess.com blog post. No other terms were disclosed...."

Now, can you please point out where the information is that Chess.com is an online chess server? Did you also notice that the information transmitted in "pevc.dowjones.com" was taken directly from a chess.com blog post? You are not very good at this, are you? OGBranniff (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a separate source. It doesn't matter there is a link at the former source.

Here is GM Victor Mikhalevski, an "expert in his field", commenting on 4-12-2010 that that Chess.com is a "great chess community": [3] Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com doesn't warrant its own article, but the criteria is different for content, and, verifiability on the limited claim of existence as a chess community server is not that hard to come up with for this privately held company, as I've shown. It is sufficient to be included on the list of other chess servers. (And BTW, you didn't answer about applying the same criteria you applied to chess.com, on the other few members of that short list. What explains?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone's self-published blog is not a reliable source. I suggest you spend less time arguing on here and familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies on sources. see WP:SPS and WP:RS. I also think it's hilarious that someone who was once indefinitely blocked for harassment, disruption, and chronic inability to work well with others is preaching (stupidly) about anything on here. User_talk:Ihardlythinkso/Archive_1#Indefinitely_blocked. Nice one! OGBranniff (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Someone"? He's a GM. (Not just "someone".) That's considered expert in his field. You really should read more about WP policy. You are full of personal attacks, User:OGBranniff, and you attempt to get personal, and insulting, at every turn. That is ad hominem, and doesn't fool anyone. Meantime, you've revealed your editor conduct pretty well here. Good job. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "someone." This is what Wikipedia policy says about self-published sources even from an expert in his field: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[6] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." WP:SPS.

It is obvious you, Ihardlythinkso, are here only to troll, and that you are neither reading the sources you cite nor are familiar with the slightest bit of Wikipedia policy. OGBranniff (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:OGBranniff, more name-calls, huh? Your accusation of "trolling" comes just as easily as accusing the IP of "vandalism"? Oh I'm sure you must be right, since your knowledge of WP policy is so superior, you must have good understanding what constitutes trolling and vandalism, right? Oh sure.

The links given were found from only a brief search -- the point is, Chess.com is a (privately-owned) company and has quite a big membership, so verifying their status as chess-based server should not be any real problem. So you shouldn't be taking such a black & white hardline with your challenge.

You wanted New York Times? Here you go: [4]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Washington Post on the merger: [5] Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I've used the NYT one to put chess.com back on the list of severs. That said, shouldn't some of the others come off now, since they don't have similar "verification"? 166.82.205.115 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete anything you want, man. It's like that, "anyone can edit." As they say 'round here, "Be bold"! Welcome to Wikipedia, dude! 64.134.124.113 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(Bold, but not reckless.) The IP is pointing out your "keep" standard appears to be isolated to only Chess.com -- you've shown no interest applying the same standard to other items in the list (and, there aren't that many). That would suggest a biased POV, and seeing you did the AfD on Chess.com, and have shown your battleground mentality with your message to User:Forgot to put name, saying you expected Chess.com members to respond in retaliation to the AfD, and you wanted Forget's help to "be on the lookout", etc., ... Not exactly the best traits for an editor of an encyclopedia, wouldn't you say? (Not to mention the bullying, name-calling, general assholery.) And now you're eating crow, same as you did at your failed Andrew Soltis AfD (which was SNOW-kept, even over your demand to delete and vociferous protests about others not following policy, and the insults "lazy and pompous" you threw at me). Keep it up, "dude". Tell us again how you're superior in every way. We want to hear more. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Erik from Chess.com here. I'm not sure what all this fuss is about. Chess.com is an online chess server, and the biggest one of all. That said, I don't really care what is said on Wikipedia or if we have a page or whatnot. It isn't relevant to what we do :) Why some tiny chess sites have pages and we don't is just a representation of expected wikipedia bias that isn't going to change and I don't see the need to fight this fight. Just my 2 cents... :) - Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.58.84 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, "Erik," or whatever your name is. Now, if you are done whining like a little bitch, please either kindly contribute to the encylopedia at hand, or GTFO. What do you think this is, Twitter? Oh, and the next time you are hanging around that cult-like website you control, can you do me a favor and tell that "Kohai" to go fuck herself? Same goes for KCO and CorriJean and the rest of that gang of patzers you have sucking your dick. Welcome to Wikipedia, Brah! OGBranniff (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)