Originally posted by SchlecterThe Wiki entry for chess.com claims that several GMs, incl. Polgar, Short, and Nakamura, have taken part in matches there. If anyone knows of any RHP members of that calibre who wish to be given a mention in an RHP Wiki article, that might lend some panache to the article. Let them PM me to verify identity and consent.
controversies.....about the 'cheaters' and the feeling of the 'normal' players,
or a time when the system was down and the recovery was very difficult,
well I mean facts of the RHP particular History.
-
mention some particular users, like Greenspawn, bigdogproblem, zorro_the_fox.
and even users that had pass away like mikelom, the memorial tournament,
as I said, the history facts of this site, and notorious people
I don't believe that the members you mentioned are "notable" enough (in the sense relevant to Wikipedia) to merit inclusion in the article. (No offense.)
Engine cheating and forum bans are cans of worms I prefer not to open.
Originally posted by moonbusmoonbus, at this point in the information gathering, what are your impressions of Wiki's impartiality acceptance criteria? One of two competitive online correspondence chess site I'm familiar with harshly criticized the other for its total lack of impartiality. Here's a thought on how Russ could avoid even the appearance of partiality: he could ask one of his trusted friends with no ties to Red Hot Pawn now or since February 21, 2001 [date of this site's inception], to post your text as finalized and approved. Interested in your thoughts?
The Wiki entry for chess.com claims that several GMs, incl. Polgar, Short, and Nakamura, have taken part in matches there. If anyone knows of any RHP members of that calibre who wish to be given a mention in an RHP Wiki article, that might lend some panache to the article. Let them PM me to verify identity and consent.
I don't believe that the members you m ...[text shortened]... the article. (No offense.)
Engine cheating and forum bans are cans of worms I prefer not to open.
Footnote: This site's data base profile of all chess moves vs. public forum posts for a defined period of time would seem to hold promise of determining which online activity matters most to all active site members for future feature and benefit enhancement reference.
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMore cheating?
Here's a thought on how Russ could avoid even the appearance of partiality: he could ask one of his trusted friends with no ties to Red Hot Pawn now or since February 21, 2001 [date of this site's inception], to post your text as finalized and approved. Interested in your thoughts?
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusWhy do we not identify Russ and Chris as British software engineers?
The proposed "General" header (at the top of the Wiki article) reads as follows:
"Type of site: Internet chess server, based on the Rival Chess engine written by Russell Newman and Chris Moreton; social media services are also offered."
"Social media services," I think, would be understood to include the forums.
I would propose to tweek the paragrap ...[text shortened]... chess is not a requirement for participation in any of the forums."
Would this fit the bill?
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by HandyAndyOriginally posted by Russ (OP)
More cheating?
"If anyone has the inclination, could I ask that someone adds a RHP wiki page?
I'm unable to do this myself without falling foul of promoting self-interest (as I understand the rules anyway).
Obviously there can be no "reward" for this, but if you can put together some high(ish) quality text together about the site and add to wiki, that would be very useful. Thanks.
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI have read a fair number of Wiki articles pertaining to businesses which are going concerns. There is not a line, but rather a grey area, dividing describing what a corporation does from promoting that corporation's products or services. For example, if a certain company was the first to invent and patent some very useful thing, that would be relevant to a Wikipedia article and mention of that fact would not in itself constitute promotion of the product (even if the patent were still in effect). However, claiming that the thing is the best on the market is (even if it is the best on the market) would be a clear case of promotion and unacceptable in a Wikipedia article.
moonbus, at this point in the information gathering, what are your impressions of Wiki's impartiality acceptance criteria? One of two competitive online correspondence chess site I'm familiar with harshly criticized the other for its total lack of impartiality. Here's a thought on how Russ could avoid even the appearance of partiality: he could ask one ...[text shortened]... ty matters most to all active site members for future feature and benefit enhancement reference.
I intend to err on the conservative side; the less said the better; this, IMO, will increase the likelihood of getting an article through the Wikipedia editorial vetting process.
I have included little of the history of RHP, partly because I do not know it, partly because Russ provided a link to a thread about the history of RHP (which therefore speaks for itself), but mostly because the history of a single server in a niche corner of the Internet is probably not "notable" (in the sense relevant to Wikipedia). If Cisco suffers a major failure, it's world news (80% of the Internet is running over Cisco kit); if RHP suffers a server failure, it's not.
RE your footnote: I'm sure Russ has access to the usual industrial-strength analysis tools to monitor RHP traffic patterns and trends. He would not be a businessman much longer if he were to publish that information.
08 Jun 15
I suspect that a brief history, a list of what features are now available, and a simple description of membership options might cause someone who is looking for a place to play chess to come take a look at the actual RHP site. I'm not trying to speak for Russ and I could be totally wrong, but I think that's all he was looking for.
My 2 cents worth.
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusThanks, moonbus; you're obviously a quick study and have this request from Russ well in hand.
I have read a fair number of Wiki articles pertaining to businesses which are going concerns. There is not a line, but rather a grey area, dividing describing what a corporation does from promoting that corporation's products or services. For example, if a certain company was the first to invent and patent some very useful thing, that would be relevant to a ...[text shortened]... ns and trends. He would not be a businessman much longer if he were to publish that information.
08 Jun 15
Hello Dear My name is Anita Williams, I hope that you are in good health condition and also successful in all your endeavors I hope you will be the true loving, honest and caring person that I have been looking 4, And I have some special thing to tell you about myself,So please contact me directly through my email address i will also send you some of my pictures ,you regards, Anita Williams contact me directly through my email //
anit_william@hotmail.com
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by mwmillerSuggestion noted.
I suspect that a brief history, a list of what features are now available, and a simple description of membership options might cause someone who is looking for a place to play chess to come take a look at the actual RHP site. I'm not trying to speak for Russ and I could be totally wrong, but I think that's all he was looking for.
My 2 cents worth.
As one of the premier members at this site, what, in your experience, made it worth joining in the first place? And what makes it still worthwhile?