Talk:Beatriz Marinello

NPOV Dispute
The convicted felon Sam Sloan is the notoriously unreliable author of this article. Billbrock 05:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough to ask for more specificity. Sloan is correct that my animus is personal.  It's a tricky balance: the article is patently unfair for the following reasons, but I should not be the one making any changes....

The bias in the characterization is apparent. USCF was on the brink of bankruptcy....Billbrock 01:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC) It would be nice if Sloan could write Wikipedia entries without using the word "controversy"; his chess-related articles are full of spin and bereft of NPOV. Billbrock 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Here Sloan alludes to rumors about Marinello's sexual orientation; Sloan himself spread this and other rumors. link added Billbrock 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) NPOV Billbrock 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC) I would note to admins that I have no desire to inject my animus towards Sloan into the Wikipedia project, except that this is the character of the Wikipedian in question. Billbrock 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "her first act as president was to fire Tom Brownscombe who had replaced her as scholastic coordinator, along with 16 other members of the USCF staff"
 * "In May, 2000 she resigned in protest as a result of a controversy with scholastic chess organizer Richard Peterson in which they both accused each other of forging Peterson's signature to the 1999 National Elementary Chess Championship contract."
 * "Because of these and other controversial activities, including her lifestyle,"
 * "Beatriz Marinello was accused of running the USCF as a one-woman dictatorship"

Billbrock is best known for more than 200 personal atacks on Sam Sloan, most of which were posted on Usenet on rec.games.chess.politics. He attacks me again here, without any reason or justification. There is nothing wrong with my biography of Beatriz Marinello and if she or anybody else wants to make corrections or changes she is free to do so. Sam Sloan 18:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User Bill Brock has failed to comply with the rules regarding NPOV disputes. The rules are: How to initiate an NPOV debate?

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags above to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new sectioned titled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

As can be seen above, Bill Brock has failed to "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why" and he has failed to "make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article."

Because Bill Brock has failed to meet these requirements, and because Bill Brock's personal dislike for me is well known ever since I beat him in a Grudge Match in Chicago in July, I am removing the NPOV alert. Sam Sloan 14:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your victory. Now kindly edit the article to achieve NPOV, addressing the issues raised above.  Other than restoring the tag, I shall refrain from an edit war.  Let others decide when NPOV has been achieved.  Billbrock 00:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states, "In May, 2000 she resigned in protest as a result of a controversy with scholastic chess organizer Richard Peterson in which they both accused each other of forging Peterson's signature to the 1999 National Elementary Chess Championship contract." How is it that Peterson was accused of forging his own signature? It would seem to be impossible to forge one's own signature, just as one cannot impersonate oneself. Krakatoa 00:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rated this article a C class, noting that it fails all of the B class quality standards. Ruodyssey (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reassessed as Start class. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)