<dak> I agree on those. There are some other points that fall under "should be" here.

Tops on that list is that the project's leader fully endorses a certain user's predilection for ethnic slurs and gratuitous death threats but reacts much more negatively to any attempt to oppose them, or even mere failures to consent to her policy of wiping the whole matter under the carpet. (As a side note, one has to ask if it isn't a little troubling for the leader of a project like this to resort to revisionism so enthusiastically.)

She's made it perfectly clear she'll throw me under the train in two seconds flat if I remain in public opposition to such things. Of course, this won't come as a surprise to anyone who remembers how readily she pushed <achieve> - a much closer friend to her - under the same train over much the same issue years ago. (For those who've forgotten, most of the relevant posts have been deleted long ago, but the one at Kibitzer's Café still remains.) Obviously, having seen it happen to many other people over the last seven years, I know that in another week or so she'd appear to have no problems with me anymore and would act as if nothing had happened until the next train arrived. That's what happened with <achieve>; it's what happened with <brankat> after she threw a heap of vitriol at him for not liking <SugarDom> quite enough; it's happened with many others many times over.

She's always willing to make up and be friends with us again, but sooner or later you reach a point when that willingness is no longer mutual; I've done plenty of free work for her over the years and never got anything (with the occasional exception of more work) in return, and eventually one reaches a limit, even if he's Santa. Santa doesn't give you gifts for nothing, he expects you to be nice, and naughty children will find coal in their stockings.

I don't have a positive view of this Project change, which discourages improvements (even on purely historical matters - would this new system have fixed, for example, the spelling of <De Twee Steden>?) and makes style editors distinctly second-class citizens, but as I wouldn't be taking part anyhow it's not a matter that touches me personally. Of course, given my experience at Wikipedia (which is all about public editing) my opinion when I did participate in the project was always clear; I wanted more, not less, public oversight and decisions made by consensus rather than one editor's decree. Wikipedia takes an extremely dim view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip...) of people asserting their ownership of articles, and years of experience have taught Wikipedia regulars that no good ever comes of one person trying to overrule a host of others, even if she was the article's main contributor. That's the mentality I, too, have acquired.

Well, it did seem a bit abrupt. There was probably a number of happy mediums that would have satisfied all parties. For example, we could have worked in our own forums to unclutter the main one.

I think your comment <I see no reason not to oblige her> is the part <Ohio> has a problem with, for two reasons:

First, his situation differs inasmuch as he *is* being asked to continue working on some drafts (although rather emphatically not on others)... and since he, like the rest of us, wants to do what is best for <chessgames.com>, that puts him in a special dilemma, that maybe we can't help him with.

However, there is also this second point:

<It's been made clear with the WCC intros, there is one shot and one shot only to get it right.>

I may be able to help with that. <Ohio>, that's not true. That is, it <is> true, but only from one point of view, <jessicafischerqueen>'s. So of course this is how she had presented it from the start, but it's not true for the rest of us. Daniel had given <Jess> and her project one, and only one, shot at revising those intros - and given, as we all know, how often she tends to change her mind, that is a more than understandable ground rule by him, for her - but that's a rule that does not actually apply to the rest of us, either individually or as a group should we decide to continue working together.

So this is what I think would be the simplest and best course: let <Jess> do with her one chance at her project whatever she likes.

If what she and her group eventually turn out is good enough, that's great. If not, then there is nothing at all stopping us from writing Daniel, explaining (if he doesn't know already) how this group had been impossible to work with, and submitting our suggestions for improvement directly to him.

<Switch> I agree per the Wiki issue. I understand and have previously mentioned I'm not generally a fan of the committee system. And it's not used all that much. However, I am also not a fan of the first person to put their hand up getting full and complete sway in a project. So some competing interests are at hand, and I agree completely with your statement that < the appropriate response to edits or even challenges to one's article would be to welcome any potential improvements and, where you really feel that they're wrong, discuss the matter with your fellow editors and try to gain their support rather than overrule them. >

<Boomie> yes, the abruptness suggests to me it might not be the most thoughtful decision, although I am aware it has been an issue previous.

Anyway, <Annie> has gotten to the crux of the matter for me. Point one, dead on, that is how I feel about things. I do care about the site, I do care about the history, and on a less generous note, I admit to a lot of ego for doing something well. It's almost secondary to be praised for it, but that doesn't hurt. But I don't want to be spiteful about things either. I don't want to say "Fine, do it your way and see how good it is!" Likewise, I don't have a problem with <Jess> disagreeing with me about things. Tomorrow's a new day.

<Annie> and I clearly share an opinion that she's alluded to a couple times recently, rather obliquely, but clear as day to me. I sense that's a bigger issue than appears on the surface.

Per your second point, well.......at first blush, I don't agree. I think that once they're uploaded, that's it. Maybe so, maybe not.

<Ohio> Thank you.

Yes, I too believe <Annie> is correct about the most salient points.

For more than two years I pestered <Daniel>, in public and private, to let me fix some of the errors in some of the WCC intros. Most recently, I had been asking him why the <cg.com> biographers couldn't edit these intros.

<Daniel> said it had mainly to do with the advanced HTML coding. You have to know HTML code to correct or change anything. Right now, <crawfb5> is doing the HTML encoding for the project. When he finishes each draft, he passes it on to <Daniel>.

It's almost a year into the project, and I'm always in close contact with <Daniel> about exactly what we are doing. For example, I told <Daniel> I was changing the use of the WCC forum from a "public team editing" format back to a "depositing resources" function.

He understood and made no objection, simply asking me if there was anything I needed from his end.

But to <Annie's> main point: having been in close contact with <Daniel> throughout, it's my belief that <Annie> is right. This is not a "one shot deal," nor was it ever so.

<Daniel> is the webmaster, and of course the new intros can be edited at a future point, by any method <Daniel> deems suitable. I think rather that he just wants a full set of new intros to begin with. I'd be very surprised if our work didn't get edited in the future- after all, in chess history new developments are always coming to light. Also, mistakes will likely be found and pointed out. So I should think the intros would need to be kept updated, same as the bios and articles on other pages need to be kept updated.

Finally, I'm not going without editors. I'm just not going with the "public team editing" process any longer. <Boomie> guessed the main reason for the change: all three writers no longer felt comfortable working in this format. This meant no more drafts coming in. I don't want to write every draft by myself. I need to keep the writers I have, and I need more writers. Of course I still need good editors.

So I'm going to manage the editing via email. Each writer will have his/her say in who will or won't be editing his/her draft. I can only speak for myself in terms of specifics. I have asked you, <Ohio>, to edit my drafts. The offer remains open. <Switch> raised a good point about <dak> finding the "Hotel Two or is it Three Stadiums" spelling error- so I hope <dak> also wouldn't mind looking over a draft that I emailed him, if he had the time/inclination. <dak> has also been HUGE on the finding of resources- his translations and his digging in the ancient, and feared, <Dutch newspapers> has made it possible to rewrite the <Johnny Alekhine> drafts. We haven't tried a non "public team editing" format yet, so the details are not currently worked out or finalized. <Annie> yes I have been emphatic about wanting <Ohio> to stay on board for my drafts, because I'm loath to lose him. As I've mentioned previously, we worked well in the past in a one-to-one format. These two bios are the best I've written at cg.com, and in my opinion <Ohio's> editing is the main reason why they stand above the other bio writing I've done: Vladimir Petrov and Johann Jacob Loewenthal.

I will maintain the right of all "final edits" before they are passed to <Daniel>. This is a format he has agreed to, and it will remain so until he ever chooses to tell me differently.

Oh off-topic and while I'm here:

<Ohio>, <Boomie>, <Big Crawdaddy>, <perfidious>, and any other Soviet members who might secretly live in <The Excited States>:

Happy birthday to your great country!

We Canadians, and even Canadian-Koreans, appreciate your longstanding friendship.

Welcome to the Dortmund Moves Prediction Contest. This contest involves picking a game result (1-0 1/2 or 0-1) and the number of moves in the game. As an example, if in a first round game you think Kramnik with White will defeat Meier in 40 moves, your entry would say:

Kramnik-Meier 1-0 40

While it is a bit more complicated than the game prediction contest hosted by <YouRang> it isn't <that> much more complicated. I think my profile as written by <chessmoron> does a pretty good job explaining how things work.

Round 1 July 12
Baramidze-Caruana
Naiditsch-Adams
Kramnik-Meier
Leko-Ponomariov

Round 2 July 13
Caruana-Ponomariov
Meier-Leko
Adams-Kramnik
Baramidze-Naiditsch

July 14 (Rest Day)

Round 3 July 15
Naiditsch-Caruana
Kramnik-Baramidze
Leko-Adams
Ponomariov-Meier

Round 4 July 16
Caruana-Meier
Adams-Ponomariov
Bramidze-Leko
Naiditsch-Kramnik

July 17 (Rest Day)

Round 5 July 18
Kramnik-Caruana
Leko-Naiditsch
Ponomariov-Baramidze
Meier-Adams

Round 6 July 19
Caruana-Adams
Baramidze-Meier
Naiditsch-Ponomariov
Kramnik-Leko

Round 1: