<there be dragons> Auto-posting the updates is actually about the same level of difficulty as scraping wikipedia, IMO. But yes, you'd need biographer privileges (oh, thought you already had).

But I agree we should always be very cautious about any automated processes that can change our contents, with strict safeguards around backup and testing.

It's also pretty certain that any such process will still require some manual post-editing. Otherwise, for example, maybe the script automatically adds the Russian on the Ian Nepomniachtchi bio but the Russian was already there and now we'd have an extra one. The original contents were manually created to not very strict standards, so there are bound to be many special cases.

I disagree - as you yourself then say:

<But I agree we should always be very cautious about any automated processes that can change our contents, with strict safeguards around backup and testing.>

Scrapping doesn't need all those safeguards - which to me is the majority of the difficulty.

I once worked directly with <Daniel> on an automated process enhancement to <CG>. Unfortunately, he bugged out soon after realizing the extent of the difficulties of safeguarding the DB.

(I understood at the time, as he was also multi-tasking with much more visible improvements to the user experience - but I always hoped we'd return to job)

<It's also pretty certain that any such process will still require some manual post-editing.>

Not according to what I envision - the player bio's would have a enhanced standard heading with the alternative names.

Nepo's elaborated bio could be trimmed, at leisure, to eliminate the then redundant Cyrillic, if desired.

<So I'd want to have a strong motivation (the product of a serious discussion among kibitzers) to determine if this is a real requirement.>

Absolutely.

I've always been a big proponent of the Bistro process - and <CG> is undergoing its 2nd Renaissance under the current ownership.

Zukertort's second was NOT Charles Moehle, but rather Adolph Moehle. Charles' father. I can understand how the two got confused, being Adolphus was Charle's middle name, but the father was Zukertort's umpire/second in that match:

"For the New York part of the match Mr. Thomas Frère was appointed Umpire on behalf of Mr. Steinitz, and Mr. Adolph Mohle will act in the same capacity for Mr. Zukertort. The hours of play are reduced by mutual consent from nine hours to eight per day." <International Chess Magazine>, v2 n1, January 1886, pp1-3

"Thomas Frere, umpire for Mr. Steinitz, is even smaller than either of the contestants, and his cranial development is made all the more prominent by reason of his entire baldness. Adolph Mohle, Dr. Zukertort's umpire, has a good deal of length, but little breadth or weight." <New-York Daily Tribune>, 1886.01.12, p5

<nok> if that's the worst "offense" you can find to tattle about on the cg.com forum... you really aren't looking very hard eh. I ran across over 9000 posts much worse than that just this morning. Protip- if you really want tattle fodder, maybe stick to the benighted Rogoff page.

Don't get me wrong- I also think <MissScarlett> is a silly bitch, but he's our silly bitch isn't he. A most valuable contributor to cg.com.

Speaking for myself, I think the world of her. I am not offended in the slightest by the comment you flagged. I am however slightly offended that you spammed the main page with your Karening.

<nokaren>

TBH, I find this post of yours to be much more offensive than the one you flagged from <MissScarlett>.

I find it disgusting. I also found it stimulating. I certainly wouldn't suggest to the site owner to give you a 48 hour ban for it

Here is hypocrite <nokaren> with his filthy innuendo (phwoarr well worth a look lads):

<nok: Dude, ratings a quarter century apart are not comparable. Also, stop sucking Carlsen's ---->

Someone had to do it, lest people think this behaviour is normalized. Back in the time of Annie, I wouldn't have had to - she'd take care of it. Also, if you think that's spam, you don't know what spam is - which is strange as examples abound.

<hypocrite <nokaren> with his filthy innuendo...>

It's not spam, advertising, duplicate, or a gibberish post. So it passes guideline number 2.

And as <MissScarlet> did not direct it at a member it doesn't fall under a vitriolic or systematic personal attack. Guideline number 3.

It doesn't violate a US law. Guideline number 4.

It cannot be construed as cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. Guideline 5.

Is it trolling? I don't think so, but this would be the only guideline the post in question comes even remotely close to touching. Guideline 6.

Is it a "sock puppet" account? Nope. That's guideline 7.

Recent movie conversation between two guys: "Bitch please, you've been to space." Sexist? Hardly.

<MissScarlet> may be a limey bastard* and right foul git at times, but I don't think he was using it in a sexist fashion either. More along the lines of a "complainer" (one of the various definitions). If he was hammering her about her sexuality and called her an immoral bitch, then maybe we are heading down that road.

I may have had a better case when I was referred to as <Dick Pipe>, but I get the British sense of humor and I wasn't offended by it.

Except Kosteniuk didn't complain - quite the opposite.

<Susan> heh...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, <jnpope> asks a serious question that I think should be addressed sooner rather than later: chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #37503)

Under your son's administration, we had a team of four who were editing and even re-writing some of the events in the History of the World Chess Championship .

That project was nowhere near half finished even when circumstances put a hold on it. The problem for editors now is that we have no access to the History of the World Chess Championship events, and many of them are still blighted by egregious errors.

When we were working on this with <Daniel>, <crawfb5> would take our edits and re-write them in one of the <html> languages, which is necessary for the events in this feature. We would then email the <html> final edit to <Daniel> and he would make the changes.

So what we would like, and what <jnpope> is asking for, is access to editing the History of the World Chess Championship again.

I believe <Stephen> would know exactly how to arrange matters on the technical side so we could resume editing the mistakes in what should be a "flagship" feature: History of the World Chess Championship .