Talk:David Williams (card game player)

Personal

Dating Summer Altice -former playboy playmate. It's covered on 'his own blog'. Once again censors here wont allow it because they don't think blogs are credible. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.73.155 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He isn't dating her. Sorry.

He was. You obviously are bias. Endorsers don't want the news that he did a porno either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.144.203 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Never said he didn't, I said he wasn't. Thanks bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.253.191 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why won't this stay here?

Everytime I write something here it's gone very soon, but I see no edit history. I want to add the Porno to David Williams' Wiki. I have tons of proof it was him, as is now generally accepted in the poker world.

The edit history is available at the top of the article page (not this talk page). Your last entry was reverted in part because it had the laughable assertion that your website broke this story a month ago when it has been common knowledge among Magic players since before his World Series finish, and among poker players since right after the 2004 WSOP. Adding an encyclopedic mention of the porn stuff is apropriate. Adding a reference to your website revealing something most people knew two years before you is not appropriate. 2005 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's because there are business and David Williams who are censoring the TRUTH.

Ok, I somewhat understand...

and I appologize for the vandalism to the page - it's most likely my users from NWP, and I have asked them in the forums to stop. Even though the under-under-underground, close to David or the Magic scene knew about it, maybe 2000 ppl actually knew it was him. NWP made it a big enough deal so that *everyone* knew about it - my site was certianly the medium that brought the information to 100's of thousands.

Either way, a mention of NWP is not what I'm after here. I want a sentance or two about the porn scandal. I believe and something should also be said about how Cardplayer / Bluff / Pokernews and the big poker media all had stories ready to go and they all shelved them due to "taste issues." Further more, the DVD, which I own, is no longer available for purchase - a few weeks after NWP re-broke the story. DW bought the master from Janet. Something, SOMETHING should be said about this. It is a very important part of an encyclopedic entry. I absolutely love Wikipedia, and I want it to be as complete & factual as possible.

Your assertion about how many people knew about this is just silly. Only newbies didn't know about it. It's been common knowledge in poker circles for two years. The video was on RGP for heaven's sake. This is very old news that has been common knowledge a long time, whether you knew about it or not. Also, your "taste issues" assertion is another type of thing the encyclopedia can't use. You (and no human) can know exactly why each one of those entities may or may not have shelved articles, so we don't go there. As I said, an encyclopedic couple sentences could be written, but it is certainly not important. It's a minor bit of old trivia. 2005 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor bit of old trivia?

The purpose of Wikipedia is that is should contain as close to "The Whole Story" as possible. The line should say something like this:

"on 7/28/2003 David Williams starred in "College Cock; Volume 8 "Tony's First Lesson." In April of 2006 the story the story traveled around the internet poker communities and shortly thereafter the title was no longer for sale."

The purpose of the Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, which is not the "whole story". Trivia like when someone gets up in the morning is "the whole story" but not encyclopedic. And yes this is extreme trivia to everybody but fourteen year olds. I added a line to the article, citing an early source. That is plenty. 2005 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly happy!

That is great! Citing the earliest reference is acceptable.

Kind of Off topic

I don't understand. How would Accumulated Knowledge be the best card to have at the begining.

Accumulated Knowledge

Who was it that said that Accumulated Knowledge was the best possible card for his starting hand? One or even two AKs against Van de Logt's RB deck would be marginal at best. They don't do anything against Plague Spitter or any of VdL's other threats.

Read any article on card advantage by Oscar Tan if you don't understand how important they were to the deck. Machine Man (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Still a student

Not sure how current the statement that he's a student of Economics at Southern Methodist University is. Anyone know for sure? Essexmutant 01:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits over the porn trivia item

I'll just put this down here on record. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV hold that there is a strict requirement that information on Wikipedia be verifiable and that it be presented in a neutral way. Presenting this as fact "codified by pictures" and declaring that it goes "beyond coincidence" or whatever it was that the text some editors keep reverting to says CLEARLY advances a point of view. Furthermore, the analysis of the pictures and the degree of resemblance between them and Williams represents the original research of one or two Wikipedia editors, which means that WP:NOR again prevents the text from being included. If a reputable third party publication were to make the declarations that one or two editors want to make in this article, then we could potentially include them, sourced to the reputable third party publication. In the meantime, the edits should and will continue to be reverted. Croctotheface 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

````What garbage. He did to the porn. And the people demanding it be taken off the page have an AGENDA. They are either business partners or David Williams who is trying to cover it up.

Include the information. Wikipedia is becoming more and more used for polics and spin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.118.35 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it up, please. Not only has this "news" about David Williams never been properly sourced, it isn't even interesting. Or relevant. Or encyclopedic. Plenty of people have already directed you to the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines. If you can properly source this information, using a RELIABLE source, then do so. Otherwise, leave it out. Either follow the sourcing guidelines, or don't post this mess. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

```` Every poker website is covering but we can't allow it posted here because Time,Washington Post and CNN didn't cover it. Suspicious to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.73.155 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is NPOV, I don't see any reason not to include it in the article. It is a substantial part of his identity within the Las Vegas community. Not for nothing is he known as the "Toe Monster" in the poker community. I included a link to a video of him on camera getting ready to perform in my most recent edit. Is that sufficient source of information? If it is in violation of Wikipedia policy, let me know. Machine Man (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• No. Please read the relevant policy, as this is beyond unacceptable. UnitAnode 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What a vague, evasive response. Could you please be a little more specific about what part of the policy it violates, if any? Thank you. Machine Man (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had read even the first few paragraphs of the link I provided, you would have noticed the following quote.

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

Pretty explicit, it would seem. UnitAnode 02:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Having read that article in its entirely, I fail to see how anything in my edit was sensationalist or titillating tabloid trash. While the policy is explicit, your response (and citation of its violation) is vague to non-existent. It seems you have some explaining to do. Best of luck with that.Machine Man (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources especially concerning biographies of living people. Forum threads never are reliable sources, and Williams denies this, even if that seems absurd to you and many others. This subject can't even be clearly discussed here because of the BLP policy, which to sum it up in another way is "Wikipedia doesn't want to be sued so it has some rigid policies about people articles." 2005 (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Williams also deny marking his Accumulated Knowledges? That's in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.88.206 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that forum discussions are proof of nothing whatsoever. Videotapes on the other hand are a different matter entirely. If I post a link to Williams actually performing sexual acts on camera in exchange for money, how is that not proof that he was indeed an amateur porn star? I understand it is hardly flattering and people sue over frivolous things but that seems besides the point. Machine Man (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's proof of nothing at all. Again, you need to look at the policies involved. They may be dumb policies, but that is what they are. The bottom line is if Williams denies something, it isn't going in the article. 2005 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Becuase this is embarassing doesn't mean that it is not true. It has been documented by sources including named authors. It is a noteworthy item and needs to be included. It is as noteworthy as much of the other material included on various pages. It should stay and it will stay one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.191.180 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This matter has been hashed out before and there does not appear to be anything new here. Although I agree that the "new" reference does state that it has been verified under the policies such extrodinary claims as these require "exceptional resources". Although I would agree that the reference to the article from Jenny Woo at gambling911.com is probably better than neverwinpoker.com it does not qualify as "extrodinary" at least in my view. I agree with JaeDyWolf's decision to remove. Absent new exceptional resources, hopefully this matter is done.Kanapapiki (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not reporters, and Wikipedia has strict rules on this. Williams denies it, which means nothing about it can be in the article, short of very reliable source offering definitive proof. (gambling911 is not a reliable source. They've reported Doyle Brunson to be dead... twice. It's never okay to use a site like that as a source, especially a living person article.) 2005 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Error with Seven Card Stud Hand

If what is true on the page Hoang would have won with a spade flush. Also, Williams hand is different on the WSOP Results page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_World_Series_of_Poker_Results#Event_10:_.241.2C500_7_Card_Stud What was the hand of both of them because if it like that than Hoang would have won the event.

• A spade flush requires five spades. This article claims he had three, don't get confused by the two clubs in his hand. Jay32183 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Quit censoring or get reported

Removing the porn scandal background is AGAINST wiki policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.118.35 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. If you want to write something trivial as his "porn scandal", do it within Wikipedia guidelines and write it in NPOV ton. Your attempted "edits" seems to be nothing more than 2 links to pages. One of which links to a forum and another that seems to be some random website that copy and pasted content from various other websites. Hardly a good source for "information" or a reputable source.

Mostly your edits are being reverted because they are unencyclopedic and not abidding by the Wikipedia standards for editing articles, See Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Strongsauce 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also do not "threaten" to report other editors for Wikipedia policy violations. If you feel that have violated some policy, first warn them on their userpage using tempates from the Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace before actually reporting them if they continue to violate said policy. Strongsauce 16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll continue to treat such edits as vandalism. the "references" are useless pages and reverting your edits are not censorship. Continue your edits and you'll end up blocked. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(Revising previous statement) Found a link. The story was posted in 2006 by a website that's proud of its "uncensored Poker news." Nevertheless, this has nothing to do his Poker career, so I'm not going to be changing my actions. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the big deal about linking the card?

I'm not sure what is "silly" about using Template:mtgcard for an mtg card. What else does the template exist to do? If there were an internal Accumulated Knowledge article, we would link to it. The template exists to help readers in precisely this way: they can click the link to see the card, which helps illustrate what the text is talking about. I see absolutely no reason I should be reverted and have my edits dismissed as "silly" because I'm trying to use this template. Croctotheface (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Strike one, according to the external links guideline, external links only should be in an infobox or an external links ection at the end of the article. Strike two, also per WP:EL you want to add a commercial link to a page overflowing with advertising. Strike three, external links should never be used to circumvent Wiki policy. If Accumulated Knowledge merited an article, then we would link to it. Since it does not, and external link is totally inappropriate. Red linking Accumulated Knowledge is fine, if it has not been afd'ed before, but an external link it to a commercial site directly violates guideline and also basic policy. Red link it if you want, but please do not add the external link again. Oh, and just because a template exists doesn't mean it should be used, is appropriate, or even acceptable ever. In this case, as the external links guideline makes cklear, thi template would only be appropriate to add to the exteranla links section of a Wikipedia Accumulated Knowledge article. THAT would make it appropriate. We don't add IMDb links anytime we mention Casablanca in the body tangential articles or Find a grave links when we type Marilyn Monroe. I'm apologize for saying silly, but again, external links do not go in the body of articles, especially when the external link would not meet the criteria to be an external link at the end of the article either (since it is not directly related to Williams). 2005 (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So then the template clearly has no merit and should be deleted, as there is basically never any appropriate use for it, correct? I think it's likely that no individual cards merit individual articles, and the most generous estimate would be 10-20 cards that could possibly merit one. There is clearly no need for a template to deal with 20 external links, so this template can only affect the project negatively, right? We should delete it immediately, then, right? Also, WP:EL uses "generally" language regarding links in the body of articles. It could certainly make a stronger recommendation against external links within the text, and I'd argue that this is a case where adding the link helps the readers enough to include it. Third, the "commercial" elements of this link are analogous to linking to CNN.com because it provides a transcript of one of its own shows. Fourth, the notion that this is somehow "circumventing WP policy" ascribes sinister motives to me where none exist. Finally, your condescending tone is neither constructive nor appreciated. Your "I"m apologize" statement would better off being saved for a time where you're actually sorry about something. Croctotheface (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The template does appear to have no merit, since 20 or so exceptions don't cry out for a template. Sure, you can always argue that whatever you are interested in should be an exception to guidelines, but obviously my removing the link is in line with the norm that the guideline describes. Then, the commercial element is not analogous to CNN. The page linked to has large, unrelated advertisments in addition to promoting the product itself. The guideline is again clear on both these points. Normally, pages with large amounts of irrelevant advertsing should not be linked; and secondly and separately, normally links that are just to product selling sites should not be linked. That site can be linked from the Magic article, but this is tangential to the product, so no external product link is called for. So again, I've listed several points based on guidelines that make the link inappopriate. (I didn't say or imply anything about sinister motivation, only that such circumvention is not appropriate.) 2005 (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that "circumvention" is itself sinister. CNN.com has lots and lots of advertising for "irrelevant" things. So, OK, lots of ads on CNN.com, so we shouldn't link their news articles? The idea that the Magic website is a "product selling site" is just false; you can't buy either the card in question (or any individual card) or sealed product at the game's website. It is involved in selling the products only as far as disseminating information about them would stimulate demand. So, OK, I take it you're going to nominate the template for deletion? Croctotheface (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It in now way violates WP:EL. It says "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; this applies to list articles as well. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox."[emphasis added] There is no commercial spam because because Gatherer is a datsbase that sells nothing. There is no circumvention of policy because the link does not serve to replace an article link, it serves as further reading. The further reading completely loses it meaning if linked out of context. Jay32183 (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually means just that. We have guidelines for a reason. There is no reason to make an exception for a page that is largely ads for netflix and classmates.com. We don't have external links in the body of articles for a reason. Additionally, the external links guideline says among the links to be avoided reasons: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article". This again directly prohibits this link. This article is about David Williams, NOT Accumulated Knowledge, so thus this link is inappropriate for this article (though it potentially could qualify as an external link fro an Accumulated Knowledge article if there was one). So, in several ways the guideline is clear that this link is inappropriate. 2005 (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually means that there are exceptions. The relevant portion is necessary for a complete understanding of the article. Your edit and everything you've stated indicates that the template should never be used. Stop singling out this one instance and take the template to TFD. "Directly related" and "about" do not mean the same thing. There is not one way in which the use fails the guideline and if it did this would be a reasonable exception allowed by WP:IAR. I'm well aware that IAR is not a free pass, but the link allows users to fully understand the article. Linking to the card is the only acceptable way for readers to understand William's suspension. Any other method raises copyright concerns. Also, a website having ads is not what link-spam is. We are not linking to an ad, we are linking to a page with an ad. If we can't link to pages with ads, then we basically can't have external links at all. Your reasoning is 100%, and I want you to take the template to TFD so you can see that. Jay32183 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there can be exceptions, but this violates the EL guideline in two clear, obvious, unquestionable ways: it is an external link in the body of the article; it is an external link NOT on the direct topic of the article. An exception might be made for something that violates WP:EL in one way, but two is just silliness. Also, saying linking to the card is the only way to understand Williams suspension is ridiculous. The link does NOTHING to explain it, and there are several articles online that talk about his suspension. This is not about the template, but a misuse of the template. As Strongsauce has mentioned below, what the article needs is a citation that helps a reader understand what the problem was. The page the template links to COULD be a citation, but there are better ones out there. Using the template though for an external link is clearly not appropriate. I'm switching it to a citation, and if someone wants to add a better one, fine, but this is the place for a cite, not an external link. 2005 (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The explanation you've given means there are zero acceptable uses for the template. Citation is less appropriate than a pure external link, because it is not a citation, it's further reading. We can't cite something as a source if we didn't use it as a source, that doesn't make any sense. The link is directly related to the topic. Not being David Williams and not being related to David Williams are entirely different. Also, your entire argument is based on circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy. You've basically stated that we can't make an exception to the guideline because this is the guideline. You've completely ignored the meaning behind the guideline and its relevance to this particular situation. You haven't given a real reason why this can't be an exception, nor have you said anything that indicates that you've understood what I've written. By the way, writing in all caps is yelling, italics are used for emphasis. I find it odd that some one who insists on following WP:EL without exception would take a personal exception from WP:MOS. You may say that the MOS only applies to articles, but using all caps is an internet-wide convention used for yelling. You wouldn't want people thinking you're barking orders rather than having a discussion would you. Jay32183 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to just want to be contrary now, just because I reverted an unhelpful edit of yours earlier. The template can be used just like an IMDb or Find a Grave one, on an article where it directly relates to the topic! I've listed the numerous reasons and showed you the guidelines the template is approriate. You respond with no logical reasons this should be an exception, except WP:ILIKEIT, and by reverting a proper citation to use an external link template instead, which is just disruptive. If you object to WP:EL or WP:V or WP:CITE, take it up there. And before you go down that road, yes you can WP:IAR, but your editing experience will be better if you familiarize yourself with and follow the several guidelines. 2005 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with all of those policies and guidelines. Web site citations require access dates and publisher info. "It provides a better depth of understanding when linked in context" is not an "I like it" argument. I'm not suggesting linking every card ever mentioned in an article this way. But {{mtgcard}} does not serve any purpose other than to link to Gatherer within the body of an article. It doesn't work the same way as external link templates used in external links sections. To what unhelpful edit are you referring? I don't recall an incident between us before and this did not begin with you reverting me. I honestly believe you are misapplying a guideline because you don't understand the distinction between "directly related" and "about". Including a link to the Metallica website from Lars Ulrich's page would be forbidden based on what you've claimed, because it isn't about him. In this situation it isn't a card that happened to be Accumulated Knowledge, it's Accumulated Knowledge. Not knowing the rules text and official rulings on the card prevents the reader from fully understanding this article. Including direct quotes would disrupt the prose and having a link out of context diminishes the meaning of the link, which is not true of most links. An IMDb link at the bottom of a page or in the infobox isn't any less meaningful than one included in the prose. In fact such a link would not fit into the normal flow of prose and would disrupt the readers' understanding. I have no objections to any of the policies or guidelines, only your personal interpretation of them, so there is no need for me to take anything up on those talk pages, because, as written, the current situation is allowed, it just isn't explicitly stated. Jay32183 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear you are not familar with the guidelines and polcies. You state "Web site citations require access dates and publisher info." That's false. Before anything else, first, Wikipedia:Citing sources/example_style. There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation style or system for Wikipedia. There is no consensus, period. Citations can be in one of several forms. There is no point going on here if you think you can make exeptions to any guideline you want, and then insist things that are not guidelines are. I'd suggest you do some reading since you have very mistaken ideas about guidelines. Happy editing. 2005 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have mistaken ideas about the guidelines. Web site references without accessdates and publisher info is enough to stop an article from becoming featured, so they're pretty required. The raw link is listed on the citation page because it is enough to prevent something from being deleted from the article. "Correctly formatted" and "good enough to not be deleted" are nowhere close to the same thing. They're about as different as "usually shouldn't" and "never can". Jay32183 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured? That has nothing to do with anything. They are not "pretty required". There millions of such cites in the encyclopedia. There is no consensus on proper style. And just so you can finish with dizzying circular logic, you can't have it both ways, the cite guidelines are "just a guideline" so according to you nobody has to obey them anyway. 2005 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My argument was never "just a guideline". That's not a sound argument, deviations require reasoning. Policies can have exceptions too. My point was that the guideline specifically says usually. That means we don't actually have to invoke WP:IAR, the guideline is written to include exceptions. I guess you didn't catch my hint that you have not seemed to understand the difference between "usually shouldn't" and "never can". "Usually shouldn't" specifically means "sometimes you can". There is never a good reason not to include an accessdate on a website citations. What reason would you have not to says when you accessed a website? And you never answered my previous question about what my "unhelpful" edit that you reverted was. Are you just attempting to invalidate my point by claiming I have a personal grudge against you. I don't operate that way. Sometimes I disagree with people, but that doesn't mean I'll contradict those people later for the sake of contradicting them. By the way, the goal of all articles is to become FAs. Ideally, the only real difference between a stub and an FA is comprehensiveness. "I'm not going to format the article because I haven't finished my research yet" doesn't make sense to me. It's a lot easier to format as you go than to go back later. I'm well aware that the ideal condition probably won't come to fruition, but that's no reason not to try. Jay32183 (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its a little silly to assume a card from MTG will get its own article. There are literally thousand and thousands of cards in the collection and almost none of them will ever become notable enough to get its own article. Just by reading the article one cannot tell what Accumulated Knowledge does. The article never explains how that card works. At the very least there needs to be a citation explaining what it is as well as a link to said card. That way it should satisfy 2005's objection to have the external link in the main article. And although I agree that the advertising is pretty obnoxious, having advertising never stopped people linking to CardPlayer, PokerNews, or Hendon Mob; all of which have several ads for playing on Poker/Gambling sites. Strongsauce (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also just because a template exists does not necessarily mean that it is an endorsement from Wikipedia for the contents of the template. Strongsauce (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A citation/reference to the card is perfectly sensible, though there are better links than the one being used... I've seen some articles explaining why the card is important, etc. 2005 (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There might be a case to be made for changing the template to, for instance, just link to an image of the card. More importantlty, though, I agree wholeheartedly with those who have said that without some kind of link, the readers won't know what Accumulated Knowledge is or does, and that the encyclopedia is better if it can educate the readers about that. Croctotheface (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, there are better pages on the Internet than the one linked to that explain the card, what Wiliams is said to have done, etc. The page linked to by the template is not as good for several reasons, but most obviously because it doesn't say anything about Williams. A citation is the proper format here, not an external link. This page could be cited in absence of someone finding a better one, so I'd encourage you to cite it instead of using the external link template which is improper form and confusing to readers. 2005 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that out of four editors who have commented here, you're alone in your opinion that using the link (rather than a citation) is bad. I have some sympathy to the notion that, for instance, the link could go to just the image of the card rather than the page with ads on it, but I don't think you'd be any more amenable to that option than to the current one. I certainly fail to see how the link is "confusing to readers." I think that readers will understand that the link is external (based on the different color and arrow) and that it probably has an image of the card. I can't imagine what else a reasonable reader would think is going on there. Croctotheface (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea regular readers can tell the difference between a wiki link and the external link is not a good one. It looks like a wiki link and is where wikilinks usually are. Two of the four editors commenting here don't think it is a very good link, but all this jabbering is a waste and I think you know it. The proper thing is a citation. Cite the ad heavy page.. or cite an image of the card.... or cite an article about Wialliams and the significance of Accumulated Knowledge. Whatever. All those are standard ways to do Wiki articles. Leaving that oddball external link template is non-standard, completely unneccessary and not as good as a cite. Honestly, a proper citation like 99.99999999% of articles could have saved a lot of typing. 2005 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to give the readers a lot more credit than that. I don't think the article is improved by sending readers to the foot of the page, and I think the current version is best. However, had you replaced the original link with an endnote instead of reverting me and insulting my edits, that "may have saved a lot of typing," too. Croctotheface (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Suffix

The title better suffixs "(poker player)" rather than "(card player)", although it seems poker is a card game, it's hard to say that a poker player is a "card player". I suppose it's also a little weird to call a Magic player a card player, making it less precise. So weird of that compromised name. David Williams is known as a poker player more than a Magic player. In the article it is also described that "his focus was mainly on poker", "he plays Magic to have fun, and poker to make money". So poker is his profession, we use the profession to suffix an article title about a person. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, after a while thinking I suppose "card game player" would be perfect. Poker and Magic are games. They not only play cards but the whole game. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Williams (card game player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/players/index.asp?sort=cashearned,
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707081047/http://www.pokerstarsblog.com:80/wsop/2010/wsop-diary-day-35-williams-and-selbst-si-070981.html to http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/wsop/2010/wsop-diary-day-35-williams-and-selbst-si-070981.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Williams (card game player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708074607/http://news.bluffmagazine.com/7171-7171/ to http://news.bluffmagazine.com/7171-7171/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311195106/http://www.texasholdemforums.com/interviews/david-williams.php to http://www.texasholdemforums.com/interviews/david-williams.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)