User talk:2005/Archive 1

Poker edits

I noticed your edits to various poker players. A few weeks ago I started writing about 40-50 new articles on poker players. Since establishing them I've started to go back and add more information as I do more in depth research. You may be interested in User:CryptoDerk/poker where I keep track of the articles, their progress, and miscellaneous information. CryptoDerk 00:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

You've been far and away the most prolific editor to the various contributions I've made. They've been excellent. Thanks.--Toms2866 02:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you rewriting some of those articles. 2005 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Career earnings

The career earnings are indeed subject to frequent change, despite being technically correct and relevant. I think I originally started doing it when I first started editing in the subject and noticed it on one of the pre-existing articles. For some (a very few) players there are "more accurate" counts than the Hendon Mob database. Probably what I'll do in the near future is go through the articles, select some "important" wins (WSOP or WPT titles, their largest money win) and just use those. I've already done this on some of the later and larger articles I've edited. Thanks for the input. CryptoDerk 22:38, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

WPT

Do you even watch World Poker Tour? If you watch the button during coverage, you'll see that it always proceeds around the table in a predictable fashion. If they cut ANY hands out, you'd know because the button would jump and skip around the table when they cut hands from the television coverage. In addition, you can watch the previous hand's winners stack their chips as they deal the next hand. WSOP cuts coverage, as many others do, but World Poker Tour shows almost every hand played. The proof is there if you watch closely. I know because I have five episodes on my TIVO, and I checked three of them last night. Unfocused 11:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

1) I sat at the Commerce event season 2. It lasted NINE hours. 2) It is common for the show to have the same person having the button three hands in a row. 3) If you bothered to do ANY research on this you will find reports on websites like pokerpages that show events laste 52 or 90 or whatever amount of hands. 4) It's just plain insane to think a million dollar event is decided in 15 hands! 5) Your ludicrous, off-topic, hopelessly uniformed fiction has been reverted several times. Stop posting this foolishness. 2005 21:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, and (6) the most common hand in a No Limit event is one person raises the blinds and everyone folds. You actually think this virtually never happens at the WPT?? Anyway, none of this matters as you are obviously objectively wrong. Count the hands shown, then read the reports on the events. Occasionally some final tables were fairly short, like the first Pokerstars cruise, so a higher percentage of hands were shown, but for the most part these are normal tournaments and they take several hours like normal tournaments do. 2005 22:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you hadn't started off rude, we probably could have reached compromise wording sooner. I checked the other two episodes on the TIVO, and the play was much weaker on those episodes. Overall, the earlier parts of most shows appear to be edited around 60%, but after two players are eliminated, coverage of hands played jumps to between 80% and 95%. However, that wasn't the point to be made about poker coverage: the point is how the style of coverage differs between the three most popular versions of television shows. I've reworded to reflect this, rather than our rather pointless edit war over how many hands are covered. All things considered, I was more wrong than right, but you were rude in your objections, so I didn't really take them seriously. That's a fault of mine. Unfocused 03:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your last edit summary that "WPT doesn't show more" (paraphrased). Actually, since ESPN's WSOP final day of coverage of each event frequently begins with more than one table left, WPT actually does cover more final table action almost all of the time. I'm not going to bother to edit that in right now, but I think it is notable as WPT's somewhat unique (although not overly ingenious) coverage style. Unfocused 06:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It's just not true at all, in more ways than one. The WPT shows about 75 minutes of a tournament. ESPN shows hours of the earlier rounds, but also last time devoted two two-hour programs to the final table -- twice as much as the WPT. Of course the WSOP coverage starts at a final table of nine instead of six, but in any case the issue is extreme minutae, as they show approximately the same amount of hands in a two hour program; and of course we have no way of knowing how much time ESPN will give the final table this time around. It went over 16 hours so who knows how much they will show. 2005 07:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I won't waste any more time disagreeing over what is certainly statistical trivia. I assume we've found agreeable language so far regarding different styles of television coverage. Unfocused 03:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Links

I'm curious what your objection was to my 2+2 link on Poker. I consider their forum one of the two canonical sources for poker discussion. What's the problem with them?PhilipR 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

After reading your comments in the Talk page, AFAICT this falls in the category of quality links that would nevertheless start a slippery slope downward. Fine, I can understand that. I guess it just seems a bit odd to cite RPG but not 2+2, when in my mind they stand out far and away as the best two sources of poker discussion.

It might be good to explain your policy in a comment so that newbie editors like me don't run afoul of it. Granted, due diligence probably involves reading the Talk page before editing, but we newbies don't know what's due diligence! PhilipR 15:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad you noticed the Discussion page. There could be at least a couple dozen quality links there, but if 2+2 is linked, why not Cardplayer, or thepokerforum.com, etc. The answer is, each of those, including 2+2 is linked in the other two Google/Yahoo links. I suppose a comment link would be a good idea now that no other discussion occured about the issue. 2005 18:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Omaha

You reverted all of my edits to the Omaha page. What gives? You want to keep the page poorly written, inaccurate, and uninformative? Allstreetbluff 12:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Your anonymous contribution was a major change that had several factual errors and POV statements. Now that you have a login perhaps you can make changes in a more incremental way where it is easier to deal with individual items. 2005 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That article does not need incremental changes, it needs wholesale rewriting. And with respect, my contribution did not have factual errors. The article as written, on the other hand, had many. In my latest edit I have tried to cut down on anything too "opiniony." If you have any objections to the facts or substance, please address them in the usual manner. Reverting to the original garbage is doing a serious disservice to the article, particularly when I'm willing to put a little time in to make it better. Allstreetbluff 01:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please put further comments on the article page. I've removed the factual errors, while leaving in the bulk of your edit. Again, now that you are logged in the larger changes are appropriate as opposed to large changes with significant POV from an anonymous user. 2005 01:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

SPAM removal

You have removed my external link on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_solitaire without discussing it with me. The International Solitaire Ranking website is a non-commercial site supporting over 500 user rankings from 80+ countries. It is more relevant than the commercial sites listed in the External Links section. Since those commercial sites listed are trying to sell software, they are certainly more spam-like than my link. Admcconnachie, 27 May 2006

The commerciality of a link isn't the key aspect of its inclusion. It's value is. In your case you top spammed a link more than once Wikipedia:Spam. That will often just get a link removed in principal if only because it is rude. Second, unlike the software ones your link adds nothing to the article. Lists of names relevant to 500 people certainly have no business being in an encyclopedia article. Finally, the link is a more general solitaire one, not even specific to spider solitaire. 2005 19:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The most popular version of Spider Solitaire is the Windows version simply because it comes free with newer versions of Microsoft Windows. Anyone who plays Spider eventually wonders what the highest possible score is. The link I provided answers this question thoroughly. Thus, it is highly relevant to all Windows Spider players. In fact, half of the International Solitaire Rankings website is dedicated to Spider. I read the article on Wiki Spam you mentioned above. The reason I replace the link was that I thought you had deleted it by accident when you separated the External Links from the See Also. It was not to start a war with you. If you take a look at the website, you'll see that I am ranked 4th in the world in Spider. Although I have corrected hundreds of spelling and grammar mistakes on Wiki over the years, I only add content to articles in which I have a great deal of expertise. I intend to greatly expand the Spider article, but am hesitant to do so if you are only going to delete my content without friendly collaboration. I would like to replace the link. I have read the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution page and would like to know if you would reconsider the link due to the value I mentioned or do we need to get other opinions? Thanks for your time. Admcconnachie, 28 May 2006

I have no problem with you adding content to the article. I have no problem with you putting up external links that add to the article. However, you even say only half of the link you added is even on topic. There isn't even a page on the site really devoted to the topic. All that is there is a list of scores. If you want to replace the link, and label it properly as a list of game scores, fine, and if no one else removes it as trivial, that's fine too. 2005 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I will label it more clearly. Thanks again for your input. If you disagree with any of my future content, please let me know on my Talk page. I'm always willing to improve Wikipedia. Admcconnachie 01:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bingo

The dictionary I added was well-researched and is probably the most comprehensive online. The content is good and I am not linking to the main page of any gambling site, and most of those external links are. The link you substituted only has caller slang and not a full jargon dictionary. --- FeldBum 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not add links to sites that just stole content from other sites. Link to the original source or don't link. 2005 21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This a compilation of data from various sites and original data! The link I have provided has 154 definitions of bingo terms. The link you substituted has 10. Please look at the site linked before deleting --- FeldBum 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Build something original and have it be judged on its merits if you want, but do not spam your site with copied/stolen/"compiled" content. I have looked at the site, and you even admit it is not original content. Do not add low content, unoriginal links to the encyclopedia, and certainly do not again call a copied site a "source". 2005 22:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary on this site was built as the most complete bingo dictionary online. It has more calls and more slang than any other site. Obviously, not every definition was completely written from scratch, but many were. Forget it, though. This won't go anywhere without mediation. I won't add that link, but I will continue to improve the page about bingo. Also: did you just call CasinoCity a deceptive, low quality link? They've been independently ranking casinos, both online and offline, since 1995. They single-handedly made it legal to advertise online casinos in the U.S. in a famous Supreme Court Case. http://www.casinocity.com/About.cfm --- FeldBum 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You added the Casino City link as I was in the middle of editing the page. yes, it is far higher quality than the ones I removed. I believe though with the dmoz link that it becomes redundant as that links to both online sites, and bingo halls throughout the world. As for the dictionary, make a totally original one that is better than any out there and it would be a fine link to add here. A problem you will have though is the ridiculous adding of it to the Internet slang page makes it look like a totally spammy entry. Again, make something wholly original that adds to the article, and that would be a good link to add. 2005 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll work on the dictionaries before they are resubmitted anywhere. I would still push for CasinoCity back in the External Links. DMOZ has a handful of varied bingo sites. CasinoCity has a complete, ranked list (it's their job, after all) of all online and offline bingo halls. --- FeldBum 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Going South and Ratholing

Stop reverting the definition of going south on the poker jargon page... You are wrong, and if you disagree, discuss it on the talk page. - Abscissa 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit topics you don't know about. Going south and ratholing are common terms, and the rules are very clear in all the largest public cardrooms and especially online where it is not even possible to do because it is illegal. See talk page but for here one link is enough. http://www.pokernews.com/pokerterms/ratholing.html 2005 07:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Whichpoker

I saw your edit sommary and comments and edit conflicted with you removing the link from the other page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. You must have misread something. 2005 20:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link from PartyGaming earlier, then thought better of it and restored it. When I saw you removing it from Online poker and your comments on the talk page, I went to remove it from PartyGaming again, but you beat me to it by seconds. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. :) 2005 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, 2005 where have you been? I'm having to argue about our online poker stats with a guy who doesn’t know anything about the industry. At least your arguments where poker related! Whichpoker 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gambling

"rv"? Care to elaborate? Last time I checked such comments were reserved for vandalism. 82.92.119.11 10:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"rv" means revert. "rvv" means revert vandalism. Your anonymous, significant but non-justified edit was reverted like any other would be. It doesn't become vandalism until you persist in edits of such type. 2005 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

{{TOCright}} is a template that should be reserved for articles that cannot reasonably be layed out any other way (for example, list of open source software packages). By default the table of contents is non-floating and on the left, with good reason. If this needed to be changed a global change would be appropriate.

The present revision of gambling uses {{TOCright}} because the introduction paragraph is far too long. Trying to cram a point-based definition in one paragraph is overkill; a separate section serves the purpose better. Wikipedia:Lead section recommends that the section be accessible, and that it should avoid overly technical information not immediately necessary for understanding the article.

Do you disagree? 82.92.119.11 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is it stated that TOCright "should be reserved for articles that cannot reasonably be layed out any other way"? Besides that though, disagree with what? TOCright is obviously appropriate for the article and you say so yourself. 2005 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is it stated that TOCright "should be reserved for articles that cannot reasonably be layed out any other way"? It's not. It's an opinion, or rather, a guideline. If TOCright is needed, then a good look at the lead section is necessary to see whether it really justifies moving the TOC around.

TOCright is obviously appropriate for the article and you say so yourself. Then it is peculiar, is it not, that my edits removed it. I haven't started contradicting myself just yet, though. My point was that the article's use of {{TOCright}} is completely gratuitous, because the lead section is of poor quality. I made two different edits illustrating a different way of organizing the sections that did not require layout tricks to be readable. From your response I surmise that you could either not care less or are in no mood for convincing. We no doubt both have more important things to do; I'll leave you and the article be. 82.92.119.11 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

This edit was extremely inappropriate. Danny is a Wikimedia Foundation employee, and his edit is certainly not "vandalism". Do not revert him again; he has reasons for what he does that may not necessarily be public. --Cyde Weys 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking is never appropriate. The article is also quite obviously legitimate as it is an article about a 100 million plus company, and is stated onjectively. While I agree I should not have changed the heading to vandalization, blocking me from editing is completely uncalled for. Please undo this immediately. 2005 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking is often appropriate. Wikipedia is not intended for advertising purposes, nor is it intended to increase your Google rank. That was clearly corporate spam. Danny 01:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be appropriate for a wikipedia foundation employee, but not a regular user, and even a Wikipedia employee should have had the courtesy to say they were a wikipedia employee and not just get me block from editing. Secondly, your contention that it is spam makes no sense. The article surely could be better or less "nice" to them, but there is absolutely no way a large business like this does not merit an article. Yes, Bodog employees tried to spam the hell out of it, but if you look at the notes you'll see that I and others have removed the blatant spam. The fact of the matter is that they do have a record label, and mentioning the artists is completely sensible. Please edit the article instead of blanking it. I would edit it again to remove the "calvin is so nice" stuff, but no doubt that would get me blocked again. The bottom line is the Wikipedia should have at least a minimal article on this billion dollar company. It makes no sense whatsoever to not have one, let alone a blank page. 2005 01:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wsa surprised to find Danny's user page had no mention of his role at the Foundation on it, so I re-read WP:OFFICE and saw the following:

Danny has stated that he'll use a separate account, User:Dannyisme, when acting in his offical capacity.

Danny blanked the article from his normal account, so there was no way for a user who hadn't read WP:OFFICE to know that he's involved with legal issues. In the circumstances, blocking 2005 was completely inappropriate - it looked like vandalism and the one-word edit summary didn't help. Please don't be so quick to block people in future, it's not as if 2005 was following Danny around reverting his edits or anything so there was no need to act so hastily. CTOAGN (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I got unblocked fairly quickly, but that whole business going on over there is being handled badly and just plain strangely. 2005 01:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Card shark and Card sharp ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The terms do mean completely different things. 2005 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a shark uses game superior knowledge, and a sharp cheats? --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a shark is a good player. A shark feeds on "fish". A sharp is a cheat or a card mechanic. 2005 01:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Compulsive gambling External links

I'm not in the habit of making "nonsense edits". To wit:

• Gamblers Anonymous -- is a commercial site, selling its services online.
• Gambler's Help Southern - Australia -- has no useful content that I could find (correct me if I'm wrong)
• GamblingHelper.com -- online forum: see WP:EL
• The Psychology of Gambling -- this one is almost obscene, given the context. Did you look at it? "Recommended Online Casino Gambling Sites"? Great!

Please let me know if you think I'm missing something. Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All those are valid on topic links. Your edit labeled them as spam, which is nonsense. Some may or may not be strong enough, but none are spam. Please don't mislabel edits like that. The commerciality of gamblersanonymous is irrelevant. It's the quality of the content. Please read WP:EL. Gambler's Help has a ton of internal content, thousands of pages. Gamblinghelper is a forum, and a case could be made to not link to it, as could a case to link to it. It isn't plainly obviously valuable so deleting it is fine by me. There is nothing "obscene" about the gamblingphd link. Please look at resources before doing something like removing them. In this case it is fully on topic, quality article. Howvere it is only a single page so with gamblers anonymous and gambler's help covering the top much more extensively, it too can be removed. Again, please don't mislabel edits in the future, especially in this area. "Weak quality" does not equal "spam". 2005 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, granted, "spam" is not an accurate tag for all of the sites-- I have slid into the habit of using the term as shorthand for unneeded link, and I apologise for the misuse of the term. But I maintain that the two sites you have again restored have problems. WP:EL could be boiled down to saying that links should be added only if they have valuable information that does not belong in the article itself and if they are not trying to sell something.

I fail to see what contents the Gamblers Annonymous site has that doesn't belong in Wikipedia's article. If there is such content, I would appreciate you pointing it out to me. Note, too, that there is commercial content on this site storesense.megawebservers.com/HS319/StoreFront.bok though that is not the primary point to my objection.

Likewise with Gamblers' Help. I have made an effort to find content on this site which is of value to the subject that does not belong in our article, and I just don't see it. If its there, please point it out to me.

I'm really not out to prove a point or to lessen the quality of this article. I think it is fair to say that there are far too many external links on far too many of our articles. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a directory.

I will, however, grant that, as this article is pretty brief at present, some leeway is probably warranted regarding the "information that does not belong in the article itself" standard. I would urge you to improve the article to the point where these two links are indeed entirely unneccessary, or to find better links to replace them.

Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris Moneymaker Autobiography Link

Hello 2005,

I'm just following up on the possible addition of the Chris Moneymaker autobiography review as an external link. Although your first opinion was that it shouldn't be added because it is not about Moneymaker and more about his autobiography, I would argue that the way an autobiography is written tells a lot about the subject. GraemeL is deferring to your judgement in this case. As I explained to him, the review is not likely to produce a great amount of book sales, but it will broaden the information about the subject of Chris Moneymaker. I don't know if you actually looked at the review, but if you haven't you can read it here: xhttp://www.readybetgo.com/book-reviews/review-320.html. I await your reply.MichaelOpton 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you are looking for here. The article is about Moneymaker, not the book. the book is relevant to Moneymaker but one step removed. Comments in the review like "A strategy guide, Moneymaker is not" of course are beyond trivia in terms of the article. The review is both brief and not edge-of-your-pants stuff. Most obviously though there is no way the link to your site will be added. If the review merits adding, we would add the original from Christenson's site. Separate of this, your site has some good content, but please stop adding reprints to the articles. Those are never okay. If available, the original source should be cited or linked, never a copy. 2005 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultimatebet.com

I appreciate your work on the Wikipedia poker project, but I strongly believe reverting my wikification of Excapsa Software is unjustified. As a publicly-traded company, Excapsa should have its own article, per WP:CORP. It was recently named in Canadian Business magazine's Tech 100 for 2006. It isn't my intent to get into an edit war, so I leave it to you to reconsider. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to take a wider view of the issue, and not just look at this in isolation. All the online gambling sites have a similar style, which to simplify it is: one article. We don't make articles for Part Poker, Party Casino, Party Bingo, Party backgammon, etc. We make one Party Gaming article. If you want, make an Excapsa article, but take the Ultimate Bet content and place it in that article, and redirect the Ultimate bet article to the new Excapsa one. Okay? I hope you can accept that this one company should not be treated diferent than others. So, there is no way there should be an Excapsa link within the UB article, because that would be self-referecing. Right now I'd say having the article located at the UB location it is now is preferable, but if you wanted to move it, that would be fine. I'm putting in a redirect from Excapsa to UB right now, but if you want to reverse that (now or in the future when Excapsa becomes a more prominent entity even) that would be fine. (One other thing, your User profile is listed in categories. You need to remove those. User profiles should never be linked to the main wiki categories.) 2005 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's a workable alternative. WRT my user profile and categories ... I'll defer that to the Userbox experts. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Keno

I know this is not your doing, but according to the Keno article:" Keno, in its modern form, is like a lottery or bingo in that it is a numbers game. Unlike bingo, the keno player picks the numbers for his or her ticket(s). Keno cards have 80 numbers; the keno player can pick as many (or as few) numbers as desired." I ask you because I know you as a user with experience within casinos and you love to be right:

I have never played Keno in my life and don't intend to start (is there any game with a higher house advantage?), but I am fairly sure that you cannot pick as many numbers as you want. I am fairly sure the limit is around 15 or maybe at the most 20(you can, however, pick fewer). Would you care to comment? - Abscissa 16:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never played keno in my life, so I would only know the answer by looking it up somewhere. I know you can buy multiple tickets, but I don't know if there is a minimum or maximum per ticket. A Google search should turn up the answer tho. 2005 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Blackjack edit

I added a link (removed) in the blackjack article as well as on the blackjack discussion page. I am wondering why you want to remove that link? I can't see how you can call this suggestion 'Link SPAM' - is the blackjack article not there to add the most value for the users of wikipedia ? Please accept my appologies if I have misunderstood something - I don't want to start a fight I just don't get it, so I would appreciate if you could explaine the decition to me?

Adding a link to the discussion page is not appropriate. It could be useful on the article, I don't know, but dropping a link in multiple places will usually get it removed from everywhere. The wikipedia is not here to promote your website. If you have something useful to contribute to articles, please do. 2005 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about adding a link to the discussion page I was not aware that it was not appropriate. I have tried adding it again in the hope that it will be accepted as a usefull contribution to the article. Thanks for the help.

Stanford Wong Interview

2005, how are you?

I was thinking about posting this Interview with Stanford Wong on the Stanford Wong page, but thought I'd run it by you first. Take a look and let me know if it would be alright to post in the external links. xhttp://www.readybetgo.com/blackjack/strategy/stanford-wong-1178.html MichaelOpton 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As always, if you want to post xhttp://www.kasinocentralen.nu/artiklar.asp?id=29 that might be fine, but please don't post links that just copy something else. 2005 01:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're a good detective. I didn't even know this original source existed on this site. I'm curious to your thoughts about linking to the original source where the context is in Swedish versus to the link I advocate where the context is English and there is a complete collection of Robert Lux interviews with professional blackjack players. My point is that even though the purist approach is all fine and good, the pratice in this case leaves the reader less well-served when it comes to a more complete picture of the world of professional blackjack which includes Stanford Wong.MichaelOpton 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We aren't a link directory, and you need to get a better appreciation of that. Links can be valuable sometimes, but they are a low priority. The accuracy and authority of links requires originals be used if they exist, so there isn't anything to talk about there. 2005 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WPT

You keep insisting on adding the claim that it's illegal to have broadcast feeds in a gaming area, without any evidence that this is true. Unfocused 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the rest of the nonsense since you have no idea what are you talking about. I haven't made any such edits. I reverted your uncited and inaccurate edit that changed "most" to "some". In the future I suggest you pay attention to who you are addressing and what you are doing before making bizarre comments. 2005 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Look in the mirror, bud, you'll see who had no idea what they were doing. You're the one who reinserted as "fact" that gaming laws prohibit broadcast feeds, without adding any of the requested supporting citation. Perhaps you should pay attention to what you insert back into the articles rather than reverting blindly... Take a look back at what YOU did. YOU put in that garbage the WPT venues are prohibited by state regulations to allow camera feeds inside a gaming area as if it were fact after I changed it to an assertion needing citation. Unfocused 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your non-cited, assertive edit. The burden is on you to justify your claims, not the other way around. Now you have readded again more of your obsessive trivia, still without any citation. What on Earth this has to do with state regulations is exactly nothing. I'm not going to add a citation needed to your latest bit of fantasy, nor remove it since it is so trivial that its just waste of time to even think about. If however you try to make it even more nonsensical again, it will be removed. 2005 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be reading a different article. I was reducing the claim that camera feeds are illegal because, quite frankly, I don't believe it and won't believe it without a reference. That's why I asked for a reference in the text, and why I watered down the claims of illegality from a statement of fact to an assertion. You reverted me when I did that, restoring the claim that it is a fact that camera feeds are illegal. At this point, you don't even know the contents of your own reverts! It was my intention to prod the original poster of this information to find a reference to an actual law somewhere, or remove the claim later, but without removing other production details.

Re: production details. WPT is first, foremost, and above all a television broadcast. Production details are proper encyclopedic content for television show as much as the event itself. It seems to me that you're not interested in the TV production portion of the article, while I'd like to see it expanded and referenced, and that's fine with me, but it's still incumbent on you to know what you're reverting when you edit the article. Unfocused 08:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what I reverted. You made improper edits. Some partial bit of the edit may have made sense, but that is for you to correct. That is your edit. Mine simply corrected your misleading information. Production details should be referenced like anything else, and your assertions do not belong in the article, especially given your very inaccurate assertions previously. I don't know if it will make any difference, but please do not add other unsourced, inaccurate material because it will just be removed. 2005 08:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert my removal and de-empahsizing of inaccurate, uncited information again. Had you instead further corrected my edit to be even more correct, we'd have no disagreement, but instead, you insisted on reverting back to a version that was clearly and obviously wrong. You put the unsourced, inaccurate material directly back into the article instead of making a constructive edit. Please don't do that again, otherwise it will just be removed again.

Unfortunately unlike myself, you seem incapable of admitting when you are wrong. If you keep pretending like you're incapable of error, you're certain to draw frustration to yourself, especially if you take the childish and incorrect attitude that once someone makes a mistake they can't possibly be right again. I've admitted prior error and apologized. Get over it already. Unfocused 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit this time was in the same vein as the previous mistaken edits. That is why it was reverted. If you wanted instead to change something involving whatever else it is you are talking about, the responsibility to do that is yours, not mine or anybody elses. I have no opinion on the issue you seem to care about. I merely corrected your error, which was consistent with the thrust of your previous error. Instead of reverting next time, you should at the very least split your edits of unrelated material, so as to not make work for others if in fact you add one thing that is a good (or another editor cares not about) but also add other content that is wrong or at least something another editor finds fault in. That way you won't be expecting other editors to sort it out, and one specific edit could be more easily reverted. 2005 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"We just wing everything. We have no scripts, we have nothing, I mean honestly, that's the truth. A little secret for your viewers now. But in truth, any time players are looking at their down cards we can't see those down cards while we're sitting in the booth. We actually go back to post, and edit, and do the show all over again where we can see the cards, and just like we're seeing it for the first time. But it's against gaming regulations for us to be allowed to see the cards while the event is happening live. They way they mix it up and put it all together on the World Poker Tour it looks like it's happening on the spot." - Mike Sexton in "Holdem & Foldem: The World of Poker" mini documentary. - Abscissa 23:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think confusion arose because someone, I think User:Unfocused, inferred that because it is illegal to have video feeds inside gaming areas that such legilsation must have been passed after "hole card cameras" were developed. i.e., it would therefore be absurd to believe that a legislature would create laws based on hole card cameras. However, this quote demonstrates that the original version of that part of the article (which I had written) is in fact correct, I just don't know how to cite that properly, but I copied that quote onto the talk page and onto Unfocused's talk page as well as here, but I don't think he's contributing to Wikipedia anymore. But really, it is a matter of common sense, if you even try to put a purse on a roulette table you will be asked to remove it within seconds... - Abscissa 04:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is not a web source, cite it based on what you can find in WP:CITE. 2005 05:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this was the same person who thought they showed the "WPT" shows unedited (ie they show every hand)... - Abscissa 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam?

Hi, I noticed you removed 2 Amazon links from Super/System, but left the external link to Cardoza Publishing. I generally don't like having external links to commercial sites, but I think the amazon links do contain some useful information (scroll down, there are lots of online reviews there which might be interesting to anyone). So I think these links should stay. Thoughts? --Zoz (t) 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a way to link to ISBN numbers which doesn't favor one seller over another. Cardoza is the publisher so that aims people where they can buy the book. The Amazon links are far weaker than a lot of external reviews that could be linked to. And, Amazon links could be tampered with to add somebody's tracking code which just invites pain in the butt monitoring. So, no, I don't think linking to Amazon is appropriate here. 2005 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added a link to a review then. --Zoz (t) 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Big Game

I created a stub on the Big Game some time ago. I know the betting limit per hand is $100,000 (for various reasons, unless the cap is taken off for some reason--which it is on occasion), but the article has since been changed to suggest that the the blinds "are now regularly played at levels of $4000 and $8000". Is it just me, or does it seem absurd that a NLHE game, for example, would have an $8000 BB but no player can bet more than $100,000? That is even a stretch for a limit game. It looks like some TV poker fan came along and inserted a bunch of fan-based fantasy nonsense. A $500,000 buy-in is insanely high as well--I very seriously doubt that number. Many of these top TV star players are rich but they aren't THAT rich. In any event I ask for your thoughts on this matter since I know you take an interest in gambling an especially poker articles. - Abscissa 04:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Big Game is normally limit poker, and normally mixed games of some kind. I don't know about the buyin, although an absurdly high buyin does prevent "tourist" type players who sit for one round, or just play to try and chop the game and run by winning one hand. 2005 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From Cardplayer Magazine: "This is the home of the "big game," which regularly runs at $2,000-$4,000 and is often kicked up to $4,000-$8,000. The mixed game includes rounds of limit deuce-to-seven triple-draw, pot-limit Omaha, Omaha eight-or-better, hold'em, stud, and stud eight-or-better. For games such as pot-limit Omaha, no-limit hold'em, and no-limit deuce-to-seven single-draw lowball, a $100,000 cap on the betting is in place (you can lose "only" a maximum of $100,000 on any given hand). The average buy-in is between $200,000 and $300,000, but anyone can pull up a chair with poker's elite for the table minimum of $80,000." [1] Now that makes a bit more sense-- in fact it was exactly what the article was before those silly poker fanboi edits. And, BTW, I'm sure it's not a huge problem that the 9% of LV tourists who gamble buy in for the table minimum, post, play one hand, and run off. My experience is that they're busy in front of the $0.05 slot machines and they don't even know how to play the table games. - Abscissa 06:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you add that as a citation to the article, that should keep it from most problems in the future. 2005 07:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this should be included in the article: "Regular players in the Big Game include Harman, Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, Phil Ivey, Minh Ly, Chip Reese, Todd Brunson, Howard Lederer, Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein and Gus Hansen." Somone keeps adding it. - Abscissa 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I don't see it as helpful, and confusing since obviously eleven people aren't playing regularly at a nine handed table, and because other people are regulars. I'd be glad to see it removed. 2005 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone is intent on having it in the article. I have removed it at least twice already since I agree it doesn't belong... - Abscissa 07:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it again, and also moved your article citations inline. 2005 07:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT warning.

Do not continue to delete references to Template:Unverifiable-external-links. The TfD failed, both times. Circumventing this process by deleting references to it as you find them is a violation of WP:POINT and may be interperated as vandalism. --Barberio 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The template is not appropriate for any articles, and should freely be removed from any it is added to. Just because it was not tfd'ed doesn't mean you can add it to articles. You are violating WP:POINT in doing so. Also, do not make offensive and inappropriate additions to talk pages as they will be removed. 2005 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I agree that my update for Microgaming was probably a little too promotional, so have revised accordingly. I made the ammends because a number of points were inaccurate - inc. Prima (this no longer exists as a brand) and Monte Carlo Millions - this no longer runs. The other information added is factually correct and I believe relevant - powering 160 casino + poker rooms and the largest progressive in terms of payouts ($200m+). I hope you find this to your satisfaction.

Before making more edits, you should familarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and editing. Your last edits removed all the internal Wikipedia links, and offered little benefit to the encyclopedia. The article is not there to promote your company. It's there to tell someone about the comapny who wants to know, with internal links to all the related content. 2005 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Website Links

1) Links: This is our official poker website URL and we should be able to list our products as separated websites and not only the "official site". Which by the way is a completely wrong way of labeling the www.ladbrokes.com address since this is used only to promote the Sports Betting side of our business. We have "official sites" for each of our products. Poker, Casino and Games.

2) Logo: I think is pretty obvious that the Logo displayed at the page is NOT the Ladbrokes PLC logo. That is the Ladbrokes.com logo which is only an arm of the Ladbrokes PLC group. Could you please check www.ladbrokesplc.com/ to see the official PLC brand. Thanks in advance.

First, it normally isn't appropriate for a company employee to make edits to an article about your company except to make obvious corrections of errors. Second, your company will not be treated differently than all the other similar ones. Your various products are all accessible via the official site so there is no reson to link to a lot of subdomains. We aren't here to promote your site, and in fact couldn't care less how you promote your products. The William Hill page has been fixed. Again, your site won't be given special treatment. It gets linked like all the similar companies, in this case to the gambling site from which all games are accessible, another gambling site (Vernons), and the corporate site. Regarding the logo, change that to whatever is accurate if you want. 2005 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Online Poker Guide

Hi 2005, I was interested in knowing your thoughts on the www.cardschat.com/poker/guide/ why it wouldn't be suitable for a listing in the resources section of the online poker article.

There are plenty such things. The article links to dmoz which offers plenty external sites to check out. 2005 21:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

Just a note about Wikipedia talk:External links, my comment that "criticisms cite spam worries for a reason" was about overall criticism, not just about "high quality". I'd rather not get into a meta-discussion about who said what, but I figured you could use an explanation. Feel free to comment on my Talk page if you have any questions about my comments. That's what it's there for. Fagstein 19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page editing

Hi! I see from your talk page history that you've removed posts from some commenters. Reading the history, it looks like you're deleteing ones that you find objectionable in tone. Although I sympathize, some people could interpret that at sweeping issues under the rug. If you really can't stand seeing certain things on your talk page, perhaps you could replace the bits you don't like with summaries? E.g. "[expletives removed]" or "[JSmith heatedly asks why I removed certain external links on George Washington.]" That preserves the fact of the comment (and, if you're careful, the substance) without exposing yourself to accusations like the one now posted on my talk page. Thanks, William Pietri 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's always appropriate to remove rants, insults, vandalism, personal attacks and also extreme trivia from user talk pages. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:User page. 2005 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's appropriate to remove those things. However, I don't think The removed comment was entirely that. Further, removing it made the situation worse. Again, I suggest that editing to remove objectionable content while preserving the meat is a better option. Would you consider trying that in the future? Thanks, William Pietri 23:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments on article talk pages

Hi. In this edit [2] you edited my comment on Talk:Euchre. That's almost never appropriate, and I believe it's completely inappropriate in this case. I ask you to never do that again. I also ask you to leave this comment on your talk page until you move it to an archive page in the normal process of archiving. Thanks, William Pietri 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You refered to something that didn't exist. I noted that I made the change, but I suppose I should have asked tou to remove it instead since it was not appropriate for it to be there. I'd encourage you in the future to not link to rants or other offensive material on user pages since they will normally be removed. 2005 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If I made a mistake in my comments, it's mine to make. As Clair points out, what you did is clearly unacceptable. Please don't do it again. William Pietri 23:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming?

Hi, I've been working on the page about Arbitrage_betting, among other things i've included links concerning sport bonus arbitraging. You 've removed these links [[3]], probably because you felt that they were spamming? But i really feel that they elaborate on the subject and I suggest that they are replaced on the article ? Best regards

The general link seemed to have little content on it about the topic, and the calculator link was totally unneccesary. Since they went to the same site, this appears to be spam. If you are confident the general link meets WP:EL then go ahead an re-add it and others will judge its value over time. Please don't re-add the calculator link though. 2005 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)