LuckyLove8

Defense of additions of http://.gamblershandbook.net

Hi Hu12. I think its great that you act as part of a natural defense mechanism in this open community but I really feel your've been over-zealous with me.

First, none my additions fall in the category of external link spamming. I've never been like that.

Second, it was always a process of helping build up the wiki articles through expansion in actual content and information. You obviously don't have a problem with the content that I've added. I don't think you've actually deleted a single line of the content i have added.. I think that the additional information has been quite significant in many cases:-

• • Betting Strategy section

Third, its also never a case only citing a single source. You have gone through my history. I've referenced more than a dozen published writers where I could and I do prefer to use them.

Fourth, there could be a valid case of conflict of interest. I know the writers at http://.gamblershandbook.net and have contributed articles to that site as well. So I'd like you to review the references again against the content and consider whether they make valid references. I'm too old to get into a flame war or anything. But I do feel that the links make valid references and extensions on the wiki content that I added. Often the sites are just clarifying the mechanical process or mathematical mechanism of what I've added to wiki. Have another look.

Finally.. remember that this community needs people like you, that do keep a check on everything. But it also does need a dynamic group of people to actually add content and expand the value of wiki to the wider net community.

Thank You. LuckyLove8 (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are Not a repository of links (you have added the same site 17 times in eight articles). Looking through your contributions as a whole, All seem to be gamblershandbook.net related only. Even if well intentioned, understand that Spamming is about promoting a site in which you may own or contribute to. Using Wikipedia to promote a site you contribute to does not expand the value of Wikipedia, it deminishes Wikipedias aim to be a neutral and objective encyclopedia.

• Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the Linking policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.
• Conflict of interest. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links or sources should not be left to contributors of those websites, but to neutral editors. In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests.
• gamblershandbook.net appears to Fail Wikipedia's core content policies for inclusion;

• Has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues.--Hu12 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hu12. I was trying to make the case that i wasn't really aiming to get the sites included as an end in itself. The gambling sections have always been a little thin in my opinion.. the betting strategy section was just a stub for over 2 years and the discussion even had an editor suggest deleting it entirely. I use wiki like everyone else mostly to look up things and i've tried to give back by adding knowledge on topics that I do know alot about, in my case, gambling. I wasnt trying to suggest that adding references was the value added, i was referring to expanding the articles in themselves. It just made sense that I reference from a site that is run by gambling professionals that admire quite alot. You won't see me trying to do any automatic reverts or anything as I think you've totally misjudged my intentions. But I would like to be cleared of spammer "status". I can compile of list of of written material that I have also referenced if you want... No worries in any case. I'd again like request that you reconsider the references against the content that they were referenced against. You'll find that none of it is original research and falls under a sort of "common knowledge" in the gambling community.. I mean no-one really knows who originally came up with alot gambling lore. So I don't see that gambling should be as tightly restricted as a topic like "American History".. or perhaps we could request a review by an editor closer to the wiki gambling project? All the best. LuckyLove8 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to "reconsider " here. All of Wikipedias content falls under certain inclusion criteria. The threshold for inclusion in any article on Wikipedia is the Verifiability Policy. Any material added to Wikipedia has to have been published by a Reliable Source. Other core content policies include are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I've outlined why use of these links as references fail inclusion, perhaps this was not clear. Wikipedia articles use reliable, third-party, published sources, which gamblershandbook.net fails. I hardly believe there are no alternatives to support your contributions other than gamblershandbook.net. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto gamblershandbook.net, right?--Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hu12. No worries. Look I'd really like to continue contributing to wiki when I think I can. I have not done any reverts and I hope you can see there is a real chance that this is a misunderstanding. Could you get the site off any spam lists though.. that wasn't my intention and I have this sick feeling thinking about it. Best regards LL8 (still, I do think the references are reliable and the maths behind the articles is pretty straight forward. So I don't see why http://gamblershandbook.net/gamble/craps/free_odds.html isn't a solid reference to the fact in the craps article that 3x free odds on the pass line gives a house edge of 0.471% etc etc. Anyways, I'll let it go now but seriously.... I won't be doing any reverts so I'd like to get all this cleared up.) LuckyLove8 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You were warned in feb 08 about this^[1]. Any records here on Wikipedia are required to be transparent for accountability. So there will always be some record here. Our obligation is to ensure our records are correct and factual -- not to make them go away. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions of http://.gamblershandbook.net

• • first edit 08:10, 19 January 2008
  • second edit 08:30, 19 January 2008
  • third edit 02:09, 20 January 2008
  • 4th edit 05:15, 21 January 2008
  • 5th edit 05:28, 21 January 2008
  • added two 10:49, 31 January 2008
  • 06:07, 3 February 2008
  • 12:30, 4 June 2008
  • 04:55, 9 June 2008
  • adds three 14:07, 16 June 2008
  • 05:46, 17 June 2008
  • 12:36, 17 June 2008
  • 13:39, 23 June 2008
  • 05:48, 22 December 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

Additionaly gamblershandbook.net appears to Fail Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

Please review Wikipedia's Additional policies;

• SPAM
  • External link spamming
• External links policy
  • Links normally to be avoided
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a repository for links
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
• Persistent spamming

Thank You--Hu12 (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, LuckyLove8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rray (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Slots strategy

Regarding your edit to the Slot machines article, I again removed your addition. The problem isn't just that you're spamming your website here; it's also that the addition doesn't improve the article. It was vague, wordy, and I don't know of any reliable sources which advocate advantage play on progressive jackpots. The problem is that advantage players only play when they know they have an advantage. Unless someone has access to the actual odds of hitting the jackpot on a slot machine, it's impossible for them to know when they have an advantage or not.

Also, it's generally more appropriate to discuss articles on the article talk page, instead of bringing it up on another user's talk page. (That's what the talk page of the article is for, after all.) And new discussions on a talk page go at the end of the page, not the top of the page. Welcome to the Wikipedia, and I hope some of this has been helpful. :) Rray (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Interesting and useful reading. I'll give up on the advantage strategy for now :) but there are many widely accepted strategies that are by nature more of a logical argument than definitive expected value formulas, i.e. Adjusting play according to implied odds in nlh poker. Also, the odds for the slots jackpot can be roughly guessed at around 3.2 million to 1 (5 reels, 20 pictures each one random). This plus the expected house edge on the regular play can give a close estimate. LuckyLove8 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern slot machines don't determine their payback percentages or odds by the number of reels or the number of images on the reels. The reels and images are basically just decoration, and the payout percentage is determined by what's programmed into the random number generator. There is no way to estimate the expected house edge without access to the PARS sheet for the slot machine. (PARS stands for "Paytable and Reel Strips".) The PARS sheet can be (and often is) programmed so that a particular symbol on a reel with 20 symbols comes up only 1 in every 40 spins, for example. Or 1 in 50, or 1 in 15, or whatever. Rray (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)