Archives

/Archive 1: Sept. 2004 - Sept. 2006

You keep removing a useful link that I posted there. I looked at the page history, and you decided to leave the link and remove others twice. Then NolanAlex removed the link after he didn't touch it for sometime, and it seems like it is removed everytime it's posted now. Is there rules about posting certain links? The Baccarat one I posted was helpful too and now it's gone.

Do I need to add info to the Baccarat page for the link to stay? It seems easier just to add the link. Thanks

Basically only editing to add links to your own site is against the external links guideline. Adding a link at the top of other links is considered spamming. If you think your link is useful, add to the talk page of an article and ask other editors to check it out and add it if they think it merits it. 2005 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the help. Now I know :O) Sportsbettor123

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Sirex98 hereby award The Barnstar of Diligence to 2005 for extensive work in articles, due to a large body of contributions and having a keen eye for detail on various edits made on Wikipedia

It looks like in several places, you have edited craps and dice control articles arguing that the claims are made by charlatans, and say "The mainstream casino gaming industry gives no credence to these claims.". According to http://wizardofodds.com/craps/crapsapx3.html Stanford Wong has gone from someone who was on record that craps was unbeatable to a convert that given the skill and the practice, players can successfully change the probablilities that certain numbers can be thrown. Also in the article, Michael Shackleford, the author, goes from a complete skeptic to one who allows that it is a possibility. Both of these figures are very well respected in the gambling community, and no respected gambling authorities think of either of them as charlatans, (though many still disagree with Wong's premise).

The article also describes a bet between Wong and a professional gambler, where not only was Wong willing to bet money that dice setters could roll fewer than 80 sevens in 500 rolls (a bet with a -34% EV if dice control was not credible) but he won the bet as well. While I don't think an MIT study on this is coming anytime soon, "Putting their money where their mouth is" is an common method for gamblers to argue or settle a dispute on mathematical grounds (even if the single test isn't statistically significant).

All this being said, I would argue that it is not NPOV to argue that dice control is not credible or that craps is definitively unbeatable.

(For the record, I have never taken one of these courses or even tried dice setting. However, I have read enough to respect the possibility that it can be done.)Toonces 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point, aside from mistating that I labeled any specific body a charlatan. If you are trying to say that someone who is trying to use dice control could throw better than someone not, well, fine, but what are you trying to say about that? "The mainstream casino gaming industry gives no credence to these claims" is certainly not inaccurate, although again, how is this mattering to something? Wikipedia articles need to be cited from references that meet the reliable sources guidelines. Inserting any assertion, especially armwaving ones, is not appropriate. In other words, statements about dice control aren't "special". They need to be treated link anything else. 2005 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not a regular editor of Wikipedia. In my opinion, I would edit the Wikipedia entries on gambling, craps, and dice control to include the point that there is legitimate disagreement as to whether craps can be beaten with dice control. I think the above article is sufficient evidence of that. But since you seem to be the person who made the edits that implied that dice control is not legitimate, I preferred to try to convince you first, so that you don't just revert those edits back.

As for specifics: if by "The mainstream casino gaming industry", you mean casino management, you are probably right that they don't believe it is possible to do dice control. But they have always been well behind the curve of any advantage gaming as they were probably 3-5 years late to learn that Video Poker or even Progressive Bonus slot machines were beatable. The more credible source is the gambling theoretitians, people like Stanford Wong and Michael Shackleford as well as Bob Dancer, Arnold Snyder, and Mason Malmuth. It is not true that that class of people give no credence to these claims.

The charlatan comment refers to comments you made in the discussion section of the gambling entry. You say, "Craps is mathematically unbeatable. Anecdotes from scamsters doesn't change that". My point being that the people I am referring to, Wong and Shackleford, are by no means scamsters, and their work is not anecdotes. I believe that the Shackleford Reference I quote above meets the "Reliable Source" guideline.

To repeat, if you want to add something to any article, just see that it is properly sourced and in the right tone. 2005 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what your thoughts are: should articles refer to Super/System as "the Bible of poker", or instead "a very important book," "a seminal book," etc. - Abscissa 13:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have an opion other than it is not "the bible of poker" but is nicknamed by some "the bible of poker". It's a nickname, not a reality. 2005 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you moved some text I added when I first wrote the Betting (poker)#Kill game section that talked about geographical locations where various kill rules occured. I now agree with you that it doesn't belong there, but do you have a suggestion of where such information does? Wouldn't it be useful to have information about where various rules are used most frequently? -- bkuhn 22:01 UTC

As I recall, the statements were not accurate. California cardrooms for example use several type of kill styles. A description of kills is helpful, but there is no reason to add geography to it. 2005 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thnks for helping me clean up Ho-Chunk Casino.I am Amrykid ,Elite wikistudent and I approve this message. 13:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article Ho-Chunk Casino should be merged with Ho-Chunk as their is very little information pertaining to the casino and therefore, I do not feel that it is substantial enough to stand alone. T. White 09:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. 2005 11:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this FAQ has rather useful content, and there is only one banner ad at the top of the page. In addition, the web site is a free directory.

The 3 other external links for rake (poker) all have banner ads, and more of them to boot. Also, these links only explain what rake is, and do not even touch upon the rakeback option in the online poker industry. It seemed justified to include information related to this subject.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Banners don't matter. The link explains how to use that rakeback site which it should be makes it completely worthless as a link. 2005 06:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The link explains what rakeback is, but happens to contain internal links referencing the affiliates listed on the site, who are listed on that site for free and happen to be some of the most trusted affiliates (thus also useful information). What would need to be changed/added for it to be acceptable in your opinion?

Thanks again.

Linking to such a brief page has no added value, especially since it is promoting itself. The article says what rakeback is. How one site is doing it certainly is not something to include here. Wikipedia writes encyclopedic articles and is not here to promote your site. 2005 06:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make sense. First of all, rakeback isn't mentioned anywhere on the rake (poker) page or any of the external links. Second of all, The rakeback FAQ link originally posted gives equivalent if not more information regarding "rakeback" than any of the three external articles describing "rake" do individually. Again, what would need to be changed or added for this link to be acceptable?

It's not making sense because you are just trying to spam your link in the encyclopedia. Don't. We don't care what you change on your site. Contribute to the encyclopedia. 2005 08:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if the FAQ was on a website that had absolutely no links to advertising instead of on the RakeBreakers site, it would still be unacceptable? I doubt that is the case, given the other External Links have advertising all over the place. Also, those three links all cover the same subject matter, so why are three links describing "rake" okay, while one link describing "rakeback" is not? In addition, your recently added "See Also" link to "such a brief" definition of rakeback on the "List of Poker Terms" page doesn't really enhance the knowledge of visitors who are looking for more information. What if the FAQ were to be published directly on Wikipedia? Would that suffice?

The link there now explains what rakeback is. The link you provided adds zero value beyond that. To repeat, this is an encyclopedia, not something to promote your site, or a "how to" guide to everything. I'm not going to go around in circles on this. Please contribute to the encyclopedia or don't. We aren't here to promte your site, or your agenda or anything else. There could be a FAQ somewhere that could potentially talk about rakeback in a way that would merit a link, but obviously none has been added, and it's quite unlikely because rakeback is just getting some of your rake returned. There is littel else to say about that other than that is what it means and it exists. 2005 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..You beat me to it! Nice! Mike | Talk 23:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the arrogant stuff over there is just unreal. This one actually stunned me. By the way, I appreciate your comments on the fan site stuff. We need to be sure to protect linking to valuable, high quality sites, even if some folks want rigid, brainless rules that ignore quality. 2005 23:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly, Barberio seems to feel that his will is Gospel and he doesn't need to discuss anything before making changes. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two hour wait for comments before making the edit was a wee bit minimal.... 2005 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that edit summary wasn't directed at you. I reverted and edited the reverted version without seeing your edit. I was addressing Dreamguy. Sorry for any confusion. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. My comment was not aimed at you, but rather DreamGuy and the fellow who made a similar edit earlier. After I made my comment it did look a little strange under yours, but it was not meant for you. Sorry if you thought it did. 2005 00:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed that you don't have a user page. Any reason why not? It can be a good place to let others know what types of stuff you do around Wikipedia, as well as to show off your barnstars and stuff. - Mike | Talk 01:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you may want to archive this talk page, as it's getting quite long. I can do this for you if you want. - Mike | Talk 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no User page because my contributions to the encyclopedia are not about me. I could archive this page but it is somewhere below cleaning the pan under the refrigerator on my list of things to do.;) 2005 03:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save you the trouble then ;-) - Mike | Talk 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wondering if any live casinos in North America still have 5 card stud (if you know). - Abscissa 02:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any for sure. 2005 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, would you be kind enough to clarify your comment... basically I am wondering if it is a "dead" game or not since they don't play it at the WSOP and no casino I have ever been to has it. Maybe commerce in LA or something? - Abscissa 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any that offer it. Some casinos have mexican stud, but I don't know of any that offer normal five card stud, but that doesn't mean there aren't some out there that do. 2005 08:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know that I have nominated the article you have edited, or expressed interest in, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability-based strategy Pete.Hurd 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2005! I noticed your revert of my edit on the above template, and I'm wondering what your opinion is on the best way to make the template clearer. (I would post this on the template talk page, but it doesn't seem watched or active.) The reason I added in that sentence was because of a question from a new editor on my talk page; after seeing this template tagged on an external links section, he inadvertantly misinterpreted the tag as saying that spam-links were permissible in that section, taking the "may" verb in the first sentence as permission-granting. I added in the second sentence to try and make this clearer, saying that such links - spam, commercial links, no matter who tagged the section - should be removed and cleaned-up. I understand that anyone can tag a section to be cleaned-up, but no matter who tagged the section, or whether or not there is a tag, such links that violate our policies should be removed, not allowed, which is what that editor believed the template was saying. Let me know what you think on this matter. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One novice editor reading a tag in a very improbable way is not a good reason to do anything, let alone change the entire tone of a template. The Clean-up template is something that anyone can add. It is an opinion, and certainly not a statement that something "should" be done, other than the basic advice of saying those knowledgable about the subject should check to see the links met the criteria of WP:EL. If you remain concerned over the one editors actions, I'd suggest changing 'may" to "might", or start it with "One editor believes..." 2005 07:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have removed my edits to the "betting exchange" page and related horse racing/betting pages and marked them as spam.

I would like some clarification: was this due to the use of external links that I included for some key terminology? The main reason I would like to add to and change much of what has been written (or, in many cases, not written at all) is because the Wikipedia listings n the subjects are largely outdated and, in places, slightly innacurate.

For example, the listing on betting exchanges appears to be around 4 years out of date, and much has happened in that time - indeed, betting exchanges only really saw widespread use in 2000 (much of which is covered in the current listing) but have grown to extraordinary levels over the past 4 years. Much of what is mentioned requires, therefore, a large amount of new information. Similarly, as a result, much of the pages about bookmakers and horseracing require many additions to include betting exchanges as a viable alternative to traditional bookmakers. I have many government statistics and other such information on this field as it is something in which I have a vested interest personally: I make my living from internet betting exchanges.

Over the coming weeks, I'd like to add a great deal to the Wikipedia listings, and included external links as I feel they are pretty good background, about subjects which there is little or no information currently within Wikipedia - I hope to change this, though it will take me a while. Is there a better way to go about this, for example, I could borrow exerpts from industry sites (and reference? them). Furthermore, I am not entirely confident with the addition process, and entering information on edits, could you help me with what I should write when creating new sections, or editing old ones?

Ideally, I'd like to state the betting exchange situation as it is now, what new players have come into the market (or are about to) and how (un)succesful they have been. I'd also like to create a glossary betting exchange specific terminology. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. User:Rabmaster

First you should read WP:RS and WP:EL which concern guidelines for citing articles and external links. Your first contributions were most to add external links to the same site. Wikipedia is not a link directory. If you want to add useful, encyclopedic content that is not already covered in an article, please do so in line with the WP:CITE and the above two guidelines. As the guidelines make clear, don't link to anything externally that you own or maintain. If you are unsure about additions, you can always add content to a talk page first and ask for comments. 2005 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, who is your statement "You seem to think we verify external links...." in response to? It's after mine but indented as if to follow something else. Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was addressed to the post I was indented under. I guess you replied to the same one. 2005 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good to see you back. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the page was protected in a poor state, rather than the consensus version previously protected. I hope you will agree that it should go back to that version, and then we can discuss anything anybody wants. I'd hate to think taking months to come to consensus with Barberio was all wasted... :) 2005 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2005, I created code that can be added to your userpage to create a userbox if you wish, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Gambling/Userbox. I used a subpage instead of creating a template to keep away from the userbox debate. Regards, Accurizer 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the heads up. 2005 15:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this term used often similar to a Rainbow flop, but for unstraightable cards. Why not?172.192.28.236 07:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NFT. In addition, the article says "If you add a term, please add a reference supporting its inclusion here in the edit summary or this article's discussion page. Additions that are unreferenced will be removed." Just because you think an invented term not used anywhere is clever doesn't mean it should be added to an encyclopedia's list. 2005 07:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove links from game related articles to the MobyGames entry of the game. (As you did on NBC Sports Heads-Up Poker.) Thanks. --The NeveR SLeePiNG 09:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming those links. The link you added was pure garbage. Please refer to WP:EL. 2005 10:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Why link to MobyGames --The NeveR SLeePiNG 11:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your great work keeping these articles clean. You might be interested in the conversation going on about one of the most persistent and insidious spammers of these pages. Nposs 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look when I can. 2005 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am just wondering why you deleted the external link to the Minnesota Quarter Horse Racing Association on the article Horse racing? Have a good afternoon, Eric 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about Minnesota Quarter Horse racing. Obviously the link is not appropriate. WP:EL 2005 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct that the link is not about Minnesota Quarter Horse racing, however, the link is about horse racing which is also what the article is about. Would you rather that I make a Wikipedia article about the Minnesota Quarter Horse racing Association? Eric 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be made about things that merit articles, whatever they may be. WP:EL is clear that external links should be about the articles, not vaguely related. Obviously we aren't going to link to a every type of racing group in every state. 2005 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, and maybe you could explain to me, how the categories "Computing", "Internet" and "Gambling" do not relate to an article about a website (Computing and Internet) and a 'gang' of poker players (Gambling). Thank you in advance for your response. It's just if you can point out why this doesn't work I won't repeat mistakes!! Cheers David 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's like putting every article in an "Earth" category. Use the subcategories. 2005 07:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You've been arguing against putting MobyGames links on game articles, citing a violation of WP:EL. Well, I found this from that very same guideline under the section, "What should be linked":

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

As I see it, MobyGames provides credits and statistics, as well as links to reviews and "other meaningful, relevant content". Why aren't you concerned about all of the links on film pages to IMDb, a site that serves a similar purpose to MobyGames?

Please state the exact criteria of WP:EL that you are using to argue your point, and maybe I'll understand, but until then, I'll continue adding MobyGames links until a consensus is reached. Cheers, Green451 17:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also direct you to this TfD discussion, which makes all of the points that I've been trying to make. Green451 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the obvious isn't helpful. Please read the guideline. When a Moby Games link does provide credits and statistics and "other meaningful, relevant content", then link. But knowingly adding a link that does not have that is inappropriate and bad editing. Imdb links should not be automatically added either, but should be often. Again, this is all plainly obvious. Read the guideline. 2005 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005, FWIW I agree totally with you on this, --BozMo talk 09:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WPSPAM#mobygames.com, open TfD and COIN too. (Requestion 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I saw you reverted my edit on the List of poker terms in regards to the term "muppet". This isn't a vanity term and I've started a discussion about this topic on the article's Discussion page. If you'd like to defend your stance that this is a vanity term, please feel free to do so on the Discussion page, otherwise I'm going to add it back to the article. Natster237 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm trying to guage your level of objection to my proposed change to avoid linking to a web page whose topic is already covered in an article. What can I do to address your concerns? I'll look for any reply here. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion on the external links page. 2005 22:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, doing too many things at once here. ;^) Crum375 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I certainly appreciate any reversion of my edits, I'm not sure why you deleted my definition of cooler hands. Do you not believe that "cooler" is used for at least something approxomating what I wrote? Also, by simply reverting me, you furthered the web of links within the page. I can't imagine that it is not better to just link to cold deck rather than link to another entry in the article that links to cold deck. Croctotheface 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cooler is not a hand that you can't lay down, or even a bad beat, though it leans toward that. To be a cooler something has to be very improbable, and you have to think you are going to win... like the poker scene in The Sting. 2005 08:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, change the definition I added so it says that. I'm not married to what I wrote, but you could've improved my edit rather than just revert it. Croctotheface 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to what? I reverted it because you added something incorrect. I reverted it to what it should be, linked to cold deck. That's what it is, a stcked deck. I suppose you could say that the deck is stacked to cause someone to lose a significant amount, but that would seem to go without saying. 2005 00:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term has two meanings. There can be a one sentence definition of both of them. Croctotheface 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to close this CFD, but I found the debate there a bit confusing. It is obvious that the two cats should be merged; it is not obvious what the final name should be. Could you please look over the suggested names and indicate a preference? Thanks. >Radiant< 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new and somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia edits, so I apologize if this is not the correct place for such a discussion. I am responding to your comment "please stop spamming your link in every edit you make" in the Joker Wild Video Poker article. If you look at the edits I made, I corrected various sections of the text (some information was just plain wrong, such as the implication the wild hands other than a royal pay differently than non-wild hands other than royal), corrected the Wizard of Odds link (pointed to Deuces & Joker, rather than Joker Poker), and added a relevant link to the Jokers Wild page on my site. Did you even look at the link before marking it as spam? It was the only one of the external links that lists strategy for the game, it had information about the game that is not available anywhere else, and was without a doubt a quality improvement to the article.

Whether it is a dumb concept or not, adding your own link is by definition spam. WP:EL, WP:SPAM. Adding links to your site repeatedly is especially spammy. If you think the links on your site are valuable, the guidelines offer suggestions (basically add the link to the talk page with a suggestion another editor add it). Your other edits seem fine, but most of your edits do center around adding a link to your site, which is something you should not be doing. 2005 11:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ShirleyRosario.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit was removed, it had a link, fair enough as it was considered spam. I removed link and reposted, I assume its ok now?

Thanks for your assistance on this. I can't believe how many bad links to the site got added everywhere and how many people are so actively ignoring pretty key components of the rules for external links. DreamGuy 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, we seem to be working at cross-purposes at the Frank Scoblete article. I've been trying to expand the article, and it's still in a somewhat "in-process" state. However, it seems that often when I add something, you've been following along within a couple hours and deleting some of what I've added. This makes it difficult for me to continue expanding, especially if you have strong disagreements about some of the sources. Could you please engage in a discussion at the talkpage, rather than simply deleting without comment? Thanks, Elonka 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one needing to engage in the discussion. The burden is on you when it comes to adding material. please do not keep adding uselessly redundant links that all list the same articles, and also please refer to Wikipedia guidelines about citing sources, and please engage in a talk page discussion instead of repeatedly adding the same inappropriate content. 2005 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005--Would you please stop deleting my posts without an explanation? Tthe QJ off is also known as the oedipus rex (king-queen complex); and the J3 is the FLAMING WAITER (just as the Q3, already listed, is known as the Flaming GAY Waiter).

If you want to delete it, that's fine, but I really don't appreciate my contributions deleted without any explanation. Transcend103 22:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the note at the beginning of the article. Nonsense and vanity additions will be deleted. There isn't even ONE incidence online for your J3 assertion. Please don't add them again. 2005 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense and vanity additions" -- i explain the sense behind the J3, and it's certainly not a vain assertion. So please explain. Transcend103 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't appreciate my contributions deleted without any explanation. It makes the cards and resulting hands much more readable, especially on a computer screen. A lot of hating going on... gharm 17:01, 07 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making these changes as many editors have had to go back and fix the, If you want to propose using a four color deck in the poker project, do so, but don't continue making work for other editors. 2005 02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 05, thanks for your edits on this... I was too tired to wikilink it ;-)Balloonman 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more than two editors advocated deletion. Greatestrowerever and maybe Kymacpherson. That's not a clear consensus for deletion. Cheers, WilyD 03:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future please don't close Afds when you don't have the courtesy of reading the comments. All comments favored deletion except two. Please don't be so careless in the future. 2005 05:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That simply isn't true. If you read the comments, you'll find it's actually 2 keep, 4 transwiki, 2 delete (more or less). The comments favour no consensus/transwiki. The "votes" favour delete, but voting is evil, of course... WilyD 11:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I suspect you may wish to participate in this discussion. Cheers, WilyD 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your deliberate lying has a point, but get over it. Stop bizarrely goin on about transwiking. That has nothing to do with the afd. There was a plain consensus for deleting the article. Transwikiing is completely unrelated. Please don't be so deliberately obtuse in the future. wasting other people's time is simply rude. 2005 22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Ignore policy? Sir, I direct your attention to this policy, which in line two, states that this process "is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly", if I might quote the line verbatim, and there is no shame to be had by me in correcting this error. The discussion is there - leave it out of User Talk. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Leave it out of user talk" and then you add a comment to user talk? Once again I gues this is you being "bold". Policy states Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. You "boldly" closing a valid afd that where policy is clear is both rude and foolish. Please restrain your "bold" rudeness in the future. 2005 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that earier that User:PatrikR moved William Chen to Bill Chen citing WP:COMMONNAME [1], then you reverted this change, Bill Chen doesn't commonly go by William, his book is even penned as Bill Chen. [2]

From what I read in WP:COMMONNAME PatrikR seems to be correct, Examples given are names such as:

• Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)
• Bill Gates (not William Henry Gates III)

I think this revert may have been a mistake unless you know otherwise? ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 11:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chen was known in the poker world as "William" for years before he became commonly known as "Bill". I changed it back because incidences online including Usenet are roughly equal, nothing at all like Bill Clinton and William Clinton, and in equal cases using the real name seems the best choice. (the Team Pokerstars page is especially pschizo... Willam in the page title, Bill in the page text). However I suppose the book is the trump card, so using the name on the book is probably best. 2005 20:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you saying I just read his pokerstars profile, It struck me when I saw the change because I remember him being called Bill when I watched the last season of high stakes poker, But you seem to have many more years experience in the Poker/Gambling world then I do(I'm still a bit of a newbie), so I wanted to check with you first.

BTW as far as the WPT, I was thinking nine that made up final and 6 for the tv table, I read this article that say the WPT Final table is made up of 10 players, with the final six that make it on TV, [3] I just want to be sure that they are correct, when I update the players infobox stats, thanks ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to keep an eye on this blatant Neteller astroturfer (only edits been to sanitise pertinent information regarding Neteller and to remove a positive statement about competitors Moneybookers, with the comment "false claim about size of company removed").

It seems clear its a company employee, but most of his/her edits are okay. I've changed many poor ones though. 2005 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was citing the ESPN television broadcast itself, just like newspapers and books can be i.e.Wikipedia:Citation templates so I used the template Template:Cite_episode to cite the program in which the small incident between Greg Mueller and Steve Billirakis occurred during the broadcast, with that said it is probably too trivial anyways so I'm not going to bother to revert▪◦▪ЅiREX^Talk

Okay, but it is still a conclusion being drawn about a "feint"... and also while Cite episode and be appropriate, BLP is pretty clear that there has to be clear evidence of something. The original poor ettiquette thing was inappropriate in any case, but I don't object to the passage, just that it should need something extremely verifiable since it is talking about living people. 2005 04:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]