Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 16 December 2009

Archives

/Archive 1: Sept. 2004 - Sept. 2006

No Drama Zone

This page is a no drama zone. Please do not add soap opera or other personal drama content to this page as it will only be removed. Please only add content relating to the creation and improvement of articles, or the overall encyclopedia guidelines and policies. Thanks. 2005 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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 Misplaced Pages

Wagerworks

I'd like to raise a query as to why you'd refer the changes on the Wagerworks article as vandalism. After the first removal of my contribution, I added a reference in order to validate the claim that Wagerworks contributed games to the Kerching Casino, yet still was removed. I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

Please do not break links to articles, or drop spam external links in the body of articles. The articles links to those companies with Misplaced Pages articles using the software. 2005 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Craps / Dice Setting

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)

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? Misplaced Pages 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)

Look, I'm not a regular editor of Misplaced Pages. In my opinion, I would edit the Misplaced Pages 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)

Geographical Occurances of Poker rules

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)

5 Card Stud

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)

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

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)

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)

Removed edits: clarification

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages listings, and included external links as I feel they are pretty good background, about subjects which there is little or no information currently within Misplaced Pages - 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

WikiProject Gambling userbox

Hi 2005, I created code that can be added to your userpage to create a userbox if you wish, see Misplaced Pages: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)

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

User:Professorgupta and spamming of gambling/sports related articles

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)

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

MQHRA Link

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages article about the Minnesota Quarter Horse racing Association? Eric 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

MobyGames links

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

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

Links to avoid: topics covered by an existing article

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 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Cooler hands

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Question

I am new and somewhat unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages 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)

List of slang terms for poker hands

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Steve Billirakis

I was citing the ESPN television broadcast itself, just like newspapers and books can be i.e.Misplaced Pages: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

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)

External links

Hello. I noticed you had removed several external links posted on Poker articles by User:Onaroll. Would you please explain why you did this? Please note that this was a bit bity and unwelcoming. A thread at the Help Desk has been started regarding this, so you may want to answer here. --Boricuaeddie 12:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI. Two dozen blatant spam link drops will always removed on sight. 2005 10:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I recently added a couple of external links to the Vigorish page which go to a Knowledge base explaining how vigorish works for different betting markets. I thought that this was adding relevant further reading resources, however you removed them and I was interested to know why? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crofton park (talk • contribs) 10:41, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

You added two links to the same website which is virtually never sensible. You dropped another link to the same site elsewhere which I left alone because it dealt with the subject as a whole, rather than slivers of the topinc like the two links added to vigorish. Please look to add content to articles, not just links to other sites. If there is anything on those pages you linked that was not in the article, try to summarize it and add it to the article. And in any case, please don't add multiple external links to one site. See WP:EL. 2005 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks UTC, I think that's a reasonable justification. I'll bear in mind your points for any future posts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crofton park (talk • contribs) 11:33, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Mark Teltscher

Not an outrageous biovio, so I'm just getting a second opinion in the Mark Teltscher article, without a reference do you think the information about the EPT and WCOOP should be removed or do you think the a CN tag will do for the time being?▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡ 07:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is really clear on this so just the statement that someone was "incensed" requires the content should be taken out immediately. 2005 07:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That what I was thinking, I added 3 CN tags but thought the better of it, it wasn't so outrageous as john killed mary kinda thing, but I see your point the editor if they are going to re-add the information needs a RS ref, thanx ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡ 07:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Why did you revert my two contributions:  ? "Float" is not slang, it's a specific play - follow the link if you need more information. It may not yet be used in an article, but it certainly could, and should be. In any case, this supposed rule is not enforced. Here are some terms that only appear in the glossary, but not in articles: boxed card, big bet game, bottom end, brick & mortar, buy the button, buy the pot. So what's your real justification for reverting my contribution? Stevage 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Slang might not be the right word, but it is certainly non-common jargon. "Boxed card" is the standard term used by a casino. It is the standard way to state that thing, same as buy the button, and brick and mortar. Buy the pot probably should go. Why would we ever use the word "float" in an article rather than "he called the bet with a weak hand, because he intended to bluff later in the hand". Likewise we would say in article "Ace and a King" rather than "big slick". Float may be more of a marginal example than some of the stuff that people keep adding to the article (like "donkey", something we would absolutely never say in an article instead of "poor player" or "weak player"). It would be great to add float to the Wiktionary where these terms should go, and I made the link to the Wiktionary page of poker terms much more prominent because I felt bad about taking out float, but the policy of Misplaced Pages not being a slang or idiom guide is very clear. The gloassry should only be standard terms that are used in articles. (While I could be wrong about float, I think the usage of air you added is definitley a Wiktionary term rather than a glossary one.) I don't feel strongly about float, so if after reading this you want to add it back, fine, but we really need to protect that article from the "donkey" and stuff like that additions. 2005 06:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: float, seriously, check out the link: . Now, I don't see a "need" to "protect" the article - all we seem to be accomplishing is making it a half-arsed glossary, rather than a comprehensive one. Unfortunately, the policy is not "very clear", and it's been that way as long as I can remember. Point 2 used to read something like " lists of definitions, but glossaries are ok". Now they seem to have scrapped the mention of glossaries at all, so theoretically the entire article "glossary of poker terms" is not allowed. It would be great if we could somehow clear up this bizarre situation.

In the meantime, I don't see any reason why "air" or "float" should not be included while "snow", "rush", "rock", "rainbow" etc are retained. Stevage 02:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The glossary is not half assed. Glossaries relate to something. They aren't all inclusive dictionaries. In this case the article defines terms used in Misplaced Pages articles. Some of the terms there now should go. Just because some there now don't merit a mention in the glossary is no reason to add others. Float or post oak bluff or other tactic terms don't need to be used in the encyclopedia and are better spelled out in normal language, whereas 'flop' or 'turn' are better used and defined. The policy is very clear. We aren't a slang or idiom guide. We aren't here to explain what terms mean. We only explain what terms mean when we need to to make the sentences in our articles make sense. In other words, float might deserve an ARTICLE because it is a notable poker tactic, but likely doesn't deserve a glossary mention. 2005 03:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy is not clear. How can you even cite as "clear" a policy that doesn't use the word "glossary", and explicitly rules out "lists of definitions"? You clearly have an idea of what you feel this glossary should contain, but I can't find any policy to support you (or oppose you, for that matter). Terms like "air" and "float" are clearly a long way from "teaching people to talk like...Cockney chimney sweeper". Are you interested in trying to start a policy to cover this gap? Stevage 03:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is not ]? Don't make an entry to define a term... but do "in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas" like 'flop'. An entry to just define float is not okay; an entry is fine to describe the value or reasoning behind the play, see sweep. The main point behind the policy is wikipedia is not a dictionary. That is as clear as can be. The subtleties of that may not always be crystal clear, but just defining a term that would not be used in an article so therefore would never confuse anyone is clearly against the policy. 2005 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're clutching at straws. That paragraph is referring to creating new articles ("entries"), not items in a glossary. And point 2 explicitly rules out glossaries anyway. The example you use is bad, too: I already posted the link that shows how an article could be written about floating as a strategic play. Here are more: , , . And the glossary is full of definitions that won't be expanded into full articles. There's absolutely no policy that condones glossaries, let alone defines what should or should not be in them - it's simply your own subjective opinion at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevage (talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you aren't reading what I write for some reason. I already mentioned above more than once that the thing to do about float is write about it as an article. Good luck. 2005 06:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in that case you would have the courtesy to restore the definition you deleted from the glossary, which is what started this discussion. An article may also be appropriate, but that's beside the point. Stevage 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is the point. You've gone 360 now so I give up. If float deserves a full article, feel free to give it one. But don't just add a definition. 2005 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't "gone 360":

1. I added "float" to the glossary, which is a list of definitions. Such a list is prohibited by the policy you keep citing, but we both seem to agree that glossaries are ok.
2. If glossaries are ok, then it's ok to have a definition for a term in that glossary, provided that term is somehow suitable for Misplaced Pages. You don't seem willing or able to describe what "suitable" would mean in this context. Your proposed definition that the term be used in existing articles is clearly inadequate.
3. You removed the term, claiming that it was "slang". You seem to have since tacitly accepted that it's not slang, and would in fact be suitable for an article.
4. You refuse to re-add the term, and tell me not to add it either.

My starting point of view: The term "float" should be in the glossary. My current point of view: The term "float" should be in the glossary, and possibly also have an article dedicated to it. This is not "360".

The reason I'm pursuing this is because you seem to have taken WP:OWN-ership of the glossary, reverting entries that don't meet with some set of rules. However, that set of rules is not published, and is not backed up by any policy, and appears to be subjective. This is not a positive way to build a collaborative encyclopaedia. Stevage 08:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good humour

Hah! I loved your edit summary! -- Chris B • talk 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears the fellow is still without a grip though... :) 2005 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: 3 Card

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)

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

"Door Card" in Hold'em

Have you some reference supporting the notion that the first card on the flop is called a "door card"? It doesn't make much sense, given that the flopped cards are (or should be) exposed simultaneously. PhGustaf (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's best to leave comments like this on articel talk pages where others can comment, but this is very common usage, as in ESPN here, Pokernews.com here and the World Series Poker official site here. 2005 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The expression "door card" is almost exclusively used in Seven-Card Stud, or related stud games, and refers, of course, to the first card "out of the door", i.e. the first face-up card. Lately, the expression is being used (erroneously) in community card games, as well, e.g. Texas Hold 'em. This use is most probably a result of poker's recent popularity and the subsequent use of terms by people who have not enough knowledge about them. (Of course, if enough people use an expression "wrongly", then that use becomes the norm, i.e. correct!) -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Back count

I'd appreciate your input on the talk page for this article: Back count. I'm thinking it would make sense to merge this information with the Card counting article, but I'm interested in others' opinions. Rray (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a comment. 2005 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert contrary to AFD in Poker psychology

Please do not revert administrator redirects that are done per an AFD closing. If you disagree with the closing of the AfD, you may open a deletion review. I have reverted your edits and protected the page from editing. JERRY _contribs 02:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you nominate the closing of that article for deletion review, I would support it. I think the admin clearly erred in his closing. Rray (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it says in the deletion policies that if you disagree with an AfD closing you should discuss it on the talk page of the closing admin, so I'm going to discuss it with the admin there to see if we can reach an agreement of some type. If that doesn't work, then I'll nominate a deletion review myself. Rray (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your action was thoroughly inappropriate since you ignored consensus and came up with an obtuse sloution no one supported. Also, please read WP:DRV, "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." I did create a sourced and complete new stub, which will be expanded. Plaease do not delete articles that are created within policy. Please revert your inappropriate edits and save us any more of this nonsense. 2005 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A long article being changed into a redirect for lack of notability is pretty much the same thing as a short stub being deleted for lack of content, isn't it? Yeah, I guess that really applies here. In fact I can't even see any differences at all between them. Yup. Oh, except the "short" "stub" "deleted" and "lack of content" bits.... but other than that, you're spot on. Yup Yup. 68.58.23.141 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit query

Judging by the edit summary, this edit may be mistaken, or the edit summary incorrectly explains your view a bit. Can you explain more on the talk page? Thanks. FT2  13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, not all self-published sources are unreliable. If you want to bring up prosed text changes, do it on the talk page for that article. 2005 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I did. See this diff "as per talk page note. Can we discuss if it is disagreed with". And this note on the talk page. I think you must have overlooked both of these, since you asked to discuss it on the talk page when in fact I'd already posted there. Can we go there to try and improve this sentence's wording? Thanks. FT2  06:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss the change. You've made no post regarding the false and rather silly statement that self-published sources are always unreliable. That statement conflicts with both common sense and WP:V. Again, do not add the statement. Policy pages do not exist for one editor to make statements that are contradictory to other policy pages. If you wish to change WP:V, go there. 2005 (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Backgammon cats

Sorry about that. You're absolutely right. As I'm sure you're aware, that page has been the subject of a lot of fiddling around and nonsense edits from a sockfarm. I didn't think you were one of them, just got a little trigger-happy, I guess. Apologies, again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, you are right that the page has been attacked by a sock-a-day user. Also sorry about not saying in the edit note "yes we do, sometimes". The topic article exception is odd (I think) but it is there in the guideline. 2005 (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your reversion on my user page. --Aleenf1 09:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. That person who messed with it is one of many sockpuppets of a single minded editor. 2005 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Calvin Ayre

I don't see why you deleted my edit. It is not speculation that $24 million was seized from Bodog controlled processors, nor is it speculation Calvin Ayre is a high value target of the Feds. All you have to do is read the legal document link I included. His name is all over it, from top to bottom, start to finish. This is a fact, and it should stand. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xristyna (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Text like "It appears Ayre's indictment and extradition is no longer a question of if and why, only when and how" is totally inappropriate. No crsytal balls please. The $24m issue can be handled in the Bodog article, but dumping it in here with speculation isn't going to happen. 2005 (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your contributions to the poker pages are always solid. I appreciate them. PhGustaf (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 2005 (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Online Poker sites

I don't understand why u changed the page back to a redirect please discuss on either the list page or the online poker page Be so empty without me (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for an article, as has been discussed previously at WP:POKER. 2005 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help

I'm new to Misplaced Pages editing, and trying to follow all the rules. I know I've made a few mistakes, but I seem to be getting good feedback on my articles and changes in Statistics and Mathematics topics. I seem to be running into more problems with poker topics, probably because more people care about them, or perhaps, more emotional people care about them, or maybe I'm more out of the mainstream for poker.

I would appreciate knowing what you don't like about my articles. I'm sincere, I want to learn to be a better contributor. I see you have an impressive contribution list. I don't understand the "don't remove this again" warning. That is, I know what "don't remove" and "again" mean, but not "this". I thought I improved the article with many more citations, but I think you liked it less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaCBrown (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You removed the "autobio" tag from the article you wrote about yourself. There is no issue about me "not liking" anything. I haven't even read it. You created an article about yourself. Someone tagged it properly to that effect. You removed it, so I put it back saying to not remove it again. 2005 (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm baaaaack

I go away for 2 years and when I get back, you're still going strong on gambling articles. Keep up the good work. --GraemeL 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your return yesterday. Two years speeds right along. :) 2005 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And you're still way better at it that I am (Interactive gambling). --GraemeL 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are looking for a project...... please take a look at Indian_Gaming_Regulatory_Act and Native_American_gambling_enterprises which are basically under seige from a school project. They add signatures and a lot of non-encyclopedic stuff. Also List_of_poker_hand_nicknames is an Afd waiting to happen. :) 2005 (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Live Roulette TV

Why have you removed the link to www.supercasino.com? That is the direct link to the site that the article is about. I am currently working on rewriting the whole page as there is a lot that needs to be updated, I would be grateful for your future input as I have little experience of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprucemaroose (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is about live roulette TV. There is no need to link to a duplicate URL. The whole article has gotten very spammy and needs a major cleanup. 2005 (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the cleanup part - There are a lot of changes to the site that need to be encompassed in the page. But how is it a duplicate link? I noticed on the Smart Live casino page (a similar TV/internet roulette site) their website is linked in the same way so I added one for Supercasino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprucemaroose (talk • contribs) 11:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Pachinko

Thank you for the link to the Misplaced Pages EL and clarifying that Forums are prohibitted

May i ask however why 1 forum is permitted and another is not?

just out of curiosity so i am better able to avoid editting things wrongly in the future?

thanks Pachitalk (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachitalk (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is a site there that is just a forum, it should be removed also. 2005 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you help please?

Hi, we are having a problem with an article similar to the Amarillo Slim page and could use somebody experienced to make a ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Team_of_Rivals:_The_Political_Genius_of_Abraham_Lincoln If you see the discussion page there you should understand...it has to do with what to include or not to include about a movie in pre-production. TIA~ DegenFarang (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow it all, but it seems like they cut down the section to "just the facts" now based on the talk page. Not sure if it is as minimal as you think it should be though since there were several edits to the article after you posted this message here. 2005 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you stop deleting all of my additions to Misplaced Pages I will give you that same respect and not vigorously investigate the nature of all of your additions. If you continue trying to 'improve' each and every edit I make, I'm going to be forced to attempt that same improvement on all of your past, present and future submissions. Let he who has no sin throw the first stone. DegenFarang (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

sky betting sites

Hi, I added 2 pages but otherwise added to what was already there - didn't see your amends/message till afterwards. I will continue to add to the single SB&G page now. I would suggest seperating Sky Vegas (TV Channel) and Sky Poker (TV Channel) as for example Gala Group has its own page seperate from Gala TV, and CHannel 854 has something seperate to William Hill - could you do this as last time I tried I cocked it up being a begginer. Cheers Stephenjwz (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The other entities should have their articles merged rather than the other way around. Sky vegas and Sky Poker as TV channels fits just fine in the Sky gambling article... the TV aspects are parts of the broader gambling aspect. 2005 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, keep up the good work! Stephenjwz (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hansen syntax

hi how did you revert everything back to like 10 edits prior here. I wanted to do the same but i couldn't figure it out. what button did you click? i can only figure out how to undo stuff if its the last edit. thanks DegenFarang (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In the history find the link you want to go back to, click it, then edit/save that page, add the edit note which version you went bck to. 2005 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweet I see it now, thanks! DegenFarang (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PKR.com

Please do not remove my amendments to the PKR wiki page - I represent PKR.com itself and have been assigned this duty. I have made the most of your existing references and added my own. The edit I put up (and will do so again) is considered official.

Any questions please contact me: andrew.reid@pkrtech.com Thanks Pkrdoctor (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making further edits to that page. Read the Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guideline. 2005 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great work

I was critcal of you late last year because you removed a link I added to the Poker (rake) section. I realize now that your job is difficult, and that you do the best you can do to keep the material strictly 'encyclopedia'. I wanted to apologize for the negative words I used towards you. I think you're doing a really good job, and I am very appreciative of having such a great resource as wikipedia, as well as towards those who make it happen.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by X100percentx (talk • contribs) 06:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Ok, help me out here. What do YOU consider RS's in regards to poker? Obviously there are a ton of poker-related sites out there, and I am not familiar them as I apparently need to be. ArcAngel (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. MSNBC, CNN, and the Times are general sources. Cardplayer and Pokernews are good for poker news topics. You posted a link to a site that is primarily a forum along with some gossip stuff. This article was even labeled under the gossip and rumors section. We want verifiable information, not gossip. Additionally, the poor quality link you added was just saying the same thing as the reliable sources already linked, so it didn't add anything. 2005 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Deeb

Hello, I recent made a change to Freddy Deeb's page, changing the name of the WPT tournament he won in 2005. I changed it to the Aruba Poker Classic, and it was reverted to the old version. I'm just curious as to why the change was made. The tournament is even listed as the Aruba Poker Classic on the World Poker Tour season 4 results page. I am somewhat new to this and just curious where I went wrong. Incidentally, the runner up in this event, Josh Schlein, is a very good friend of mine...Thanks for your time! Mandermagic (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the edit. You used as a source a non-esistent Misplaced Pages internal link, which was not right because it first didn't exist at all, and second because Misplaced Pages articles should not be used as a reference. That tournament has several names, and Aruba Poker Classic is one, so go ahead and change that part if you want, just leave out the Misplaced Pages reference part. 2005 (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, great...thank you for the follow up info. I will be sure not to make that same mistake again. Mandermagic (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: This

Is that update available in that Card Player article then? I see it's outdated and I don't believe I could find anything in my skim. Please WP:SOURCE or I shall remove again. Thanks. Scarian 10:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

the whole paragraph should be removed since it is outdated, but I'll look for something when I get a chance. 2005 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please famailiarize yourself with the guidelines

Actually, that contradicts Misplaced Pages:Layout#Links_to_other_Wikimedia_projects, which says Links to Wikimedia sister projects other than Wiktionary and Wikisource, including Commons, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikispecies and Wikiversity, should not appear outside of the External links section (create the section if needed). Which in this case, it's fine then as Wiktionary, but you need to keep in mind the others. Gary King (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by the contradiction, since there seems to be consistent disagreement from people who care a lot about that issue, but the point is sticking there he Wiktionary link at the bottom of that page is a horrible idea because it leads to that article being abused by all sorts of slang-y nonsense being added that has to be removed. That's why multiple editors contributed to front loading that article with the category and Wiktionary links, as well as the warning. It would be good to revert your change, since placement of the box there clearly is allowed, and helpful to the article. if you want to get rid of the click sentce, fine. 2005 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay, done Gary King (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Poker Verdict as a source

You think that Poker Verdict is an unreliable source? They have some useful information, especially on players; the biggest hurdle is proving their reliability, though. It might be wise to contact them to determine how and where they get their information from, etc. Gary King (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I think they are generally a reliable source. But they created nine spam articles last year for the "November Nine", which they used solely to spam their website as a "reference", basically only referencing that the person made the final table, which is an obvious fact available everywhere. The company that owns them has several other publications/websites which they have spammed here. So... while the site seems okay in general, their egregious single-purpose spamming is way over the spam line. 2005 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well the website is blacklisted, so I was going to use it for a few articles but then noticed that it is blacklisted. Do you think it's safe to remove it from the blacklist? There are other ways of preventing people from adding the same URL over and over again; for instance, their accounts can be blocked, or the articles in question can be semiprotected—which might be more effective if only a small number of articles are being bombarded with these URLs. Gary King (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to it being unblacklisted. It was just a large pain at the time, because these guys are shameless, and like I said, some of their other sites are blacklisted. I suppose it would be fine to unblacklist it, but blacklist again if they get too spammy again in the future. 2005 (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#pokerverdict.com Gary King (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your catching that. :) When I investigated the copyright problem in the article and revised the introduction, I accidentally lopped it off. --Moonriddengirl 22:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. :) 2005 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Pages you might want to watch

Assuming you watch all poker-related articles, I've found a few that get hit by vandalism every once in a while and no one notices. If you're not watching them, then if you could, then please do; here's one I recall so far: Lee Markholt. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have almost all the non-player ones in my watchlist, but new player ones get created fairly often and there are so many categories it is hard to keep track, but I'll add Markholt to my list. 2005 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain link deletion

I added a link to a cheat-sheet for Texas Hold'em opening hands last night, to the external links section, which was quickly deleted. I would like to understand why it was deleted. I thought it as something useful. Thank you. Jeff epstein (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First, read WP:COI, as obviously you have a conflict of interest in adding the link, then read WP:EL. 2005 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is just no way to add it? Anyway, thanks for answering.  :' ( Jeff epstein (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sheephead

A tag has been placed on Sheephead requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Fastily (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MySpace et al.

I noticed your entry about this at "External links", and agree with you. On a related topic, I noticed that you participated in an RFC late last year on date autoformatting, and wondered whether you knew that this issue is the subject of another RFC. There's even a temporary ArbCom injunction against the removal of the square brackets around dates. (Apparently it’s still OK to delink on an occasional basis, but caution may be the best approach for the moment.)

The injunction will be in force until the matter is finally resolved at a current RFC. You may wish to make your views known again, whatever your opinion now. It's open until Monday, I think.

Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll

Cheers

Tony Tony (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Donkey"

I happened to notice that you deleted an entry made defining the term "donkey" on the poker glossary page. The definition wasn't perfect and the expression is a slang one, but so are half the terms on the list. It is a ubiquitous term in the poker world (e.g. it is even used in a Full Tilt Poker television ad featuring Mike Matusow). I would make the argument that if the term fish is to be included in the list, then to exclude "donkey" is illogical. --Raoul Duke (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fish should be removed. It's a glossary, not a dictionary, meaning when writing an article we would not fefer to a poor player as a fish or a donkey, but rather as a poor or unskilled player. 2005 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In private correspondence with Michael Wiesenberg, a prime source for that page, we agreed that "fish" was an established word, and that "donkey" was used mostly by fish, to refer to fish they perceived as even worse than themselves. Private correspondence is of course not citable, but "fish" is in our source. The line between proper terminology and slang is sometimes thin. PhGustaf (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Established is not the point. Big Slick and American Airlines are "established", but they should never be used in an article. Likewise fish and donkey would never be used for several reasons, including WP:BLP. Bad or poor player would always be used. We aren't a dictionary of poker terms. It's a glossary so people can understand terms used in encyclopedic articles. 2005 (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Query Edits re Bodog

You recently removed references that were added describing Bodog's international licensees. All information contained regarding Bodog Europe and Bodog Asia was correctly referenced and accurate. Your edit was identified as 'clean up'. I query why only the US operation remains referenced. The organization is not simply a US operation or brand. How is this edit properly characterized as clean up and what was its justification? User258079 (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You added no refernces, only the URLs of the websites. The Misplaced Pages only deals with the notable activities of article subjects. If independant, third-party, reliable sources discuss something, fine, but dropping links to websites is not appropriate. Additionally, your edits removed wikilinks to content, so please be more careful in the future. 2005 (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference to the Asian licensing announcement in Asia was to a press release posted on Yahoo Finance, not a website. The reference to the independent websites was simply to indicate that they operate different sites from the North American licensee. The link to First Cagayan licensing body in the Philippines was simply to verify the statement that Haydock is independently licensed. I appreciate the guidance with respect to ensuring I do not inadvertently remove links, but the goal with these edits was to improve the article by making clear that the operation was a licensing regime with three separate licensees, each with its own independent gaming license. Misplaced Pages does not only deal with "activities" of subjects - the edits were intended to describe the structure of this organization accurately. I'm not particularly pro-Bodog, and I do appreciate the spirit in which the edits were made - would be grateful for guidance as to how you think this is more appropriately represented, given that I do not have extensive experience contributing to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User258079 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Press releases are not reliable sources, except to say something like "in 2009 the company claimed...". The Phillipine item said something got some permission, but also noted nothing was Bodog branded. Again, a third party mention of this... CNBC, Washington Post, Cardplayer Magazine, eGaming Review, or some other similar media outlets needs to cover it. The information may or may not be encyclopedic, but online gambling companies, all large companies actually, have plenty of arms or affiliated companies that are just not notable in a reliably sourced way. Saying Bodog operates different sites certainly could merit a couple sentences if a reliable source or Bodog webpage says so, but it needs to be structured properly with verification. 2005 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Rousso help

I need a little help getting the Vanessa Rousso article to the main page according to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Vanessa_Rousso. Can you find another 500 or so characters to expand the article? I can not think of anything missing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The external links are just like those in almost every other poker player bio. Please don't remove them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Refer to Misplaced Pages:External_links#References and citation. The pages are in the citations so they do not belong in external links. And all the poker articles do comply with the guideline. 2005 (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New Article Deletion

I noticed that you removed the new Morris Mohawk Gaming Group article that I created yesterday and redirected to the "Bodog" article. I would question this decision. Bodog is the trademark and, of course, deserves its place in the encyclopedia for its significant history in the online gaming space as well as other sectors. However, the MMGG is the operator of one of the largest online gaming sites in the world and is a significant player in the industry. I realize that the MMGG is mentioned in the Bodog article as a brand licensee, but the removed article presented considerable additional information that would not have been appropriate on a Bodog article. I took great pains to ensure that the facts were accurately researched and properly sourced, including securing directly from the MMGG permission to post their logo, which took several days. Unlike PartyPoker or Full Tilt, the brand "Bodog" is not the equivalent of group actually operating and developing one of the more significant sites in a relatively controversial sector. By way of analogy, Ceasar's Palace has its own Misplaced Pages article, but so does Harrah's, the company that owns and operates that brand. I will wait for your response before seeking to re-post to be certain I understand the rationale for removal, but would ask that this be reconsidered. User258079 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens, if not hundres of Microgaming casinos. We don't have articles on them all. The Morris information can go in the Bodog article, and in fact you had duplicated info between the two articles. In addition, there is no independent way to verify the differences between the two, other than what they say, so from our perspective they are the same thing (in other words, your Ceasar's/Harrah's analogy shows why Morris/Bodog should not have two articles). Morris has his personal article, and Bodog is a company article. Since MMGG's business is basically just Bodog, it's redundant to have two articles. You can recreate the article and then have it taken to an AFD process so others can decide, but I doubt "two articles for the same business" will be allowed. 2005 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User258079 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vanessa Rousso

On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vanessa Rousso, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Page keeps getting redirected

You keep redirecting the page for Cake Poker to Cake Poker Network. Can you please explain? These are two completely separate companies, the only relationship is the fact that Cake Poker resides on the Cake Poker Network. But you haven't done the same with Doyle's room or any other of the network sites that are on the cake poker network. Its like coca-cola the beverage vs. coca-cola the manufacturer. Wiki-pmd (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First, you also appear to have a conflict of interest, so you should refrain from editing any of these Cake articles. They are not different companies. Cake is a skin of the network. No skins have articles, except when the company meets the criteria for an article elsewhere. Doyle's could be redirected to the Network article, but it is different in that it has been on four or so platforms so far. No other Cake skin will get an article, unless it is something like Harrahs opens a Cake skin. In that case, Harrahs merits an article on its own, and its poker room would be mentioned in THAT article. No separate article would be made though. This is how it works with every online company like Playtech has an article but Titan Poker and others do not. Also Tokwiro Enterprises. Obviously Cake is not going to be treated more special or "better" than any other company. The Network cardroom can have an article. If a skin is notable enough to ahve a section in that article, fine. 2005 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Review Request

This is about to hit the main page at DYK in about 45 minutes. If you could take a quick look at the most recent proposed change at Talk:PokerTracker#Interpretation_of_facts that would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PokerTracker copyedit

You have been very active in copyediting some of my poker articles. At Talk:PokerTracker/GA1, I have attempted to copyedit according to a discussant's request. You may be able to improve on what I have done to help the article achieve WP:GA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PokerTracker DYK

You should have gotten some credit for this as well:

On June 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PokerTracker, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Gambling Tools Reversion

I'd be interested in learning your rationale for removing many external links I've provided to relevant sports betting calculators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.156.215 (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the spam, conflict of interest and external links guidelines. Driving by and doing nothing but adding multiple links to the same site will always get reverted. 2005 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting links to those guidelines. I've added a disclosure of interest to my new user page and do plan to (respectfully) expand on my reasons for disagreeing with your particular assessment later. Thanks for having taken the time to reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBR.Marketing (talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

World Series of Poker bracelet GAR notice

World Series of Poker bracelet has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bodog Links

Thank you for your comment re the addition of the links on the Bodog article. It was not my intention to spam - the links have been removed; the names of the websites remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User258079 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS

Hey 2005,

Was there a specific place where there was discussion about the style for poker at the MOS? Or were you just broaching the subject? Where is it covered?---I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to start it at the Project, where you replied, since it covers tons of articles. 2005 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and write up a formalized proposal, then we can discuss it amongst ourselves... and then seek outside input.---I'm Spartacus! 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I did write a proposal, which you replied to but no one else. I was going to wait a week or so to see if anyone else before doing anything else. 2005 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for this reversion, 2005. I misread the previous diffs on WP:popups and I mistakenly thought you had restored the info about the children, brother etc which wasn't supported by the cited sources. Sorry about that. Regards, Sarah 07:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. 2005 (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Poker Icons

Related to Poker Agents in page Sports agent, you deleted my entry. I don't understand why, could you please clarify the rationale and when necessary changes done, please take it back Franke74 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The entries were not notable, with notable defined as "has a wikipedia article". Notice there are no agents on that page who do not have articles. 2005 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Related to Poker Icons page, you deleted my entry as a speedy deletion. I replied the rationale for the page, but still you deleted it within 20 minutes after my first reply. We live probably in different time zones, hence any discussion needs to be given some room in time. I have continued the discussion in this matter on the talk page in question. Please revise your earlier decision. Franke74 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete your entry. Another editor did. 2005 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response. Since the page is gone, I can't see who has deleted the entry. Can you please guide me. Which editor should I talk with? Regards Franke74 (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gambling article edits

Hello there. I notice that you have reverted some of my minor copyediting on some of the gambling articles. With respect to your edits:

• External links are bulleted lists
• Notes are just that: notes that expand points in the article. References are the sources of the info. The section should be headed with the appropriate name.
• A minor point but the {{reflist}} template seems to be preferred over the <references> tag which is why I use it.

Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:FOOT and also WP:MSP which the gambling related articles follow. the Notes section is for inline Footnotes. If there is a section for general references, that is titles references. Also the <references> tag is normally used for under ten references, with reflist for more than ten. Also, you should never change an established note/references style, especially when there is a standard format adopted by consensus being being used in all similar articles. 2005 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Backgammon GAR notification

Backgammon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PokerTracker GA Thanks

Thank you for your editorial assistance on PokerTracker, which is now a WP:GA.

This user helped promote PokerTracker to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Rousso GA thanks

Thank you for your editorial contributions to Vanessa Rousso, which is now a WP:GA.

This user helped promote Vanessa Rousso to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations Missing vs Ref Improve

Honestly, I don't think I used the wrong template on the Shill article. See Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Requesting_sources. I did not say that the article was "unreferenced", which would mean that it had no references at all; I used "citations missing", which means there's some citations that should be there and aren't. I don't believe it means they're all missing, else we wouldn't need the "unreferenced" template as well.

But I am still puzzling over what "ref improve" means; why would you need all three options? My current interpretation is that "ref improve" means that facts in the article do have citations, but ought to have more. I'm not sure when that would come up; perhaps when a topic is controversial, and having more citations adds to the trustworthiness of the article?

Ikrieg (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove means the article has references, but additional ones are needed (or seem a good idea). The template you added says "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes". Since it has footnotes, clearly the template is inappropriate in that way. That template was up for deletion last year since it seems redundant to unreferenced, but there was no consensus because some editors used it when a book is an overall reference but indivdual items are not sourced with inline citations. That is pretty obscure, but also not the case here. Since refimprove is definitely more clear here where there are some footnotes already, it seems a much better choice to me. (Also, even though it isn't exactly the point, as you see, that article is kinda crappy to start with, so "improve" is a better concept to have at the top than "cite the poor material".) 2005 (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the added history. I think the use of the word "missing" is just ambiguous. If I own 8 bowls but there's only 6 in my kitchen, there's bowls missing; but certainly there are still bowls there. In that sense, the template was perfectly appropriate. However, it does seem like deleting a template this ambiguous would make sense. Ikrieg (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

IG Group

Just wondering what your reasons are for redirecting the IG Index page to the IG Group page. We are trying to update Wiki to make it accurate, and the page is neutral in tone with more information on this spread betting company. Although IG Index is part of IG Group Holdings, the business is unique to the Group in that it is the only one that provides spread betting.

There are several other examples of this. For instance BT Group http://en.wikipedia.org/BT_Group and a page for BT Global Services business http://en.wikipedia.org/BT_Global_Services

Also, if you do feel compelled to revert a page, you could at least do the editor the courtesy of explaining why. For the record there are two of us editing this page, not a so-called “sockpuppet”. And there is no conflict of interest either, merely an increase of information.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharoneharris (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues here. First, please read WP:COI, WP:SPA and WP:SPAM, and refrain from editing pages where you have a conflict of interest. Misplaced Pages is not here to promote this company. Your edits and the second/sockpuppet account have all only promoted this company. It already has an article. All companies that have online gambling articles in the Misplaced Pages are treated the same: only the parent company has an article, see Party Gaming. IG Group will not be treated special. Every sub-aspect of the company does not get broken out into a different article. If you want to suggest more information on the spread betting aspect of the IG Group, use the talk page of that article. 2005 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Subcat

• Card games are not to be categorized as card games, only in subcats, if that's what I understood. What sort of article should we category in card games 2005, can you clarify ?
• Another thing is, can you remove the Refimprove tags from the card game articles that do not need this tag anymore ? Some are really old ! Krenakarore (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes go ahead and remove refimprove tags if you have done anything to significantly improve the references aspect of an article. if you only change the text in the article, don't remove the tag. As for the main card games category, basically no games should go into the main category. They should be subcategorized in as many ways as appropriate (trick-taking games, german games, etc.) The only things in the Card games category itself are the main card games article, and four "people" articles -- because we don't have a "card game authors" type of category. If there was such a category it would be basically be all the gambling/poker writers plus the four authors in the current card game category (Parlett, Hoyle, etc.). A lot of the card games articles could use help, especially with references from Pagat.com or elsewhere, but one thing not to do is add is a link to the pagat main page, as external links should only be directly relevant to the article topic... so a whist article can have an external link to Pagat's whist page, but not to the main pagat.com URL. Good luck with the editing. :-) 2005 (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging card game artiles

• Thanks for the precious piece of advice. It's being followed accordingly.
• Merges have been performed on the following articles:

1. Five-Handed Euchre was merged to Euchre variations.
2. Another page called Euchre regional variations was created, and moved to Euchre game variations, to alocate the variations listed on Euchre variations page, which is now listing only variations on rules and game terminology.
3. The Hasenpfeffer variation, previously listed on Euchre variations page, was merged to Bid Euchre, according to its classification.
4. Five-Handed Euchre (Bid) was merged to Bid Euchre too.
5. And the Dirty clubs short article was merged to Bid Euchre as well.

• I have just asked User talk:Flatscan to add the "copied|from=source|to=destination|diff=permanent diff" tag to the talk page of each of the articles listed above (I can't get the meaning of "diff=permanent diff" myself). Could you supervise this work 2005 ? Thanks a lot ! Krenakarore (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look but I know little about Euchre. It does sound like you are doing a good job cleaning up some duplicate article repetition here. 2005 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions...

		The Gambler's Barnstar
		On October 25, 2009 Evercat hereby presents you with the first ever Gambler's Barnstar for your unceasing work on keeping gambling-related articles free from spam.

Rakeback

Hi. I noticed you are fairly active in poker articles, so I have a question for you. I'm currently working on an article about rakeback (User:PokitJaxx/Rakeback), but I'm having trouble finding sources, since all Google results about rakeback are either rakeback providers' webpages or forum discussions. Could you please help me out? PokitJaxx (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing issue for along time as many rakeback websites have tried to spam different articles including making up their own. I don't think rakeback merits an article. It is mostly just jargon, and there are no sources like the New York Times that cover it (in other words, trouble findign sources speaks for itself). I'd suggest you just look at Rakeback now and add a sentence or two if you think that would help. Also, the controversies involving rakeback are not encyclopedic (skins stealing players from other skins) and subjective. Anyway, that's my feedback, just focus on the definition in the glossary. 2005 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Although I feel much more can be written about rakeback, you indeed have a good point. I'll keep that article in my userspace for now and try to expand the definition or maybe create a section in the rake (poker) article. PokitJaxx (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That would work too, since obviously rakeback is a subsection of rake itself. You wrote a good explanation, but on the one hand it is just more detail explaining the concept that can be summed up simply. I don't think that adds essential encyclopedic value without great sources. If we could source it with something that was not intimately involved with the concept that could be good, but right now the only "authoritative" sources would be the cardrooms themselves, which are primary sources. The secondary sources are all basically worthless. Expanding the current three sentences to maybe ten in a separate section of rake, and using Stars and Tilt cardroom pages as references maybe would be the best way -- but then that also leads to favoritism criticism. Using the two largest sites is the least "play favorites" way, but still this is part of why it is such a can of worms. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Steam and tilt

Hi. I proposed a merger of articles Steam (poker) and Tilt (poker). The discussion is at Talk:Tilt (poker)#Merger proposal if you're interested. PokitJaxx (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I didn't realize there was a steam article. It should be mereged and redirected to tilt. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric Buchman

Eric Buchman passes WP:N now that he ranked in the tournament. He has multiple WSOP cashes and is a professional player. I am contesting the RV now as his notability has been established. If you want you can put the article for AFD but there is a lot of information that can be added now. The November Nine from previous years all have their own articles now it would be much more beneficial to expand this article. Valoem 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No he certainly does not pass WP:N. In fact, he directly fails the Misplaced Pages Poker Project criteria for an article. The consensus was last years November Nine players should not have had articles. Please again refer to the project discussion and WP:BIO1E. Buchman needs significant, independeant coverage of something other than this year's November Nine to merit a separate article. 2005 (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that however his WSOP cashes plus his final table appearance should push him over the top on the criteria. If you want you can put all the November Nine up for AfD I don't see how that would be beneficial as the information is cited and reliable.Valoem 14:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that does nothing at all. Please read the guidelines, WP:N. The only consideration is independant coverage in reliable sources. "Accomplishments" that are not written about in reliable sources count for nothing. I'll let another day or two go by to give you a chance to add reliable sources that don't just focus on the November Nine, but if none are added I'll put it and the other one up for Afd. The guideline is clear that we should not have one-event bio articles where the event is clearly what is being written about and not a relatively random person. 2005 (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Betting exchanges (cat)

Hi 2005, I noticed that a draft article of an already speedily deleted betting exchange in someone's is appearing live in the . I'm not quite sure how to proceed as it would seem rude to edit someone else's draft! Any ideas? Hazir (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a rule about this... basically user pages should never be in the regular categories, so the proper protocol is to remove the cats from the user page... and I'd always add a note saying saying why. 2005 (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I saw you already made the change. I'll keep this rule in mind for the future. Regards Hazir (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tradefair

I think that this article should be redirected/merged to the existing Betfair article, for the exact same reasons you outlined in the Casinoeuro AfD. If you are agreeable, can we add this to the existing AfD discussion? I am not sure how to do this exactly, as I have only nominated articles one at a time in the past. Hazir (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you just redirect Tradefair to Betfair. I only had to do an afd because the single-purpose original author reverted the redirect. In cases like this I'd say follow the normal procedure and create a redirect, and if someone challenges that then we have to go to AFD. 2005 (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)