User talk:2005

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 Wikipedia

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 Wikipedia 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? 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)

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)

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)

Rakeback FAQ Spam?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

WikiProject Gambling userbox

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 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)

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 ^talk 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 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)

Vanity additions

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)

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)

"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)

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 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)

Steve Billirakis

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)

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≡^Talk 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≡^Talk 07:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Why did you revert my two contributions: [1] ? "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 Wikipedia 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: [2]. 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 "[Wikipedia articles are not] 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 Wikipedia 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[s]". Are you interested in trying to start a policy to cover this gap? Stevage 03:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is not [[3]]? 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: [4], [5] , [6]. 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 Wikipedia. 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

[7] 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

World of Solitaire

I'd be interested in your opinion of this article, World of Solitaire. This user seems to be adding a link to this site to all solitaire-related articles, and he also created a page about the site. I have a feeling that this is an attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle, but I wanted to get a second opinion. Thanks. Rray (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. 2005 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"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 ^talk _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 ^{(Talk | email)} 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 ^{(Talk | email)} 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)

Creating a new article on Archie Karas

Hi I am a retired wikipedia editor, I've seen that you are highly involved in the gambling scene. Anyways I was hoping you could start an article on Archie Karas. I think he is more than notable and has been ranking as having the most sucessful run in gambling history winning more than 40 million. 71.248.235.167 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is my list of things to do, but probably not in the next few days. 2005 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 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)

No thanks

This [8] was an unacceptably provocative edit summary. The content is about the PPA, sourced only from the PPA website. If it's significant, there will be a reliable independent source for it, and that's the source that should be cited. If we allowed every single advocacy group to be linked sourced fomr its own materials in that way, we would have an absolute POV nightmare on our hands, that's why we have policies requiring independent sourcing. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You are confused. First, leave comments on article pages. Second it's perfectly acceptable to quote organizations and people about themselves. We don't need third party sources to confirm opinions. 2005 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling something an "absurd edit" is uncivil. For better results, please try to use more neutral edit summaries. I am also in agreement with Guy that pokerplayersalliance.org is not the strongest source. You are correct that organization websites can be quoted for information about themselves, but this is only for non-contentious information. See WP:SELFPUB. For a statement like, "has over 900,000 members", if the source is challenged, it's better to find a stronger source. --Elonka 04:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on what is at isssue, not what is not. It says the organization "claims" not "has". The best source for what a person or organization "claims" is a direct cite, not a third party one. I shouldn't have said the edit was absurd, though it was not proper. But Wikidrama over an edit summary is not helpful either. Looking at the issue in question is. The strongest source for an organization's claim is obviously the organization's own page, whether the claim is true or absurd. 2005 (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please help

I'm new to Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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)

You are so busted!

I have Acroterion on my side. Give up. You can't beat me!

And now Thesavior666 (talk · contribs)'s blocked, the user by Antandrus and the IP by me. Let me know if the IP gives further trouble, as the IP's a 48-hour block and the user for 24. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 05:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Pokerstrategy.com

I declined the speedy on this article because it didn't have any promotional language (an article about a business is not neccesarily the same as promotion). If you believe the subject to be non-notable, please retag it A7 or bring it to AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of wiki farms

Thanks for sticking with it. This has all happened before, where Timeshifter refuses to accept consensus on external links (and list inclusion criteria). See Talk:List_of_mind_mapping_software/Archive_1#Linkfarm for an example where we let him try out different approaches for a while. If you see anything worth trying again, bring it up. --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2009 (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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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)

poker babes

Before this turns into an edit war, I'm asking you, 2005, and the others involved to start discussing the Poker Babes bio's at wp:poker. This is getting ridiculous. Also, 2005, deleting content/links is not vandalism, it is a content dispute. Please refrain from assuming bad faith on the part of other editors.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see above, he wholesale deleted links as a threat, which is obviously vandalism. As I explained at the project, I did explain on his talk page how to properly source. 2005 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies... I just saw a ton of reverting back and forth... that I wanted to get it resolved before it turned into a full fledged war.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:56, 12 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)