User talk:Hazir

Premium Charge

Hi Hazir, I don't understand your revision to the Betfair page. I understand "balance", but I don't think it's appropriate to try to achieve that by inserting something that's factually incorrect, and unreferenced. Betfair increased what they charge winners in 2008. They've always charged winners, but now some of them pay more than before (and they're unhappy). But the change doesn't affect who stands the bets. Betfair are no more (and no less) interested in the outcome of an event than they were before. Adonisthefirst (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adonis, your edits are obviously an attempt to understate the significance of the policy change, which created a well documented furore amongst Betfair's members. The fact is that Betfair used to be a neutral provider of an exchange platform, charging the same amount of commission for winning bets, regardless of how successful a member is. However, with the premium charge, particularly successful bettors (as defined by Betfair's criteria) must pay additional charges. Hazir (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hazir,

I'm sorry that you have misinterpreted my motives. Your previous edit suggested that Betfair had gone from being an intermediary which matches customer bets to being counterparty to their bets (and therefore going from "neutral" to having the interest a conventional bookie would have), even if that wasn't your intention, and that's why I undid it - it was factually incorrect. If you take a step back and look at the current article, there is no way in the world you could claim that it understates the significance of the premium tax as a policy change, with or without any recent edits. Could I respectfully ask that you compare the current Betfair article with a properly balanced article like eBay?: That article talks about the company generally, then talks about its products and services, and then deals with controversy in section 9. The Betfair article, even following my most recent edit had "Controversy" and "Premium Charge" as more prominent categories than its products and services! Again comparing with eBay, they too have in the past significantly increased prices for a certain section of their userbase (commercial sellers) which has on more than one occasion "created a well-documented furore", but that doesn't justify greater prominence in that article than the basic information about eBay. Could I steer you toward WP:ASF to remind you of the Wikipedia guidelines for impartiality, in particular that articles should avoid mass attribution? Again in the case of eBay many disgruntled users have attempted to edit the article to make greater prominence of their gripes, and good editing has kept the article objective. The text you reinstated: " The charge has significantly changed the relationship between Betfair and its customers, as Betfair can no longer claim to be a neutral bet exchange provider "where winners are welcome" (its mantra for many years)." isn't factual, is opinion, and isn't referenced, and really shouldn't be on Wikipedia according to the guidelines. As anyone with a knowledge of the UK gambling industry would know, the "winners welcome" line attempts to contrast Betfair with bookmakers whose practice it is to close or restrict the stakes of winning customers. If you're clever enough you can quite happily win £1 million on Betfair next year, premium charges or not, so the opinion that Betfair can no longer claim that winners are welcome is just that, opinion, and shouldn't be in a Wiki article. The use of the word "neutral" makes no sense in English. "Neutral" doesn't mean "all customers pay the same commission rate", and even if it did then no betting exchange is, or has been, "neutral": they all charge different customers different commission rates based on the amount they bet. I won't attempt to rewrite that sentence myself for fear that you'll just undo my edit, regardless of Wikipedia guidelines, but could I respectfully ask that you consider rewriting it so that it's factually correct and does comply? Adonisthefirst (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adonis, The mantra has always been, "where winners are welcome", it's now more accurately, "where winners are welcome, as long as they pay enough commission, and if they don't, we'll tax them extra." The relationship between Betfair and its members did change significantly with the introduction of a Premium Charge. This is not my opinion, it is factually correct. The version you created was so watered down, readers would wonder why some people were so upset at the time! I'm not going to get into a semantic argument about the use of the word "neutral". I think the current version is sound. Hazir (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Life After Death

Hi there. Unless I'm missing something, Life After Death is about a clearly notable rap album? I'd suggest that trying to AFD that article would be a bad idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

Ah, that would make more sense =). I've just had a look and I can't find anything to suggest that the campaign is notable, and I am pretty certain that AFD would result in a consensus to delete (I would vote that way). Don't let possible vandalism and intimidation from the author dissuade you from listing it if you think that doing so would improve the encyclopædia (and if in doubt, I'd be happy to warn him if he does it again). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

List of wineries in the Barossa Valley

Oh don't worry. I'm not going to do any reverting. I tried my best in good faith to see if Stefan's plea of WP:SOFIXIT had merit. I've got my answer. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You make the assumption that your gutted article is somehow an improvement over the original one - I beg to differ. I think all of the winery lists slated for deletion should be built upon, with relevant detail added, such as the year established, production output etc. And no, I'm not likely to do this, I have enough on my plate already in my area of interest (sports betting and poker). It's nothing personal - I just don't see the haste in deletion. Hazir (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine and I understand it's not personal. Though I'm surprised that you think the original unreferenced article with its WP:POV, subjective WP:ADVERT section of "iconic" wines is better. Would you thinks it worthwhile to have any article on List of betting lines for the 2009 NFL season with some random, subjective listing of the "best bets" on which games to bet on? Essentially that is what that iconic wine section is, it is some person's random POV WP:OR on what are the best, most iconic wines from each of these wineries. But again, its alright. I see a lot of benefit to your reverting. Might work out a lot better than I expected. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I would be strongly opposed to such an article. But we are talking about a very different beast here. The online gambling industry is a a cut-throat, competitive one, in which there exists many thousands of back-yard operations, affiliate portals and professional spammers. An article like the one you suggested would be inundated with spam and vandalism on a daily basis. In contrast, those winery lists have been up for ages and have proven to be very civil. I don't see the big deal in leaving them up in their current state as I think they are more likely to encourage participation. Anyhow, I won't labor the point. We are both trying to improve WP, we just have different ways of seeing things. Hazir (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help commenting the communication between you and Agne27 on Talk:Seppeltsfield. When you write "I've no doubt you've seen the Penfolds article, why haven't you plastered it with tags?", I believe the WP:GOFISHING essay would make interesting reading to you. And when you comment "in the same time you spent plastering tags all over the article along with detailed explanations, you probably could have rewritten it", I'd like to point out that no users have any obligations as to which edits they perform, other than following Wikipedia policies in the edits they actually do. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Shackleford

Just a quick to note to point out that someone has removed your PROD template from this page. I have a number of issues with this article as well; it's three years old and yet still doesn't seem to have attracted any references beyond a few shaky external links, which read to me as basically "promotional" in nature. In my opinion, it's time to seek opinions regarding whether or not this article meets things like the requirement for "notability" according to our policies. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Decon, I did some research yesterday and discovered that there's [handful] of articles that could be used to establish notability. The problem is that most of the articles are old/obscure/low interest and would require someone to purchase and host them. I can't imagine this will ever happen (unless Shackleford himself decides to do it) so the article will remain in a derelict state for many years to come. Hazir (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd Witteles

I have an issue with your reversion of my edit on Witteles' page. It is filled with minor poker accomplishments, that need not be listed. Literally thousands of people have similar accomplishments, winning 500 dollar tournaments, cashing in WSOP events. These aren't wroth noting. Is it's wikipedia's goal to catalog non-events? Witteles is a minor figure in the poker world, and deserves to have a page, but his notoriety come from the Neverwinpoker website, from his WSOP limit holdem bracelet and ESPN appearance, his accomplishments as an online limit hold 'em cash player and his outspokenness in the UB/absolute poker scandal. But I don't understand how listing every minor cash he has made is "wiki-worthy" for lack of a better phrase. Witteles is, at the end of the day, a minor poker figure. Also, I would like your opinion on the user poker2006. He is the person who created the Witteles page, and has done by far the most amount of edits, mostly reverting vandalism (Witteles' association with Neverwinpoker makes his page a target of vandals). Upon re-viewing his edits, and some of the pages he's contributed too, as far as I can tell his entire contribution to Wiki is maintaining the Witteles page, and I suspect he is Witteles himself. This interaction on userpage JoanneB's user talk page I find the most damning evidence of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoanneB/Archive2006/July. The idea that poker2006 is just a neutral interviewer is preposterous. My point is, those entries, about Witteles' minor cashes, I highly suspect were written by the man himself, and I think his interest in exhaustively listing even his most minor poker accomplishments are at odds with the goal of the site. There is no one who visits Witteles's page, besides the man himself, that is at all interested in how he finished 12th in the 1500 LHE Shootout event at the WSOP. I know I'm new to wiki editing, but it seems to me that Witteles' page should be a great deal leaner than it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xapxapxap (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The creator of the article probably was Todd (or one of his friends) but this is difficult to prove and I don't really see the point in chasing it now - he's clearly a notable poker player and the article is not spammy or promotional. As I said in the talk page, the article could probably do with some trimming but this should be done thoughtfully. Deleting a large slab like you did (at least 1/2 of the article) without thinking about how the article reads afterwards is fairly crude and does not improve the article. There's no rush, so take it easy, chip away at the article, and think about each edit that you make. May I ask, what did Todd ever do to you? Did he insult you on his poker forum? Regards Hazir (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He's done absolutely nothing to me, I actually respect the stand's he's taken against UB/absolute, and other poker issues, and I like him over all. I didn't edit his page to spite him, I just think his page is littered, is all. I do indeed think he's a notable poker player, just not notable for some of the things that's in his wiki entry. My point in bringing up that I believe him to be the author the page, is that I think the page is self indulgent.