Talk:David Williams (card game player)

Personal

Dating Summer Altice -former playboy playmate. It's covered on 'his own blog'. Once again censors here wont allow it because they don't think blogs are credible. LOL.

Why won't this stay here?

Everytime I write something here it's gone very soon, but I see no edit history. I want to add the Porno to David Williams' Wiki. I have tons of proof it was him, as is now generally accepted in the poker world.

The edit history is available at the top of the article page (not this talk page). Your last entry was reverted in part because it had the laughable assertion that your website broke this story a month ago when it has been common knowledge among Magic players since before his World Series finish, and among poker players since right after the 2004 WSOP. Adding an encyclopedic mention of the porn stuff is apropriate. Adding a reference to your website revealing something most people knew two years before you is not appropriate. 2005 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's because there are business and David Williams who are censoring the TRUTH.

Ok, I somewhat understand...

and I appologize for the vandalism to the page - it's most likely my users from NWP, and I have asked them in the forums to stop. Even though the under-under-underground, close to David or the Magic scene knew about it, maybe 2000 ppl actually knew it was him. NWP made it a big enough deal so that *everyone* knew about it - my site was certianly the medium that brought the information to 100's of thousands.

Either way, a mention of NWP is not what I'm after here. I want a sentance or two about the porn scandal. I believe and something should also be said about how Cardplayer / Bluff / Pokernews and the big poker media all had stories ready to go and they all shelved them due to "taste issues." Further more, the DVD, which I own, is no longer available for purchase - a few weeks after NWP re-broke the story. DW bought the master from Janet. Something, SOMETHING should be said about this. It is a very important part of an encyclopedic entry. I absolutely love Wikipedia, and I want it to be as complete & factual as possible.

Your assertion about how many people knew about this is just silly. Only newbies didn't know about it. It's been common knowledge in poker circles for two years. The video was on RGP for heaven's sake. This is very old news that has been common knowledge a long time, whether you knew about it or not. Also, your "taste issues" assertion is another type of thing the encyclopedia can't use. You (and no human) can know exactly why each one of those entities may or may not have shelved articles, so we don't go there. As I said, an encyclopedic couple sentences could be written, but it is certainly not important. It's a minor bit of old trivia. 2005 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor bit of old trivia?

The purpose of Wikipedia is that is should contain as close to "The Whole Story" as possible. The line should say something like this:

"on 7/28/2003 David Williams starred in "College Cock; Volume 8 "Tony's First Lesson." In April of 2006 the story the story traveled around the internet poker communities and shortly thereafter the title was no longer for sale."

The purpose of the Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, which is not the "whole story". Trivia like when someone gets up in the morning is "the whole story" but not encyclopedic. And yes this is extreme trivia to everybody but fourteen year olds. I added a line to the article, citing an early source. That is plenty. 2005 06:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly happy!

That is great! Citing the earliest reference is acceptable.

Kind of Off topic

I don't understand. How would Accumulated Knowledge be the best card to have at the begining.

Accumulated Knowledge

Who was it that said that Accumulated Knowledge was the best possible card for his starting hand? One or even two AKs against Van de Logt's RB deck would be marginal at best. They don't do anything against Plague Spitter or any of VdL's other threats.

Still a student

Not sure how current the statement that he's a student of Economics at Southern Methodist University is. Anyone know for sure? Essexmutant 01:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits over the porn trivia item

I'll just put this down here on record. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV hold that there is a strict requirement that information on Wikipedia be verifiable and that it be presented in a neutral way. Presenting this as fact "codified by pictures" and declaring that it goes "beyond coincidence" or whatever it was that the text some editors keep reverting to says CLEARLY advances a point of view. Furthermore, the analysis of the pictures and the degree of resemblance between them and Williams represents the original research of one or two Wikipedia editors, which means that WP:NOR again prevents the text from being included. If a reputable third party publication were to make the declarations that one or two editors want to make in this article, then we could potentially include them, sourced to the reputable third party publication. In the meantime, the edits should and will continue to be reverted. Croctotheface 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

````What garbage. He did to the porn. And the people demanding it be taken off the page have an AGENDA. They are either business partners or David Williams who is trying to cover it up.

Include the information. Wikipedia is becoming more and more used for polics and spin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.118.35 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it up, please. Not only has this "news" about David Williams never been properly sourced, it isn't even interesting. Or relevant. Or encyclopedic. Plenty of people have already directed you to the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines. If you can properly source this information, using a RELIABLE source, then do so. Otherwise, leave it out. Either follow the sourcing guidelines, or don't post this mess. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

```` Every poker website is covering but we can't allow it posted here because Time,Washington Post and CNN didn't cover it. Suspicious to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.73.155 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Error with Seven Card Stud Hand

If what is true on the page Hoang would have won with a spade flush. Also, Williams hand is different on the WSOP Results page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_World_Series_of_Poker_Results#Event_10:_.241.2C500_7_Card_Stud What was the hand of both of them because if it like that than Hoang would have won the event.

• A spade flush requires five spades. This article claims he had three, don't get confused by the two clubs in his hand. Jay32183 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Quit censoring or get reported

Removing the porn scandal background is AGAINST wiki policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.118.35 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. If you want to write something trivial as his "porn scandal", do it within Wikipedia guidelines and write it in NPOV ton. Your attempted "edits" seems to be nothing more than 2 links to pages. One of which links to a forum and another that seems to be some random website that copy and pasted content from various other websites. Hardly a good source for "information" or a reputable source.

Mostly your edits are being reverted because they are unencyclopedic and not abidding by the Wikipedia standards for editing articles, See Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page Strongsauce 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also do not "threaten" to report other editors for Wikipedia policy violations. If you feel that have violated some policy, first warn them on their userpage using tempates from the Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace before actually reporting them if they continue to violate said policy. Strongsauce 16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)