User talk:JaeDyWolf

If you want an extended conversation, please watch this talk page. If the conversation begins here, I will continue it here.
In addition, I will be copying conversations that I've a major part in on this talk page, with notification.

Self-Reminders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Antivandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1 (Linking specific articles)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism (Reporting vandalism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion (Articles for deletion link)

PokerStars talk page section link

Rollback

I noticed your comment about rollback. If you install WP:TWINKLE it will give you rollback as part of the tools. Very powerful and makes vandalism chasing a whole bunch easier. Regards, --Manway (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Fricke Page

My recent edits to Jimmy Fricke's Wikipedia page made the first sentence a complete sentence. As of now, the first sentence, "Jimmy Fricke (born April 19, 1987) from Mahomet, Illinois.", does not have a predicate. As such, I believe my edits were not vandalism and were instead contributing in a positive manner. --Cono69 (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RE: Jimmy Fricke Page

Perhaps you don't know the history of "a freak and a very weird dude." http://pokerterms.com/freak-and-a-very-weird-dude.html

Jimmy Fricke himself admits it is true: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54/poker-beats-brags-variance/beat-am-freak-very-weird-dude-52809/ --Cono69 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Hill's coin-flip test

A little off wiki aside this link will auto flip up to 100 coins at at time, pick the dime it's easier to make out. cheers. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bracelet template

I created the template and there was no consensus to use it. I think they should exist for every year, but there was a discussion and I believe an RFC against, if I recall correctly. I still support their use, but am not sure how to get consent. Of course, you can always just be bold.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about one template for each decade?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current format is not as encyclopedic as it should be. You should separate each year and put them in order by event (or alphabetical if you must),IMO. This is the format I think would be best: Template:2000-2009VSFashion Show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those look good. I would reformat to the common slash convention for a player who has previously won bracelets. I.E., Bill Boyd in 1972 would be (1/2) for number that year and number in career. Johnny Moss in 71 would be (2/3). Also pipe Bill Smith.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bellande 77th ?

78th is what the WSOP results are showing. here unless you know this to be a mistake.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, reports that states the placement as well, also it looks like he won some more money on a side bet how much is unknown.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh here is more about the side bet if you were curious. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Williams

Thank you for your vigilance with respect to David William's page. I posted in the discussion page again about why the "porn" information should not be included. Not sure if it will make a difference, but your monitoring of the situation is much appreciated.Kanapapiki (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poker titles - parentheses and poker page format

perhaps the continued use of parentheses would be acceptable if a short description was included in the text box to clarify what it is. For example (+1)^* ^*Specialty event. (A better description is probably necessary but just an example)

I understand completely why you took the actions you did with respect to reversing the annie duke edit. I belive you and I are on the same page that the text box needs to be clearer. I've never liked the use of parentheses since without an explanation I think it is just confusing. I have noticed that someone is apparently tyring to standardize the "format" on the poker pages. I also think this is generally a good idea, but can result in some "choppy" pages. Not sure what others think on this subject, but I think a more standardized format can be good if the editors keep a close eye on the pages.Kanapapiki (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets in infoboxesI have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker dealing with non-titles that are listed in the brackets, feel free to give feed back there. thanks ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]You may want to give noticeYou may want to give a heads-up to User:Balloonman ,the editor who created nearly all of the WSOP ladies event winners articles, he made them at the time when he made the gold star featured list; List of World Series of Poker ladies champions. his views on WSOP bracelet winners in part can be found in this old discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker/Archive_4#Proposed_Notability_Criteria. thanks▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]COPY: RE: Giving noticeAh, then I bet he wouldn't like the look of me proposing to delete 14 articles that he created! ...I still feel that they're not notable enough on their own, though. As a side-note, did I do the right thing regarding subst:prod? Was it the right thing to do if I wanted it deleted and I executed them okay...? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]I can't say what you did was wrong, but I do believe that there are better approaches in dealing with such matters, In the case of any article that I may prod, I notify the original author that I've done so and my reason why there is a boiler plate template at the bottom of the prod that can be used "Author(s) notification template: {{subst:prodwarning|THE ARTICLE NAME|concern = }} ~~~~" but I prefer to use just normal written notice, In the case of a categories of articles I would notify both the creator and the project if there are conflicts in opinions in order to build a better consensus. Balloonman is very fair minded, so there should be nothing to worry about talking with him about the matter. cheers ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I really wasn't massively sure if I was correct, and looking at all of them afterwards made it all look far too hasty. I'm talking for Ballonman now, by the way. I know better for next time! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Balloonman deleted the prods. I've left it to think for a while, but I've decided that I really do disagree with them having articles. I'm curious as to your opinion, or what it is I should do... even if I should just back down. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]COPY: Proposed deletionsWhilst creating the WSOP Bracelet templates, I came across a number of small articles that I decided to propose deletion for. Sirex was kind enough to notify me that they were created by you, and that I should let you know. In retrospect, proposing all of them like that without any warning or questioning was probably too hasty, and I apologise for that... but at the same time I still don't think that they should have their own article yet. I'm very much open to your far more experienced opinion. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]thanks, I took those articles off of my watch list when I "retired" last year so I would not have noticed them. But IMHO they are notable enough for an article because each is a WSOP bracelet winner---which is clearly the highest level of competition in a major recognized activity. IMO blp1e should not apply as people who seek these individuals out will be doing so because they are notable and will want to know if they ever achieved another milestone, thus an article that says "no these are one hit wonders and ha" is a meaningful article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I understand your point. There was an argument last year regarding whether members of the November Nine deserve their own article. 2005, in his uncanny way of forcibly making the argument that I cannot find any fault with, mentioned that a person can be seen as notable if their actions can be recognised as accomplishments that extend beyond a single event, else the article on the person is closer to being an article on the event itself. I believe that every member of the November Nine is more notable than a one-hit-wonder Ladies Event winner! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would tend to agree with ya. BLP1E IMHO applies to people who are known for one event and unlikely to be notable again because the event for which they are known is unusual/random/etc. For example, a person who is known because a bear attacked them or because they witnessed a violent crime. Nobody is ever going to ask, "Did John Smith ever get attacked by another bear?" or "Did Jane Doe ever witness another violent crime? But they may reasonably ask, "Did that WSOP champion ever win another event?" And in asking, there is an actual presupposition that said person may have. Each of the November Nine, IMHO will have more than enough coverage to warrant an article... there is probably enough out there to justify an article on each of them now.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]There might be a lot that's said about them, but everything that I've observed is that because it's just one event, then they shouldn't have an article. You know better than me, but... I really am not all that sure. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]In the past AFD's on WSOP bracelet winners have generally resulted in Keeping the article. I only know of one article which was deleted, but that was because the article was deleted without anybody from WP:POKER even knowing the article was created let alone nom'd for deletion. In this regard it has gerally viewed as being part of WP:ATHLETE.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough... although there are MANY people with bracelets without articles... and those bracelets are open events. I'll not put them up for deletion again unless somebody else comments but I really disagree on the notability of the articles. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Online poker deletionsI checked and the paragraph that Marcos.mayorga deleted from online poker contained multiple citations and had been in the article since 2005. Are you sure you're not confusing this with the reverts of the RNG information that he had been adding lately? KimChee (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yes, I probably am confusing it... JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Poker Infobox HometownSince you and 2005 seem to be the most active in the poker arena, I wonder what your position is regarding what should be listed as a player's hometown in the infobox. It seems to be a mixture of current residence and birthplace. As I've been reviewing pages, it seems more have put the player's current residence so that is what I have done at Phil Gordon's page. Any guidance would be appreciated. Kanapapiki (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I've been mainly staying out of the editing regarding birthplace because it's so finicky... I personally would put "hometown" as where they were born, or change the infobox entry to "residence" or something similar. Maybe if one's not known but the other is then there's room for flexibility...? Aside from removing the information altogether, which I don't want to do, I can't think of much that 2005 would likely agree with. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree that "residence" or some other description would be better. Not sure I care that much as to whether the infobox lists birthplace, residence, etc., my point is simply that I would like to see accuracy and consistency. In this case I don't think there is either.Kanapapiki (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] I certanily afree that it's neither accurate nor consistent. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]This is true, it is confusing and residence should be used, Some people are born in one place but moved elsewhere when they were a child sometimes a few days or less, and see the new place they grow up as their Hometown, other whose parents moved many time as a child may say they have no hometown or only the current one they are in, while other see themselves having more then one, so the answer could differ from person to person as there are mainly 3 general definitions."Definition of HOMETOWN the city or town where one was born or grew up; also : the place of one's principal residence" - Merriam-Webster the Wikipedia entry discounts birthplace but says it could be both.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 15:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]May I ask you both which of you the you'd believe would be easier finding references for...? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Residences, only because these are reported often when players register in a tournament.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]for the majority of "ordinary" players, sure, but there would be a lot of bios about the likes of players whose notability is worth an article where they'll mention their birth place... either way, whichever is the easiest to confirm would be the single one I'd use. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]It's true many articles will list that info for many of the celeb poker players, This is an example of what I meant, they list residence but not birth place, celeb or not, so in general it's the easier to find, but there nothing to say that the infobox can't have both :)▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 00:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's true, I don't mind one or even both being there, as long as they're correct! I do think that existing ones need referencing or mentioning elsewhere in the article with reference. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] If I had to chose one I would chose residence for the infobox and put birthplace in the article. I would have no problem with both being in the infobox. If we use "residence" and "birthplace" descriptors rather than "hometown", it would seem to resolve many of the concerns.Kanapapiki (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Request your opinionBeing that you're from U.K., thought I would ask for your input here Talk:European Poker Tour season 7 results.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 23:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks; I've given my input on the talk page. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:1970s WSOP Bracelet WinnersTemplate:1970s WSOP Bracelet Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:1980s WSOP Bracelet WinnersTemplate:1980s WSOP Bracelet Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:1990s WSOP Bracelet WinnersTemplate:1990s WSOP Bracelet Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:2000s WSOP Bracelet WinnersTemplate:2000s WSOP Bracelet Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Something for your watchlistTitanic Thompson could use another set of eyeballs. Thanks 2005 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Mizrachi ReversalI was wondering why you reversed the edits by 213.17.53.39 on Nov 8. The information was correct and the reference is to the WSOP official site and not HendonMob site. I haven't updated the information pending an explanation. Not sure if HendonMob is now considered the only official stats.Kanapapiki (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]I reverted the edits because they looked to me as if they weren't taking into account how HendonMob updates the November Nine cashes and winnings before the culmination. His over tournament winnings had been increased by the total prize for his fifth-place win, not taking into account that ~$800,000 had already been taken into account. As such, all three edits looked simply incorrect. However... the discrepancy between the WSOP Official Stats and HendonMob, which is still there, probably does need to be discussed. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I accept that as a resonable explanation regarding the edit of total live tournament winnings which referenced the HendonMob, but still doesn't make sense to me why you would have reversed the others which referenced the WSOP stats about total cashes and total WSOP winnings. The information was correct and the reference should have been acceptable. Although the infobox has been updated the other information remains incorrect as of this posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanapapiki (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Kanapapiki (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]I had bunched all of the edits together in my mind. I had always checked Hendon Mob and no other website, perhaps erroneously assuming that it was completely accurate. I'll be checking both HendonMob and WSOP from now on! Feel free to further question anything I do, btw; I'm a little too headstrong sometimes. As a side-note, I emailed HendonMob about the discrepancy and they've fixed the problem. Best Christmas wished for tomorrow! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was not intending to be overly critical if it came across that way I apologize. In fact I've found you to be a very conscientious about your editing. My specific concern was whether there had been a decision to rely solely on HendonMob for official stats. More generally, I've noticed on various occassions in Wikipedia (not specific to you or your edits) that factually correct and cited information has been reversed. Sometimes it is appropriate and other times it doesn't seem to be. I guess my view is that if the information is cited, then the reversing editor bears the responsibility to check the citation.Kanapapiki (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]