Talk:Bonus hunting

I think that the article I put up on "bonus hustling" was better than this one. It had citations, and I think was written in a way that would be easier for a layman to understand. In fact, I couldn't even find this article before, so I had to write my own. Why don't we pull that article back out, decide which one we want to keep, or at least merge them a little better. GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and use/add/switch whatever you think is appropriate out of the other one. Obviously we should only have one article and this has been here, but if you want to rewrite it, go ahead. You could substitute what you wrote (as long as you keep anything that is here that you didn't touch on). 2005 (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Rray go through and change the references I used for the section on poker bonuses, without even saying anything on the edit notes? If you want to add references, that's fine, but they shouldn't be substituted for the ones I put. GusChiggins21 10:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anybody else, but I just upgraded that reference to a far more reliable one. As a general rule anonymous (uncredited to a person) pages are not reliable sources. (Although an unsigned disclaimer-type page on the New York Times would be reliable.) "Albert Einstein" or the "Washington Post" is reliable. "Anonymous" is not. In this case the site you link to is far less reliable than the one I added, or the other one that was there. As the source of the most bonuses on Earth, Party Poker and PokerStars are obviously the best sources. 2005 11:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized Rray replaced my links with links to his own site. Totally inappropriate. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "your" links. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I replaced the references you added to references to more reputable sources. My owning the site is irrelevant. But if you can find more appropriate citations than the article on my site which I cited, feel free to replace it. Please re-read 2005's explanation of why references might be upgraded. I replaced anonymous references to references that included a byline. If you can find a reference to a more reliable source, like maybe the New York Times, feel free to delete the citation to my site and replace it with a reference to a more reliable source. Rray (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are my links, because I used them as a source when I wrote that section. That's how you do citations. You replaced a link to probably the most important site on the internet describing poker bonuses with a link to your own home page. That's spam, and you got busted. Cut it out, and quit spamming articles with links to your website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not mean it this way, but none of the citations are "yours". These articles are shared by everyone. As for the Bonus whores link, it is not a very good one. Despite it being on a bonus website (which is good), it is anonymously written (which is very bad). Such a link SHOULD be removed when a better one is available. The issue of whether another one is a reliable link or not is open to discussion of course, but it is clear that such a link as the bonus whores one could be better. I believe I previously replaced one for another statement to the Pokerstars bonus page, which is a far more reliable source, even if that page is also not signed, although the obvious implication is it is signed as as a company statement as Pokerstars.com. As for the rehetoric, please tone it done. This is just an article about bonuses, not the Iraqi War. 2005 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]