Talk:Viktor Blom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Speedy deletion[edit]

Hi,

I'm not sure I understand the speedy deletion nomination, which says that the article is about a company or organization. Isildur1 is neither: he/she is an anonymous online poker player.

This article was already nominated for deletion, and that nomination was withdrawn after a number of editors argued for its being kept. There is a record of the discussion (keep or delete) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isildur1

Please let me know if there are other concerns that should be addressed.

Thanks! WhoWhoWhoIsMrBlue (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In any case, speedy deletion does not apply to articles that have already been through AFD. –xenotalk 02:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Identity?[edit]

Initially rumored to be Viktor Blom but apparently that's not true? I hear it's actually Mats Sundin. Any references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.167.37 (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy April Fools. http://cakepoker.com/blog/En/post/Isildur1-is-(probably)-Not-Mats-Sundin-591.aspx JaeDyWolf (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've restored the "Identity" section after it was removed with the edit summary "rm speculation". The speculation is reliable sourced. –xenotalk 17:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    It's been removed again with the edit summary "gossip is not appropriate for a BLP". I actually don't think this is "gossip", but will wait for further opinions on this. –xenotalk 17:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's gossip, it's being driven mostly by Tony G who is the owner of Poker News and many other poker information networks. Hazir (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The way I see it is that anything said about Isildur's identity is speculation until his identity is confirmed. In the interest of avoiding edit wars or filling the article with meaningless and non-encyclopaedic speculation, I'd say that it's best to leave all discussions regarding his identity out of the main article. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The way I see it, the user is notable in part because of his (or her) anonymity, so reliably soured speculation about that identity is appropriate. –xenotalk 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with xeno here. There is nothing wrong with this section because it focuses on sources that are speculating his identity. The section makes no claim that Isilur1 is Viktor Blom just that he is speculated to be Blom. I don't see how this speculation section differs from the speculation section on Jack the Ripper or the Zodiac killer. Valoem talk 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:BLP. The issue here is not the anonymous Isildur1, but any other living individuals, especially anyone specifically denying something. And just because someone randomly asserts Isildur1 is the Pope doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Ask for more information on the BLP noticeboard if you want. 2005 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you clarify your concerns about WP:BLP? By removing the reliably-sourced section wrt speculation about his identity, edits like this [1] will probably continue to be made... Reliably sourced section restored. –xenotalk 20:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have a disagreement with the BLP policy, take it to BLP noticeboard. This is the second time you've been informed of this. 2005 (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You actually haven't identified which part of the policy is relevant to this topic. –xenotalk 11:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"Avoid repeating gossip." The person denies the gossip. The original gossiper retracted the original gossip. Why are you persisting with trying to repeat it? 2005 (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here`s the vid where Mats Sundin is explaining he is Isildur1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20uDfpABFGM&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.141.45 (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed obvious POV stuff and unsourced impossible to prove speculation[edit]

I just culled a bunch of POV crap from the controversy section, this isn't 2+2 or your personal blog, please try to be encyclopedic. In addition, speculation that the hand histories caused the loss is impossible to prove as anything other than speculation, and more to the point, Isildur's ev in that match refutes the statement. So don't put it back unless you make sure to clarify the ev situation AND MAKE SURE TO SAY THAT THE SPECULATION ABOUT LOSSES IS EXACTLY THAT. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.27.178 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Capslock broken much? Hazir (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
THANKS FOR YOUR VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION HAZIR. I'M SURE ALL THE REAL WORK HAS BEEN FINISHED, ALLOWING YOU AMPLE TIME TO ANTAGONIZE OTHER editors. BY THE WAY, THE CITATION REQUEST FOR THE SECTION YOU NUKED WAS PUT IN YESTERDAY. YOUR REMOVAL OF IT WAS PREMATURE BUT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE SOURCED SO YOUR MISTAKE DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.27.178 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Was the entire Isildur1 page erased?[edit]

I would have gladly helped merge the two articles, but I can't see the old version anymore? 69.68.27.101 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the Ilsidur1 page. The was no Viktor Blom page before. He wasn't notable at all. -Koppapa (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I will work on some stylistic editing tomorrow. I hope you will give me some feedback on recommended changes, because I will share the changes on the discussion page before I implement them. The lead is particularly weak, from a writer's POV. It needs to be in the style more like e.g. "Viktor Blom is most recognized as being the person behind the mysterious alias of isildur1 who had (insert what he is notable for)..." for a lot of reasons. It establishes that the person's identity was unknown and it accurately informs the reader to expect a "story" rather than a cut 'n dry article that basically says "Viktor Blom is Isildur1. This is his biography..." because that's not at all how he should be remembered. I will try to post a couple similar biographies, because there is a difference when a notable person goes anonymous for a significant duration of time. I'll present specific changes tomorrow so that my purpose is more clear. 69.68.27.101 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated. -Koppapa (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the page on Viktor Blom before he was confirmed to be Isildur1 was deleted on notability grounds... but him being Isildur1 is quite notable! 69.68.27.101, you seem to have a lot of good insight on BLP articles; have you considered joining Wikipedia with a username? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you guys like my edits to this page. I'll create a username tonight when I can think of something catchy. 69.68.27.101 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:PEACOCK. Wikipedia has a guideline that prohibits writing along the lines of "mysterious", "tremendous" and so on. I'm afraid you are trying to make the article more exciting or active than Wikipedia articles should be written. We are not "painting a story". This is a "just the facts" kind of place, even if other verifiable sources think something is more fascinating. 2005 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith edits, but Wikipedia articles need to be written in a neutral tone, as according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, sorry! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the two most emotional words. Is this version acceptable? This tone is neutral now, and I can show you examples 1 on other Wikipedia pages of BLP. 69.68.27.101 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're trying to do, and the second edit is better than the first one, but there are still neutrality issues, and they seem to stem from trying to use more words than necessary. For example, "is the person behind the mysterious alias of "Isildur1"" should just be "Best known as "Isildur1." I've edited it this time without simply undoing it, so let me know what you think. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't really help alleviate the issue raised above - that initially the Isildur1 account was mysterious and there was widespread speculation as to who was behind it. In the article we should try and paint the story - of Isildur1 coming out of nowhere to make huge waves in the nosebleeds - the speculation about who it might be - and finally the drawing back of the curtain to reveal the young man behind it. This is all sourceable (and probably already supported by the sources in the article). –xenotalk 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Xeno, I'm not trying to do to that at all. You seem like a huge Isi-fan just like me, but it needs to be encyclopedic first and foremost. Have a quick read of the note I left on the bottom of JaeDyWolf's talk page. But you're right on the mark--I'm trying to explain the significance of his backstory to someone who has not much information about him and needs to read about him in an encyclopedia. The only reason I got involved on this article is because the former Isildur1 article was well written and I had thought it had been deleted (which is why I chose this title). The version after "updating" Viktor Blom into the article killed the quality of the article. I'll give a chance for JaeDyWolf to chime in before my next post to either here or on the article page or his talk page. I'm self-blocked until JaeDyWolf wants to comment. I think he resides in Britain and I don't want to feel responsible for giving him a Wikidrama headache this late at night. We can continue this discussion and build consensus tomorrow. Thanks for your support Xeno, and I hope you understand what my aim is, Jae. Signing off now. 69.68.27.101 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Articles need to use words like "unknown" not "mysterious". Two reasons why are first the peacock term guideline linked above, and then also because to the vast majority of people his unknown-ness was not mysterious or even interesting at all. We aren't here to offer a POV on whether something is fascinating or not. We just say what happened, in unflowery language. 2005 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dontcha go worrying about me! My late nights are normal people's early mornings anyway... Having somebody disagree with me is often the best for for an article for the most part, so.... yeah, go ahead and if there's anything I really don't like the look of then I'll chime in again. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the following 2 alternative leads[edit]

  • Viktor Blom is most recognized as being the person behind the mysterious alias of Isildur1, a Swedish high stakes online poker player who garnered widespread attention and celebrity.[1][7] His rise to fame drew considerable audience around the poker world in late 2009,[2][8][4] taking part in all ten of the largest pots in online poker history.[9][10] In December 2010, it was announced that then-anonymous Isildur1 had joined Team PokerStars Pro. After widespread speculation, Blom's online identity was revealed by PokerStars on January 8, 2011 at the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure.[1]

Here are my thoughts on 3 issues I would like to raise to fellow editors:

  • "best known as Isildur1" This is too brief. This doesn't explain what the name Isildur1 even is or what it means. We know it's a full tilt poker screen name, but from the way it's written, it could just be his nickname. There's no connection at all to an internet ID.
  • @2005 "Peacocking?" it clearly says where you linked at "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." This policy is basically saying don't "say something out of nothing". Isildur1 clearly deserves the "mysterious" adjective on the bottom version because it is used in such a way that does attribute/promote the subject of the article and it does impart & plainly summarize verifiable information. Does verifiable information support the claim that back-then, anonymous Isildur1 was mysterious? I think so. What do you guys think?
  • We are not painting a story? The lead-in paragraph is supposed to be just like this example. Every featured article biography has an excellent lead-in. I used "painting a story" just as a metaphor because it's tough to communicate my intended message concisely and succinctly. Just look at a few biographies on any subject from this page and you'll see what message I'm trying to explain. We need the lead-in paragraph to be the best quality that we can possibly make it. The sentences in the top version are very disjointed and have zero flow. It looks like 4 sentences written by four different people. It is not smooth nor does it have a unifying consistency. I'm all for keeping this article neutral, but I'm not ever going to believe for a second that Wikipedia is just a facts kind of place because I'm very zealous about quality, not just content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with an encyclopedic tone & style. The top version lacks clarity and focus. When you write, you gotta ask yourself what are you trying to accomplish? If you simply write without a plan, you will not wind up with anything special. An acorn doesn't become a tree just by happenstance. Here is a quote from the manual of style:
The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[11]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
I'm going to Disney world for 3 days and will work on this article Monday. Have a nice weekend guys. Sorry if I sound too critical. I'm really laid back, easy going, will answer any questions about writing/style (I have purchased 2 books and read them cover to cover), and I'll gladly work on some more poker articles after we fix the style issues of the top alternative or the neutrality issue of the bottom alternative. Unless anyone really wants to roll up their sleeves and invest a lot of time on this article, I'll try to make productive changes which hopefully reflect consensus. If my edits get reverted, I'll try to explain and defend my edits and persuade a few minds here on the talk page (one of the two books is on persuasive writing, lol.) Brain Before Life (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but the flat statement that "clearly deserves the "mysterious" adjective" is absurd. No he doesn't. It is puffery. The guideline clearly prohibits such inappropriate language. The first example above is encyclopedic. The second is gasping and gossipy, fitting for a talk show teaser not an encyclopedia. Mysterious, celebrity, rise to fame, and "widespread" is even used twice! He was an unknown niche figure who interested some people (and didn't interest others). We are an encuyclopedia. We may say some others gasped, but we don't gasp. Please read WP:LEAD. It "should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view". We make judgements on verifiable notoriety, not the level of fame or mystery or anything else. 2005 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Your examples of articles with excellent read-ins seem to be pointing me toward the first version. There's no out-and-out description regarding any of these people without sources and even those descriptions are backed up by other notables who have said them. I'm agreeing with 2005 here, who seems to have a knack for saying what I want to say better than me, and I'm sorry to say that, as per the wikipedia Project, Wikipedia pretty much is "just a facts-only place!" JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Pokerstarsblog.com: Finding Isildur1: Viktor Blom cops to his secret identity
  2. ^ a b "Top Ten Poker Stories of the 2009: #2, Isildur1, Lord of the Ring Games". PokerNews. Retrieved 2010-02-20.
  3. ^ "Online high stakes: The Isildur1 factor". Pokerlistings.com. Retrieved 2010-02-20.
  4. ^ a b "Top 5 of 2009: Isildur1 and the Seven-Figure Pots". Pokerlistings.com. 2009-12-30. Retrieved 2010-02-20.
  5. ^ "Biggest Pots Won in Online Poker". PokerListings.com. Retrieved 2010-02-20.
  6. ^ "Haseeb Qureshi Comments on Isildur1 and High-Stakes Poker". Pokernewsdaily.com. 2009-11-23. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
  7. ^ http://news.bluffmagazine.com/breaking-news-pokerstars-signs-isildur1-17343/
  8. ^ "Online high stakes: The Isildur1 factor". Pokerlistings.com. Retrieved 2010-02-20.
  9. ^ "Biggest Pots Won in Online Poker". PokerListings.com. Retrieved 2010-02-20.
  10. ^ "Haseeb Qureshi Comments on Isildur1 and High-Stakes Poker". Pokernewsdaily.com. 2009-11-23. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
  11. ^ The spelling lede is deprecated by some Wikipedia editors but widely used by others. It is widespread in newspaper editing in the USA, and it is so common in general US English that it is no longer labeled as jargon by major US dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and American Heritage.

Hometown: Sweden?[edit]

Maybe my english isn't that good, but I think hometown is not a country, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.197.223 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Viktor Blom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)