User talk:Pates11380

AfD nomination of Poker Is Rigged[edit]

I have nominated Poker Is Rigged, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker Is Rigged. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

And do not post an article more than once. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

097cbedb0743ccdde396cf90278f51d4

Poker is rigged feedback[edit]

You've got a few days (at least 5) to clean the article up, so no need to panic if you want to save it.

Some problems you might want to address:

There is very little research that I can find that is specifically targeted at this kind of problem.
The tone is very subjective ("Human nature is a strange thing"). Try to stick to the facts at your disposal.
The section "Human Behavoir"[sic] is fairly poor.

The reference psychologists Jean-Paul Sartre and Søren Kierkegaard does not help when you do not reference their thoughts on poker-players or suspicion or whatever is helpful to the topic.
"One thing that has been discovered about online poker is that humans are naturally very suspicious." You'll really need to back that statement up or leave it out.
"Reasons for this natural suspicion lie in the fact that the mechanism controlling the outcome of an event cannot physically be seen". Again, if this is not to be original research, someone else (reliable) has to say it.

"Amazingly, the site uses the players to choose the order of the cards using". That's another example of subjective tone, why is it amazing?

"Possible rigging". Almost none of this would survive a review, you'll need to back up the statement that it's a hard market to enter, and that the big players have "swallowed" the competition. I doubt any of your comments on small companies can be backed up.

here's some reliable references for the scandal: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/the-absolute-poker-cheating-scandal-blown-wide-open/ http://abcnews.go.com/technology/Story?id=3752500&page=1

This could probably be a more general topic. Perhaps a better title would be "rigged poker". Again, the tone of this whole thing reads more like a gambling site then an encyclopaedia. Good luck with the article. If you need help editing it, drop me a note on my talk page.

I agree that the title should be changed, perhaps to Rigged poker or Poker as a rigged game. Regarding reliable sources, here is a good one: Effective Short-Term Opponent Exploitation in Simplified Poker. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2005, VOL 20; PART 2, pages 783-788. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_poker#Integrity_and_fairness
Best Wishes,
--Badgernet (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]