Talk:Quarters (game)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 4. The result of the discussion was keep.

It is requested that a photograph of a better photo of the game being played, ideally on a plain surface so that the coins and glasses are clearly visible be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Chandeliers

I added a description of chandeliers, as I learned it in high school and college. I never heard it referred to by other names and there is obviously potental for local variations. I didn't necessarily want to mention the "foul play" section, but I don't think I played a game without one or both of these occurring. Ratbert42 04:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Quarters

This sounds bogus. --Viriditas 12:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, "sounds", but you made no attempt to verify.

Haizum 05:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts have recently been made, and the information cannot be verified past the two websites you created to host the content. Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research. Please also read WP:V. --Viriditas 09:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have the name wrong. For example, there may in fact be a reference for what you call "Virginia Quarters" but it probably goes by another, more established name. I'm currently hunting down references for you. Please feel free to help. Once we find the actual name of the quarters variation (and determine that it matches), we can add your text back in. Until that time, please refrain from edit warring. --Viriditas 09:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Listen, you aren't going to be able to find the variation, Virginia Quarters, with a different name. If you do, you won't be able to verify when the name was given. I already know when, where, and by whom the variation was created. You don't.

Great! Can you list the "when, where and by whom" here? That way we can determine if it is notable or not. It is important to answer these questions in regards to WP:V. This is good news. --Viriditas 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Can you list the "when, where and by whom" for the other variations? If you can't then you need to take them down. It's obvious that this information isn't even needed. Let this be more evidence of admin abuse. Haizum 10:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but content must be based on verifiable sources. --Viriditas 11:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm sorry that I've had to report you for admin abuse. You are using double standards and it's obvious. NONE OF THE LINKS ON THE ARTICLE PAGE ARE VERIFIABLE AND YOU KNOW IT! Haizum 12:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also from personal experience, when the game is taught to new people in different states, the main focus is the set of rules, not the name. Therefore it would be very likely that the same variation could be given a different name by those that recently learned it, but the bottom line is that it was created and popularized in Virginia. That is going to be more verifiable than anything you will ever find. Haizum 10:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it was created and popularized in Virginia? --Viriditas 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the 3rd party (not my own) website that has the rules is http://www.newanda.net/documents/Quarters.pdf Haizum 10:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are no sources listed. I also noticed that you added the users sig to this page while logged in as "Haizum". --Viriditas 11:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Viriditas, check this out; there are no sources listed on the links for the other variations. So, by the standards that you are applying to me, you also need to take down the Speed Quarters segment. If you refuse, you are either completely out of your mind, or you are abusing your administrative powers. Either way... Haizum 12:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speed quarters is sourced in the reference section. "Virginia Quarters" is a game invented by you and your "friend". I'm sorry, but we don't include original research on Wikipedia. --Viriditas 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

The rules were compiled and generally accepted in the Charlottesville area. It then spread to the University of Virginia, a large university in the heart of Charlottesville, because many of the original players went on to college there. I was one of the original players, and I, with a handfull of other players compiled the generally accepted rules of the game, and gave it a specific name. If we had merely called it "quarters", then it would be easy to say that we took the rules from a different game and gave it a generic name. So, if you find something that contains those very same rules, it will either be under a common title, or it will be called Virginia Quarters. A common title would be indicative of someone knowing the rules but not knowing the actual name of the game.

Regardless of the fact that I know when and where the game originated, the appropriate way to treat it is as if it was a trademark or patent. I was part of the team that was FIRST to give the variation a specific name, and FIRST to compile the rules into text. All of the other variations in the article have shared rules, shared names, and no clear origination. If anything, they are less legitimate than Virginia Quarters.

Haizum 10:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is original research. Please review WP:NOT. --Viriditas 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False

Viriditas said: "the two websites you created to host the content."

No, I only recently created one website to host the content. The other website, which is linked above, is not mine.

Haizum 11:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you added the site owners sig to this page while logged in as Haizum? [1] Please review WP:SOCK. --Viriditas 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Hey Viriditas, I HAD EXPLICIT PERMISSION TO INCLUDE THE SITE OWNER'S SIG.

Do you want proof? Do you want to verify it?

Email the webmaster so you can stop posting your little policy links.

Haizum 12:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we can't include original research on Wikipedia. --Viriditas 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Using the same standards of citation and verification applied to the proposed Virginia Quarters article, I have removed the Speed Quarters article for the following reasons.

1. The web links for Speed Quarters lead to unverified private websites that allow anonymous posting of quarters rules; there is no identical set of rules and neither website is operated by a public, educational, or governmental entity. The veracity and neutrality of the websites cannot be verified.

2. There is no direct quotation taken from the books that are cited that would indicate the presence of Speed Quarters within; the reference has not been verified.

Haizum 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speed quarters is referenced in the reference section. --Viriditas 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waaay too much time

I wrote the official rulebook because I was an integral part of creating the game. It has been up on my server for over a year now, and when I left UVa, I can proudly say that it and several similar varriations had were integral parts of the frat and off-campus scene. The rulebook contains certain modifications and updated lingo that was not always associated with it, but when writing the rulebook I decided it best to write the commonly known rules of what has become Virginia Quarters.

At UVA of course, this is only known as Quarters, but Virginia Quarters seemed a fitting name to distinguish it from the standard variation. If you really have nothing better to do, feel free to scour the internet for "verifiable sources" but please keep in mind that this is a drinking game, and you will not find to many cited sources on the matter. This game has become a part of the VA and mid-atlantic college drinking scene, but if you want to keep it off wiki, I'm not stopping you. I made sure the rules were accessible again on my server.

I'll check back in a few weeks to see if you're still grumbling over VA quarters. And keep those wikipedia policy statements flowing (WP:NOR, WP:CIV, WP:SOC, etc), I find both them and your dedication to this fascinating. If you want my opinion, instead of fighting over whether my drinking game has a proper Works Cited page, download my rules, get some friends together, and play it. I guarantee it will be a better use of your time.

Oh, and the last edit (68.80.190.25) was mine, sorry but I forgot to sign in.

Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research. Please remove your addition to the article. --Viriditas 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of abuse

Your addition of "Speed quarters" to Quarters is original research, and the external link you've provided seems to belong to you and a meatpuppet. -Viriditas

You just admitted that "Speed Quarters" is original research, yet you refuse to delete it.

Haizum 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, as this was already pointed out to you, it was a mistake. I meant to write "Virginia Quarters". Why you decided to repost this after I made this correction on your talk page, is strange. --Viriditas 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Since you are evasive, and refuse to address the questions asked of you on my talk page, please refrain from using it.

Haizum 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered every question you've asked me pertaining to this discussion. It would be to your credit to study Wikipedia:Talk pages so you don't make the same mistakes in the future. You spammed my talk page with the same comments, over and over again. Please don't do that to me or any other users. --Viriditas 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

revert war

I see i walked into a revert war on this page. I did some research and it is apparent that virginia quarters is original research. A quick google search shows that speed quarters and standard quarters are well cited in mutliple locations. The only citation to virginia quarters is your own pdf, wikipedia and two other pages that have scraped information from wikipedia.

"speed quarters" drinking game 901 hits

"standard quarters" drinking game 322 hits

"virginia quarters" drinking game 77 hits (although this number is inflated since it hits references to the coin). The third hit is for an obit of Virginia Quarters, who was the first person to undergo experimental bone marrow transplant surgery as a treatment for lupus, died Thursday (Dec. 20, 2001).

Viriditas is correct to delete this section. There is no way to verify this game exists. David D. (Talk) 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Viriditas is correct to delete this section. There is no way to verify this game exists. David D. (Talk) 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you exclude wikipedia mirrors, you are left with only two websites that host information pertaining to "Virginia Quarters", and they are both run by the two editors on this page, Haizum (talk · contribs) and Newanda (talk · contribs), both of whom appear to be friends in RL. --Viriditas 02:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Another malicious allegation. I have never said that I was friends with the user Newanda. I did say I worked in conjuntion with him to compile the accepted rules. Read that again, "accepted rules." We didn't make them up, we just wrote them down. Stop the lies; review some Wikipedia policy if you have to. Haizum 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comments stand. [2] --Viriditas 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: That doesn't make the intent any less malicious. Haizum 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE

The only citation to virginia quarters is your own pdf, wikipedia and two other pages that have scraped information from wikipedia.

No! That is the lie that Viriditas has been propagating all this time. That is not my page. Is is a page that is just as reputable as the others.

If you actually did your research, which you clearly didn't, you would see that the citiations for Speed Quarters are public posts that have nothing to do with the website owners. In addition to that, those websites are not educational or governmental entities. ANYONE could have posted those quarters rules.

Haizum 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speed quarters is already referenced. "Virginia Quarters" is only referenced by the two editors partipating on this page, you and Newanda, and in one instance, you signed Newanda's sig on the talk page, [3] making me wonder if the two of you are the same user. --Viriditas 02:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You know that is a lie. You recently accused me of using a sock puppet, which was true, but it was authorized. If it was a sock puppet, then it couldn't have originated from my computer. Haizum 02:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Haizum, stop this. --Viriditas 02:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You can stop this by consulting the history and seeing that I am not the same person as newanda, instead of making false allegations of fraud. Haizum 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're claiming you're an authorized sock puppet? --Viriditas 02:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google

From Wikipedia:

Google's central PageRank system has been criticized. Some, such as Daniel Brandt, calling it "undemocratic". Common arguments are that the system is unfairly biased towards large web sites, and that the criteria for a page's importance are not subject to peer review. It must be stated in Google's defense that PageRank is a fully automated system which is impartial insofar as it knows no personal bias. However, it must also be stated that Google's system relies on human oversight, and use of company names on Adwords, or deletion of critical sites from Google results (for example, sites critical of Scientology), is decided by individual human beings according to company policy. It remains unclear whether any process could assert the importance of a page in a way that would draw less criticism than the current PageRank system.

The system is also susceptible to manipulation and fraud through the use of dummy sites, an issue which does, however, plague all search engines.

It is not acceptable that you use Google search results to judge the veracity of an article. Haizum 02:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All i did was to use google to show that virginia quaters is unverfiable. Obviously those numbers of hits have little meaning. The fact that 73 of the hits for virginia quarters had nothing to do with the game you describe should make you aware of that. In fact, the text you have pasted above is the very argument against allowing virginia quarters into wikipedia. There is one site known that mentions it (probably you own site). That is NOT verifiable. David D. (Talk) 02:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This is where the lies come in. Viriditas is applying that standard to VA Quarters but not other articles, and he refuses to respond to that sort of questioning. He clearly has an axe to grind; he could care less about the veracity of the article.

example: look up the article on "pwned" and other 'internet' words. They have no verifiable citations.

Haizum 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about Quarters, not other articles. --Viriditas 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a discussion about your skewed policy views, your double standards, and your axe to grind. Haizum 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, continue. You were saying? --Viriditas 03:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise suggested

I've just reviewed the material. Even if "Virginia Quarters" isn't Original Research, the section is almost completely free of content. The paragraph is a bunch of high-falootin' (I always wanted to say "high-falootin'") language that describes... nothing in particular. Specifically, I am having a hard time discerning any actual rule difference between it and "standard quarters." How about a compromise: a brief mention of "Virginia Quarters" as one standardized ruleset for the game, not a whole section for it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would be inclined just to delete it outright. This is just another case of Exicornt. David D. (Talk) 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Hitting me where it hurts!) Neh. I suppose you are right. Let me do a little more checking to try to convince myself that this is just a vanity term. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You need to actually read the rules before you make such statements. Haizum 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked around a bit. David D. is right; it's pure vanity. Effectively 0 google hits; and — I can't emphasise this clearly enough — a PDF stuck on some random web-hosting cite is almost never, and certainly not in this case, a sufficient verifiable source. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you are going to conclude such a thing, then you need to remove the Speed Quarters aticle as well as the "pwned" article.

I've already explained why those sites are not verifiable by the standard being applied to VA Quarters.

Anything else is indicative of a double standard, and an axe to grind. Haizum 03:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. this is not a PDF stuck on some random web-hosting site. It's not The New York Times, either, but standards can vary depending on the type of topic an article is dealing with. Standards should never sink below a certain point, though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud. You can clearly see that this was submitted by a random person. If you actually explore the website, you will see that anyone can submit dinking games. In fact, I submitted VA Quarters last night. When they post it...YOU WILL HAVE NO GROUND TO STAND ON. Haizum 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Speed quarters" is already referenced in the article. The rules have been published. --Viriditas 03:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil, accusations of "fraud" are not very polite. Never attribute to malice what could be attributed to ignorance, in other words. You are right. Look here, "Speed Quarters" is described on page 604 of The A-Z Encyclopedia of Alcohol and Drugs, published by Universal publishers in 2002. It also appears in Under the table: Drinking games to liven up your party, Scott Tharler, Striling Publishing CO. 2003. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)

You have still failed to post the citation that you claim has the same rules as VA Quarters. This "discussion" is fraudulent.

Haizum 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, you can have that argument, I concede that "Virginia Quarters" is not a vanity term, but rather a vanity ruleset. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because you lied. You said that you did research and found the same rules, yet you admit that you can't cite them.

At the same time you claim that these unique rules are somehow "vanity" rules, which is a complete contradiction.

Fraud.

Haizum 03:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any lies, and I don't see any fraud. Please review WP:NPA Haizum and stop calling people names and threatening them. You also need to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. --Viriditas 03:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't see any lies or fraud, you also don't see how the citations for the rest of the article fail by your own logic. If you don't have the cognitive ability, that's fine, no one is going to attack you personally for it; but keep obviously incorrect comments such as, "I don't see any lies" to yourself. Haizum 05:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By your current logic a misunderstanding is the same as a lie. Or am I misinterpreting you? The fact is that the ONLY source for virginia quaters is yourself. The other quarter games have been published. Your game has not. Your game is unverifiable and unencyclopedic. If I were you I would get in some independent admins to verify this is the case. I don't see you winning this, you have no source. David D. (Talk) 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False: I am not the only source, you need to keep looking. Haizum 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know there exists an ISBN for the Virginia Quarters rules will be posted as soon as I find it. Count on it. Haizum 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your search. I tried finding it for you last night while you were busy attacking me, but apparently you aren't interested in having other editors help you. --Viriditas 09:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

I corrected the poor grammar in the Speed Quarters section, yet it was reverted.

I don't care if "he or she" doesn't flow well, you can't mix singular antecedents with plural pronouns.

Deliberately inserting poor grammar is vandalism. I suggest you change it back.

Haizum 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "their" as a gender-neutral singular is something that has come to be accepted in most circles. Language evolves. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note I did not do a simple revert. i just changed the instances of he/she. David D. (Talk) 02:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: False. It is the possesive form of they. Look it up.

Sorry, I meant "they". You knew what I mean, I bet. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)

Regardless, the article only mentions "him/he", which is gender biased.

Haizum 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Let me do a little more checking to try to convince myself that this is just a vanity term.

If it is a vanity term, then you should be able to find the same rules under a different name. If you can't, then it is its own variation in itself. Haizum 03:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found essentially the same rules - as I mentioned, I am unable to see any major difference between this and a generic quarters game. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I demand a citation. Haizum 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've had enough time, where is this citation that you claim exists? Haizum 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You win! It's not a "vanity term". It's a vanity set of rules. Same arguments apply. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

!!!

example: look up the article on "pwned" and other 'internet' words. They have no verifiable citations.

What is your response?

How can you justify the blatant double standard?

Haizum 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hiding from the question. What is the justification for this? What policy article will you hide behind?

Haizum 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None at all. I personally have no stake in the ground as to whether Wikipedia should have any material on "pwned". It is irrelevant to this dicussion, in fact: I can promise there is currently a great deal on material in Wikipedia that should not be. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another lie. If you are not applying standards fairly, then by default, you are applying them unfairly. The fact that you are applying standards to this article, citing the lack of references, yet you refuse to apply standards to other articles with similarly qualified citiations is indicative of abuse; something you should be under review for.

Haizum 03:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you open an RFC on me. In the meantime, in the light of your hostile attitude toward me, I will probably be somewhat less engaged in this dialog than I have been up until now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The hostility is coming from the 3 vs 1 bullying that has been going. You want to be put under review? You got it. Haizum 03:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RFC? I'd like to contribute. David D. (Talk) 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common Variations

I removed this section entirely. When I came across this article in late May, I went through and fixed lots of typos and other such things, and added cleanup and tone tags. It was straight afterwards that I realised that the whole article needed rewriting. However, since then there had only been additions to the section, making it even larger, and with little quality to the additions (nor references, nor assertions of notability). So I figured that if I were to just remove the whole section, it might actually improve the article. Feel free to revert me and discuss here if anyone thought I was wrong to do so. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, and I thinking about doing the same thing a while back. hmwith talk 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The only notable variation of which I know is Chandeliers, but I'll try to find some sources on it. If not, it'll remain deleted. hmwith talk 15:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Since Chandeliers has it's own article, I just added it to "See also". hmwith talk 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a paragraph about "A version of quarters which is particularly popular at Gustavus Adolphus College is baseball." In this talk page, we've already reached consensus to remove random insignificant or unverified vanity variants. If anyone feels strongly it should be included, please cite a source before putting it back. Zakolantern 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quarters (game). 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051215094313/http://www.khepergames.com:80/products.php to http://www.khepergames.com/products.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History?

Some sort of time frame for the inception of this activity in the U.S. would be useful. The 70's Show has a scene from c.1978 in which the 'gang' is playing it, but it was certainly unknown when I graduated from law school in 1975. Then again, the show is replete with anachronisms.