Talk:World Sports Exchange

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as Low-importance).

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Opening comment

This page should be deleted. There is nothing notable in it except for the news of the founder being jailed, and all of the other material is primarily of a promotional nature. +Fenevad 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The company is plainly notable both for the legal/historical incident and the original rakefree poker room. In addition nothing is promotional about the text as it is a simple statement of facts. 2005 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the information regarding the site's consistently poor track record at paying its customers (which is cited to an industry source) is relevant and important information to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.8.135 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Player complaints" don't meet the Wikipedia's reliable and verifiable source policy. If this slow pay information were reported in a reliable news source site with editorial oversight, it could be included, but forum or anonymous source site (or unsigned articles or rumor sites) can't be used. 2005 (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must be with World Sports Exchange, because your comments are clearly biased and in direct conflict with both the rules you cite and spirit of Wikipedia. Here are the rules:

"To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."

Sportbook Review is indeed a "reliable and verifiable source," and is not simply a player forum (as you mistakenly suggest). It is, in fact, the LEADING source for news related to Sports Book online sites. Sportsbook Review has been around for over 10 years and there is no better independent publishing entity on this subject. Wiki requires a reliable and verifiable source for information in its articles. I've provided it...you just don't like what it says for some reason. If in doubt about anything written here regarding the nature of the source you are demeaning, you may verify it at this location. http://www.sportsbookreview.com/AboutUs/ I will keep reposting this important information regarding World Sports Exchange...since it is not only allowed by Wiki rules, but its omission would be leaving out important information regarding the site in question.

My problems with the edits are their general format... I'll be trying to address them whilst keeping the information in the article for you, but that will result in the numbers themselves being more vague. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your formatting help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.8.135 (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]