User talk:Bartjuh

I agree with the removal of your edit. It pushes the preference of a particular website, and that is indeed spam as far as this project is concerned. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see your point, but there are other references doing the same. For example ref 26. And if I find more websites where you can get personal advice on the subject I will ad them. And if the reference is the only thing that could be seen as spam, than why remove the whole contribution, which gives valuable information imho and not only the reference?? Bartjuh (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see my point. Please only edit using a citation of a verifiable and reliable source. the reference of #26 is just that kind of source... that website states that players would do well to make use of bonuses. It's not saying, use our bonuses. Yours wasn't a reference, but a referral website of the type you describe, but that doesn't back up what you editted as legitimate. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I don't see your point.

The website of ref #26 is as much spam as was mine if not more.

But nevermind, I've added a reference to a poker forum. I want to give valuable information to online pokerplayers, that could make a significant difference in their monthly earnings or losses. The website I refered to is developed by myself. And is the only one I know of that provides personal advice on which sites to play given the players input. If the player chooses to join a site through my website, I do get a commision, but only a small percentage covering the website and time investment costs. It also gives advice to join sites that are totally independent to mine, earning me nothing.

But nuff said, I hope my contribution is legit now.

Bartjuh (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use wrong edit summaries. In [1] you did not delete anything, but add something, and adding a whole paragraph is not a minor edit either. It much more looked like you try to have your text with the dubious weblink sneaked into the article. andy (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this was my first and probably last contribution. (given the time investment needed to get something through.) I made some small mistakes, sorry about that. I didn't try to sneak anything in, you have to believe me on my word for that.

But instead of accusing me of spamming and removing my contribution two times I believe, where the second time the accused reference was not even there, I think you go to far. As said you could have removed the reference and ad reference needed. That would have been the correct thing to do, because by just removing it you are potentially witholding people of valuable information.

Bartjuh (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have simply chosen a very bad article to start with editing, as that one is prone to spamming - a lot of money is earned with online poker, and a link from Wikipedia will not only boost the Google rank but also lead many new people to a site. Thus a lot of people are taking a close watch on that article, and may even be overly careful sometimes - but nevertheless the references you added were not good references to prove the point of the added paragraph. If you had edited a less spam-prone or controversial article no-one would have reacted on a missing or accidentally wrong editing summary, or a wrongly applied "minor edit" flag, or would have taken the reference in doubt that much. andy (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]