Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

David Williams In Porn

I wanted to open a discussion about this here for a few reasons. I have had a recurring wikipest in the user named "2005", who perpetually edits anything I post, no matter what it may be. As such, this fly has began to circle my addition to an article on Poker Player David Williams regarding his apperance in porn.

Unlike his (2005) past nusiance-edit actions, this one isn't quite as cut and dry, so I thought i'd open it up for discussion here.

For those of you who are unaware, on or about 2004 when DW made his ME final table, someone began posting pictures of someone who WAS UNQUESTIONABLY David Williams in a fetish porn video made in 02/03. This has been exhaustively researched and covered on numerous online poker forums, to the point that many people have actually purchased the video itself, posted clips and still images, some even going so far as to do detailed scientific voice analysis and posting the results. (Since I can't post porn pictures on Wikipedia and the pictures themselves are copyrighted, Google *David Williams Porn* and see for yourself- happy reading)

For anyone who has seen the pictures, there really isn't any doubt about it. It's him. If I show you a picture of Madonna adopting a baby in Africa and Madonna denies it's her even though the picture clearly shows that it is, does this mean that it's entry into Wikipedia is verbotten because she denies it? I think we can all clearly understand why DW might be motivated to deny this, in spite of the fact that the truth is plain as day.

I wanted to get some feedback about this, because it really isn't as cut and dry as my personal wikipest would like it to be, although there *is* a scintilla of question about how it should be handled. Obviously, the pictures, facts and truth are out there, although linking to it is contrary to Wikipedia policy; so whenever the NPOV whiners start in, it's very difficult to shut them up, as Wikipedia policy on copyrighted material and porn prohibit the facts from being displayed. I just wanted to hear some ideas about this. I will continue to put it back up as long as it's deleted until we reach some sort of consensus. --FactsAndHonesty 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Before making further edits you should read some Wiki policies, specifically WP:NPOV, WP:BIO and also WP:RS. It should be obvious that the issue is not whether Williams is in the video. Of course he is, but your opinion or my opinion are not relevant. What is relevant is in 2004 this came to light, the fact of which is sourced in the article, and that Williams has publicly denied it, which is also sourced. We don't care that based on your viewing of the video that you know he is lying. Your point of view or or mine oany other editors should never appear in articles. That is Wikipedia policy, and you can't just ignore it because you are stubborn. The article says this video exists; references that basically anyone who has seen it thinks its Williams; and that Williams has denied it in a reliable source. That is what we do here. We don't pronounce "is fully identical in every conceivable way". The real question is what exactly are you trying to do with this inappropriate text? It seems clear you want to point out Williams is lying, but that is not what we do here. The sources makes it plainly obvious he is lying. You need to understand that even though lots of people have walked up to Williams and he has admitted it is him, it is not appropriate for to add "Williams told me it was him and he regretted the denials." So again, please take some time to read the Wikipedia policies, and don't inject your assertions into articles, even if you "know" they are right. 2005 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've read every Wikipedia policy to a tee and I still fail to see where any of them apply here (even though they are perpetually cited in their most abstract forms to justify nuisance edits). David Williams being in this porn video ceases to be a matter of "opinion" once there are pictures for all to see, which there are. Your entire position is predicated on the idea that Williams appearance in this video is simply a matter of "opinion" in spite of the fact that there are "pictures to prove it". The article in no way had an existing reference to anything along the lines of the universal consensus that exists regarding the identity of the individual in the film. That's what I did with my addition and that's precisely what you edited out. Really, this is the oft encountered philosophical debate as seen way too many times on Wikipedia regarding what constitutes "fact." There are those who believe that fact is an entirely relative thing and that until such facts are codified with a particular number of Google hits, they are invalid. There others who believe (as is the case here) that fact very well may be a stalwart thing, however if the facts are unflattering and the individual in question denies them, then sufficient proof cannot possibly exist, as that would be a matter of "opinion" and it would be "POV". Unfortunately, if we held the entire Wiki concept to such standards as you presume to apply to the David Williams article, it basically wouldn’t exist, save for the science portion. I will admit that I may have jumped the gun a bit in calling you a Wikipest and your position does seem to strive towards some modicum of a middle ground; however, you are imparting a standard that not only isn’t codified in Wikipedia rules (save for their most abstract interpretations- much like how “Dog” can be “Cat” if you rationalize it long enough) but presumes to suppress a fact that, simply put, is as apparent as a rising sun. --FactsAndHonesty 20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edits have been reverted by other editors, not just me, and your tone has been unhelpful at best. If you actually have read the wiki policies then you would know that it doesn't matter what is obvious. It doesn't even matter what is "fact". What matters are reliable sources that can be cited, AND in the case of living persons, an even higher threshold that basically can be summarized as "the Foundation isn't going to allow anything that possibly can get it sued." The text makes it clear that it is widely believed Williams is in the video, and that he (rather lamely) has denied it. That's what we do. We don't say that it is plainly true that Williams is lying. If you want to find a reliable source that says that, then fine, cite it, but even if it is obvious "Williams looks like a fool by lying", Wiki polcies make itc lear you can't say anything like that in an article. 2005 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with spam?

Is this spam? I don't want to revert almost every edit of another user without feeling it's justified, although theirs a pretty strong case this is nothing but that, my problem is how to go about it without biting a new user. User:Wedoitallvegas who writes on his/her user page "WeDoItAllVegas is the name I use in almost everywhere. It is also the name of the company I own. http://www.WeDoItAllVegas.com. I hope I can make a contribution here by editing the topics concerning the topic I love most - Poker." this user has created an artical We Do It All Vegas (his/her company) and added his/her web site on several pro players pages as you can see here contribs.on the other hand there are wikipedia articals on pokerstars/party poker/ etc. Sirex98 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the definition of spam. I've removed the links, and will put up the vanity article for deletion. Also, for your reference WP:WEB explains why there are articles about billion dollar companies and not every little website out there. 2005 05:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I see after reading over WP:SPAM and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided it clearly is "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." Sirex98 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Poker and commercial interests

I will probably become unpopular here as I put an AfD on Poker Night Live as it seems to be merely an advert for a commercial site and not meeting notability guidelines. Would it be better to have a list of these sites rather than an article each? Raerth 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In the future please edit articles, don't add inapproriate tags. I edited it to remove the excesses. 2005 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that editing it will ignore the fact that it is basically an advert for a commercial site. Would it not be better to have a list of such sites rather than articles for each. I stand by my view that this is not notable enough in itself for a separate article. Maybe they can be merged together to be more encyclopedic? --Raerth 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "they"? It's an article about a TV show. 2005 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I took what I believe to be spammy links off the Robert Turner article. They offer nothing that should not already be in the article, and are not academic sources. However, they were reinstated by a project member as being consistent with other poker player articles, so I won't remove them again. My question to the Project Team is - Should spam links be a consistent part of each poker article, or would it be better to set a standard that they should not be included? StopItTidyUp 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The links are obviously useful and even more obviously not spam. In this case an article by a former co-worker and a compiliation of tournament results are exactly the type of thing external links are for. (edit... I ended up noting the article.) 2005 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Game

I'm not an expert on the Big Game, but I believe the recent article on it may have some inacuracies. E.g. it's not associated with the room at the Bellagio that often hosts it: it happens wherever people play it. It has taken place at the Venetian lately sometimes (I believe I read that at PokerNews.com).

I'm also skeptical that anything less than 4/8K limit qualifies as "The Big Game." BarryGreenstein.com has some basic info about it, including games and limits.

Dutch Boyd and Pokerspot

The coverage of Pokerspot in the Dutch Boyd article is very one-sided. It sounds like it was written by someone who lost money at Pokerspot. Just Google Dutch Boyd and you can find what other people write about it, including Dutch's own explanation of what happened. The current Wikipedia pieces has the most anti-Dutch viewpoint of anything I could find on the first page of Google, and certainly assumes that Dutch's versions is untrue.

How does it assume that? That's quite an assertion. What it does is reference the most significant archived information on the subject, from Boyd and from others, that is available. It would be hard to be more objective than that! 2005 10:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about this. I took a look at this page, and it looks dodgy to me. The first "citation" is a link to a google search of usenet for "russ boyd pokerspot". This is not a source, but a list of dubious sources. The second is better, its a link to a post by dutch regarding pokerspot. The only problem, this site contradicts the information contained immediately before it. For instance, there dutch claims that it was the "major casino" backed out of the deal to purchase the assets, not him as the wikipedia article claims. Nor did I find any reference for the claim that boyd said "checks were in the mail". I remember pokerspot, and I remember them telling me my check was in the mail, but I'm not an objective reference. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The RGP link references a wide variety of comments which cover a lot of different perspectives. In other words, its a mass of POV, whether players or Boyd's. None of that concerns us much, other than when the two are in agreement. Linking to the POV is useful, but we should not print POV. The facts may be unflattering to Boyd, but they are facts. Some facts maybe do assume we take statements from individuals mad at Boyd and from Boyd himself that coincide as facts. I've edited the page to stick to three facts: 1) players lost thousands, 2) Boyd had an offer that he turned down, 3) people have not been paid. There is no dispute of these facts by Boyd or those owed money. There are a couple cites. That should be plenty for this topic. 2005 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It is better now, thank you. I added a sentence to clarify that he did not refuse a deal that would have returned most of the owed money. (Or at least, he claims that was the deal.) I think without this sentence the implication of the article is that he turned down a deal that would have refunded players their money.
I'm also copying this to Talk:Russ Boyd, where we should continue the conversation if necessary. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
But that sentence is completely inapproriate. It's just the POV that has no place in the article. If you put what "he says" then you need what "she says". Leave the facts speak for themselves, and leave it to the cites to go over the endless POVs. 2005 01:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay... I guess we'll continue the conversation here. In order for the sentence I added to be "POV" as opposed to "fact" it needs to be the case that someone disputes the claim. Is there such a person? Could you supply a reference for it? If so, shouldn't it be included in the article? WP:NPOV does not require, or even suggest, leaving out individual's points of view in order to make the article neutral. Instead, it encourages the addition of properly attributed points of view if doing so will help the reader to understand the situation. I did not add a sentence declaring that the casino had backed out on a deal, I added a sentence that said Boyd claimed the casino backed out on the deal. It is, I take it, uncontroversial that Boyd claims that a casino backed out of the deal. If someone disputes Boyd's assertion, I believe the article would be better with both points of view described instead of neither. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well obviously there are many people who dispute his claim, so I'm not sure what you are saying. Just as obviously, a lot of people do not believe a word that he says. More imporatntly, look at the sentences I removed, "despite Boyd's assurances that this would not occur and that checks had been mailed" saying "despite assurances players claim Boyd made that this would not occur and that checks had been mailed" and "which would have given Boyd $300,000 for himself, in addition to enough to repay the owed players". All these (and a lot more) have been asserted in RGP and 2+2 threads. Having a line saying "a lot of people think Boyd is a pathological liar" accomplishes nothing, even though it is clearly true. If you want the line you put in, how can you justify not putting in the 300k line? Why present his POV and not others. Sure, we could present his POV, but that should not be alone. And so, I say forget the whole slippery slope of he said she said and just state the simple facts that are not in dispute. If you want to also remove "Several months after the site's close, Boyd turned down an offer from an online casino operator to buy the Pokerspot software" that would be fine too, even though there is no dispute about there. There is tons of dispute about all the exact details though, and we don't need or want that. 2005 02:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove the 300k line nor suggested that it be removed, I requested a citation for it. If people have some (i.e. any) evidence that this happened, by all means put it in the article with the citation. To my eyes, the implication of our article is that Boyd turned down an offer that would have returned money to the players. Allowing this implication to remain in the article unchallenged leaves a biased article (since Boyd disputes this claim). If a suitable citation can be found, I would love to have the article say something like "Boyd claims the online casino backed out on an earlier offer that would have returned all of the players money, and that he refused the deal in order to persue other buyout options that fell through.(link to usenet post, faq, whatever) This is disputed by xxxxxxx, who claims that yyyyyyyy. (link to credible source)." I believe this would be a more balanced article than the one we have now. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did some digging, and found what appears to be a credible usenet post. How's this look:

Boyd claims the online casino backed out on an earlier offer that would have returned all of the players' money, and that he refused the deal in order to persue other buyout options that fell through. [1] Burton Ritchie, who claims that he represented the internet casino, claims that Boyd reneged on a deal that would have paid back all the players because the deal required that Boyd leave the internet casino industry for 2 or 3 years. [2]

I think this is an adequate description? 2005, would you be ammenable to it being in the article? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's okay with me to present that information, but I was responding in part to the earlier comments that the article was "one-sided" against Boyd. If allegations are included, and denials or other stories, fine, but that leaves the chance for POV emphasis, whereas the simple facts don't. So go ahead and add the above and we'll see what happens. 2005 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, 2005. I'm glad we got this worked out. I hadn't thought about PokerSpot in a long time, and I must admit, I never knew the whole story. From what I read it sounds like I may have been the only person in the world to actually get money from them after they went belly up. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Poker Themes

Not sure how many of us have seen this recently-created article. If anyone has the knowledge on the subject, it could probably do with a tidy-up (if it's worthwhile to have the article at all.) Essexmutant#

It doesn't need its own article at all, since what is being described are skins, a feature of many different types of applications. I wouldn't think there are separate articles for IM skins and media player skins, so a separate article for poker app skins would be unnecessary. Such information should be contained in each poker app's article itself as well as a brief example of one in the skin article. Spicy 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's a pretty useless article. I suspect the existence of it is a sneaky way of promoting this "ArtPoker.com" site that is mentioned. I say ship it off to AFD.. SubSeven 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Redirected to online poker article (I just broke the link in the header for this section too). 2005 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Todd Witteles

Just a quick note that there has been a lot of vandalism to this page from Toddsego recently. I've blocked the account (first time I've ever done that to anyone) but please keep an eye out for any sockpuppeting. Cheers. Essexmutant 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I happened to just be reading various discussions at WP:BLP, which this article could be a poster child for. Without any sources, the Witteles article should be drastically shortened down to a stub, containing only verifiable poker content. (He's a Republican? Who says... who cares...). Most of the poker bios are great and stick to "just the facts, ma'am", but some of these that appear to have been created as near-vanity one shots that have no sources really need to be kept on a short leash. We neither want unnotable articles, nor jerks sneakily adding bogus details like political affiliation, online playing names, sexual orientation or whatever to articles about somebody who beat them in a pot once. 2005 07:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I edited it to only include the sourced material from the Hendon Mob, plus the semi-source of stating that the dandruff bottle was seen on TV. 2005 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Joe Beevers - Good article nominee

I've done a big overhaul [3] of this article and in the process of doing so, have nominated it as a "Good Article". If you have not significantly contributed to it, please feel free to review it against the good article criteria and then pass or fail it at the nominations page. Essexmutant 16:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Female poker players

This category was created recently. Do we really need it? Surely one of the whole points of poker is that gender is irrelevant. If there is a category for female players, then people could argue there should be a category for male players also. Essexmutant 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put it up for deletion. There isn't any need for categorization by gender, or sexual orientation for that matter. 2005 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WSOP circuit events and the infobox

Apologies if this has been discussed before but I didn't see it. Is there a reason why there isn't a spot for the circuit events in the infobox? Seems like they ought to be. What sort of work would be involved? Otto4711 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The original reason is that I created the infoboxes in February '06 and didn't write the WSOP circuit events article until March '06. That said, I would not be keen for circuit events to be included in the infobox, as this would dilute the information that is already there. And beyond that, why stop there? Some people may then claim that Poker Superstars, Professional Poker Tour and other events could be included. With the WSOP, WPT and EPT in the infobox, the major tournaments are covered - and that's enough. Essexmutant 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point of view about not wanting to overload the boxes, but I would still like to suggest that a single line be added for circuit titles. Not as a separate section but as a subsidiary part of the exsting WSOP section since the circuit events are part of the existing WSOP brand. Otto4711 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ida Siconolfi

Noticed that this page has been created. Does anyone think this is AfD fodder? Essexmutant 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Software

Just thought I'd drop you all a quick note as this isn't one of my main areas of focus and I don't want to disrupt your pond so to say. I went looking for tournament management software today and turned to wikipedia first and could not find ANYTHING on tournament management software and only selected articles on various online rooms. I'd like to suggest you guys add a "List of online poker rooms" article AND a "List of Poker tournament software" article to compare both types of software. Obvious things to include for first article would be name, site, min sign up ammount, os support. Obvious items for the second list would be name, site, license, cost, os support.  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but lists are generally something to avoid. I the first case, cardrooms with articles have a category. In this case, that is certainly the way to go. As for the second, I don't know what you mean by poker tournament software. 2005 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is what I mean by tournament software  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  18:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are suggesting a product guide, of which there is certainly nothing like that in any of the gambling sections, which I think is a very good thing. We aren't a product guide. There is a tournament director article that could mention such software exists, but we should leave it to comparitive shopping sites to do what you suggest, and in any case the sites in question just sell products so they couldn't be external linked to anyway. (Which is not to say an article comparing the above link to tournamentclock.com or other things wouldn't be interesting, it just seems pretty clearly against policy.) 2005 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
For reference: *List of XMPP client software

I realise the focus of those lists are free software but some are pay so the precendent is there. And heck if there are free TD software packages I'd like to know!  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Style guide and article consistency

Having recently transferred the discussion on consistency into an article of its own (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (poker-related articles)), I'm thinking that maybe now is the time to build on and finalise these guidelines, and then a record of articles that comply with the rules can be kept. Please take a look at the current guide and post your opinion on existing guidelines and topics that haven't been covered. A few queries I have are:

  • Should terms such as "ace-high" have a hyphen?
  • Should all terms describing the number of cards have a hyphen ("five-card draw", "two-card hand")? Some exceptions at the moment seem to be four card poker and three card poker.
  • Which games should use capital letters? I'm not convinced of the current rules. Maybe all poker games should start with a capital letter? Maybe just the words that uniquely identify the game should be capitalised, e.g. hold 'em, stud, draw do not identify games; Pai Gow, Texas and Omaha do. This might mean that games like five-card draw and three-card brag never use capital letters.
  • How to list poker hands? Should hyphens be used when suits are not specified and be used when they are not? If not, how should it be? Eg. A-K-Q-J-10, A♠ K♠ Q♠ J♠ 10♠. Presumably they should always be emboldened.
  • Specifically, I don't see why slow play should not use a hyphen. It is decribing a form of play just like check-raise and semi-bluff, both of which apparently should use hyphens.

--Hpesoj00 12:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

rec.gambling.poker: should an article be made?

I don't want to create this without getting a second opinion, but it seems like it probably deserves an article. A bunch of other articles reference it. AFink 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I find eight articles in Wikipedia on rec.* groups. None is exactly riveting. Personally I don't think it deserves an article as (especially now) it is more or less just a forum, but I would agree it meets WP:WEB so creating an article would be justified. 2005 04:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Following a GA nomination failure, I have kicked off a discussion at Talk:Reliable sources to try to get some consensus of opinion as to whether links to the Hendon Mob database can be considered valid evidence as to a player's finish in a particular tournament. If this cannot be agreed then potentially all our articles would be defined as unreferenced. I invite you all to comment as you see fit in the discussion. Cheers. Essexmutant 10:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems to me that this website clearly meets the requirements. Perhaps you just ran into a grumpy GA editor. Have you tried to discuss it with her? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I won't pass opinion on the reviewer, but commented in response at Talk:Ram Vaswani. Essexmutant 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you placed the discussion in the right place as reliable sources an issue. The Hendon Mob results are obviously valid, since they can easily be cross referenced with a few other places online. If there were significant errors, we would have come across them already. They Mob links are totally useless for pre-2000 results, so in that way they are incomplete. That is, they are reliable but incomplete. I don't understand your statement about potentially all articles being unreferenced. Sorry, but that makes no sense. They are referenced. I'd hope you would close that discussion there as it serves no useful purpose. In fact, why are you even mentioning it here? Let's not waste time on the obvious. 2005 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
1. The GA reviewer asked me to raise the question on the reliable sources talk page, and I did so as there is no reason not to confirm our own beliefs by asking for consensus of opinion from the community who specialise in the criteria for what can be defined as a reliable source. Surely one of the aims of the WikiProject is to improve upon the quality of articles that fall under tha banner of the project. By meeting GA criteria, we are doing so. By responding to the request of a GA reviewer we are representing our own WikiProject in a favourable light, and co-operation with the reviewer who failed Vaswani's article may be the best way to overturn the failure.
2. By saying that articles would be unreferenced if the GA reviewer's opinion is deemed to be correct, I am indicating that if this were the case, the links would not meet the criteria for reliable sources, and as such should essentially be removed, hence making the articles unreferenced.
3. Finally, I am mentioning it here, as it is a matter that the members of the WikiProject may wish to comment on. If you deem it to not be of interest to you, feel free to ignore it. Essexmutant 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
A GA reviewer doing a less than good job is not a reason to open up broad discussion. No I can't "ignore" a discussion unfortunately opened for no good reason. A GA reviewer's unresearched comments should be dealt with in terms of THAT article, and have NOTHING to do with multiple articles being "unreferenced". If someone wants to bring up faults in the Hendon Mob figures, they can do so here or on any article. While I know you mean well, you should have at minimum started a discussion here first, but beyond that, it makes no sense for you to open a discussion because some other editor has not done their homework. 2005 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Then we differ on our opinion. I have merely encouraged comment from the RL talk page, and made the WikiProject aware I have done so. I stand by my decision. Essexmutant 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with differing opinions. However, I just wanted to point out that one editor's opinion involving one aspect of one article's GA nomination has no ramifications regarding the rest of the articles under the scope of this project, beyond what any one comment about any article would. 2005 23:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good edits or vandalism?

Could someone check these edits please. I don't know enough to tell. Tyrenius 23:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The three I checked were right, however, like you, when I saw the edits I wondered if it was the sneakiest weirdo vandalism someone could do since it is very time consuming to check a series of edits like this but very easy to make the edits. It had me start wondering whether the infoboxes should be done away with, especially given the editor who primarily policed them has now stopped editing. 2005 23:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think doing away with the infoboxes is the right solution. The response to the potential for vandalism is not removing information. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well as it turns out they where good edits and there are many who will check up on statistics listed time to time (the best way is a Hendon mob website), Anyway a sneaky vandal can do the same thing a hundred different ways to the main article as well, plus the poker charts are informative and nicely done --Sirex98 05:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree as long as they *are* policed. It was very good of Tyrenius to bring this up here. Any similar list of changes will hopefully similarly flagged. I will point out though that the Mob database does update this info as a matter of doing business, which is generally a prime example of a valuable external link. As long as these boxes are policed they are a good thing (and I now see reason to be much more confident that they will be.. :). If they are not, they would be a wealth of misinformation which would be a very bad thing. 2005 07:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Enright
Nickname(s) None
Hometown Hollywood, California
World Series of Poker
Bracelet(s) 3
Money finishes 10
Highest ITM main event finish 5th (1995)
Information last updated Sep 2006
I see your point, I was thinking that maybe a date should be added to the chart to help editors but I;m not sure if it would be proper, something like this -->:Sirex98 08:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

<!--or maybe a hidden date-->

I don't know that a hidden date would be very helpful, as anyone who could check the comment could also check the history. I think adding the visible date is a good idea, though. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Brandon Newsome

Does anybody else see this as a vanity article? says he recently "competed in several World Series of Poker events" he must had been dead money in most of them, total winnings = $ 5,679 in Hendon's database. --Sirex98 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Should be put up for Afd as both non-notable and poorly written. 2005 03:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I just tagged it --Sirex98 08:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

New page Poker probability (Omaha)

I started a new page on Poker probability (Omaha). (Somebody asked me to do this several months ago after my work on Poker probability (Texas hold 'em), and I've finally gotten around to starting it.) There is still much work to be done as what I have so far only discusses the starting hand probabilities. I plan to address both regular Omaha and Omaha Hi-Lo in the article. I also plan to add at least the following:

  • probabilities for boards (flop, turn and river) where the nuts is three of a kind, a straight, a flush, full house/four of a kind or a straight flush; (DONE) 06:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • probabilities for different starting hand aspects (e.g. pairs, suited cards, connectors, low cards, high card) contributing to making a hand, and perhaps a discussion on how to rank starting hands based on these probabilities;
  • possibly include a ranking of hands based on their odds of making the nuts (including nut low hands);
  • probabilities for losing the nuts on the turn and river;
  • other stuff I haven't thought about yet.

I'm also interested if anyone knows of any statistics on how strong of a hand typically wins in Omaha based on the number of players.

Feedback appreciated. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Poker probability article for Omaha is remarkable and put together well, I'm afraid I have no statistical information that you were asking for, but I have to say If you win a wsop bracelet someday I wouldn't be surprised :) ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 08:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

No need to look through the directories, the Poker Project is listed at User:Badbilltucker/Culture_Directory#Card games. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Any volunteers?

I would be willing to participate in assessments and/or peer reviews, but I don't have the time right now to lead or organize these efforts—any volunteers? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Probability-based strategy

I'm planning on nominating Probability-based strategy for deletion (rationale on article talk page), and I suppose the Catalin Barboianu BLP as well. I thought I'd check see if the readership of this page thinks I'm mistaken before I do so. Pete.Hurd 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a Google search in quotes makes it clear this is an invented term, part of a network of articles to promote the authors books (original research if nothing else), so AFD seems the right way to go. Also note similar article by the author up for AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philosophy_of_probability 2005 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

poker template

I was thinking a poker template might be useful to place on poker topics for quick links to a general overview. Template:WikiProject Poker is already taken but perhaps Template:WikiProject Poker overview. I was thinking it might look something like this:

Poker
Betting | Rank of hands | Probability | Variants | Bluff | Poker chip

let me know if anyone thinks it's a good idea. Vicarious 07:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't like this because it is arbitrary (I would link to only one there now if I was picking six), and really too much of a bottomless pit to cover extensively. A template that linked to Category:Poker, Poker and List of poker related topics would seem alright. 2005 10:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes and ITM + Card Representations

I am in the process of working on the ITM disambiguation. The following changes are being made:

Please keep these guidelines in mind when creating new articles or infoboxes.

Thanks.--- Jagged 20:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker/Archive_2&oldid=1090643664"