| Revision as of 03:15, 18 February 2013 editDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:54, 18 February 2013 edit undoRray (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,856 edits →Favor Request: Delete rant. Sorry, but I'll edit where and when I please--feel free to do the same.Next edit → | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
| Two of the calculator sites you have removed, did a dynamic online calculation of the best strategy, using the current distribution in the shoe. This understanding is fundamentally described in E. Thorb's book. For instance have a look here: http://www.beatblackjack.org/tables.html . There is no reason to mark these as advertisements. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | Two of the calculator sites you have removed, did a dynamic online calculation of the best strategy, using the current distribution in the shoe. This understanding is fundamentally described in E. Thorb's book. For instance have a look here: http://www.beatblackjack.org/tables.html . There is no reason to mark these as advertisements. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :Thanks for getting in touch, but a more appropriate place to discuss this would be on the talk page for the article itself. That way other editors can weigh in with opinions. Rray 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | :Thanks for getting in touch, but a more appropriate place to discuss this would be on the talk page for the article itself. That way other editors can weigh in with opinions. Rray 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Favor Request == | |||
| It would be amazing if just once I could do something on Misplaced Pages and you did not show up to voice the opposite opinion. I don't know if you enjoy being contrarian or for some reason you just really like to object to anything I say or do - but if something really needs to be sorted out, there are plenty of other editors who can handle it. Maybe you can find something better to do with your time than constantly refreshing your browser to see if there is a new opportunity for you to vote against me somewhere. Thanks. ] (]) 03:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:54, 18 February 2013
 Archives |
|
|
This will ensure that conversations remain together! |
http://en.wikipedia.org/Cheating_in_poker
Please don't delete my info since it is very valuable to online poker community.
If you disagree please suggest another form to expose it, otherwise i will change it permanently and contact wikipedia for censorship.
Best Regards,
Poker Guardians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poker Guardians (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please review the policies for what's appropriate to add to a Misplaced Pages article. Anything contentious needs to include a reliable source. Rray (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know that detailed information on blogs were considered unreliable just by the simple fact of beeing hosted at blogspot.com
- Any information as long as it is very detailed and proven with facts is considered reliable in my opinion.
- If you have any doubts about the facts you can contact Ongame to correct the information that is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poker Guardians (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since this discussion is about a particular change to a particular article, I think it would be better to discuss it on the talk page the article rather than here. That way you and I can both get other contributors' input. Rray (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- You wrote: Any information as long as it is very detailed and proven with facts is considered reliable in my opinion. Regarding this, please understand that your opinion isn't really relevant as to the definition of a reliable source--I included a link to the Misplaced Pages project's policies about reliable sources on your talk page. Rray (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am new to wikipedia and this is very confusing. Please refer to links because this is very confusing i don't even know if i am talking to you in private or in public.
As to that particular article. It has obsolete links that are still there.
Please send me all the requirements to post that valuable information to the poker community.
If you send one requirement at a time i will see it as a barrier to freedom of speech and i will edit back the article all the time. Specially when i don't understand the reasons why you are doing it.
If you have any problems just make a list of the problems and i solve them so you don't have any other excuse to re-edit.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poker Guardians (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- The best place for you to start contributing to the Misplaced Pages would be reading through the links in the welcome message I left on your talk page. As far as your edits go, this is a collaborative project. If you make changes to an article, anyone else can come behind you and edit, change, and/or remove your work. If that's a problem for you, then you shouldn't contribute. Please don't threaten to "edit back the article all the time." That's edit-warring, and you can be barred from editing altogether for that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Edit_warring. Rray (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- The sources are reliable. If you don't believe them that's another thing.
- If you want to contribute remove obsolete links like 5 and 6.
- Links to 2 and 3 might be considered advertisement to PokerStars and PartyPoker since they are explictly saying they are better than Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet and that is in violation of WikiPedia rules.
- There is also a citation without any reliable source that should be removed:
- "A similar form of angle shooting which is mostly confined to the online game (although not theoretically impossible in live poker) is repeated short buying or short stacking."
- Please don't remove the information posted, it is very valuable to all users that are looking for online cheating and i believe that is what this article is about. Go to www.ongame.se and check if it has any false information.
- You are removing my edits without any reason so let's hope that a moderator come and blocks one of us. I don't mind to be censored, the truth will eventually reach the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poker Guardians (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't post on my talk page any more. Rray (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Note
I agree your reverts are protected from 3RR, and I doubt another admin will disagree. But if you run into this situation in the future, please seek help somewhere (WP:AN3 probably in this case) rather than just revert the other editor indefinitely. Then, it just becomes a contest of who can outlast the other, and when an admin runs across it eventually, they see the 6 reverts by each editor and think "block 'em both and let God sort it out". Anyway, I've got my eye on it for a while now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're right. I'll do that if it comes up again in the future. Thanks for your note. Rray (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Blackjack Revision as of 17:26, 11 February 2012
Two of the calculator sites you have removed, did a dynamic online calculation of the best strategy, using the current distribution in the shoe. This understanding is fundamentally described in E. Thorb's book. For instance have a look here: http://www.beatblackjack.org/tables.html . There is no reason to mark these as advertisements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galbum (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting in touch, but a more appropriate place to discuss this would be on the talk page for the article itself. That way other editors can weigh in with opinions. Rray 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)