Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:41, 8 August 2011

• WT:POKER

Archives

April to July 2006 August to December 2006 January to July 2007 August to December 2007 January to December 2008 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Badugi

It has been brought to my attention that while the poker variant badugi certainly exists, the history references on that page are not really credible. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Biographies and people in categories

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#Biographies and people in categories

I am hoping to build guidelines for notability criteria for what makes someone notable in the games field i.e. Misplaced Pages:Notability_(sports)#Curling. Especially games players that I feel needs to have a section similar to the sports and athletes. An example of a question that has just arisen is does winning the first scrabble world championship count as just WP:Oneevent. Combined contribution issues also need defining.

The other conversation is do we want to have category inclusion criteria does a certain threshold need to be met before we add someone to Category:Chess players. Should Ben Afleck counts as a poker player?Tetron76 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Subscription poker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Subscription poker is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Subscription poker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Poker researchers, analysts, authors

Besides poker players, shouldn't there be a category for persons who are mainly known (notable) for their research and analysis of the game of poker and/or authoring of poker-related texts? A great number of people come to mind. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

External links

User:DegenFarang has declared that he intends to remove all "spammy" external links that are not official sites or tournament results. he has thus far removed links to Cardplayer and Pokerlistings, Pokernewsdaily, Launchpoker and others. Some of these have already been reverted, but this assertion that everything is spam except official sites and results is spam should be addressed here. This notion is absurd in my opinion, and most likely just another example of DegenFarang's tendatious editing, but I would apprecaite other editors weighing in to agree that authoratative, expert, quality websites like Cardplayer and at least a few dozen other sites are valuable links to have in articles where appropriate. 2005 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

These are clearly and obviously ridiculous edits driven by some kind of personal agenda on the part of User:DegenFarang. The sites in question are used as references all over the place, both online and offline. And before someone accuses me of making a personal attack, take a look at the user's edit history. It's all well and good to "assume good faith," but when an editor repeatedly demonstrates that he's not editing in good faith, something needs to be done. Rray (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with 2005 and Rray; the majority of the sites that are being given in the eternal links aren't "spammy," and contain relevant, interesting material. I also cannot help but notice DegenFarang's apparent grudge against 2005, what with the constant harrowing regarding edits and changes to his talk page. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No doubt you'll soon be accussed of being my sockpuppet. Good luck... 2005 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I plan on adding my input further down the line, but couldn't resist saying that your comment literally made me lol. TheTakeover (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• A number of the sites in question were also used as references, e.g. poker-babes.com at Badugi. I would welcome opinions whether the sites in question are useful as reliable sources. Amalthea 14:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It depends which site. Poker-Babes.com is a self-published source which should not be used at all anywhere imo given how aggressively it has been spammed on Misplaced Pages. I had been used as an external link on nearly every poker player BLP and more than 200 articles in total until I finally got permission to remove them all. As user2005 added 90%+ of the links you can imagine how hard he and his sock and meat puppets fought to prevent that. DegenFarang (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See below. It is a website owned by the largest poker site in the world, and fronted by someone the New York Times, Times of London and Associated Press aknowledge as an expert. 2005 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• First it should be noted user2005 was just banned for highly suspicious sockpuppet/meatpuppet behavior and the investigation is ongoing. At least five administrators said he was clearly using three accounts to create the appearance of a consensus when there wasn't one. We should thus be very skeptical here about whether consensus is real or manufactured. Rray in particular is a person who always shows up on these discussion and his opinion imo should be ignored and counted as one vote with 2005's, along with all of the other people whose account he controls or recruits to this discussion.

• Regarding the links: if the content has value they can be used as references. The external links are unnecessary unless the information can't be easily quoted in the article, like with tournament results. 2005 cherry picked the most reputable sources but there are tons of others that few people have heard of with random domain names and next to no traffic. Allowing any site which does a 'profile' or interview with a player to have an external link on that players article is just going to invite tons of spam (and in fact it already has, and I'd like to clean it up without needing a huge edit war with 12 of 2005's sock and meat puppets to do so). DegenFarang (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Having read your post again I would actually agree with this: "authoratative, expert, quality websites like Cardplayer and at least a few dozen other sites are valuable links to have in articles where appropriate". However I think 'at least a few dozen others' is the problem. There are not a few dozen 'authoritative, expert, quality websites like Cardplayer'. There are about four. All the rest is the spam that I'm referring to. --DegenFarang (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• First, User:2005 was not banned. He was blocked, temporarily, and in error. That's why the block was lifted early.
• Most of these sites and references have been used for years, and no one besides User:DegenFarang has ever objected to them. If only one person over several years has disagreed with their inclusion, while dozens of other editors have agreed with their inclusion, where does consensus lie?
• When the editor is calling links to sites like Cardplayer as spam, how credible can his objections be? Is it possible that the editor in question is being deliberately disruptive?
• I'm sure you'd be delighted if everyone who disagrees with you was ignored, but that's not how this project works.
• Perhaps you could list the "12" sock and meat puppets that you're referring to? I only saw three or four accusations. Are there are other sock and meat puppets that you haven't accused yet? Or are you waiting until someone else disagrees with you and add them to your list of accusations? That would be a fine McCarthy-esque tactic. Rray (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please focus on content, not editors, everyone. I don't care who did or said what in the past. I care about ending this content dispute. Amalthea 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• If a single disruptive editor is the only person who has a problem with the content, and his sole purpose seems to be to disrupt other editors' hard work, then is it really a content dispute any more? Or has it become something else? Rray (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • poker-babes.com in particular does not seem like a reliable source to me, with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Removing those references and contentious facts sourced by them may absolutely be appropriate. I would not label DegenFarang's edits in that regard as disruptive.
    On the other hand, reliable source or not, using pages hosted there as external links may still be appropriate if they have useful content that the respective articles lack, as per WP:EL. Amalthea 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Rray is clearly acting as a sock or meat puppet for 2005 here. These accusations and word choices (like the repeated use of 'dozens of other...') are classic 2005. Also notice how 2005 and the other socks/meats are gone but this user who you pronounced 'clean' has taken over. His comments should be removed and his account blocked until this discussion is over. DegenFarang (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Because of Degenfarang's refusal to accept consensus, this has been discussed many times before, but Degenfarang continues to ignore the views of everyone else. The site is owned by Pokerstars, the largest poker site in the world. The face of the site is an expert player who has won several poker tournaments in different game variations and has been quoted as an expert on poker in The New York Times, The Times of London, the Associated Press and other reliable sources. The links he is removing are valid expert links, and they aren't even reverenceing anything controversial. In the past more than a dozen editors have added links to the site, including several admins, as edit histories show. They were added by a variety of editors including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Misplaced Pages Essexmutant and again and and and again, as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and againand again for starters. These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them. While due to changing BLP rules over the past 8 years since, it is no longer a valid reference in BLPs (except for writing by the subject of the article), but it is an excellent resource for definitions, game rules and things like how many cards you get in Badugi. Personally I think the New York Times, London Times ans Associated Press are a better judghe of merit than Degenfarang. 2005 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Your claims of consensus are almost as dubious as your claims that nobody agrees with me. Stop your canvassing and meat puppeting and read what other people are saying and you'll see that lots of people have agreed with me each time this has been brought up. That is why more than 100 links to poker-babes, both as an external link and reference, have been removed. DegenFarang (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC) DegenFarang (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • From my understanding this thread is about external links in general, so why do you almost always insist on bringing up only one, poker-babes? Anyway, many of the links that have been questioned by DegenFarang are reliable sources and anybody that actually knows poker would rarely (if ever) question the authority of CardPlayer or PokerListing. Therefore, I think external links should extend past the official site and tournament results if the external links are relevant to the subject at hand and/or have additional information that might not be included in the actual Misplaced Pages article. TheTakeover (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Specific content disputes

Rather than reverting any more edits, I've begun three specific discussions on three different articles' talk pages. The information and citations that were removed seem acceptable to me, but there is now a place to discuss the specifics for each of them below. I think the discussions will result in a consensus to restore the removed content.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rake_%28poker%29#Reference_removed.3F
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Steve_Badger#Content_removal
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shirley_Rosario (Under the discussion titled "Content removed.")

I'd be grateful for other project members' input. Rray (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Until an editor who is not user2005 or a sock/meat puppet of 2005 shows an interest in these edits I think they should stand. DegenFarang (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)