JaeDyWolf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Antivandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1 (Linking specific articles)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism (Reporting vandalism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion (Articles for deletion link)

PokerStars talk page section link

I noticed your comment about rollback. If you install WP:TWINKLE it will give you rollback as part of the tools. Very powerful and makes vandalism chasing a whole bunch easier. Regards, --Manway (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

My recent edits to Jimmy Fricke's Wikipedia page made the first sentence a complete sentence. As of now, the first sentence, "Jimmy Fricke (born April 19, 1987) from Mahomet, Illinois.", does not have a predicate. As such, I believe my edits were not vandalism and were instead contributing in a positive manner. --Cono69 (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you don't know the history of "a freak and a very weird dude." http://pokerterms.com/freak-and-a-very-weird-dude.html

Jimmy Fricke himself admits it is true: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54/poker-beats-brags-variance/beat-am-freak-very-weird-dude-52809/ --Cono69 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

A little off wiki aside this link will auto flip up to 100 coins at at time, pick the dime it's easier to make out. cheers. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I created the template and there was no consensus to use it. I think they should exist for every year, but there was a discussion and I believe an RFC against, if I recall correctly. I still support their use, but am not sure how to get consent. Of course, you can always just be bold.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

What about one template for each decade?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The current format is not as encyclopedic as it should be. You should separate each year and put them in order by event (or alphabetical if you must),IMO. This is the format I think would be best: Template:2000-2009VSFashion Show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Those look good. I would reformat to the common slash convention for a player who has previously won bracelets. I.E., Bill Boyd in 1972 would be (1/2) for number that year and number in career. Johnny Moss in 71 would be (2/3). Also pipe Bill Smith.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

78th is what the WSOP results are showing. here unless you know this to be a mistake.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

no problem, reports that states the placement as well, also it looks like he won some more money on a side bet how much is unknown.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

oh here is more about the side bet if you were curious. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your vigilance with respect to David William's page. I posted in the discussion page again about why the "porn" information should not be included. Not sure if it will make a difference, but your monitoring of the situation is much appreciated.Kanapapiki (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

perhaps the continued use of parentheses would be acceptable if a short description was included in the text box to clarify what it is. For example (+1)^{* *}Specialty event. (A better description is probably necessary but just an example)

I understand completely why you took the actions you did with respect to reversing the annie duke edit. I belive you and I are on the same page that the text box needs to be clearer. I've never liked the use of parentheses since without an explanation I think it is just confusing. I have noticed that someone is apparently tyring to standardize the "format" on the poker pages. I also think this is generally a good idea, but can result in some "choppy" pages. Not sure what others think on this subject, but I think a more standardized format can be good if the editors keep a close eye on the pages.Kanapapiki (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker dealing with non-titles that are listed in the brackets, feel free to give feed back there. thanks ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You may want to give a heads-up to User:Balloonman ,the editor who created nearly all of the WSOP ladies event winners articles, he made them at the time when he made the gold star featured list; List of World Series of Poker ladies champions. his views on WSOP bracelet winners in part can be found in this old discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker/Archive_4#Proposed_Notability_Criteria. thanks▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, then I bet he wouldn't like the look of me proposing to delete 14 articles that he created! ...I still feel that they're not notable enough on their own, though. As a side-note, did I do the right thing regarding subst:prod? Was it the right thing to do if I wanted it deleted and I executed them okay...? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't say what you did was wrong, but I do believe that there are better approaches in dealing with such matters, In the case of any article that I may prod, I notify the original author that I've done so and my reason why there is a boiler plate template at the bottom of the prod that can be used "Author(s) notification template: {{subst:prodwarning|THE ARTICLE NAME|concern = }} ~~~~" but I prefer to use just normal written notice, In the case of a categories of articles I would notify both the creator and the project if there are conflicts in opinions in order to build a better consensus. Balloonman is very fair minded, so there should be nothing to worry about talking with him about the matter. cheers ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I really wasn't massively sure if I was correct, and looking at all of them afterwards made it all look far too hasty. I'm talking for Ballonman now, by the way. I know better for next time! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Balloonman deleted the prods. I've left it to think for a while, but I've decided that I really do disagree with them having articles. I'm curious as to your opinion, or what it is I should do... even if I should just back down. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whilst creating the WSOP Bracelet templates, I came across a number of small articles that I decided to propose deletion for. Sirex was kind enough to notify me that they were created by you, and that I should let you know. In retrospect, proposing all of them like that without any warning or questioning was probably too hasty, and I apologise for that... but at the same time I still don't think that they should have their own article yet. I'm very much open to your far more experienced opinion. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

thanks, I took those articles off of my watch list when I "retired" last year so I would not have noticed them. But IMHO they are notable enough for an article because each is a WSOP bracelet winner---which is clearly the highest level of competition in a major recognized activity. IMO blp1e should not apply as people who seek these individuals out will be doing so because they are notable and will want to know if they ever achieved another milestone, thus an article that says "no these are one hit wonders and ha" is a meaningful article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I understand your point. There was an argument last year regarding whether members of the November Nine deserve their own article. 2005, in his uncanny way of forcibly making the argument that I cannot find any fault with, mentioned that a person can be seen as notable if their actions can be recognised as accomplishments that extend beyond a single event, else the article on the person is closer to being an article on the event itself. I believe that every member of the November Nine is more notable than a one-hit-wonder Ladies Event winner! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would tend to agree with ya. BLP1E IMHO applies to people who are known for one event and unlikely to be notable again because the event for which they are known is unusual/random/etc. For example, a person who is known because a bear attacked them or because they witnessed a violent crime. Nobody is ever going to ask, "Did John Smith ever get attacked by another bear?" or "Did Jane Doe ever witness another violent crime? But they may reasonably ask, "Did that WSOP champion ever win another event?" And in asking, there is an actual presupposition that said person may have. Each of the November Nine, IMHO will have more than enough coverage to warrant an article... there is probably enough out there to justify an article on each of them now.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There might be a lot that's said about them, but everything that I've observed is that because it's just one event, then they shouldn't have an article. You know better than me, but... I really am not all that sure. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the past AFD's on WSOP bracelet winners have generally resulted in Keeping the article. I only know of one article which was deleted, but that was because the article was deleted without anybody from WP:POKER even knowing the article was created let alone nom'd for deletion. In this regard it has gerally viewed as being part of WP:ATHLETE.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough... although there are MANY people with bracelets without articles... and those bracelets are open events. I'll not put them up for deletion again unless somebody else comments but I really disagree on the notability of the articles. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I checked and the paragraph that Marcos.mayorga deleted from online poker contained multiple citations and had been in the article since 2005. Are you sure you're not confusing this with the reverts of the RNG information that he had been adding lately? KimChee (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I probably am confusing it... JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since you and 2005 seem to be the most active in the poker arena, I wonder what your position is regarding what should be listed as a player's hometown in the infobox. It seems to be a mixture of current residence and birthplace. As I've been reviewing pages, it seems more have put the player's current residence so that is what I have done at Phil Gordon's page. Any guidance would be appreciated. Kanapapiki (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been mainly staying out of the editing regarding birthplace because it's so finicky... I personally would put "hometown" as where they were born, or change the infobox entry to "residence" or something similar. Maybe if one's not known but the other is then there's room for flexibility...? Aside from removing the information altogether, which I don't want to do, I can't think of much that 2005 would likely agree with. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree that "residence" or some other description would be better. Not sure I care that much as to whether the infobox lists birthplace, residence, etc., my point is simply that I would like to see accuracy and consistency. In this case I don't think there is either.Kanapapiki (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I certanily afree that it's neither accurate nor consistent. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is true, it is confusing and residence should be used, Some people are born in one place but moved elsewhere when they were a child sometimes a few days or less, and see the new place they grow up as their Hometown, other whose parents moved many time as a child may say they have no hometown or only the current one they are in, while other see themselves having more then one, so the answer could differ from person to person as there are mainly 3 general definitions.

"Definition of HOMETOWN

the city or town where one was born or grew up; also : the place of one's principal residence" - Merriam-Webster

the Wikipedia entry discounts birthplace but says it could be both.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 15:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

May I ask you both which of you the you'd believe would be easier finding references for...? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Residences, only because these are reported often when players register in a tournament.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

for the majority of "ordinary" players, sure, but there would be a lot of bios about the likes of players whose notability is worth an article where they'll mention their birth place... either way, whichever is the easiest to confirm would be the single one I'd use. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's true many articles will list that info for many of the celeb poker players, This is an example of what I meant, they list residence but not birth place, celeb or not, so in general it's the easier to find, but there nothing to say that the infobox can't have both :)▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 00:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's true, I don't mind one or even both being there, as long as they're correct! I do think that existing ones need referencing or mentioning elsewhere in the article with reference. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I had to chose one I would chose residence for the infobox and put birthplace in the article. I would have no problem with both being in the infobox. If we use "residence" and "birthplace" descriptors rather than "hometown", it would seem to resolve many of the concerns.Kanapapiki (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Being that you're from U.K., thought I would ask for your input here Talk:European Poker Tour season 7 results.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 23:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I've given my input on the talk page. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:1970s WSOP Bracelet Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:1980s WSOP Bracelet Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:1990s WSOP Bracelet Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:2000s WSOP Bracelet Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jae, just so you know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with announcing deletions like this to the relevant projects involved, but when doing so, make sure that you declare that on the XfD in question. If you don't announce it, then it might appear as if you were doing so stealthfully (eg canvassing). But if you announce it, then it appears as if you are if you sharing the information with the projects that might be most concerned with and most knowledgable about the subject in question.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing! I thought I had mentioned on the TfD page that I was letting Wikiproject Poker know about it, though... JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

FYI, [1].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have just done the 70s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

80s done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

90s done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am doing the 2000s. When are you going to create the 2010s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did through 2007.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've done 2008, 2009 and 2010. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Titanic Thompson could use another set of eyeballs. Thanks 2005 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering why you reversed the edits by 213.17.53.39 on Nov 8. The information was correct and the reference is to the WSOP official site and not HendonMob site. I haven't updated the information pending an explanation. Not sure if HendonMob is now considered the only official stats.Kanapapiki (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the edits because they looked to me as if they weren't taking into account how HendonMob updates the November Nine cashes and winnings before the culmination. His over tournament winnings had been increased by the total prize for his fifth-place win, not taking into account that ~$800,000 had already been taken into account. As such, all three edits looked simply incorrect. However... the discrepancy between the WSOP Official Stats and HendonMob, which is still there, probably does need to be discussed. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I accept that as a resonable explanation regarding the edit of total live tournament winnings which referenced the HendonMob, but still doesn't make sense to me why you would have reversed the others which referenced the WSOP stats about total cashes and total WSOP winnings. The information was correct and the reference should have been acceptable. Although the infobox has been updated the other information remains incorrect as of this posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanapapiki (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kanapapiki (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had bunched all of the edits together in my mind. I had always checked Hendon Mob and no other website, perhaps erroneously assuming that it was completely accurate. I'll be checking both HendonMob and WSOP from now on! Feel free to further question anything I do, btw; I'm a little too headstrong sometimes. As a side-note, I emailed HendonMob about the discrepancy and they've fixed the problem. Best Christmas wished for tomorrow! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was not intending to be overly critical if it came across that way I apologize. In fact I've found you to be a very conscientious about your editing. My specific concern was whether there had been a decision to rely solely on HendonMob for official stats. More generally, I've noticed on various occassions in Wikipedia (not specific to you or your edits) that factually correct and cited information has been reversed. Sometimes it is appropriate and other times it doesn't seem to be. I guess my view is that if the information is cited, then the reversing editor bears the responsibility to check the citation.Kanapapiki (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nah, that's fine. It's brought about a couple of points; firstly that there WAS a factual error with what I believed to be the most reliable source, and secondly that I do need to check for citations a little more carefully. I wasn't even aware of the official WSOP citation! I completely agree with you. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering about your deletion of the first external link to Kevin Cook's Titanic Thompson website. It has far more useful information than the second link. Why delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover85 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps those links could be swapped, then... I've noticed that it's in the middle of an edit war, and there aren't supposed to be very many external links in an article anyway, so I tried to kill two birds with one stone. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll swap them. Hope it doesn't get deleted again. Thanks so much for all your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover85 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

One more thing. Someone, rightly, changed the top to say that Titanic Thompson was not a fictional character, but someone else keeps deleting it to say he had a secret life, which isn't true. Seriously, is there anyway to lock the page from changes by this other person? His information is completely untrue. Sorry to keep bothering you with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.58.0.62 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No worries about "bothering" me, I'm fine with the talking and discussions. I'm probably not the best person on Titanic Thompson knowledge, as the article was recommended to be watched by me by somebody else. I think what's needed in this case is a solid reference or two detailing his life, or the synopsis of. Such a thing can't be argued against, and any further changes after that can then be made clear to the other editor and with evidence to back it up. You seem to know a lot about Titanic Thompson; if you know of any brilliant third-party websites that can be cited, then we'd be able to make some progress on this. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, again! I put my edits up on the Titanic Thompson page. It seems to be getting crazy over there with editing. But, I cited all my information, so hopefully it will be helpful to people. Thanks so much for all of your help. You were the first admin I spoke with, and you were very helpful and understanding. Best Booklover85 (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Heh, I wouldn't o so far as to call myself an admin...! But I'm glad I could be of some limited help. I'm going to go over the references and everything this evening and see if I can help resolve everything. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I wanted to clarify the work I'm trying to do on the Isildur article. The article needs to be very clear to its readers that Isildur did xyz, and he revealed himself as Viktor Blom. My simple changes help fix a problem of the article which dealt with the problem that he is famous as Isildur1, and not as Viktor Blom, and it tries to make the reader know who he is and what he's notable for. Imagine someone is looking for info on Viktor Blom and/or Isildur1. Do you see what my aim is? The article was updated after Isildur's unveiling, and was done badly or without enough effort. If neutrality is still an issue, we'll continue that discussion on the talk page, and I'd be glad to defend my most recent edit. 69.68.27.101 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you add links to Template:2010s WSOP Bracelet Winners‎ or any other template add the template to their page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you responded to my edits on the Faraz Jaka entry, saying "Poker articles don't go into this much detail of individual tournaments or style of play, not to mention NPOV issues." Do you object do using bullet points to list tournament wins, as long as less are listed than before? Same for style of play. With this player, his style of play is fairly well known and a decent amount has been written on it. I would like to insert a section on that, just with less than before. Also, Jaka is well known for his fashion style, and there are several articles and video clips commenting on it. I would like to add a section on this, as well. How do you feel about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack3Grey (talk • contribs) 00:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, almost all poker player BLP articles only go into the absolute major highlights as far as tournament winnings are concerned. Bulletpoints are very much discouraged, and also I believe that enough has been said about his tournaments highlights already in the article. As far as the entry on his playing style is concerned, it had major NPOV issues (like calling his style "unique.") It's not a topic that is taken into much detail. I also dislike the prospect of a section on fashion style! I'm understanding this is all sounding negative, and I'm sorry about that. I was debating with myself whether or not to rollback simply because you've put a lot of work into it, so... I think that going onto Faraz Jaka's talk page and suggesting new things to add (And possibly inserting links to references in there so that they can also be looked at) is your best way forward. Despite my negativity, i'm wishing you luck all the same! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the feedback. When you say rollback, what does that mean? That mean some of the things I wrote might go up, but it will depend on me inserting the links into the talk page? Additionally, if I fix the NPOV issues, could I repost the style section with fewer references and minus the Josh Aireh comment? As far as the fashion part, I was thinking only two or three sentences. Jaka was on the cover of CardPlayer magazine in some crazy clothes and poker announcer Lon McEachern once talked about a hat of his for two minutes straight because it was odd. Just thought this could be a worthwhile section, especially since a poker blog thread I read suggested that Jaka might be entering the world of fashion in the future. Then again, that could have been misinformation. Let me know what you think. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack3Grey (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

A "Rollback" is something that's used by editors with the privilege or an addon that allows them to undo multiple edits in a row, like where I "Rollbacked" your four edits on Faraz Jaka. I don't think I can see a "good" section on playing style; it's largely a subjective thing from other poker players and also it's hardly a unique style as far as "aggression" is concerned. A lot of players are aggressive in poker, and to say that Jaka's style is a more "clever aggressive" (which is the only way I can see there being a point to a playing style section) would be violating NPOV... a mentino of his fashion sense is more doable, which would likely fit best inside the opening paragraph, but it won't be enough to say that Lon McEachern has been talking about it! Like I said before, feel free to make suggestions concerning the article on the talk page, and possibly aspects of poker BLP's to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker page. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The edit I made to the BetUS Payouts section was 100% accurate and cited. I don't understand why this should be removed -- it is factual and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.88.195 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The edits don't follow WP:NPOV, with words such as "laughable" or "assuming BetUS will honor its payouts." It's sounding more like a newspaper article and bordering on ridicule (No matter how valid it might feel to ridicule the subject.) Maybe I overreacted by just out-and-out calling it vandalism, but the edit does need work. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Every celebrity with a verified Twitter account has it in the external links. How is this vandalism? 173.57.170.173 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Having just re-read the policy regarding those kinds of external links, I admit the mistake. I just saw a revert of Cluebot and jumped on it. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did Sam Barnhart win a bracelet. I don't think his event counts. Look at 2011 World Series of Poker. It doesn't seem to be listed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I had left a topic on the talk page of that article, and largely due to a lack of an objection I had decided to add him in. It was due to this link:[2] which I couldn't see a fault in. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to diminish his accomplishment, but there are 58 bracelets to be awarded and his event does not count, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just dislike how that would leave a bracelet unaccounted for. What if Sam Barnhart were to become notable in future? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If he becomes notable in the future, it will likely be for an "official" bracelet. I do not believe he has really won an official one yet. We should not put things that don't count on this template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The site is calling the bracelet the "first gold bracelet of 2011" in the opening paragraph, as well as counting the bracelet as the "893rd gold bracelet in WSOP history [...] this figure includes every official WSOP event played." As much as it was unexpected, it IS being touted as an official bracelet. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

O.K. I have left my opinion on Talk:2011 World Series of Poker.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The circuit article still needs more detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did you forget to add the bracelet counts for Eugene Katchalov or are they in question?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The row heading should link to the annual WSOP article for all of these templates, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me! I'll get right on that... and apologies regarding the addition of Sam Barnhart's bracelet; personal issues :) JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a new discussion about the content of the main table at Talk:2011_World_Series_of_Poker#May 27-29 Circuit National Championship. Please comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Phil Laak was born September 8, 1964.

Proof: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9-t1P7ClFfQJ:www.ocnsignal.com/archives/oregon-coast-news-080910.html+philip+c+laak+oregon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

The Coos County Police Department in Oregon. They state he was 45-year-old in August 2010 at the time of his ATV accident. Go ahead and call them.

Peoplefinders.com and Intelius.com

Go Here: http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&fn=phil&ln=laak&mn=&city=&state=CA&age=&dobmm=&dobdd=&doby=

Also to prove it on that webpage, type in Age: 46, select birthday September 8, 1964

Do you think there are 2 Phil Laak's both born on September 8th? Jennifer Tilly wouldn't date a guy who is 38 when she is 52. Think about it. Eli Elezra on the Poker After Dark cash game laughed and said Howard Lederer and Phil Laak are the same age. The Pokerstars.net Big Game TV show, Daniel Negreanu asked his age. Phil Laak didn't reveal, but said I could be 50.

The point is I'm not making this up! It is FACT he is now 46 years old. Show me proof if you do not believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PokerGod4U (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you twice took out some info i put up on Stu Ungar page, regarding Romano and his Bridge play. I put up link last time, maybe I did it wrong, it was removed again. I just registered, if there is way to contact me on here feel free to do so. Lorenzo77 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Edit in question:

l was besides other things, a master Bridge player who while in Attica twice won Bridge World Magazine's master Solvers competition, and wrote a series of articles for them while in prison. {http://}{www.}bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=master_solver&f=mschist.html

There are a number of issues with the edit; the article is about Stu Ungar and his relations to Romano. To say Romano won two bridge tournaments and wrote articles while in prison has nothing to do with Stu Ungar himself and if worthy of a mention should be on Romano's page. Also, if you want to add links be sure that they're in reference brackets. See WP:REF for more details. Please don't be discouraged about this, though, it's good to see a new editor wanting to improve, so I'm wishing you all the best. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for response, I also see I made editing mistake, saying "I' instead of "he." I am not very computer savvy, so thanks for the feedback. I knew Stu well, don't want to post much on here though since it gets too crowded. Romano was my father, that is how i knew Stuey. You were nice in your response, so anytime you want to ask about Stu feel free. 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzo77 (talk • contribs)

Thank you very much indeed; I can understand why you're interested and I'm genuinely pleased to be able to talk to somebody who was so close to such a respected poker figure. Beyond my Wikifag exterior I'm genuinely interested in poker players and their lives and as I was too young to have known about Ungar before he passed away I'm particularly fascinated by new information. While I'm doubting Romano's mention can go beyond his connection with Ungar (as much as I'd welcome it, Wikipedia rules are quite rigid) such a connection will surely remain in my mind, so I can thank you very much for that. I apologies for the rather aggressive, non-constructive reasons for reverting the edits and once again I wish you all the best. :) JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do have some stories on him, and could also tell of some fairy tales about him, in that book, and in other stories on him. I would put up my e-mail here for you, but then whole world would have it. If you want, send me your e-mail and I will respond privately to any questions. If that is against wiki rules then disregard.

So as not to leave people frustrated they read this, I will tell a few things now, if agianst any rules please delate.

Stu never tried to become a jockey, as was said in book. If anyone ever followed horse racing is on here, they would know how ridiculous putting a 20 year old with little physical strength on horse to race it.

Stu first came around my father and me and family in 1971, October. He weighed 93 pounds, and was always trying to gain weight. I tis never mentioned that he tried to exercise and get stronger, but would not go to a gym, or ever take off shirt in front of anyone (except girlfriends, of course) If it was hot, humid, and unbearable, he would still leave his long sleeve shirt---only kind I ever saw him wear--on. Strangely, he never seemed to sweat.

He was big boxing fan. Like baseball also, not just to bet on, he really loved both sports. His friends were all old men, something he always laughed about, once he seemed a bit disturbed about it to me though. He had a lot of old Jewish guys hanging out with him, in their 70's and 80's. He did not have a single friend his own age.

In book, it said he loved Lawrence Welk, hated rock and roll. Untrue, he hated him,liked pop rock and oldies. He would try to get out of watching Lawrence Welk whenever he could.

His wife is good woman, he had no big money when they met, and even when struggling financially after they met financially she stuck with him. In that movie on him, it shows him loaded with money when they meet, untrue. She also did not live in big house, as movie High Roller portrayed.

The mistress his father died with in 1966 hung out at card clubs, and they became friends in 1970's. She was big gambler (bad one) They never discussed her and his father though, as far as I know.

I know these are not big stories, just thought to share a few , hope they are of some interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzo77 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, wow, all of this is beyond interesting, it's fascinating! Thank you so much; I'll think of some subtle way to pass on my Email and get back to you. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello my friend, first of all I want to thank you for keeping NicePeter's page spam free. Sadly, it has had a lot of attacks and spammers, and since I'm a huge fan of the guy, I try to keep it clean and informative. This message it's about my recent addition of a wall of text to the page, and I wanted to discuss it with you because I think it's important to keep it there, because it's first hand information about the history of how the ERB where set up. Maybe it needs some editing to make it less vague and more informative, so if you agree I would like to take the text, change some things and put it on again, so we could let the people know how this wonderful idea was born. Again, thanks for everything, and sorry if my english is so bad, it's because I'm Chilean.

JuakoHawk JuakoHawk (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

No worries, buddy; I'm always happy to discuss things with the polite types! The reason I'd reverted the edit was because it was a very large amount of copy-pasted material and despite it coming straight from the source, Wikipedia always requires sources from reliable third-parties. I agree with you that the article DOES need work; more details on NicePeter himself and ideally some established format for if/how the videos are linked via the article would very mcuh much welcomed by me. I might set aside some time at some point to see if I could sort something out. He's my favourite person on Youtube; I think he deserves a better article. Cheers for the feedback request, am wishing my successful edits in future! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions ? It seems note worthy enough. Mlpearc (powwow) 08:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The hands in which he won with certainly are noteworthy, but to put them in the bracelet tables would be too confusing. It's already been mentioned within the article and on the WSOP articles. I'm fairly sure that the other poker nutters would agree too, but you're entirely welcome to check; User Talk:2005, User Talk:Sirex98 and User Talk:Balloonman are the ones who spring to mind :) JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Juako. Thank you for your contribution to the Wikipedia poker community. I have refered to Wikipedia's poker articles many times as a new player and I am now trying to give back by editing it myself. About the visual mnemonic that I added.

"there is no mention of who has published the information on the website, the mnemonics are bizarre to say the least"

I personally find this mnemonic much more useful than phrases or anagrams that you have to «hear in your head». I found the mnemonic on PokerGym's website so I put it as a reference to give them the credit. I'm not sure what other kind of reference would be more appropriate as a mnemonic doesn't need a scientific proof or anything. I wonder what is the opinion of the rest of the community on that matter.

"the table added to the Poker probability (Texas hold 'em) article contained information that only existed in graph form on the website itself"

This is also the only place where I could find this information. The numbers are based on simulation, not theoretical analysis, so they are easy to compute. I don't mind if you remove the link but I think the content itself should remain as it is an interesting alternative way to assess the strenght of one's hand.

Please don't revert indiscriminately. You're right to remove copy and pasted content, but your revert also removed the notice of my proposed merge. In the future, please use the "undo" feature on the offending edits or remove the content manually. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I searched but couldn't really find a source that would stand up. A lot of poker chip sets do follow a set value ( those that mark the denoamtion on the chip).

Since I can't find a good source, I ll leave the page as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbdumb235 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey I restored the Party Poker page I hope you could help me with some expansions! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello JaeDyWolf! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply