Talk:Amarillo Slim

message: The article says:
:Preston won the 1972 World Series of Poker main event.  Preston made a three way deal with Brunson and Puggy Pearson that allowed Preston to win the title while the three players split the prize money.
That would be cheating and accusations of that type do not belong in Wikipedia without solid sources.  A.J.A. 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not cheating, and no cheating is implied.  Deals are very common in poker tournaments. However removing it because of BLP is appropriate. 2005 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP 

message: Why do you keep reverting my edits? ThePlayr said specifically that they have information that the film is slated for a 2009 release. People checking the page for information so be kept up to date on the developments or they will go elsewhere for the information. It can't just be stated 'in pre-production since 2004' until the day the movie is released.
I'm sorry to keep reverting your edits and I don't think we should have an edit war about this but I think you are very wrong in your position on this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.208.178 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the SAME info as previously.  the playr article is anonymous, as are its "sources", which is probably just the IMDb.  Read WP:V and WP:RS.  Nothing has changed in terms of the film.  It is not in production.  It is in preproduction, which in fact theplayr even says.  If the Hollywood reporter or LA Times or another reliable source says it has gone in production, then the article can be updated. 2005 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the same info as previously. There is an update to the status of when it may be released. So what you are saying is that it should be left as is until the day it goes into production? No updates should be given about the timetable for when it is going into product or when it may be released? I'm sorry but that seems to be the wrong decision. Who do we appeal this to because I do not agree and I think it is silly for us to keep changing it back and forth...but I'm not going to stop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.208.178 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you doing?  There is no update.  As of 2009 the film is in preproduction.  It antipates a 2009 release, but it is not in production.  This has been the status quo for a year or more, and is even what your source says.  Additionally, as I said before, an anonymous story from a non-reliable, non-film source will never be acceptable as a reference.  The playr link is worthless.  Don't add it again, especially since your other contribution to the Wikipedia seems to be adding another link to theplayr. 2005 (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the sentence about the movie is relevant to the article and is reliably sourced. However the link cited for the 2nd sentence is not working, maybe it can be fixed.-- — Kbob • Talk •  23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The movie has been in development for years so it merits mention.  But nothing was made or released in 2009 so I removed the dead link where it said it would be. 2005 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I have moved the sentence about the movie to the Personal Life section.-- — Kbob • Talk •  00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie