Talk:Steve Badger (poker player)

message: 2005 is edit warring on this article. I spent a great deal of time cleaning it up today and 2005 is doing nothing but reverting my edits. Poker-Babes.com has been acknowledged as spam as an external link and cannot be used. It has also be acknowledged as a self published source and is not to be used as an RS in any BLP. GoogleGroups is not a reliable source. The information on his tournament cashes and specific wins are readily available and can be included - but not much of the rest of the article. DegenFarang (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you well know, and have been warned by multiple editors, expert external links are not spam.  Stop it. 2005 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Poker-Babes.com is not an 'expert external link' and I have never been warned on that and do not know that. What I know is multiple administrators have given me permission to remove it as an external link and I have done so from at least 100 articles. Your sweeping reverts to my edits are beyond insulting. GoogleGroups is not an RS. This article is full of peacock terms. I appreciate the additional sources you have added however I do not appreciate your blanket reverts to exactly how the article appeared yesterday, with the addition of more RS's for his tournament victories (which were never in question). DegenFarang (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been warned many times.  multiple editors stated Poker Babes was "a self-published site by an acknowledged poker expert", and in no sense was a site added by many editors over many years "spam".  self published sources should not be used as references as article.  Expert sites can be used as external links.  I know you choose to ignore all Wikipedia rules, but you have been reverted by two other editors today including one saying specifically that "poker babes is not 'spam'".  I removed Google groups data which obviously is not reliable.  Your peacock assertion is odd since you don't say what they are.  I suppose the word "major" can be removed in two places, and "first", but to say the article is full of peacock terms is really over the top. 2005 (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Full of' is in itself a peacock term, as is 'over the top' - so let me rephrase and maybe we can get somewhere. I attempted to remove multiple peacock terms from the article and your blanket revisions reversed them. There remains a lot of un sourced material I would like either sourced, or removed. Anything about where the subject is from, how he learned poker etc needs to be sourced or removed. That you know that information to be true does know mean it meets the guidelines for inclusion, it is original research unless sourced. And Poker-Babes.com is not an expert source and I have gotten approval on several occasions to remove it, both as an external link and a source - and you know that. That's why you haven't re-added the 100+ external links I removed. DegenFarang (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War... 

message: I made a couple of edits that I hope can be discussed here before they are reverted. The source in the lead says the subject is a 'former' pro, I changed the lead accordingly. I also removed some peacock terms. If a source can be found that backs up that the subject is currently a professional poker player (even within the last year or two), I would be fine with this being in the lead. If the only sources calling him a pro are from the 90's and early 00's - and SFGate calls him a former pro several years ago - I believe the former word should be in the lead. 
*I also believe PlayWinningPoker.com should not be in the lead and the paragraph about the website is quite promotional, it reads like advertising. I wont make this edit now, though I encourage another editor to do so. DegenFarang (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *The phrasing about being a "former" professional poker player is reasonable. The information about the site is pretty straightforward, but maybe we can hammer out some suggested verbiage here that a consensus agrees to? Rray (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: * It looks like he plays a few tournaments a year, every year, last won first place in 2008, so perhaps not retired yet.  I'm fine with removing PlayWinningPoker.com from the lead, but it shouldn't be reduced as it was to 5 words. Perhaps just substitute in "website entrepreneur"? ... thanks, --guyzero | talk 16:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of his recent activity level s at tournaments etc. I don't thinkthe word "former" belongs in the sentence unless that is what he is being called in reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk •  17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Following WP:LEAD, I made the intro section cover the four basics: former player, WSOP winner, writer, and "website owner". I think that addressses all the above. 2005 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Take 2

message: *In 2000, Badger established his PlayWinningPoker.com website, which includes his Omaha, Texas hold 'em, other poker strategy articles, as well as his Winner's Guide to Online Poker, which was the first poker-specific strategy guide on the Internet when it was published in 2000. He continues to write for and update his website regularly. 
The above sentence sounds very promotional and un-encyclopedic to me. I would suggest a simple sentence like: "In 2000, Badger created a poker strategy website called PlayWinningPoker.com". If we can find secondary sources that praise or criticize his web site, than we can add more details about it.-- — Kbob • Talk •  17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the "first" stuff.  It could be added again with a reliable third party source. 2005 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds promotional 

message: I'm not sure why the link to PlayWinningPoker.com is controversial. Deleting a link to the subject's articles wouldn't make sense in the Roger Ebert article, which links to Ebert's site, so why wouldn't it be appropriate to include a link to Steve Badger's articles? Rray (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He no longer owns the site. However if you want to re-add the link I don't have a huge problem with it. User2005 just got blocked along with two sockpuppets he had been using to make it seem like lots of people didn't agree with my edits, so I rolled a bunch of them back. DegenFarang (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect.  A link to 100+ articles written by the subject of an article is clearly an appropriate external link. 2005 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External links section

message: The following content was removed from the article:
:He also owned Playwinningpoker.com before he sold it to PokerStars in 2010.Poker Stars Blog - PokerStars acquires top poker portalsPokerworks.com - PokerStars Acquires PokerPages and Other Websites 
I don't understand what the objection is to this particular content. It's relevant, interesting, and well-sourced. Does anyone have objections to restoring this content? If so, let's discuss them here. Rray (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed in , with the edit summary "rv sockpuppet edits". That, by itself, is no valid rationale to remove content.I do wonder whether the sources used are reliable sources, but it seems to me that the facts are uncontentious and verifiable. Amalthea 17:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pokerstars blog is the official blog for the company, so it seems like, for company information, that it would be a valid reliable source. I'm not familiar with PokerWorks.com though. Since the information is uncontentious and verifiable, a single citation seems like it would be sufficient. Rray (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See project poker, Rray is acting as a meat puppet here for user2005, we should wait for the opinions of other users besides 2005 before deciding what to do. DegenFarang (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be grateful if we could actually discuss the content and the edits. Calling me names isn't productive. Since you removed this content, perhaps you could explain why it shouldn't be re-added? So far no one has an objection to this particular content but you, but the only reasoning you've given is "rv sockpuppet edits," which we've established isn't a valid reason to remove the content. Rray (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And so far nobody has a problem with it being removed but you DegenFarang (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, multiple editors have reverted this particular edit and multiple other edits to this article. But rather than edit war, I've chosen to discuss these specific edits on the talk pages of these articles. Do I understand you correctly? What I'm reading is that the reason this information should be removed from the article is because no one objects to its removal besides me? Rray (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, one editor has done that. He is just using sockpuppets and meatpuppets (like you) to give the appearance of a consensus. DegenFarang (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather discuss content issues. Is there a reason this content should be removed? So far, no valid reason has been given. Rray (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already told you, "See project poker, Rray is acting as a meat puppet here for user2005, we should wait for the opinions of other users besides 2005 before deciding what to do." - As no other editors have voiced their opinion besides me and you (2005 et. al), this discussion is at a standstill. DegenFarang (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. Does Amalthea not count as another user, either? Rray (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also voiced my opinion against you; claiming that anybody who disagrees with you is a "meat puppet" is too many steps too far. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  If it's a notable company and it's verifiable, it should be in the article, so count me as having a problem with the removal. If you cannot present a policy-based argument for keeping it out, it should be restored. Amalthea 11:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  A WP:primary source is never a WP:reliable source. But if, like I said, we only take facts, and the facts are uncontentious, then a primary source can be sufficient. Amalthea 11:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A primary source that says "we bought this website" is a statement of fact that secondary sources merely repeat.  But that isn't even the point here as the tendatious editor removed both the primary source and a secondaty source reporting the same thing.  Additionally, this isn't even a controversial thing, and any Internet search can find dozens of websites (ones that are reliable and ones that are not) repeating the same statement of fact.  There is no dispute over the fact or statement.  The issue is here only because degenfarang wanted to hurt the article by removing this one bit of interesting activity. 2005 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Content removal

message: The recent changes to this article to include the buy-in amounts for each tournament have me puzzled. This doesn't seem to be a standard that's included in other poker player articles, so I'm curious why it's so important to include them here? Rray (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine it's because $300 Buy-in tournaments usually aren't reported on Wikipedia; many other buy-ins are in fact reported but generally as part of the whole tournament title, eg. "2012 WSOP $1,500 No Limit Hold'em." It's just difficult to discuss it when somebody is making frequent and multiple small edits all over the place *Cough hint cough* JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about including buy-ins