Talk:Mark Teltscher

message: It is worth the time to research the reported connection between Mark Teltscher and PokerStars player TheVOid who was disqualified for cheating to win the $1.3 million first prize in the 2007 WCOOP.  Anyone with good source material on this, it would be appreciated.zadignose 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, having looked around, I haven't found anything but rumors on this.  Clearly this isn't well enough substantiated to justify a mention on the page, at least until someone can find a real source for the info.  If anyone *does* have such a source, of course please bring it forward. zadignose (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... looks like the Isle of Mann court case brings more light to the situation, and pretty much confirms the Teltscher = TheVOid connection!  Previously PokerStars did not publicly make reference to the Teltscher name.  Now I think Teltscher is properly branded, and it's a real shame. zadignose (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: And I have restored them, because the material is clearly and properly cited. Please discuss before removing the material again. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Non sequitur. The existence of "allegations", unproved or not, can be notable with respect to a given article topic. Since one editor has determined that it's notable, and another thinks it isn't, it now falls to consensus to decide. In the meantime, the material should remain in place until and unless a previously-uninvolved editor elects to remove it, and explains their rationale either here or in an edit summary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, the  template was removed, twice, by the RfCbot. Rather than revert either the bot or the repeated (and, in my opinion, improper) deletion of the content in question, I have now requested a third opinion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The material had plenty of references, and there are plenty more out there.  The incident should definitely be covered appropriately in the article. 2005 (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: These aren't allegations: Natalie Teltscher admitted to it herself, not to mention all other sources mentioning TheV0id and Teltscher ban. Rymatz (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text: BLP wouldn't prohibit the sources based on the Pokerstars statement, but it might be appropriate dsome or all of the time to phrase things as "pokerstars says.... etc."  A source where he says he is TheVoid would be nice, and if need be that could be followed by "Pokerstars says..." text. 2005 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TheVOid 

message: I have removed the information, yet again, on this matter. I remind you of the following: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. "   Note the third party for this dispute previously. Pokerstars is  not a reliable source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverneedle (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Silverneedle, please address the actual point: Do you dispute that Pokerstars claimed TheV0id was Mark?  And, do you dispute Pokerstars claims Natalie dropped her lawsuit about this?  Those are the issues.  The article now does not say Mark did play. You are right the article should not say that, but you are wrong if you think it is wrong for the article to state the plainly verifiable truth that Pokerstars has made claims about Mark. 2005 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added references from IOM Today/Isle Of Man Examiner which directly reports on the dropping of the lawsuit and paying of court costs, and used the wording from the newspaper coverage, not the PokerStars press release. 2005 (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2015

message: This article is consistently being reverted to a sanitised version by one user, the sources are clearly stated and referenced, some minor re-wording may be in order, however to remove this section entirely is inappropriate.The Original Filfi (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection request