Talk:SAFE Port Act

message: Now serious gamblers will be forced to go to the underground to get their action. Good job government, you just helped the Mafia gain more customers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.87.49 (talk • contribs) .
:As of right now there are online poker sites still operating, the government may find it difficult to enforce the act you may want to read this Msnbc article, and even if they were able to do so I doubt a serious gambler is going to go to the mob for a game, they will likely find some other way to play online, a home game or they will play at a casino, You may have seen the movie Rounders once too many times (just kidding) but seriously read the article and you’ll see what I mean. :) --Sirex98 06:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obama found a way. By, the Mafia, he meant the state politicians who get big big big money from lotteries.  SChalice 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: I bet the Mafia is happy it passed

message: I removed the following from the bottom of the article:
It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people.
Because it didn't really fit, and had the feeling of vandalism. I think the sentiment expressed is important, though, but I really don't know anything abut the Safe Port Act, so I don't really know. Anyone? --Badger151 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't do "sentiment". That sort of passage is not encyclopedic. 2005 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but if there is a significant group that is against the act, for this reason, I though it might bear mentioning. --Badger151 21:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be appropriate to add that persons engaged in illegal gambling, which was previous possible on the internet due to loopholes in enforcement, are opposed to this act? After all the changes in the law didn't do anything to outlaw gambling. They simply deals with how financial institutions deal with the proceeds of something that was already illegal. Did anyone here actually read the definitions in Sec. 5362(10)? --Holford 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it wouldn't and yes I read them. They specifically outlaw any company that creates software that MAY be used in conjunction with what MIGHT BE CONSIDERED a game of chance with real money. Wouldn't it be nice if the government decided to license, regulate and tax the industry instead of handing it over to Ireland? The GOP actually pushed this bill through under the guise of morality but ensured that State Lotteries and Indian Casinos were given exclusion under these provisions. Does anyone really wonder why America is so fiscally challenged?  SChalice 02:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people." 

message: Shouldn't we mention the rumors of protectionism? There have been a large number, especially from the UK, Gibraltar and Australia, where many of these companies were based. I think it needs a mention at least, of course the word "rumor" would need to appear with it ;)
Segafreak2 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A line or two about Antigua's World Trade Organization ruling would be appropriate, although another ruling is due in a couple months, which would be more relevant since the previous ruling was prior to the Safe Port Act. 2005 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protectionism 

message: The correct number of this law is Pub.L. 109-347, according to THOMAS. Markles used the USPL template to cite this, but due to a typo, linked to 109-367. 2005 noticed the broken link and reverted Markles' edit. The USPL template, linked to 109-347, would work correctly, except that the document is not available yet from the Government Printing Office web site. When this link:  starts working, we should revise the article.
US 30 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone's fixed it. --Pesco 02:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pub.L. 109-347 

message: I cleaned up the new paragraph on Jim Leach and Bill Frist. They are still serving in the Congress until their terms expire January 3. While it is relevant to this article that they were behind UIGEA, I'm not comfortable with calling out only those two. It smacks of editorial comment. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl supported UIGEA too, and he was reelected. US 30 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional supporters 

message: There is a dispute between user 2005 and anonymous user 193.95.179.200 regarding the link to the Washington Watch website. The referenced page is at best a secondary source. However, it links out to two significant places: one, the text of the law, which is duplicative of a link already on this page, and two, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of the law. This analysis focuses entirely on the port security provisions of the law. Therefore, as a compromise, I am removing the Washington Watch link, adding a section to this page regarding port security, and linking directly to the CBO analysis from the port security section.
There is another dispute between the same parties as to the ordering of paragraphs discussing gambling sites' reactions to the law. I agree with 2005's position. Sites dropping U.S. customers are more significant, since they illustrate the effect of the new law, than those not doing so. But the issue of paragraph ordering is hardly worth a discussion, let alone a revert war.
I don't own this page, so feel free to keep tinkering. US 30 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Watch 

message: Amazing what is considered teh most important element of this legislation - gambling. Wikipedia is many things, but balanced it probably is not. 130.20.3.179 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to add information on other aspects to this legislation, you realize? Hey jude, don't let me down 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's considered "the most important element" because the rest of it is uncontroversial and not any more noteworthy than any other similar legislation. Indeed, that is why the online poker gambling rider was attached in the first place. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point it out, "uncontroversial" and "not any more noteworthy" is your POV, Furrykef. Remember the Dubai Ports World controversy? Port security, at times, is neither uncontroversial or unnoteworthy. I think it's more that the SAFE Port Act, dealing with just port security, was a "must pass" bill, not any less noteworthy, which is why the rider was attached. But you're right, Hey jude, it's up to each individual to add content. If anyone feels like something should be in an article, they can add it. I suppose the original comment was just a wry social commentary vs. a call to action. --Pesco 01:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The SAFE Port Act is about Gambling? 

message: I understand that on the 11th of July 2007 the UIGEA (affecting poker, etc., web sites) became law, having had its 270-odd days since it was "passed" (I don't pretend to understand all the ins-and-outs). I think there should be some mention of this in the article by someone knowledgeable. E.g. on that day pre-paid USA Visa cards that previously worked at online gambling sites were no longer accepted. EdX20 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That date has no special significance. UIGEA has been law since it was signed. Regulations should have been created by now, but the US government almost never publishes regulations in a timely fashion. 2005 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  11th of July 

message: I only just noticed that FullTilt is back to real money. Has there been some new clarification/interpretation of the UIGEA? -Crimson30 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confused about something. FullTilt has always been real money. 2005 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious 

message: I consolidated the gambling parts of the article into its own section and added the "Split" template to the article. As noted by the article, the gambling sections of this law at one point had been its own bill. The gambling title of the law has its own short title. The article & talk page are dominated by the gambling aspects of the law, so I feel the gambling sections should be found in its own Wikipedia article that more accurately describe its content. I would leave a header on the remaining SAFE Port Act article with a link to the gambling article, and I would propose this entire talk page become the gambling article talk page. Thoughts? --Pesco 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the split to be a good decision. Currently, we have certain users constantly complaining whenever the gambling section of the article grows to more than a few sentences, but the gambling title of the law has very practical implications which should definitely be examined. It could be argued that the gambling aspects of the law directly affect Americans more than any other aspect of the law. Personally, I'd rather see the article kept as a whole and have more information in the gambling section of the article, but as I mentioned earlier, certain users always complain when that section grows, so I feel that a split would be a good compromise. --Josh1billion 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is not unduly long, so what would be a rationale to split it? Giving the legislative history of the Act, splitting it would be deceptive. So, absent any need to split it, splitting it would be inappropriate. 2005 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale to split it is that the majority of the article content is not about the subject you would assume by the article title. WP:NAME says that "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." The casual person interested in an article about internet gambling shouldn't be expected to know to read the article about the SAFE Port Act. As far as legislative history, the gambling section had a passed bill in the House of Representatives. Just because for political reasons the U.S. Senate plopped it into another bill doesn't mean Wikipedia has to keep the articles together. As I mentioned above, the gambling section has its own short title in the law, making it quite a distinct section of the law. The gambling sections of this law can officially and accurately be called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which as a Wikipedia article name would give a much better description of the gambling content of the article. The new article can give the legislative history, describing how it was attached to the SAFE Port Act. --Pesco 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you conclude "the majority of the article content is not about the subject you would assume by the article title"? The article is about the Safe Port Act, which has a gambling section. Read what you just quoted above. A general audience would expect text about a law to be in the article about the law, not under a (long) subheading. Just because you have specialized knowledge doesn't mean a general audience does. Then of course the long subheading redirects here anyway, which begs the question again, why would you want to split this text into two places? You can come up with excuses to move a section, but it goes counter to NAME, user-friendliness and an accurate depiction of events (as well as leading to duplicate categorization). It wouldn't be the end of the world to break it in two, but since there are no positives in doing it and several negatives, why do it? 2005 14:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless the article were significantly longer, it wouldn't make any sense at all to split this into multiple articles. A more constructive approach would be to lengthen the coverage of the non-internet gambling aspects of the article, if you want to balance it out. Rray 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 of the 86 Sections of the SAFE Port Act have to deal with internet gambling. And those three sections have their own short title, "The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006". Why not use the actual title of that section for the Wikipedia article about that part of the law? I think this is especially important in this case since the UIGEA was added to another law for political reasons. Like I said, Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons. I think it's just more in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia to have an article name reflect the overall content of the article. To think of an anology... Let's say an article on the United States had content that was 90% about the state of Nevada. Wouldn't you expect to read great detail about Nevada in the Nevada article? Or should people just demand that others add more content about the other 49 states to equal it out? If the split were to go through, I would definately support leaving some information in the SAFE Port Act about the UIGEA, but with the "See main article" template pointing to the real UIGEA article. I definately plan on making the port security sections of the SAFE Port Act article longer, but I thought the split would be a good place to start. --Pesco 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Like I said, Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons." Of course we should. You seem to have a political agenda here. Sorry, but our job is to deal with what is, not "fix" things to what we would poltically prefer. Once again, if there was a space issue that the 83 non-gambling sections not getting the space they deserve, then splitting might make sense, but that isn't an issue, so the piece of legislation should be dealt with in one place. It's more covenient this way; it doesn't make a "fix the political issue" point by separating them; and it doesn't break the many links pointing to this page. There is no reason to break it up, and again several very plain reasons not to, so I'd suggest you forget about you "fix the US government's political maneuvering" idea because you could spend the rest of your life on that. (We can revist this after you expand the port part and we see how long the article is then.) 2005 23:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You make way too many assumptions, 2005. I have no political agenda. Just because something is more convenient for you doesn't mean it's convenient for everybody else, either. I've stated several very simple reasons to split which you've ignored. I'd suggest you not make assumptions about the motivations of others. I didn't say "fix the US government's political manuevering", so please don't quote it as if I said it. I don't believe you should be asserting control over when issues are revisted, either. With regards to this issue, my only intent was to have article names that accurately reflect the majority of the content of those articles, not to fix a law. I was pointing out that the UGIEA part of the Act was a relatively small addition to an already comprehensive bill on a vastly different subject. --Pesco 06:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons". That is what YOU wrote, and that is flat wrong. The fact of the matter is the Act was a relatively comprhensive bill with something tacked on, on a vastly different subject. That is what it is, and our articles should reflect that, unless as with all articles, more space is required. 2005 07:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add here that User:2005 seems to be a petty tyrant who has a big WP:OWN problem with this article that is unbecoming to him. -- Konk Republik (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling someone a "petty tyrant" is a personal attack. That kind of behavior isn't really allowed here, and it's also not going to help you achieve your goals here. Rray (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the people who are saying that the article should NOT be split in two. The act is ONE act and to break it into two is to imply they are separate acts. If you feel that the poker aspect is unduly weighed, then add to the rest. But the majority of people who are interested in the act are interested in the online gambling aspect... which was the SAFE Port ActBalloonman (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I proposed the split I removed the template since the idea is unpopular here. (The conversation died down in October.) Just as a note, it is one piece of legislation, but it is two acts: "TITLE VIII-- UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT. SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the 'Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006'." Why did Congress give its own short title? Because it's a better description of the gambling-related content of the legislation. When I have time I will try to develop the security-related provisions of the legislation and then hopefully this issue can be revisited. Here's a hypothetical question: What happens to this article if the UIGEA part of the law is repealed? Pesco (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split gambling section to its own article 

message: To repeat my question from last year, "What happens to this article if the UIGEA part of the law is repealed?" See this article that indicates efforts are underway. Also, the article references the act as the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006", not the SAFE Port Act. ~PescoSo say•we all 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If part of any law is changed, the article can reflect that. In any case it won't be happening anytime soon. 2005 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens to this article if the gambling parts of the act are repealed? 

message: The quote, "...tabled draft UIGEA regulations for public comment," shows a contradiction between US English and British English. "Tabled" in British parliamentary procedure means to bring up for discussion, whereas in US parliamentary procedure it means to (at least temporarily) drop from discussion. Here, in context, one can work it out, but the line really ought to be reworded. --71.174.165.63 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Since this article is about a law in the United States, American English usage and terminology seems appropriate. See WP:ENGVAR. ~PescoSo say•we all 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table "tabled" 

message: This conversation is getting absolutely ridiculous. Who on earth would ever want to search through a long description of the Safe Port Act to find information about gambling regulations? What end does this serve? What is Wikipedia for? Direct access to information or time-wasting? Just because the two regulations are linked historically, doesn't mean that the content of one has anything to do with the other. Those who are interested in gambling should have their page, those in Port Safety, theirs.
The situation addressed here is not unique at all, and in other situations I have encountered, the answer is clear... have two articles.
Need a great example? Here's one: the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a variety of different Titles that address different issues. Title V is referred to as the Communications Decency Act. As noted on Wikipedia "the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet." In this situation, the CDA addresses issues that are similar or at least related to the many addressed by the Telecommunications Act, and yet, there is a Wikipedia article on the 1996 Act and another on the CDA. Why? Because people doing research want to get directly to their information sources without having to wade through irrelevance.
Why is the procedure that linked these two issues the focus of this discussion and not the content? Are we forgetting about the potential consumers of this content? Those who want information on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 go to the one article, those who want info on the CDA go to the other article. The same should happen here - those interested in Port Safety regulation go to one, those interested in the history of online gambling regulation go to another. Yes, both should note that historically the two are connected. But frankly, what percentage will care about the procedure???
I'll say again that I am quite put-off by the disregard for the newbies. I am also quite disappointed the the DYK award was apparently taken off the table as a result of this discussion. I would encourage those who are familiar with the DYK process to please re-nominate this group and give them their fair shake. If nobody does this, I will nominate the group myself when I find some time after the exam.
I'm just going to put this out there ... if 2005 makes an attempt to remove the article before the students complete their assignment (even though many - contrary to what 2005 says - have opposed the merger... read the history), I will revert all changes and I guess we'll be in an edit war. That's fine with me... unless you can convince me that the CDA and the 1996 Act should be merged as well. Jaobar (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add that once the students finish their project I'll back off. I'm only doing this to enable the students to follow-through on their project and help fulfill part of the mandate of the USGovI, which strives to connect students to the Wikipedia community.Jaobar (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be honest with you, the realities of your students isn't really a factor here and constantly bringing into the discussion the assignment actually an incentive to say "Merge now and discuss separating later." That being said, I have no problem with having separate articles. Having the poker section in this article has never felt right to me. It should be a small section of the safe port act because it is just a small part of the bill. The fact that that one section has become a major focal point of the article and legislative actions speaks to the need to have a separate article. So I oppose merge, but please stop appealing to what your students need, it is irrelevant to what Wikipedia needs---and is the opposite approach to what we need. We appreciate having colleges/universities come in an help out with improving the encyclopedia, but when you are coming to WP, you are doing so within the frame work of Wikipedia, not the other way around. Wikipedia guidelines/policies dictate what is acceptable/fair, not class schedules/assignments. Again, if you focus your arguments on what is best for Wikipedia (and not your students) you will get a better response.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Frankly your attitude summarizes the problem. You need to care about the dozens editors who have contributed to this article. Asserting your students can make any articles they want on topics already covered is kind of astonishing. You need to understand this is not your class. This is an encyclopedia where particpation of your class is both as guests and something that requires you to respect the work of others, work that took place over a period of years. Please do not make a Gambling online article, instead contribute to the existing online gambling article. Do not make a Games played with cards article, instead contribute to the Card games article. And if you have a suggestion for a better URL for an article to be on, or if you have a suggestion for breaking out a portion of an article into a new child article, make such suggestions on the talk page of the articles, or even move the existing content and then start to work. Do not just ignore the work of others, and the existing articles. 2005 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Professor Obar, I have to say that commenting that you will be willing to edit war is unhelpful, bordering on disruptive. I apologise I haven't been around as this developed, I've been busy this easter weekend. Looking at the current situation, 2005, has merged the information from the safe port article into the UIGEA article, and it looks good to me. The information is correct there, and almost all information has been retained. As for DYK, unfortunately the article is ineligible, I've worked in DYK a fair amount and can confirm this, as OCNative pointed out, one of the rules of DYK is that if information was expanded from another article, it must be expanded 5-fold. I am sorry that this may be a disappointment to the students. As for behavioural issues, 2005 may well have been exhibitting WP:BITEyness, but you were exhibiting WP:OWNership - remember that all contributions have been released under licenses to be edited as the community sees fit. WormTT · (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Jaobar, DYK is not an award. It is a way to feature new content. That's all it is. It showcases brand new articles of new content or old articles with substantial new content (substantial meaning 5 times the size of the old content). Also, WP:EDITWAR is one of the stricter policies on Wikipedia. Users are blocked for edit warring, as it disrupts and weakens the Wikipedia article that is the subject of the war. OCNative (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankly, this is getting ridiculous 

message: First of all, my apologies for the "edit war" comment. My intention was to try and protect the students, primarily to ensure that their experience with this project was a positive one, and so that they would be able to learn that which the initiative strives to have them learn.
In response to the other comments:
*Balloonman: "stop appealing to what your students need, it is irrelevant to what Wikipedia needs---and is the opposite approach to what we need"
The Wikimedia Foundation approached our class along with more than 30 other classes to participate in this initiative. As "teaching fellows" we have been trained to add this "Wikipedia in the classroom" project on top of our already existing courses. Any project that involves both a university institution and another will involve compromise, as both institutions have rules and goals. Thus the project is not just WP, but rather MSU+WP or WP+MSU, so the rules and goals of both must be respected. I understand that having the students understand the culture of WP is important, and have done my best to teach them the rules of the road in a short period of time. That being said, the class also has its own requirements, and I assumed that the community would be sensitive to the newbies trying to connect. I assumed this is why all of the articles the classes are contributing to have been flagged. Bottom line, if you have a problem with this initiative, I encourage you to take your concerns up with those who are running it - i.e. the Wikimedia Foundation.
*2005: "this is not your class"
*2005: "This is an encyclopedia where particpation of your class is both as guests and something that requires you to respect the work of others"
I have never stopped others from editing the article. I am also not the only one asserting that the articles should be separate. In fact the majority seem to share this view.
*2005: "Please do not make a Gambling online article, instead contribute to the existing online gambling article. Do not make a Games played with cards article, instead contribute to the Card games article."
Clearly you either disagree with my previous comments or misunderstand what I have said. My view is that the Safe Port Act and the UIGEA have very little to do with one another and thus should be separate articles, just as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the CDA are separate articles. The UIGEA in no way was a duplicate of the Safe Port Act article. Clearly we disagree here, but I don't understand how an article about an act about ports is the same as an article about online gambling. The only connection (repeating myself now), is that they share a procedural connection - there appears to be no content connection. So if the basis for their combination is procedural, clearly you are arguing that people will search for information based upon their interest in government procedures, not gambling or ports. I believe that the latter (the content) will be what people will search for and thus the articles should be separate. I hope my point of view is clear.
*Worm That Turned: "I have to say that commenting that you will be willing to edit war is unhelpful, bordering on disruptive."
I apologize again for the edit war comment. As I said earlier, my intention has only been to protect the students and ensure that they can complete their project properly as the Wikimedia Foundation has asked. I am also learning...
*Worm That Turned: "you were exhibiting WP:OWNership - remember that all contributions have been released under licenses to be edited as the community sees fit."
As noted in a subsequent post (though the count is actually incorrect as I don't believe anybody supports only having a UIGEA article only), it appears that the majority favor separate articles. So the decision to keep the UIGEA is not only my opinion. Had the majority of those voicing an opinion suggested otherwise, then I would (and still) be more open to a merge. Though I would have still asked that the merge wait until the students were able to complete their assignment. A point which we could debate on its own.
*OCNative: "DYK is not an award. It is a way to feature new content. That's all it is."
That's your perspective. To my students (who are newbies) the DYK feature is an award, and a very big deal considering that they are "competing" with graduate students for similar mentions. Again, it seems that a number of you are having trouble seeing this initiative from the student's perspective. For those of you who will be quick to respond to this comment with "who cares about that," I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the WMF Public Policy Initiative.
I'll just close now by saying that my intentions have never been to make a "power grab" or to shake things up. I have been put in charge of a large class of students who have never edited Wikipedia before. Yes I want them to learn about Wikipedia's subculture, and trust me, they have learned a lot - especially from debates such as this. I would also ask you to keep in mind that I also have to run a class, and while you may not care about that, this class is being run in collaboration with the WMF, who has tried to ask for your understanding and flexibility by the posts at the top of the project articles. My intentions have always been to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles in collaboration with the WP community, while at the same time, help to connect the students to WP in accordance with the goals and guidelines of the WMF Public Policy Initiative. Jaobar (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: JA, my point is basically, that when it comes down to it, the subculture here at WP is what is going to govern how/what goes on here. I am not deaf to your situation, in fact, I support having separate articles. But the reality is that debates to keep/delete articles, to modify policy/procedure, or to do whatever are better framed within the policies/guidelines/culture of WP. You may have class expectations, but WP cannot conform to the dictates of every professor/class/university---that is against the consensusology culture upon which WP was built. We cannot allow every professor/class/university to ride roughshot over wikipedia. There are certain guidelines/policies/practices that have to exist. (Just as we cannot allow individual wikiprojects to always get their way.) When you appeal to what is fair for your class, that falls on deaf ears, we frankly don't care. Ok, we do care, but in the end, what you perceive as "fair" for your class doesn't make it right for WP and might end up turning people against your case. Again, I say this as a person who is not deaf to your situation---and I suspect that next time you encounter this situation, that you will be more adept at arguing it within the wp context. I can't speak for other long term editors, but I know that my first major experience here involved a similar fight over an article I cared about. I had rewritten it, it was taken to CSD then to AFD, and most of the arguments I used to defend it were "wrong" but I learned from it. I hope you take this experience at WP and learn from it as well... and hopefully go on to bring us a lot of quality editors. But the nature of WP is that it is a consensusology, and the culture at WP is not controlled by the WMF.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 13:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I hope to see this new article featured on DYK as previously scheduled. It would be a shame to loose the momentum this effort was attaining. And my admiration of the article extends beyond its feature, into the other possibilities that rest now with the collaboration. GA status is not without possibility. My76Strat (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: For the most part, I support the current version of things: A SAFE Port Act article with a brief mention of gambling content, and a comprehensive Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 article. I think a line or two of UIGEA content could still be removed from the SAFE Port Act article, but I would like to receive others' feedback on that. Have the major issues been settled now? ~PescoSo say•we all 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would absolutely oppose removal of the UIGEA from the Safe Port act. It is the main reason most people are familiar with the bill or will look it up. It is a major component of the bill, and the article would be incomplete without at least a paragraph about. That being said, the main article on the UIGEA should be elsewhere.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are five sentences about UIGEA in the SAFE Port Act article. I'm talking about reducing that to two or three. Basically down to the Main article link, and then "here's what UIGEA is, and this is why it has a connection to the SAFE Port Act."~PescoSo say•we all 01:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely think it needs its own section, but that being said, make the changes that you think should be made... be bold, if we don't like it, we'll revert it ;-)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: We should just summarize here per WP:CFORK/WP:SS -- Kendrick7talk 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time I visit the article, it is in better condition than the previous time. I can't see any reason to consider the outreach as anything other than a success. My76Strat (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Version as of April 28, 2011