Talk:Full Tilt Poker

Eric Froelich

ISn't Eric Froelich (sp?) a member of the fulltilt team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.148.162 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the picture, I think that it's inappropriate as there's sexual innuendos going on in the chat. Can I replace the picture with something more appropriate? Yoryx 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lighten up. Deepfryer99 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Of course you can replace it. :) -- 91.33.212.66 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Gambling or not?

According to the television commercials and the web site, Full Tilt Poker is not a gambling site. However, it is noted in several entries on Wikipedia as being a gambling site. Can anyone verify either of these? Also, what is defined as gambling in this sense? Does any card game site qualify as a "gambling" site since the players could theoretically place off line bets with each other based on the outcome of the game? --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The commercials are for fulltiltpoker.net, a free site, no money, no gambling. The article primarily deals with fulltiltpoker.com, a real money site (that also has free games). 2005 08:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This distinction should be made, especially with the prevalence of Full Tilt's advertising campaigns on poker television shows. I'm trying to figure an clear, yet unobtrusive way to work this into the article, and if anyone can beat me to the punch on that, feel free, as my table is pretty full right now and it may be a little bit before that happens.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section on advertising relating to the free play site. --User:Ringo6624 13:35, 02 February 2007

If I may add a certain perspective... it is my understanding that the reason this distinction exists, is because it is not legally permitted to air advertising for gambling. A bricks and mortar casino can advertise their shows, their fine hospitality, they can even show the casino floor full of happy people, but they cannot depict the actual act of gambling, anymore than they can show people smoking in print ads (anymore, anyway). Online game services get around this by advertising their free-play division (technically not gambling, and the company legal structure may be set up to support this), which, not having an actual monetary component, is under no such restriction. Once you're on the site, they can freely encourage you with the benefits of upgrading to a money account. -- Kraft October 5, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.243.17 (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Full Tilt Poker is not a gambling website. This applies to both the free site and the real money site. Poker is a game of skill, and is therefore NOT gambling, according to most generally accepted definitions of "gambling". Deepfryer99 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes poker is a game of skill, but it still is gambling which can be defined as "wagering money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods", for example if you were to go all-in pre-flop with pocket Aces in NL Hold'em odds are you will win against another random hand but that is no way a guarantee thus the uncertain outcome. poker becomes a skilled game based on tactics, patience, and observation among many things, but there is and always be a degree of luck, be it good or bad.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that, based on that definition, endevaours such as business and investing of many forms would be considered gambling. --Sesameball^Talk 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And basically you can take that view, but as the gambling article points out, society general doesn't view it that way, but rather would include some statement to the effect of "game, contest or sporting event". In any event, poker obviously is a gambling game, even if it is agreed skill predominates. 2005 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no "view" to "take". Investing falls squarely under that proposed definition. Of course, that is not to say that social norms (not to mention legislation) will be the predominant relevant determination. To me, investing is obviously a gambling game as well. --Sesameball^Talk 23:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

According to that definition, even things like buying a house or accepting a job offer could be considered gambling. I think your definition may be flawed... after all, the outcome of everything in the world is "uncertain". I just think that the use of the word "gambling" is questionable in this context, and it may be better to use a word like "wagering" or "betting", which are much more appropriate and relevant to the game of poker. Deepfryer99 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a standard definition, and yes you can take it to mean anything in life is a gamble. Another definition is "the voluntary risking of a sum of money on the outcome of a game or other event" which may be a better way to state it here. We are talking about gambling games, rather than those things in life that are not games but also "a gamble" like running a cross a busy street. 2005 23:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's a bet on a game of skill doesn't mean it's not gambling. I can place a bet on a shuffleboard match, a football game, a golf match, or a game of pool, and it's still gambling. And those are all games of skill. The definition of gambling isn't flawed. The word "gambling" means what it means. It's the betting that makes it gambling, not the skill or lack of skill involved. Rray 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Federal legislation is in 'flux'. Chess is considered a game of skill while a slot machine is a game of chance.

Poker is debatably considered a game of chance and not skill thus gambling and not a sport. Despite rewarding skill, both poker and blackjack are considered games of chance. That means residents in most states cannot play for real money.

Some disagree because legislation is 'esoteric'. "Although a couple of states have outlawed internet poker, there are no federal statutes in the United States that make it illegal to play online poker." http://www.cardschat.com/states/

Some use the "predominance test," which says that if a skilled player beats an unskilled competitor at least 75% of the time, that's a game of skill. http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/10/technology/innovation/online-gambling-poker/ SChalice 03:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Jerry Yang

What exactly is the point of the Jerry Yang bit? What does it mean he's a "friend" of the site? I'm guessing somebody meant to put something like Jerry Yang uses Full Tilt Poker as his online poker site, but then if so it'll need sourced. --212.84.123.161 01:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Watch the WSOP 2007. There's your source.Yoryx 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Company

Can someone get more information about the company? Specifically, I'm wondering where they are based out of? Probably some small island in the middle of the ocean, but it would be nice to know for sure. Deepfryer99 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Full Tilt was developed and marketed by Tiltware, LLC which was originally based in Los Angeles, California (see launch press release) and operated by Kolyma Corporation which is based in Aruba (where online casinos are legal) with licensing by Canada's Kahnawake Gaming Commission.[1] Tiltware moved to Dublin, Ireland in 2006 after the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act was passed. [2] --Sesameball^Talk 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act was never passed, instead a law similar to it was passed in the Safe Port Act. Also they moved to Dublin in around August, while the Safe Port Act / UIGEA was passed in September 2006 Strongsauce 12:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I had read on a few sites that the move was "in response" to the Safe Port Act, although that language doesn't neessarily mean it was after the legislation had passed. --Sesameball^Talk 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Information like where they operate, and who licenses them, belong in the article. 198.70.210.20 (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Full Tilt is worth, their income, operating expenses and stock symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.242.230.162 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They are a private company so have no stock symbol, and don't declare those various details. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Times Links 404 Error

Notes links 1 and 3 point to Times website articles but if you click them you get a 404 error. Does anyone have an updated link to these articles?

The articles appear to no longer be available online. Link 1 (as was) may have been the Poker Face feature of Chris Ferguson, which mentions FTP, from 1/4/06 - but there doesn't seem to be a Times article on the creation of the site as implied by the context. Haven't found anything like link 3 (as was) either. I've removed both links. - Bobathon (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

- I removed the the inactive Times links in the Notes section and one other inactive link. Another thing I changed was the resource link to the Records section. Someone had replaced the previous link that was added by the original author of that section. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but it doesn't seem ethical to just replace a link with your own when you didn't contribute to the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh60950 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, WP:V and WP:SPAM. Adding links just to promote your website(s) is not allowed and could lead to the sites being blacklisted. Also, dead refences should not be deleted. They should either be updated or left alone. 2005 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia but I added the "Records" section and linked to the appropriate source. Then someone just comes along and changes the resource link (PokerNews)to their own page about the record being set. So, somehow what they did is not spam? Also, why on earth would dead links be "left alone"? That is just silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh60950 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Josh, I thought the same the first time I deleted a bunch of dead links and was told to stop what I was doing! Please check out WP:DEADLINK - there is method to the madness :) Hazir (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WORLD REKORD

Full Tilt NEVER broke up the rekord. Stars startet his new world rekors tournament about one hour erlier. So FT never broke the rekord. --Oetsche 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Team Full Tilt > Domain Names

Under the Team Full Tilt section there was a line that said Full Tilt Poker buys and owns domain names of up and coming players, even those who are not Full Tilt Pro's. The source was this article by PokerNewsDaily which got its information from a blog post by NatArem. Nat Arem is somebody who I would consider to be a very reliable source for this sort of information, however, when I ran a WHOIS search for many of them names (I stopped at about five) all of them show a private registration. In addition, I don't think 'Full Tilt Poker' owns much of anything. The company is a maze of offshore and onshore shell corporations across the globe. I highly doubt that even if they do own those domains, they are in the name of Full Tilt Poker, much more likely one of their shell companies, which would be difficult, at best, to prove belonged to Full Tilt Poker or who owns Full Tilt Poker.

My reason for concern with the statement is that the ownership of a domain which is confusingly similar to the trademark of another company, or which contains the legal name of an individual, if used in bad faith (and re-directing it to FullTiltPoker.com would certainly be using it in bad faith), constitutes a trademark violation and is illegal. Full Tilt could not only lose those domains, but be liable for substantial damages should any of those companies or people choose to sue them. So the article was stating that Full Tilt was engaged in illegal activity - without definitive proof of that, which does not seem available at this time, such a statement should not be in the article. Please note that if any of those domains (or all of them) currently forward to FullTiltPoker.com (I did not check) that does not mean Full Tilt Poker (or any of their associated companies) own the domains - they could be owned by an affiliate who profits when people signup to Full Tilt Poker after being redirected.

For anybody not familiar with domain law or domain trademark issues, I would be glad to provide outside sources or further information, though please don't revert back the article without a better source.DegenFarang (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Poker News Daily article is more reliable than your original research... Hazir (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do any research. I didn't add anything to the article, I removed something. Let me try and state more clearly what I said: PokerNewsDaily is accusing FullTiltPoker of breaking the law. Owning those domain names would be breaking the law. However nobody can confirm whether or not Full Tilt owns the domain names because the WHOIS settings are all private. DegenFarang (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should I give more weight to your original research with the WHOIS searches than Poker News Daily's investigative work? I seriously doubt they would make such an accusation without good evidence. And if was baseless, why has no-one come out and said anything from Full Tilt? Hazir (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the WHOIS was not private at the time of the article. The article was written quite some time ago. If the WHOIS was private at that time, they never would have written it DegenFarang (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness it is not that hard to go around the WHOIS rules, most registrars I work with don't exactly double check the identity of the site owner. Countless sites don't reflect the true site owner.

Also, I am not sure about your claim that "...'Full Tilt Poker' owns much of anything...". It is not a maze of anything, this is how most online casinos work. I suspect you are not familiar with the reasons why they do it that way. FFMG (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are arguing for inclusion or exclusion with this - but you are correct, it is easy to fake a WHOIS. That said, there is no fake WHOIS in this case, there is a private WHOIS. Whether, a fake WHOIS or a private WHOIS, though - if we cannot determine with certainty that Full Tilt owns the domains, we should not be accusing them of breaking the lawDegenFarang (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They did it that way because the owners live in the United States and they don't want to go to jail. A secondary reason is to save money on taxes. A third reason is the protection of assets, such as domain names, from lawsuits or other legal action. Full Tilt Poker has not said anything because they never say anything about anything. They rarely even show up to court when somebody sues them - they certainly aren't going to come onto Wikipedia and complain that we are alleging they are breaking the law. The fact is that nobody can know for certain who owns those domains because the WHOIS is private. They could be owned by a domainer, by a Full Tilt affiliate, by an employee - they could have been sold or transferred since the NatArem.com and PokerNewsDaily.com posts - nobody knows. If we cannot verify the ownership of those domains, today, we should not include in the article that they are owned by Full Tilt - as it is breaking the law for them to own them. DegenFarang (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to the inclusion if the article explicitly states that 'PokerNewsDaily reported on xx date that Full Tilt owned these domains, however the WHOIS has since been made private and it is unclear whether Full Tilt owns the domains anymore" I trust that at the time Nat Arem wrote his blog post (which was the basis for the PokerNewsDaily article) that Full Tilt did indeed own the domains - I am however not confident they own them today. I would be glad to get Nat's opinion about this if necessary - he made his post quite some time ago. I'm quite certain he would agree with me that the WHOIS being private makes it impossible to state with certainty that Full Tilt still owns the domains DegenFarang (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not denying that at all, but as you rightly said we cannot trust WHOIS record, so we might as well use the reference we have. Maybe you could add some dates to reflect the possibility that they no longer own those sites for some reason.

As for their behaviour with US courts I am not sure I understand what it has to do with this discussion. How do you know they are a US owned, do you have any refs? What makes you think the US has jurisdiction on those offshore sites? FFMG (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The US does not have jurisdiction, that is why US citizens would base their online poker site offshore. The owners of Full Tilt are Ray Bitar and the founding 'Team Full Tilt' members - with Howard Lederer being the CEO - all Americans. DegenFarang (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If by jurisdiction you were referring to me saying it would be illegal for them to own the domains, I did not mean illegal in America. Somebody would have to sue the owner of the domains in whatever country they were based in - and they could get the domains from ICANN via a WIPO claim, regardless of what country they are in. This is an international law matter, not a US law matter DegenFarang (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Following your logic, how do we know that they still own/operate it?

And at the risk of repeating myself, I am not sure what it has to do with the original point you raised. You are mixing different issues at the same time. FFMG (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't! We assume! That is why what I just stated is not in the article, because it cannot be proven. For the same reason the ownership of the domains should not be in the article. It cannot be proven! DegenFarang (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the domains we do, we have a reference and it is better than WHOIS OR. FFMG (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nat Arem told me he figured it out by doing a reverse IP check on the domains. I just did it and they all are on the same IP along with 4,000+ other domains so it appears as though Full Tilt still owns them, I have re-inserted the sentence back into the article as it appeared before. I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment the two of you have - that is that an editor cannot question what a source says or prove a source wrong, however it would be a purely theoretical argument and does not apply to this edit or article so I guess we can just leave this alone ;) DegenFarang (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What's with the hyper-monologue? What is your agenda? Hazir (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A google search only turns up about ten uses of the term 'hyper monologue' and it is not clear to me what that term means from any of them. I don't have an agenda, just trying to improve Wikipedia. DegenFarang (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how verification of anything is an "agenda" and it doesn't seem odd to me. Honestly, if I ran into a seemingly ridiculously claim like that, I'd investigate as well. Things can be sourced by a hundred different things, even places we say meet WP:RS, but that doesn't automatically mean it's what should be in the article or it's "fact". It could be a very strong case with very heavy WP:WEIGHT and overwhelming consensus, but nothing is automatically here forever as consensus can change. It's an entirely normal Wikipedia editor habit to research these things-- It's possible User:DegenFarang specializes in researching dubious claims in articles since a lot of editors have a preferred area of "expertise" or a Wikipedia "discipline" they work most in. Mine would be combing over any article I see listed on an incident board, checking for past unseen problems, and hitting the incident "reset button" by confirming a clean edit version is present as it moves ahead. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it made sense that we as editors could question and disprove an RS. And you are correct, I do have a specialty: poker, Full Tilt Poker and domains. DegenFarang (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, with all due respect, I would suggest reading up on IP addresses, WHOIS and so forth, your original research was flawed because of it. FFMG (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But in this case we were simply pointing out that DegenFarang simply removed something because of some flawed research and then went on about some other aspect of Full Tilt Poker also without any refs. It would have been more logical to use this talk page so we could explain why WHOIS is not a good way to check references, (as we did after the sentence was removed).

Removing a seemingly bad reference with some invalid OR is just as bad.

In future I would simply suggest using the talk page first and then removing the reference(s) if the investigation is nothing more than OR. FFMG (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed all around. However I still do not agree with the two of you saying or implying the OR of an editor is not sufficient to remove something from an article. Yes I was wrong in this situation. Neither of you knew it, but thats beside the point. You should at least allow for an investigation to take place instead of instantly shooting something down simply because an RS contradicts what the editor found out on their own. DegenFarang (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Neither of you knew it..."?, I was the one who pointed out that your OR was flawed, that using WHOIS alone was invalid. You then insisted that, "...there is no fake WHOIS in this case, there is a private WHOIS..." as a proof that the reference was indeed invalid.

The fact that anyone is hiding behind the address of another company, (or a private WHOIS as you call it), does not prove that the reference is wrong.

The article gave a reference that the domains belonged to Full Tilt Poker, you removed the section because they could be hiding behind a fake address or you were unable to verify the address.

For what is worth, a reverse IP check on the domains proves nothing either. I can own a domain and point my DNS to google.com, it does not mean they own it, the IP would still resolve to them. FFMG (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what you are saying: The WHOIS proves nothing. The reverse IP check proves nothing. Therefore we should keep the section in the article because a RS said that Full Tilt owns the domains. I am telling you that the RS got their information 100% from NatArem.com and I asked Nat how he figured out Full Tilt owned the domains and he told me it was through a reverse IP check. But according to you, that proves nothing, remember? So tell me again, why are we keeping this section in the article...? DegenFarang (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your original research. Please go outside and get some sunlight. Hazir (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You either didn't read what I wrote, didn't understand what I wrote or read it and understood it and chose to troll me anyway. In any case, what I just presented contained no original research whatsoever. DegenFarang (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Troll, as in Troll? I see that you are also mistaken as to the actual definition of troll. Maybe feel that insulting someone will help you make your point.

Anyway, your original research as been reverted, I would only suggest that in future you don't remove references based on some research of your own if you are not familiar with 1) the technology and 2) The article. FFMG (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you preface something with 'nobody cares about your...' and end it with 'go outside and get some sunlight' that is pretty much the exact definition of being a troll. It is intended to provoke somebody. Nice to see that you also completely ignored everything I just said about your previous statements and have jumped on the original research bandwagon. Since neither of you will address the point I just made, and I don't find it important enough to actually remove the content from the article, I guess we are done here. DegenFarang (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes WHOIS does not prove ownership and IP check is also not 100% foolproof, (but in all fairness, who would what to do that in that particular case). What's your point? (for the record, how are we supposed to know/trust who you asked and what they might have told you, or even if they told you the truth).

In other words, until you find another reference we will have to assume that the one we have is valid. It does not matter who you think you spoke to, or what they might have said to you. Maybe they did something else and don't feel like telling you how they did it.

Either way, that reference, (as flawed as you feel it may be), is the best thing we have now and we can use it to reference the section you originally removed. FFMG (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note on update

I Added all the current red pro/friends to the article, just wanted to let people know that I wasn't trying to be cute with some of the nicknames that are listed with the players name, It's how it is listed from full tilt's own list, plus that's how many of the players that don't use their own name but their a screen name instead (e.g Tome Dwan is durrrr on the site), if Full tilt removes any player or player(s) change to their own name then it should be adjusted accordingly. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

motor sports sponsorship

Are all outside sponsorships noteworthy? If so, a mention regarding full tilt's sponsorship of the Sydney Roosters of the National Rugby League in Australia probably needs a mention. In my view none of these types of sponsorships are particularly noteworthy.Kanapapiki (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally something is noteworthy if third party sources cover it, and so similar idea would fit here. If some obscure outfit claims such a sponsorship, that isn't worth mentioning. If Full Tilt says it on their official site, that might be worth a part of a sentence on sponsorships, but if other neutral news sites mention it, then it could be worth at least a sentence. 2005 (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hastings and Townsend

It was Hastings who took all of Isildur's money, not Townsend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.47.252 (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It was still Brian Townsend who was penalised for sharing hand-histories. By the way, in the future please don't post your questions on the article itself. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Gambling sites vs. card rooms

Hi guys.

Right now the following can be read: "On April 15, 2011, Full Tilt Poker was one of several online gambling sites seized by United States law-enforcement authorities as part of a series of indictments of the sites' owners, which replaced its home page with a notice of the seizure."

I think that having the sentence say "gambling sites" isn't objective. I believe that the whole debate in the U.S. is whether or not these card rooms are gambling sites. If they are, they're illegal; otherwise they're not. Because the issue is exactly that, I would refrain from using these specific words. For the moment, for a lack of better words, I will simply replace the fragment with card rooms. Please feel free to voice your opinion on this.

Seigneur101 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Seigneur101. I don't have an objection to that; i'd imagine that a lot of news stories would report them as "gambling sites," but any attempts to dissuade that description would be welcome by me.

The list of staff

In what sense is the enormous list of 'pros' (aka people paid to play there in some way, presumably) notable? 212.139.233.50 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not really important but they are not paid to play on the site, they are merely given a rakeback on money they generate.--86.46.188.8 (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My edit to the lead section

I just reworded the lead, created the "Corporate affairs" section, changed a section heading in the "Legal issues" section, and moved some info around in the article. I don't think anything is controversial but it was a fairly big edit so if you have concerns, feel free to revert. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 14:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

When the Feds accuse of firm of being a Ponzi Scheme, I think that should be in the lead. Obviously, they have not been convicted yet, but their denial can certainly be cited in the lead as well. Smallbones (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

FTP is not a Ponzi scheme because most players will cashout without a month, if not the moment, they win big. SChalice 03:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the Fulltilt Poker Sections and Player Pros

Koconder (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC) I will be making substantial edits to the fulltiltpoker pages and mainly sections in regards to its pro players with the new fulltilt poker, see my User page for info about myself. I currently work for PokerStars and the new Fulltiltpoker and will start by removing the pro's which are no longer part of fulltiltpoker.

Negative Tilt

This site provided tons of entertainment to millions users. The negative slant could be balanced by some decent information regarding game innovation, advertising injections, customer rewards and so forth... 03:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schalice (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Full Tilt Poker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419230512/http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/April11/scheinbergetalindictmentpr.pdf to http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/April11/scheinbergetalindictmentpr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Full Tilt Poker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923191141/http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/09/20/full_tilt_poker_ponzi_scheme_jesus_ferguson_howard_lederer_among.html to http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/09/20/full_tilt_poker_ponzi_scheme_jesus_ferguson_howard_lederer_among.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

UDP

This page is touted on paid editing website as a client's page, however there has been no disclosure. 2001:569:712B:C000:5DD0:617A:4FA:DE73 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

=> It seems there's a Paid Editing COI. The company that provided the editing services is called "wikiprofessionalsinc" (check the "What our clients say" section in their website), but I don't see any disclosure about it.

Just confirming what the anon said above; the company's testimonial is pasted on wikiprofessionalsinc homepage. The same firm was recently community banned, and has never posted a disclosure. - Bri.public (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as looking through the history I can't see anything suspicous. It's a similar story at Sam Alvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ekaterina Zakharieva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which are linked at the latest iteration: https://wikiwritersworkshop.com/ SmartSE (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)