Talk:Gambling/Archive 1

Gambling trail website
I have once again removed the link to the gambling trail directory: 1) It is filled with links using referrals 2) it is far from comprehensive. User:Trial Guide: you are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Rasmus (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edit to this page. You did not post your reasons for reverting it on this discussion forum. You have not attempted to gain a clear consensus that it needs to be reverted. You are in violation of the 3RR rule by using group intimidation (using sockpuppets) by reverting edits without consensus discussion on this board. Please post your discussion topics here before reverting my edits again.

Other wikipedia rules that support my edit.

Wikipedia Rules:

1. BE BOLD in updating pages. Go ahead, it's a wiki! 2. Ignore all rules, including this one. OK to add Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

I am a contributing editor of the Wikipedia Open Source Project. I am attempting to add one valuable resource under one topic. I am adding a gambling directory in a category that does not have one. Wikipedia Rules: (OK to add: Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

If it is deemed that the nuetral information that I add is "spam" or "commercial" in nature. Then I will contribute in another way. I will remove blatant commercial links from other categories. Wikipedia Rules: 1. BE BOLD in updating pages. Go ahead, it's a wiki! 2. Ignore all rules, including this one.

For example, the category online casino has a section for Blacklisted Casinos. Having this section that only points to commercial sites, without offering an area for white listed casinos, does not convey a NPOV (rule #3). Another example is the category Bet Exchanges. This category is loaded with mostly commercial links to various Bet Exchanges.

If the one relevent nuetral link that I am trying to add in the category "gambling" is considered spam or commercial in nature. I feel it is my duty to remove other spam or commercial links as a contributing wikipedia editor.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

--Trail Guide 17:44, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)


 * You have violated the WP:3RR rule by reverting more than three times on this article under this user name alone. (A dozen other reverts by you are under IP 24.88.58.171 over the past two days.)  If you continue to advertise your website you will be blocked from editing.  Not a single user has indicated support for your addition and many have reverted or opposed your advertisement.  Please do not continue. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not modify other user's comments. I have restored my comment to where I entered it.  Open source indicates community consensus and does not include one user pushing their opinion   over the consensus.  You are attempting to overrule the community through brute force.  This is not what Open source is about.  Please stop attempting to force your view on the rest of the community. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Consensus is clear from the edit history : at least 6 different users have removed your link. 2) You might look up the meaning of sockpuppets. It would be pretty impressive for me to maintain 6 different identities, one of which is on the Board of Trustees. Even assuming that, it is no defense against the 3RR that the other party have been reverting, too. 3) Once it was clear that your edit encountered opposition, since several persons reverted it, it was your responsibility to start the discussion. Especially since Angela warned you early on that your link was viewed as spam


 * If you want to be welcomed as a contributing editor to Wikipedia -- and this is a great community with many extremely gifted persons -- consider abandoning this uphill battle for one single link. The main focus of our articles is the text itself. Try to improve an article by adding some real content, not just adding or removing external links. I actually agree with you that many articles have too many external links. But until you show that you aren't just trying to make a point (read WP:Point) you are certain to by reverted. Good luck! Rasmus (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Texture,

I edited the article. My edit is the one being reverted. It is not being reverted due to a consensus after a discussion on this board. It is being reverted by people who have never visted the link that it leads to, and without discussion. The tactics being used are clearly an attempt to use sockpuppets, a clear violation of the 3RR rule.

I am not the one trying to force my will. You and your sockpuppets are. I think I know why too. This is taken from your member page.

"This Wikipedia page is considered semi-tractor-trailer-policy. Semi-tractor-trailer-policy pages are an attempt to jack-knife any real policies and present herculean efforts in codification to questionable purpose. These long-standing unwritten unapproved unthought unrules have widespread support since no actual vote ever becomes real. They should be treated as law, unless they do not support your flame war."

This sounds like someone who is trying to impose their will, inspite of any guidelines or rules that may be written or imposed. This sounds like someone who places the highest emphasis on rule #2. Ignore all rules.

My edit is relevant, and pertinent to the article I posted it in. I am simply adding two words, gambling directory, with a link that leads to a gambling directory in an article written about gambling, that does not have a link to a gambling directory.

This is clearly OK to Add. Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). Which mine is.

Please describe for me why you think my link gambling directory, which leads to an open directory that anyone can post their gambling related site in, is SPAM or commercial in nature, while you allow the various links I mentioned in my last message. I do not understand why my edit is reverted so quickly while other blatently obviously commercial links can stay. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If mine can't stay, then all commercial links are subject to editorial review. If those links can stay, mine is a perfectly relevant and proper edit to this article.

Have you even visited the link I posted? What consensus was taken to remove the link I added? There have been exactly two visitors from wikipedia.org this entire month, one of which was me testing the link. So, what consensus was taken to determine that the link I added should be removed? Please stop reverting my edit to this page. Please post your discussion topics here before reverting my edits again.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

--Trail Guide 18:18, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)


 * Trail Guide, why is this gambling link your only edit of interest? Do you have no other productive edits to make?


 * I have visited your link. Wikipedia is not a link directory.


 * Who am I a sockpuppet of? Angela?  I'm not on the board.  Ramsus?  I am not married to his beautiful wife, Christina.  Am I one of the many other users who showed their disagreement with your link by removing it?  Which ones?  (I haven't edited all weekend - weather was too nice.)


 * Are you really taking a "semi-tractor-trailer" policy statement on my user page as a sign of imposing my will? You have no humor.  Don't visit anyone else's user page or you could be in for a shock. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The use of multiple identites to revert an edit multiple times, to avoid violation of the 3RR rule is sockpuppetry. It does not matter if it is one individual or many users if the manner in which the identies are used is consistent with attempts to avoid wikipedia rules.

As far as making a point, are you sure you are not the one who has taking my little two word edit to a page, and made it a personal vendetta for some unknown reason. "System administrators should not apply rules in a vindictive or excessive fashion in order to demonstrate the potential for abuse."

Here is how it should have gone down.

I make an edit. Someone reverts it. I make the edit again. The person(s) who wants to revert the edit should have opened a discussion before reverting it again. The edit should have remained, until an appropriate discussion was made, and a consensus was achieved. This is not how it happened. Reverting an edit more than a dozen times without a discussion is a clear violation of the 3RR rule.

What actually happened was that an edit was made, and continuously reverted, by a group of intimidating people, who tried to impose their will, without discussion. No meaningful review of the additon to the article was made by any of the group members. And, no concensus was even attempted to be made, nor a discussion attempted to be opened.

Intimidating, poorly supported, arguments were made to justify the violation of the 3RR rule. I am not sure why this small little edit, on one single page of the Wikipedia Open Source Project was targetted for such opposition. But, I feel some immature people have taking some sort of power trip thinking that they have "supreme rule" when it comes to Wikipedia.

If there is something about the rules that you do not like, you should petition to have the rules changed. My edit to this topic is relevant, and proper. It is not unlike other External links displayed throughout Wikipedia, and this article specifically.

If my edit is not allowed, and if anyone can simply revert an edit, without discussion, then I feel a responsibility to remove other commercial links. There is a double standard being applied, and that is not just making a point. I am looking for what the standard is. There should be a single standard.

If that standard says my edit is not allowed, then that standard should be applied to all. If that standard says such links are allowed in the External Link section of an article, then my edit should be allowed.

I respectfully ask that my edit be left in place. I request that you do not continue to violate the 3RR rule. I request that a meaningful discussion take place, and that a true concensus be attained before my edit is reverted again. The standard needs to be established, and then enforced so Wikipedians know exactly what the standard is.

If you find it necessary to remove my edit, I respectfully request that all of the other commercial or SPAM links be removed from this same article. Until my edit is accepted, or the other commercial links are removed, users will continue to be confused about what edits are acceptible. I will continue to strive to attain one single standard, that applies to all Wikipedians.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

--Trail Guide 19:19, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you need to look up Sock puppet and Consensus.


 * If you choose to delete other links just because your own link here was deleted this is a violation of WP:POINT.


 * Commercial links are allowed but only if the community believes they are more than just advertisements for a single user's site. You obviously feel strongly since this is your only edit and you defend it against all rules and consensus.  Please don't use this article to advertise your link website.


 * What other commercial links do you think follow this guidance? What article has a link that is both not contributing to the article and not supported by the community?  If you find a link that is purely for advertising purposes I agree with you that it should be removed.  Do you have an example? (Bear in mind WP:POINT and don't just find one for spite.  I'm looking for a real example that needs removal.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

-- All of the links, except the .org link, that are found in the External Links Section are commercial in nature.

Sincerely,

Trial Guide

--Trail Guide 19:19, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)


 * Which one?
 * Gaming Studies Research Center - at University of Nevada, Las Vegas
 * University of Nevada Research Center? How is that commercial?
 * DictionaryOfGambling.com
 * "Dictionary"? Sounds like a useful link.
 * United States Gambling Laws
 * "U.S. Gambling Laws"? Sounds like a review of U.S. laws and very relevant.
 * Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno
 * University of Nevada again. A rather detailed research study. Do you dislike university sites?
 * Wizard of Odds - game descriptions, etiquette, and odds
 * A description of games, odds, and how they work sounds very relevant to a general gambling article. Is it just for promotion of a commercial online gambling site?  What is your objection?
 * Are slot machines honest ?, an article from the "American Casino Guide" about slot machine fraud and the functioning of the commissions charges with checking them.
 * An article about commissions dealing with slot machines? Sounds very relevant.


 * Which are you objecting to? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please understand that Wikipedia daily withstands hundreds of attempts by commercial sites to exploit the open nature of Wikipedia to promote themselves. Thus obvious commercial sites are removed without much comment. When I first saw your link, I checked it (by copy-pasting the link to the address bar of my browser. I don't want spammers to think they get traffic by spamming Wikipedia), and noticed that all the link was obviously commercial and contained little relevant information about the subject. You really ought to be able to see the difference between your site and an relevant link like . As for the 3RR you seem to be misunderstanding something. You add the site, I remove it by reverting, you readd it again - now you revert. So even though I made the first revert, once you have added it again 4 times you have violated the 3RR. You are now up to around 17 reverts in the last 40 hours and it is a wonder you haven't been blocked yet. That Texture and Ahorsteimer have each made 4 reverts does not allow you to violate the rule; in fact most people would excuse them due to defending against link spam.
 * Rasmus (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll happily take what punishment is due me if the community feels I did wrong. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious?


 * Which one?
 * Gaming Studies Research Center - at University of Nevada, Las Vegas
 * University of Nevada Research Center? How is that commercial?

If you visit the link, it is a subdomain of UNLV. Any IT student can create a subdomain, and fill it with commercial advertisments, which it appears is exactly what has happened here. Furthermore, higher education facilities are commercial in nature.


 * DictionaryOfGambling.com
 * "Dictionary"? Sounds like a useful link.

This is a very tastefully done site, and does not appear to be advertising driven. This is a beautiful site, however, it is a .com domain, therefore commercial in nature, and the link is only there to promote this individual's site. All of the terms found here should be able to be found in the Wiktionary, which would be much more appropriate than a post here. If the terms cannot be found in the Wiktionary, the editor should post them there, and not place a commercial link here.


 * United States Gambling Laws
 * "U.S. Gambling Laws"? Sounds like a review of U.S. laws and very relevant.

Yes, it does sound that way. But you will also find that this .com domain has commercial links. It is simply a gambling portal, designed from a lawyer's perspective. An individual's site, that is clearly inappropriate in this article.


 * Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno
 * University of Nevada again. A rather detailed research study. Do you dislike university sites?

Same response as the other .edu site. Higher learning institutions are commercial. This site also displays commercial advertisments. I object.

Wizard of Odds - game descriptions, etiquette, and odds
 * A description of games, odds, and how they work sounds very relevant to a general gambling article. Is it just for promotion of a commercial online gambling site?  What is your objection?

This is a joke question right? What is my objection? This is the most blatant of all commercial sites posted in this article. This site is completely driven by commercial interests. I will agree that the site is tastefully done, and contains great content. However, it cannot be disputed that this is a commercial site, and the link promote's the site of one individual, and that the site is highly commercial in nature. Furthermore, this link is displayed in several different Wikipedia articles in an inappropriate way.


 * Are slot machines honest ?, an article from the "American Casino Guide" about slot machine fraud and the functioning of the commissions charges with checking them.
 * An article about commissions dealing with slot machines? Sounds very relevant.

Who cares how it sounds? Obviously someone else agrees that this is a commercial site. This link has been removed in the last undiscussed, unconsensus revert, unauthorized edit revert.

Finally, I note that the edit I made adding gambling directory has been replaced by another Gambling Directory. Again, without discussion, or concensus, but apparently that is how it works here. But whoever added these two Gambling Directories is violating the Wikipedia rules in another way too.

Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

There should not be two directories listed here. If it is the consensus of Wikipedians that one of these directories should replace the one I included here (http : // www . gamblingtrail . com / directory), then it should be discussed, and then implemented. Not, implemented, then discussed. I added a gambling directory, where there was none.

If that is the consensus, then only one directory should replace mine. If two are comparable, then preference must be given to the open one. There is no basis for adding the Yahoo directory.

--Trail Guide 23:25, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)

___________________________________

Please do not act like a meaningful discussion takes place surrounding every edit and revert. I have not edited or reverted this article in over 24 hours. I have patiently waited for anyone to respond to the issues I raised. I find it amusing that the "discussion" has halted since I stopped reverting, awaiting further discussion. However, as long as I edit or revert, the discussion remains open for bashing and flaming.

The last revert in the history section said something about "not acting in response to a troll's agenda." Quite humorous.

It is evident that this entire project is being handled by immature people. Perhaps that is the problem at Wikipedia, a lack of maturity.

If you disagree with someone's edit, revert it continuously. If you need to make multiple reversions, start flaming them in the history section of the article as you revert again. If the 3RR rule appears to be violated, flame them more publicly in the discussion area of the article. But, by no means attempt to open a meaningful discussion, and ascertain what the community consensus is. Do not attempt to understand all perspectives of the argument. Do not keep an open mind. Stick to your guns. Be bold. Intimidate and bully your point of view. Then, assume since you made such a compelling argument, that everyone must agree with you, and go ahead and make you reverts or edits again. After all, your wordsmith skills are unmatched by anyone in these discussions, so you must be right, and everyone must agree.

It is equally evident that discussion is not the goal. Consensus is not the goal. Individuals imposing their will is common practice. The goal is to be the biggest, baddest, fastest editor. Bullying tactics, sockpuppetry, and intimidation is the way to edit an article.

For the sake of maturity I will wait another 24 hours for a response in this discussion forum. If no discussion takes place, I will feel compelled to proceed with edits and reverts without discussion. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Apparently I was right in the beginning, when the two most important rules of Wikipedia are:
 * 1. BE BOLD in updating pages. Go ahead, it's a wiki!
 * 2. Ignore all rules, including this one.

So maybe we can start with an easy question. How many directories should be included in an article, and should open directories or commercial directories be given preference? --Trail Guide 07:58, 14 Sept 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. You obviously are interested in increasing your website's pagerank and readership, not in contributing to wikipedia. The "Be bold" policy is not intended for spambots, it's for people who feel an article could be improved but hesitate to touch it. Flammifer 08:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please add meaningful discussion to this topic. Do not continue the flame war. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Here are the facts.

I added a gambling directory, where there was none. A clearly proper addition per Wikipedia rules.

It was continuously reverted, without discussion or concensus. A clear violation of Wikipedia rules.

The only discussion that took place was flaming and intimidation.

There has never been a meaningful discussion of this topic.

The gambling directory that I added was replaced with two different directories. A clear improper addition per Wikipedia rules.

I have not made any article edits or reversions since this discussion was attempted to be opened. I am trying to ascertain what the community consensus is, as to which gambling directory should be included.

Per Wikipedia rules only one should be included. I am not even inquiring about the gambling directory I posted here. I am asking a quite simple question. Let me break it down for you to the lowest common denominator. Let's see if you can stay focused long enough to answer it.

There are two directories currently posted in this article. Forget about the third gambling directory which I posted. Only focus on the two that are currently posted in the article.

The Wikipedia rule states, "Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included."

The question is, of the two that are there, which one should stay?

I contend that the DMOZ listing is an open directory, and should be given preference. This directory feeds the directories of most of the major online directories, and is human edited for appropriate sites in each category.

On the other hand, the Yahoo Directory is a paid-inclusion directory, and therefore commercial in nature. While Yahoo is not owned by an individual, it is a publicly traded company with many stockholders that are looking for commercial profit. Yahoo as a whole, and the Yahoo directory are clearly a commercial site.

In my opinion, the Yahoo Directory should be removed, and the DMOZ directory should be the one that remains.

Please note, that the gambling directory that I added is not listed in either of these directories. I have no commercial interest in the choice that is made here. Furthermore, I do not believe Wikipedia is, or ever will be, one of the Internet's most desired sources of eager prospects. Which makes your claim, of some marketing or commercial interest at stake, absolutely ludicrous.

The directories that are currently listed were both added simply to have a sound basis to remove the one I added. I could care less. If they add more to the article than I added, then I am open to discuss it. Please try to stay focused. The question is, which one of the two directories that are currently listed should stay? I have made my argument. Let's achieve a consensus, and make the apporpriate edit. Isn't that easy enough? --Trail Guide 09:35, 14 Sept 2005 (UTC)


 * Consensus seems pretty clear. Nobody thinks your link belongs here. Do you really care about the Yahoo link ? Flammifer 09:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your question should read, "Do I care about Wikipedia." To that extent, yes. I do care about the Yahoo link.

I repeat, the Wikipedia rule states, "Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included."

Please stop discusing the link I added. I am not talking about that. It has been removed, and I have not attempted to replace it. Please, do your best to stay focused, and on topic. --Trail Guide 10:07, 14 Sept 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I speak for most of us, when I say that few of us has much patience left with you. You have not shown any interest in improving Wikipedia by concentrating on anything except these few external links. You have also reinstated the links on the talk-page, which were obvious spam intended to improve your pagerank by leaching on Wikipedias good reputation. The consensus at the moment seems to be that both DMOZ and the Yahoo directories should stay, regardless of the guideline on the external links page. Rasmus (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Rasmus,

I respect your opinion, and appreciate your attempts to participate in an open discussion about this topic. Please do not assume you speak for "most of us". Please only represent your thoughts, and allow others to speak for themselves. This is an open discussion forum, that allows anyone to speak for themselves. There is no need for you to speak for anyone other than yourself.

Your opinion of why I am changing my original posts to their original format is irrelevent. regardless of how you feel about it, or what you think is obvious. You are wrong, and it is your POV.

From my POV I find it reprehensible that in the open discussion forum, of an open source project, an individual's comments can be edited by others, and thus the entire context of his message can be altered.

From my POV, a simple two word addition was made to this article. It was continuously reverted without an open discussion or a consensus achieved. When a discussion was opened, the comments made in the discussion by one side of the arugument, are altered by the proponents of the other side of the argument. Changing the context of the comments. I have not altered any of your comments, so I ask that you please refrain from altering mine. This is an appropriate forum for me to openly discuss, and reference materials, to support my discussion.

Finally, exactly how do you arrive at the fact that consensus is to keep the Yahoo link? There has been no consensus. As a matter of fact, I am the only one who put an argument forward on this subject. It seems the me the current vote stands at 1-0 for removing the Yahoo link. If you have a point to make regarding why both should remain, please elaborate. However, please do not act all powerful, and just assume your opinion is the consensus, and mine is not valid. To me, it actually appears that not one single solitary soul can come up with a valid opposing arugment. Therefore, consensus would be to get rid of the Yahoo link. --Trail Guide 20:30, 14 Sept 2005 (UTC)

There has been one concensus achieved on this discussion so far. There has still not been anyone that will discuss why two directories are listed on this page, one of which is completely commercial. But, it does seem that one consensus has been achieved.

It is unacceptible to change the comments made by another user. I will ask again that you stop editing my comments on this open discussion page, so that my comments may be taking in proper context. As this timeline grows, historians will always be able to learn who the culprits are. They caan easily check the history of any page to determine who has been making continuous edits without participating in the open discussion. Keep up the good work. This only adds to the stellar reputation of Wikipedia.

Here are some other comments I found about Wikipedias wonderful reputation.

August 26, 2005 "Wikipedia's owner is politically biased, as is his Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales is the conservative millionaire who funds Wikipedia, who owns its servers, and while he has expanded control slightly as Wikipedia has grown larger to his lieutenants, he still has a large amount of control over everything. He has said publicly that he runs the site according to the philosophy of Ludwig von Mises. He has appointed like-minded lieutenants to powerful positions on Wikipedia - on the Arbitration Committee Fred Bauder was appointed by him long ago, and JayJG more recently (JayJG's appointment ignoring the last election).

''Anyhow, it's no wonder that on Wikipedia, USSR troops shooting Polish military officers (at Katyn) is called a "massacre" while American troops shooting Korean civilians (at No Gun Ri) is called an "incident". Or innumerable examples of a double standard like that. Wikipedia is fine for articles on the hard sciences and the like, but for topics such as history, if you're interested in a Howard Zinn like "people's history", or even something that doesn't sound like world history according to the editorial board of the National Review, I suggest other wiki encyclopedias like Democratic Underground's Demopedia, Daily Kos's Dkosopedia, or perhaps even a more radical one like Anarchopedia or Red Wiki. They don't yet have the momentum of Wikipedia, but I am certain that eventually they will - in the early days of the Internet there was only one political newsgroup and mailing list, nowadays there are many moderated political newsgroups and mailing lists. So it will be with wiki encyclopedias.''

July 18, 2005 "Wikipedia is BRUTAL. While you may be able to find some worthwile info on generic issues like "baseball". Wikipedia is mainly populated by a bunch of 20 year old leftwing, propeller head, academic elites attempting to rewrite history."

May 16, 2005 "Wikipedia allows propaganda on obscure subjects. Whereas Wikipedia's editing procedures will generate accurate articles on topics of wide or non-controversial interest, they also allow fanatical followers of obscure cults to advertise their obsessions without sufficient peer review to ensure the articles are accurate."

March 14, 2005 ''"Wikipedia Promotes Porn Websites. The public should be alerted to the fact that Wikipedia contains material unsuitable for young children. One example of this unsuitable material is their article on SuicideGirls ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuicideGirls ) which is an article that highly recommends this porn web site. Another objectional article is their one on BOMIS. Both of these articles include soft porn pictures. Jimbo Wales founder of both Bomis.com and Wikipedia is actually in the business of selling erotic images over the Internet. In other words, Wikipedia was in fact founded by somebody in the sex business. The last thing that any encyclopedia should be doing is recommending porn web sites when their primary users are obviously children. There is actually a lot of other adult material on Wikipedia, such as articles on porn stars, perverse activities, and of course explicit information on sex education. Hence, Wikipedia is clearly an irresponsible member of the web community that should be blocked by all responsible parents."''

December 30, 2004 "Wikipedia is run by a pornographer. Just look up BOMIS at Wikipedia. It tells you a sex site finances Wiki. Wiki is evil."

November 11, 2004 "Why is this site so highly rate? Because Wikipedia is crawling with thousands of editors addicted to writing grabage articles like the one they have on tampons. Their editors are the people clicking on most of their links. The public knows better and looks elsewhere."

I'm sorry. Is this the reputation you suspect me of trying to hijack? Please do not edit my comments anymore. You will only further damage Wikipedias reputation.

Trail Guide 19:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Removing link spam from your comments seems perfectly normal. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Feel free to go away if you don't feel you can contribute to articles. Flammifer 02:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

For the historians  Flammifer has decided not only to alter my comments to change their context. He has actually now decide to actually change the words. It is stunning the liberties people will take when they have the ability to appoint themselves absolute power. Simply amazing. I wonder how old Flammifer is. My guess is about 15. But I can only base my judgement on how he is acting.

Trail Guide 07:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think historians will be much interested in this page. If you feel the context of your comments is being violated by the removal of the external links, you will have to find another way to communicate it. No Wikipedians tolerate linkspam and independent of your claims this has the effect of linkspam. A suggestion is to write (http : // www . gamblingtrail . com / directory), which will not be picked up by search engines. Also, you might want to refrain from using Ad hominem attacks. Nobody here is impressed by those. Rasmus (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Spam linking
Trail Guide has now begun changing others comments to insert the spam link to his website. This is vandalism and if it continues the user can be blocked from editing. (I'm beginning to believe that the person is paid by the link. Is this a Google bomb?) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

-- This is ridiculous. I am not altering anyone else's comments. To the contrary, other users are altering my comments, and I agree, this is abhorant behavior. I will continue to revert my comments to their original form, so that they may be taken in proper context.

I will not, and have not, altered anyone's comments but my own. I request that I be given the same respect. Please stop altering my comments in this open discussion forum.

Can we keep this discussion on topic. Does anyone have a valid argument as to why there should be two directories listed in this article. One of which is a commercial directory, that only accepts paid inclusion? Trail Guide


 * You are not editing in good faith, and unfortunately that renders all your comments nothing but an attempt to waste other people's time, not generate discussion, on topic or not. If others editing in good faith were to raise an issue, then discussion could ensue. I'd suggest you stop now before you harm the reputation of your website any further. 2005 01:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that I made one edit to this article. It has been reverted. I do not dispute that. A better directory has been added. In good faith, I do not agree with the Yahoo link being added. It is a commercial directory of only paid inclusion sites. The DMOZ directory is sufficient for this article. It is an open directory that serves many popular online directories. It is human edited, and open. Only one directory should be included in this article. It should not be the one I added, and it should not be the Yahoo one. It should be the DMOZ one. Why is this so hard?

Trail Guide 01:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Rulers of Articles
What I find most interesting about the timeline shown in this discussion is what historians can learn about Wikipedia. They can learn that there are very few people interested in an open discussion about the aticles in Wikipedia. They will learn there are many more, so called "editors", that have taken the open source nature of Wikipedia, to appoint themselves as "Supreme Rulers of Articles."

When a discussion is opened it is met with name calling, flaming, and accusations. The Supreme Rulers of Articles, make executive revisions without discussion or consensus. They force their will upon all users, and fight to outlast any potential edits that they do not agree with. They guard their article with unrelenting brute force.

The historians will also learn that a simple discussion can remain opened for several days, while only one person makes any valid argument. A simple "which directory should stay" question, will not be addressed by any of the so called Supreme Rulers of Articles. These Supreme Rulers of Articles will continue with their agenda, no matter how absurd it may appear, all while avoiding the simple question that the discussion surrounds.

They will also learn that many attempts can be made to keep the discussion on topic, and many attempts can be made to attain a consensus. But, that all of these attempts will be met with resistance by the Supreme Rulers of Articles. They will learn that the Supreme Rulers of Articles will shift the focus of the discussion to impose their agenda, no matter what.

They will also learn that the Supreme Rulers of Articles will even alter comments made by users in an open dicussion forum, to further force their agenda. If they feel threatened by an opposing voice, the Supreme Rulers of Articles will simply change the context of that voice.

Thus is Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. Trail Guide 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Most Recent Discussions Archived in less than two weeks?
It is funny how the most recent topics discussed have been Archived in less than two weeks. That must be the work of the Supreme Rulers of Articles. For the most recent discussion regarding this article, or for details regarding how you will be treated if you attempt to edit this article, read the Archive of this discussion. You will learn what happens if you attempt a minor edit by adding two simple words like, "Gambling Directory. Trail Guide 08:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)