Talk:Revoke

{{WPCB

Advertising
Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for advertising. Including a on[e]-year-old invented game in an article where the only other examples are spades, hearts, pinochle, and bridge would qualify as advertising as far as I'm concerned. Isomorphic 08:50, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You are factually incorrect. Advertising requires commercial or political purpose.


 * The best way I could see of summing up one aspect of this concept (revoke as not a strategic option but tantamount to cheating) was to quote directly from the official rules of some card game, so I quoted from my own, a valid choice. That alone justifies inclusion, at least of that bit of material. It's high-quality content. What can I say? I'm not unarticulate[sic].


 * What galls me is that if someone else wrote an Ambition page—as would have happened by now, anyway—no one would care. Yet because the inventor himself participates in the process, he gets accused of self-promotion in a strictly negative sense. Mike Church 16:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)