User talk:Bgtd

Edits being reverted
I don't know who the casino personnel are who keep reverting my legitimate edits, but criticism of major casino rules changes are worthy for Wikipedia.
 * I'm not employed by a casino.
 * While your statements may well deserve to be on Wikipedia, everything you say needs to be supported completely by verifiable, reliable sources. If you say something contentious that isn't supported by sources, it will be reverted.
 * Some people find it highly poor etiquette to remove discussion from one's talk page.--Nucleusboy 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I don't know why criticisms are constantly being removed. If you check the sources, everything is backed up in them. The sources explain why 6:5 and H17 games are bad for players. Everyone in the casino world knows Harrah's is the leader in these blackjack games. Precise table counts are not available on free internet links, but are available via pay newsletters -- and are well known in the industry!
 * Unfortunately, "everyone in the casino world knows..." and "well-known in the industry" aren't enough to convince someone not particularly well-versed on the world of casinos (i.e. me) of your correctness. --Nucleusboy 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to check the citations some more (some were not added by me) but I think it is well-stated in the articles that 6:5 and H17 are rules that favor the casino, not the player. I'll find something more about Harrah's adding more of these tables, but like I said many of the sources that track this stuff are pay newsletters/websites.  Check bj21.com

Level 3 Warning

 * Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. If you feel that the edit I reverted should not have been reverted, please contact me. mrholybrain 's talk  17:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Level 2 Warning
Please do not make comments like you did on User talk:3bulletproof16. They are inappropriate and are not constructive. Please, if you have an issue with that user, please try and discuss it on their talk page instead of accusing them of being a sock puppet. Icestorm815 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but that is exactly what he did to me.
 * Remember, don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Icestorm815 17:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether you call it "alerting other people to re-add your edits" or not, Wikipedia refers to this as Meat puppeteering and it is against policy. Instead of recruiting socks why don't you discuss the changes that you were trying to make on the articles' talk pages? -- bullet proof  3:16 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Cooling Off Period
Hi Bgtd, I found your page from the AIV report - could I suggest that you consider taking a break and allowing yourself and the other editors to cool off? Thanks! Addhoc 18:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not A Travel Guide
Hi. Please keep in mind that WP is not a travel guide, and we purposely do not list the number of individual slot machines, table games, or the specific rules a casino chooses to have for their games that an individual casino chooses to have on their floor. This is because that information can change so quickly and is usually unverifiable by referencable, unbiased 3rd-parties. SpikeJones 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, there was information on that page about tables and I corrected it. A statement saying that the Casion Royale no longer offers blackjack was completely false. Bgtd 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Level 3 Warning: 3R Rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Vegaswikian 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Level 4 Warning
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

BLOCKED
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Vegaswikian 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|left|30px| ]]
 * I did not violate the 3 revert rule. Please show me where I did.  Bgtd 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy clearly states that users may NOT be blocked over content disputes.

"When blocking may not be used

Disputes Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.

An exception is made when dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. (See the BLP policy.)"

VegasWiki said in the block that I was edit warring. He also said 3RVV rule. Well which is it? Because I did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please show me where I did. And policy specifically prevents blocking for edit warring/content disputes.
 * To answer your question, I see three reversions by you of the same part (Critics) on 12 November at 1931 (you summarized nothing), 1933 ("disagree, thanks")& 1934 ("still disagreeing"). Now, I'm a non-biased Vandal Patroller who was involved once (though I don't recall that instance from the rest of my patrols this weekend), but I cannot see how it wasn't a 3RR violation. Hope that helps explain what others are seeing. --LeyteWolfer 04:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The 3RR rule says you cannot perform "MORE than 3 reverts." 3 are okay.
 * The 3RR rule says you cannot perform "MORE than 3 reverts." 3 are okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule Bgtd 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * [nods] That is true. But I ask this question: would you have stopped after that third edit, or waited 24 hours and did it again? It really appears that you weren't willing to reach a compromise, but demanded that the line be put in there, without addressing the other editors' concerns. My POV, anyhow. Hope that helps. --LeyteWolfer 04:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me close by pointing out you aren't banned, simply blocked for a few hours. Maybe think about how to word the section (and reference it) so that you show Good Faith and are working to add informative data to the article. --LeyteWolfer 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very simple, the block was a violation of policy. I did not violate any Wikipedia rules; indeed Wikipedia SPECIFICALLY says you cannot block someone for edit warring/content disputes.  You cannot be blocked because someone thinks you are going to -- eventually -- violate a rule.  I have never violated the 3RR, so why would you assume I am going to violate it now?  Bgtd 04:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances." That is from WP:3RR. You were asked to take your issues to the talk page to obtain consensus. You have not. You also broke the 3RR rule on another article and I decided to protect that article for a while rather then block the involved account.  But you persist in disruptive edits.  You need to take your edit differences to a talk page rather then pushing your point in multiple articles. Vegaswikian 05:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (reduce indent)How can you possibly attest that you have "never violated" WP:3RR? In a 24-hour period from November 11 until November 12, you reverted Caesars Palace a total of 12 times: (11/11) 02:38, 04:34, 04:56, 06:40, 13:20, 17:07, 17:08, 17:09, 17:11; (11/12) 01:33, 01:47, and 01:49 (nice personal attack on this edit summary as well). And regardless of this obvious violation, it's simply bad faith to defend repeated edit warring only by claiming a literal interpretation of a small part of a policy while totally ignoring the spirit of not only the policy but of wikipedia itself. Please read the rest of WP:3RR, specifically: "The 3RR metric is not intended as an exemption for all conduct that stays under the threshold." -- Sesame ball Talk 05:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, an admin may not block an editor if the admin and that editor are engaged in a content dispute, because of the conflict of interest. If other people are engaged in a content dispute and reverting back and forth, an uninvolved admin can absolutely block them. --  But | seriously | folks   05:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well gee, Butseriouslyfolks, that's exactly what VegasWiki did now, isn't it. He was directly involved in the content dispute.  There was no 3RR violation.  Case closed, IMO. Bgtd 05:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's where the consensus disagrees, Bgtd. So, how goes the work to improve the section, to meet consensus? --LeyteWolfer 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)