User talk:Cywiki

E-Players Card
A tag has been placed on E-Players Card, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of E-Players Card and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article E-Players Card has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

For the article to stand, please demonstrate that the software/web service is notable. The article must show independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of E-Players Card
A tag has been placed on E-Players Card requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:E-Players Card for why the software is subject to deletion under A7. If that page goes away, the crux is this: unless the software can be bought in a brick-and-mortar store, it meets the WP:WEB definition of web content. Accordingly, it is subject to speedy deletion under the rules of web content—which, since there is no assertion of notability backed up by reliable sources, it is currently subject to. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bonus-bubble2.jpg
Hi Cywiki!

We thank you for uploading Image:Bonus-bubble2.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Epc-screenshot.jpg
Hi Cywiki!

We thank you for uploading Image:Epc-screenshot.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of E-Players Card
A tag has been placed on E-Players Card, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Article: E-Players Card
I have seen this article several times today, and i have also seen it be removed several times. No matter the explanation, in its current form the article has a chance between 0 and nothing to stay on wikipedia. At first, the article violates the G11 guideline. While the article is written in neutral language, the only reason its created is to promote the software in question, which is called a masked G11.

Second, the article violates WP:NOT, manual subsection. The entire page is not an informative article, but rather a show of the features the product has. Simply put: Its advertisement.

Third, it violates A7, as the article states no sources whatsoever to make it notable. While you can of course argue that software is annoyingly left out in A7, it doesnt prevent a violation of the guidelines noted above. Second, even if the A7 evasion would protect it from being proceduraly deleted, it has no chance to survive an WP:AFD, as the content is simply not encyclopediac.

Last, saying that that article is just to "Demonstate the risks of online gambling" is just void. Why post a manual on how to operate a specific product if that was the reason? Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cywiki
Regarding your opposition to the publishing of the E-Players Card. I find it overwhelmingly authoritarian that some articles on the subject of online gambling exist with total impunity, for example | GoldenPalace.com, and some articles are immediately removed from Wikipedia. You removed my article so fast that i didn't even have time to correct any mistakes or non-neutral language. It amazes me what power you have on this site, a site that clearly in due course will become the subject of power hungry censors with the aim of dictating importance (as they see it at least) to the rest of the world. You say that my article is not content worthy of an encyclopedia yet forget that the traditional sense of encyclopedia is challenged by Wikipedia in the first place. I won't bother anymore with E-Players card nonetheless because watching you control and destroy the very ideals on which the internet is based is entertainment enough. If you've forgotten what those ideals are try thinking along the lines of free and uncensored information for all.


 * I think that an explanation here would be appropriate, seeing you took the time to write this entire text without turning it into a flame.


 * First of, you have to understand that wikipedia on its own, has a set of basic guidelines which articles, and the subjects of those articles have to meet in order to be allowed to stick around. You would be amazed how many people put themselves, their newly formed bands, and their own business on Wikipedia.


 * A few of the base guidelines are: WP:Notability, WP:NOT and WP:SOURCE. There three are what i would refer to as the core guidelines which govern the removal of articles. The first one is the most important; In short it says that to be on Wikipedia, an article needs to meet certain guidelines that make it notable, as in why the subject should be in an encyclopedia in the first place. One subsection of this rule is what i call "Assumed Notability", and that is exactly what allows goldenpalace.com to stay online. Assumed notability is when the subject of the article is featured in at least 3 independant, reliable and significantly large publications that have no connection to the subject to the article. Goldenpalace seems to be the subject of three publications (BBC, TheRegister and Pressportal) and is as such deemed notable.


 * The second rule, WP:NOT, is merely a list of what wikipedia isnt meant to be. One of the rulings subsections notes that Wikipedia isnt a manual. This was actually one of the more major problems of your article: It was written as if it was to explain the reader how it should handle or use the software in question, which almost always equals a promotional article, which it was tagged and removed for (Note: Removal is a two tier process, with me merely tagging it for admin attention. I have no article removal rights).


 * I know that at times it can be hard to believe, but wikipedia is what would be called: Uncensored, but not indiscriminate information. There is no censoring for the Tibet crisis, the debate on Intelligent Design and Evolution, or on articles that might be offending to religious people. Yet at the same time, not everything is allowed, not because its considered that noone should read the information, but because it simply shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.


 * I hope this clear everything up a bit, and with kind regards,
 * Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 09:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)