User talk:Poker Guardians

Welcome!
Hello, Poker Guardians, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, visit the Teahouse Q&A forum, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Rray (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Reliable sources
I thought you might find this page helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Rray (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Your recent editing history at Cheating in poker shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''Rather than keep adding your information and it keep being deleted please discuss it at Talk:Cheating in poker so that a concensus can be reached. The current opinion appears to be that what you are trying to add is not from a reliable source and that information needs to be substantiated from elsewhere before it should be considered for inclusion.'' NtheP (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the Note
You must understand that wikipedia is not intuitive at all for newbies so i'm sorry if i am posting in the wrong spot again.

This user Rray just doesn't want that information to appear for some reason and is unwilling to come to a consensus. He acuses me of "Potentially libelous material" and "unreliable Source" for some reason. What is the point of someone to flame a network when there are so many competitors? Who will get an advantage on that? On the other hand there is a big advantage for people that make a profit out of the poker business in trying to avoid someone to deliver important information to the public that will make people aware of the risk they are taking when they enter in a poker room. So how will i know he isn't one of them?

I am willing to post the information with a note saying that the information might not be reliable according to an editor and that way users will decide if the information is valuable or not.

In terms of the first accusation reliability is very subjective for so many obvious reasons. For example someone says that Coca Cola uses cocain on it and posts it on wikipedia, someone says that Coca Cola causes cancer, and so on... Even if i post 10 articles of different websites of that accusations it becomes reliable? Why? Who decides it? Then Rray changes his accusation to vandalism and "Potentially libelous material" that he didn't mention in the first place... So tell me why is Rray with such an interested in censoring this information? Let the people decide if it is useful or not.

I suggest something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company

" In video games

In PlayStation Home, the PlayStation 3's online community-based service, Coca-Cola placed a vending machine in Home that took users to a space called the "Georgia Break Station". The vending machine also distributed original avatar items and presented, along with "C-pons", digital coupons that could be used to get real drinks from real vending machines. This was to promote Coca-Cola's Georgia series of canned coffee. The space was a lounge where users could sit and chat and included two in-lounge avatars that told the users about the Georgia coffee. It was available from September 7, 2009 to December 17, 2009 in the Japanese version of Home.[51][unreliable source?] In Dreamcast's Shenmue in 1999, Coca-Cola was featured in the Japanese only version when the main character Ryo Hazuki finds vending machines on the street corners in the video game, and actual cans that were sold in Japan in 1986, the setting of the video game. Sometimes, Ryo gets a special can which can be turned in for prizes.[citation needed] "

It is an unreliable source but it's there so what is the problem? Let the public decide what to think of an unreliable source instead of giving reason to Rray that is only one individual with doubtful convictions.

Thanks


 * The thing is, if it's unintuitive, and if you're new, then shouldn't you trust others when they're telling you how it works here? I mean, I understand there can be a steep learning curve, and you aren't expected to know everything right off the bat, but how do you justify arguing with others about how it works here, if you know you don't know how it works here?


 * We don't put disputed information in articles if it isn't sourced to a reliable source. Not what you consider a reliable source, or me or Ray, but what Wikipedia considers a reliable source.  Please read the link to see what that means.  Instead, please go to the article talk page, Talk:Cheating in poker, and discuss whether the source is reliable, whether it should be added, whether there is other info that isn't sourced to reliable sources, etc.  If you approach the conversation humbly (because for now, until you get more experience, others know more about how things work here), then you'll learn something, and come to a consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)