User talk:Rray/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, Rray! Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice you haven't been welcomed yet, so I thought I'd send you a welcome. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this:. Four tildes ( ~ ) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! AnnH (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Gaming articles
Hi Rray, I've noticed your work in improving gaming-related articles. I just wanted to say "thanks". See you around! Regards, Accurizer 13:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

infarom Hi Rray, Why are you deleting one specific external link in mathematics of gambling article, while there are two similar links pointing to sites containing excerpts from two books listed on "Further readings" section? Why deleting one and not two? I think they have the same status. Is your motivation the fact that my username is identical with the domain of that site?

Hi RRay. On the Stanford Wong page you removed my addition and said '"Self-proclaimed" is a point-of-view word. It implies that he wasn't really and that he just called himself that. It would be inappropriate to use here.)' Only that's exactly correct. He just called himself that. I believe he testified in Campione v Adamar that he only made a few thousand gambling in his life. Unfortunately I cannot find the trial transcript online so will go along with your deletion. However, where is the reference that he was a pro other than his own claim? That is, self-proclaimed. Regards, Objective3000 13:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I'll delete the part about being a professional gambler too. Rray 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

JD Template
Hey, how's it goin'? I built that template "User folk". Sorry about the recent changes due to Jimbo's laws with templates. But, luckily, I've got the recipie for another good one. Ii's not violating the Wikipedia law, so enjoy:

Well, have a good one. Editor19841 23:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Board and table games
Hi - I noticed your subcategorisations of Category:Board games and wondered if you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Board and table games? Percy Snoodle 09:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Online skill games : refs
Hi Rray - I will indeed add citations to that subject. Will have time at the end of this coming week to go back with data (releases, comscore info etc.).


 * Awesome! Very kewl, as the young people say these days. :) Rray 13:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonomo
the article is about a person. What in the collusion article says more about this person? On the other hand, if what he did may be called "collusion", why don't someone use the word right in the text? there are quite a few other words you may add to "see also" section, like, crook, hypocrite, con man, money, etc. But we don't do this usually. `'mikka (t) 05:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is about a person who is only notable because he cheated at poker. Collusion is the primary means of cheating at online poker, so it would be a relevant topic to have a "See also" link to. The other terms you mentioned aren't as specific to this particular person's reason for notability. (Collusion almost always comes up in a discussion of poker cheating online. Being a crook, hypocrite, or con man do not necessarily come up.) At any rate, you might explain your reverts of others' edits in the future, just out of courtesy, especially when you do the revert twice. Rray 05:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My explanation stands. Don't you think I didn't read the "collusion" aricle? It says nothing about cheating in poker (or in any other card games). I admit I am not an expert in card games. So all the more, the "see also" for "collusion" didn't make me wiser neither about Bonomo, nor about poker. Therefore it was delisted. `'mikka (t) 05:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really care enough about the link (or the Justin Bonomo article) to debate you about it, or even to re-add it, but thanks. Rray 13:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't pay attention that your main concern was about edit summaries. Point taken. Sorry. `'mikka (t) 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hollywoodland
I just wanted to say thanks for your work reverting the opinions on the Hollywoodland page. Keep up the good work.

Verkhovensky 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just read your comments on "Casablanca" and gambling. Since gambling is a background of the film, I would agree with you, however you are using plot point incorrectly. A plot point is an event that turns the direction of the movie, their are only two plot points in a film (between act I&II and between act II&III). Gambling is not a plot point in "Casablanca". —Preceding unsigned comment added by BearDutch (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Gor
The article is probably better after your edit, but the reason why some person wrote "alleged" is that the book has been being promised to be about to be published for well over five years now... AnonMoos 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Poker edits
Hi I recently made changes to the Pokerstars and Absolute Poker pages, which you reverted. You labeled the reason for reverting the changes to Absolute Poker as "removed speculation" and I'm assuming that this was the same reason you reverted the Pokerstars article.

Although the changes were based on speculation, belief in the non-randomness of cards in online poker rooms is widely held. Without good evidence that this belief is unfounded, it deserves some note. What I wrote was labeled as a widely held speculation and not as proven fact.

Being new to editing Wikipedia, I am not that familiar with the policies, and I would like to hear your reasons for the edit.

Thanks

Rob


 * You stated that "Without good evidence that this belief is unfounded, it deserves some note."


 * That's incorrect. This is an encyclopedia. It's inappropriate to slander companies here without offering proof. Something in the main online poker article might be appropriate depending on how it's phrased and whether or not a suitable citation is included.


 * It's also Wikipedia policy to offer information from a neutral point of view; your edits were not neutral.


 * You can review Wikipeda policies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policies. Rray 19:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Children of members of the United States Congress
Thanks for your feedback on my category idea. This is the one I think I'm going to implement. It's a bit clunky but it's the best way to go (since many Representatives were also Senators, and having a category for the children of each would lead to clutter.) Please feel free to take an occasional look at my edits and point out the good, bad and ugly. Regards, Paul 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

GoGuides
A tag has been placed on GoGuides, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain web site, blog, forum, or other community of web users that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on Talk:GoGuides. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Demiurge 12:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Skaffe
A tag has been placed on Skaffe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain web site, blog, forum, or other community of web users that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on Talk:Skaffe. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Demiurge 12:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hollywoodland troll
Rray, this person is apparently a long term troll that we have been dealing with. Maybe you could add your two cents in the case against this anonymous IP abuser [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#64.107.1.251.2C_etc. here]. Gnrlotto 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Left comments there. Rray 02:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Gambling userbox
Hi Rray, I created code that can be added to your userpage to create a userbox if you wish, see WikiProject Gambling/Userbox. I used a subpage instead of creating a template to keep away from the userbox debate. Regards, Accurizer 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Hollywoodland
Please do not feed the troll. He only gets worse the more you try to reason with him and it only seems to put gas on the fire. --Strothra 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll keep that in mind. Rray 22:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Robbins
We'll have to keep an eye on that Robbins page. It is overly promotional. --Comaze 07:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I like Tony as much as the next guy, and I had a blast at Unleash the Power Within, but some of these guys are really fervent. Rray 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Progressive jackpot
Hi Rray I noticed that you have been editing the Progressive jackpot article. The website Online-Casinos.com offers a unique and free program that monitor most progressive games available online - it updates every 5 miniutes and offers hit history and other interesting information too. I was concidering adding an external link to the article pointing to online-casinos.com/progressives/ but I would appreciate your opinion on this first. Thanks in advance. 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Here is something for you, for all your contributions to boardgame, table-top game and RPG related articles on wikipeida. Regards -Angelbo 01:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very cool, thanks! Rray 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Splinter of the Mind's Eye
I noticed that in an edit you made of April 22 to Splinter of the Mind's Eye (diff) contained Bold text. Just thought I'd let you know so you could be careful to not press the bold button when you make future edits. --Mini-Geek (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops! Thanks. Rray 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dvorak
Hi - I don't know if you noticed but you seem to have deleted the entire list of interwiki links along with everything else with your numerous recent edits. There is also quite a large difference between 'yet to achieve success' and 'fail'. FTA negotiations between Japan and Australia for example have yet to achieve success, but they cannot be said to have failed, as an example. I'll take a closer look at the new page tonight to make sure nothing else of value has been deleted. Mithridates 03:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't change 'yet to achieve success' to 'fail'. I changed 'not been met with success' to 'failed'. No need to use 5 words when 1 word means the same thing. That's just bad writing. I don't recall deleting any interwiki links, but I'm sure they can easily be re-added. Rray 04:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the interwiki links you mentioned and re-added them. Thanks for pointing that out. Rray 04:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I changed "failed" to "so far failed". "Failed" is still better than "not succeeded" or "not achieved success" because it's clearer, but your point about the possibility of success in the future is well-taken. Thanks again. Rray 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I actually just changed it to 'not succeeded', not because I have a problem with what you did but because the second word in the next sentence is failure and it seems like it's trying to emphasize this. You could change it back if you like but maybe reword the next sentence a bit if you do so if you agree that it looks awkward. Mithridates 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your wording is fine. Good eye. Rray 15:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Harbin
Just wondering what your objection was to the external link that you removed from this article? I couldn't see a problem with it but maybe I missed something. Circusandmagicfan 10:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * Hi. That particular user has made no edits to any pages other than to add links to one particular website. (And he's made several of those, so he's pretty systematic.) That's a pretty clear indicator that he's spamming. (If he were actually interested in the Wikipedia project, he would make other edits too, not just add links to one website.) That's why I removed the link. If you think it's a really valuable link, feel free to re-add it, but I think it's better not to encourage spammers. Rray 12:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Scarne External Links
Ray, as you hopefully have noted, I have added new information to the body of the article itself. I know a lot about Scarne and am in contact with his widow and the Scarne Games Inc. Why is a link to the list of Scarne ebooks we exclusively publish not allowed here? Many of these are out of print and are now finally again available as ebooks. Some information I added comes from these (e)books. Since there is no other place you can get these ebooks, I think it is highly relevant information and a value add to the article. If such links are not welcome then I will not be able to share any further interesting info that has never been published about Scarne. A loss for Wikipedia.


 * Please sign your posts on talk pages. You do this by typing 4 tildes at the end of your entry. (That's the ~ symbol.)


 * Please read the external links guideline. In fact, pay particular attention to links normally to be avoided. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a classified ad resource. If all of those ebooks were available free, then yes, that would be a terrific resource to link to. Since all of them cost money, it's just an ad, which is considered link spam.


 * Also, just adding new information to the article itself doesn't "earn" you a link. It's just demonstrative of your intent. If you're interested in contributing to the Wikipedia, you'll edit anyway, even if you don't get to add your links. If you only want to edit here if you can add your links, then you're just a spammer, and you'll either keep trying or you'll give up and go away. Rray 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Teeko Source section
Ray, could you explain to me why the old publisher Crown can be listed in the source section but not the new publisher Lybrary.com? We are currently the only publisher who does publish "Scarne on Teeko". Wouldn't it make more sense to list the current publisher where it is actually available? Wasshuber 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the reference for the Crown publication isn't a spammy link drop but a legitimate reference. It's a reference to a book, not a link to someone trying to sell that book. And no, it doesn't make sense to allow you to continue to spam the Wikipedia with your links. Rray 21:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will take this up with the Wikipedia folks, because we are the only publisher in the world who is licensed to offer this (e)book. This is clearly not correct what you are doing. The reference section is there for people who want to read more about it. Our ebook version of "Scarne on Teeko" is readily available and on average a lot cheaper than any second hand versions you might be able to locate if you are able to locate one at all. Either do not allow any publisher to be listed or all. Wasshuber 15:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Citations are not necessarily for people who want to read more about it . Citations give credit to a published work that's used in creating a scholarly work (like an encyclopedia). The correct publisher to list would be the publisher of the edition that was used in preparing the article. It's not a promotional thing; it's an informational thing.


 * You don't understand the point of the Wikipedia project. You're not allowed to promote your product here. The price of your product is irrelevant. The other publisher isn't being promoted here, and if someone had used your edition, a link to your product sales page wouldn't be included in the article anyway. (Just like a link to their products' sales page wasn't included.)


 * Please don't continue to rant on my talk page because your attempts at advertising here are being deleted. And please try to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia compared to a catalog, yellow pages, or classified ad section. Rray 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussions
Thanks. I can understand concerns over content, but in this case, I think it's a bit of an overzealous focus on the rules, and not enough recognition of the subject itself's value. And some of it looks almost retaliatory, like the GURPS one, which if you follow the chain started with an AFD on Technomancy. I'm not sure it's bad faith, but I do think it's ill-advised and not very well considered. FrozenPurpleCube 12:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. Ill-advised and not well considered at all. I'm always surprised when someone who is admittedly not familiar with the subject branch comes in wanting to make massive changes like this, but for some reason it seems to happen pretty often around here. Rray 15:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't mind the unfamiliarity as a problem in itself, as that's often balanced by people with expertise who can't see that they're not producing actually encyclopedic material. I know quite a few cases where I've run across articles that were in subjects I don't consider myself familiar with, but I could tell needed improvement.  And then been met by an obstinate attitude that it was me who was at fault for being ignorant.  Not a good thing.  Even the most ignorant of people can at least tell you how well you're reaching them.  But I digress, as I feel this situation is perhaps an overzealous enforcement of the rules...which I suppose is an ignorance of the purpose of the rules in favor of a literal interpretation of them.  Especially since there's little evidence that the people doing the nominating care about consensus.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. I've had a different set of experiences, but it's also possible that I've had a smaller set of experiences to draw on. Rray 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Betting strategy external links
Rray, regarding the Betting Strategy page. I am interested to know why you thought a link to 81 articles on Betting Strategy not available on Wikipedia, written by a professional gambler, is Spam. As you say yourself the page is weak, therefore adding relevant external links is surely an improvement. In its place you have provided a link to an online gambling affiliate website, who's sponsor has recenty had their domain confiscated by Judges in Nevada, giving information that already exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. Interested to know your logic? crofton park —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crofton park (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to discuss the external links on that page, let's discuss it at the talk page for that article. I'm going to move the discussion there. Rray 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Warren Buffett Infobox
No problem. I'm not exactly sure why he's on such a crusade to remove it either. He really does seem to be set that 100k is misleading...aii..it feels like he is arguing just to argue. I'm not fond of responding to people like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineneve (talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ray I don't know what else to say, what I am hearing is that nothing happens unless mainstream media says it happens. I thought the internet and sites like this was the one place people could get info about something that wasn't censored by mainstream media. I am not trying to discredit Mr. Buffett as you can see in what I wrote. And I do have alot of confirming info from many different sources. Can you make changes about how the info is presented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.206.106 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One threshold for inclusion in the Wikipedia is verifiability. In other words, the information has to have appeared in a reliable source before being included here. Wikipedia is also not a place to include  original research. The 3rd page you should read, which has less relevance to this discussion but still applies, is about having a  neutral point of view. High quality references are particularly important when including something in  the biography of a living person. And you can learn how to  cite sources here. Trying to discredit or not discredit Buffett doesn't really have anything to do with it. I'm not of the opinion that your proposed addition is anything more than a trivial anecdote, but you really can't expect the change to the article to stay live without citing reputable sources. That just isn't what the Wikipedia is for. Rray 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I get it, seems like we will forever base our knowledge on varying degrees of ignorance. let me know when you find one true "reputable source" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.206.106 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in what this project considers a reputable source, read the guideline on reliable sources. Have a good weekend. Rray 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting
Unless you can add evidence of notability such as independent sources, I will assume that you will not mind if I nominate this article for AfD. --Gavin Collins 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Superman Database
"Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Rray 12:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)" Out of curiosity, how is adding specific links from a Wiki article on a specific comic book, to a list of covers and plot outlines for that comic book inappropriate? I am not selling comic books nor do is my site commercial, on the contrary it's informational. Thanks.


 * 1- Please sign your comments on my talk page.
 * 2- I replied on your talk page. If something there isn't clear, please let me know.
 * Rray 16:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Overzealous - Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon
You're right. I should have avoided the word "overzealous" even though it was intended as description of the edits rather than a personal attack. My apologies. Regarding the edits to the article, I made some comments on the article's talk page. Ward3001 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rray 15:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging Bacon number
I'm OK either way, which is why I haven't expressed an opinion. Ward3001 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Spread betting
I'm not quite sure why you think spread betting is "not notable". It quite clearly implicit, if not explicit, in the article itself that sb is considered notable enough to be part of Cantor Fitzgerald's portfolio, among others. Perhaps some figures about volumes & markets would help? As for unreferenced, I can see three reliable external references at the bottom of the page, as well as links to other articles. Also, when time permits, I am in the middle of Wikifying this article and am about halfway through. It's not a specialist topic of mine, so I'm learning as I go. But you should have seen it before I started! Unreadable jargon. If you can help, fine. --Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the tag to the nofootnotes tag. I hope you feel like that tag is more accurate. At any rate, thanks for bringing your concern to my attention. Tagging an article with a notability tag doesn't necessarily mean that I think the subject is not notable; it means I don't think that notability has been established in the article. At any rate, if you're in the process of fixing all that, then cool. Would you object to moving any further discussion of this article to the talk page for the article? Rray 17:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. It would be good to have some expert help because although I've tidied up the wording I want to be sure I've not changed the meaning- at least not to something incorrect. For example, I've changed "bettor" to "gambler" because the latter will be more familiar to a UK reader, and as you will see, there has already been a confusion between "bettor" and "better". --Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have copied all this to Talk:Spread betting so that any interested party can now chip in. --Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 22:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

bookmaking
I was startled by your comment on Mathematics of bookmaking. I removed your maintenance tag with this edit summary:


 * Although bookmaking may not be a notable subject, the mathematics of bookmaking obviously is.

I think this is notable primarily, and maybe only, because of the mathematics. Michael Hardy 22:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your opinion, but you're not supposed to remove notability tags without adding footnotes and citations to the article which demonstrate notability. Rray 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, it's messy. Jargonised, unstructured and impenetrable to a layman. My philosophy is that as long as notability is established, an article should inform a newcomer such that they leave better informed than when they arrived. I'll put this on my "to-do" list to try and polish it into a readable article. Further comments to article's Talk page. --Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 22:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous to call it "impenetrable to a layman". I think in it's present form the only people to whom it would be impenetrable are those who just don't learn math anyway. Michael Hardy 00:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, guys - I appreciate your enthusiasm and comments, but can I ask that any further discussion of the article be made on the talk page there, instead of here? That would be more useful to future editors of the article. (Although I tend to agree with Rodhullandemu that the article should be more user-friendly to a layman.) Rray 01:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with Michael Hardy over the notability of the article due to its mathematical content. As with anything that has worldwide and massive financial implications I can not see why the whole topic of Gambling and its components (including Bookmaking, Bookmakers and the under-pinning mathematics behind all of this) can not fail to be anything other than notable. Even if it is difficult to reference the content elsewhere on the web or in hard-copy sources it does not mean that the article should not exist. I've added comments to the discussion page for the article. Looking forward to further interaction! Regards, THE AUTHOR of the article AirdishStraus 12:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Eventually
Sorry, when I'm up & running, "eventually" means what it says. Problem I had was that there was no obvious reference to follow. If I live, I will learn how to slow down. Maybe --Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - I just thought it was funny. Nice quick catch though, although you're right, a subheading would have been helpful there. Rray 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that appreciation. It's nice to have. I would dearly love to be remembered, when I've gone, for my contributions to WP. I don't do it for money, any more than any one else does. Having no family and no kids means that this will be my main memorial. Which is why it's important to me. In real terms, an article about the mathematics of betting doesn't make a great deal of difference to the real world. On the other hand, that you've been able to turn something lacking into something useful, does matter to me, and that's why I'm here. Thanks for your support. --Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 02:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very cool. You never know what good that article might do for someone. It could turn them away from a life of crime and on to a career as a bookmaker. Stranger things have happened. Anyway, I admire the sentiment, and I think that's why a lot of us edit here. I think it's fun and satisfying at the same time too. And you're welcome! :)Rray 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section of Tony Robbins page
You write on my page: ....The article isn't taking sides with Randi; it's just relating what Randi said. Rray 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MasterPrac"

As I wrote on the TR page, does this mean that the Rutgers Women's Basketball team should have listed as legitimate criticism that Don Imus thinks they are "Nappy headed Ho's"? Of course not. Some criticism is warranted, and some not.MasterPrac 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Roes' criticism is legitimate. But Randi's criticism is 4 times removed:
 * 1) According to Roes, it was Joseph McClendon who did the applied kinesiology, not Tony Robbins.
 * 2) The applied kinesiology was to demonstrate a Q-Line product that has nothing to do with what TR calls his "technologies."  AK has nothing to do with NLP or NAC or Human Needs Psychology.  AK was simply used as a test of the Q-Links effectiveness.  It has NOTHING to do with anything TR espouses.
 * 3) Mr. Roes asks a Q-Link rep for a copy of the double-blind studies done on the Q-Link's effacacy. He is told that the research is "on the website." Well, it actually is.  If you go to (http://www.q-linkproducts.com/h_science_research.shtml) you will find 10 studies, including one single-blind study, and 3 double-blind studies, including  "A double-blind study conducted by Dr Norman Shealy, MD, and William Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, suggests that the QLink® pendant helps to mitigate the disruptive effects of EMF on the electrical activity (EEG patterns) of the brain. This published study demonstrates beneficial effects of the QLink in stabilizing the EEG responses in the presence of transient EMF stressors." The site links to the conclusions of each study, and the full studies can be found with a little effort.  The point is that Mr. Roes implies that rep's answer suggests that the research does not exist. It does.  It is up to the reader to determine the validity of the research, but it has been done.
 * 4) Randi comments that "this is the old "applied kinesiology" scam we're already familiar with. It's used by chiropractors, dentists, all sorts of "new age" systems, and it just doesn't work. But, it's very convincing to the naive, so the Robbins folks have dragged it in to sell the unicorn they're offering....."MasterPrac 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This Randi line is like Imus calling the Rutgers team "Nappy headed Ho's." Yes, he said it. It was verifiably said, but the opinion is not worth the ether it was written on. The jury is decidedly out on AK. Randi is convinced that it is a "scam." He might as well be writing that he is convinced that people over 6'5" are idiots. It is a statement, but has no merit.  If anything, the criticism belongs on the Wikipedia page on Chiropractics. It does not belong here.MasterPrac 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You could say "Randi is convinced that the AK TR's associate used in testing a product being sold at one of TR's seminars is a scam" is one thing. To say Randi calls "Robbins' "applied kinesiology" a scam is quite another.MasterPrac 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied to your various comments on the discussion page for the article. I'll refrain from adding further to the discussion here or on your talk page, since it's probably easier to keep the entire discussion in one place. Rray 22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry
After creating my account, I saw something that said that using my real name in my username was not advised, so I created a second one. I only intended to use MasterPrac. It seems that I slipped by using the other by mistake. Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPrac (talk • contribs) 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

House Cain in Wrong Hand
Just FYI. You were correct to revert the section about House holding the Cane in the wrong hand but not because it was uncited. It needed to be revered because it is not a factual error. House does hold the cain in the wrong hand but it has also been mentioned on the show a few times that he holds it in the wrong hand. He prefers to hold in that hand and refuses to listen to medical advice from Wilson or Coddy regarding this.--Dr who1975 14:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was correct for reverting it because it was uncited, but it also would have been correct to revert it because it is also not a factual error. Either reason would be a legitimate reason for reverting the edit. Rray 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

your message upon my talkpage
Thanks for your message- I did write a proper reply but it would be better if I emailed you IMHO. Could you possibly enable emails? You could have a hotmail just for wikip or something. Anyway to cut a long story short I was going to say that (as well as me having a go in a week or so when hopefully the flurry of interest has died down a bit) looks like it needs admin attention as it's too much for you or I, and probably most people! I think you would probably know better than I how to get admins looking at the article who would ensure it stays NPOV. Be a shame if it ended up a whitewash. Sorry you were overwhelmed- I woould've been/am too!Merkinsmum 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My above comment was based on the content of the talk page. When I looked at the article, seemed like you'd sorted most of it anyway.:)  So I tinkered a bit more and am happy with it for now.:)  Hope you can bring yourself to take a look lol and like it.  :)  And yes I will keep an eye on it and if need be seek admin assistance.  Notice the WP:COI even in the editor's username?Merkinsmum 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good. It's good to know that someone else will help me keep an eye on the article then. :). And yeah, I picked up on the COI in the username. LOL Rray 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Request comments
I hope you will please check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker and offer your view. Thanks. 2005 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AFDs
Thanks for all your help on the rash of AFDs. Trying to get stuff for Furyondy now. Web Warlock 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)