Talk:Steve Badger (poker player)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit War...[edit]

2005 is edit warring on this article. I spent a great deal of time cleaning it up today and 2005 is doing nothing but reverting my edits. Poker-Babes.com has been acknowledged as spam as an external link and cannot be used. It has also be acknowledged as a self published source and is not to be used as an RS in any BLP. GoogleGroups is not a reliable source. The information on his tournament cashes and specific wins are readily available and can be included - but not much of the rest of the article. DegenFarang (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, and have been warned by multiple editors, expert external links are not spam. Stop it. 2005 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poker-Babes.com is not an 'expert external link' and I have never been warned on that and do not know that. What I know is multiple administrators have given me permission to remove it as an external link and I have done so from at least 100 articles. Your sweeping reverts to my edits are beyond insulting. GoogleGroups is not an RS. This article is full of peacock terms. I appreciate the additional sources you have added however I do not appreciate your blanket reverts to exactly how the article appeared yesterday, with the addition of more RS's for his tournament victories (which were never in question). DegenFarang (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned many times. multiple editors stated Poker Babes was "a self-published site by an acknowledged poker expert", and in no sense was a site added by many editors over many years "spam". self published sources should not be used as references as article. Expert sites can be used as external links. I know you choose to ignore all Wikipedia rules, but you have been reverted by two other editors today including one saying specifically that "poker babes is not 'spam'". I removed Google groups data which obviously is not reliable. Your peacock assertion is odd since you don't say what they are. I suppose the word "major" can be removed in two places, and "first", but to say the article is full of peacock terms is really over the top. 2005 (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Full of' is in itself a peacock term, as is 'over the top' - so let me rephrase and maybe we can get somewhere. I attempted to remove multiple peacock terms from the article and your blanket revisions reversed them. There remains a lot of un sourced material I would like either sourced, or removed. Anything about where the subject is from, how he learned poker etc needs to be sourced or removed. That you know that information to be true does know mean it meets the guidelines for inclusion, it is original research unless sourced. And Poker-Babes.com is not an expert source and I have gotten approval on several occasions to remove it, both as an external link and a source - and you know that. That's why you haven't re-added the 100+ external links I removed. DegenFarang (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2[edit]

I made a couple of edits that I hope can be discussed here before they are reverted. The source in the lead says the subject is a 'former' pro, I changed the lead accordingly. I also removed some peacock terms. If a source can be found that backs up that the subject is currently a professional poker player (even within the last year or two), I would be fine with this being in the lead. If the only sources calling him a pro are from the 90's and early 00's - and SFGate calls him a former pro several years ago - I believe the former word should be in the lead.

  • I also believe PlayWinningPoker.com should not be in the lead and the paragraph about the website is quite promotional, it reads like advertising. I wont make this edit now, though I encourage another editor to do so. DegenFarang (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrasing about being a "former" professional poker player is reasonable. The information about the site is pretty straightforward, but maybe we can hammer out some suggested verbiage here that a consensus agrees to? Rray (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1] It looks like he plays a few tournaments a year, every year, last won first place in 2008, so perhaps not retired yet. I'm fine with removing PlayWinningPoker.com from the lead, but it shouldn't be reduced as it was to 5 words. Perhaps just substitute in "website entrepreneur"? ... thanks, --guyzero | talk 16:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of his recent activity level s at tournaments etc. I don't thinkthe word "former" belongs in the sentence unless that is what he is being called in reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following WP:LEAD, I made the intro section cover the four basics: former player, WSOP winner, writer, and "website owner". I think that addressses all the above. 2005 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the most recent source in that article, SF GATE, was written in 2007 and refers to him as a "former poker professional" so why not call him that? I suggest the following text for the lead:

  • Steve Badger is a poker writer and former professional poker player.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article reads fine now to me, thanks for the help everybody. 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds promotional[edit]

  • In 2000, Badger established his PlayWinningPoker.com website, which includes his Omaha, Texas hold 'em, other poker strategy articles, as well as his Winner's Guide to Online Poker, which was the first poker-specific strategy guide on the Internet when it was published in 2000. He continues to write for and update his website regularly.

The above sentence sounds very promotional and un-encyclopedic to me. I would suggest a simple sentence like: "In 2000, Badger created a poker strategy website called PlayWinningPoker.com". If we can find secondary sources that praise or criticize his web site, than we can add more details about it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the "first" stuff. It could be added again with a reliable third party source. 2005 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links section[edit]

I'm not sure why the link to PlayWinningPoker.com is controversial. Deleting a link to the subject's articles wouldn't make sense in the Roger Ebert article, which links to Ebert's site, so why wouldn't it be appropriate to include a link to Steve Badger's articles? Rray (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He no longer owns the site. However if you want to re-add the link I don't have a huge problem with it. User2005 just got blocked along with two sockpuppets he had been using to make it seem like lots of people didn't agree with my edits, so I rolled a bunch of them back. DegenFarang (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. A link to 100+ articles written by the subject of an article is clearly an appropriate external link. 2005 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal[edit]

The following content was removed from the article:

He also owned Playwinningpoker.com before he sold it to PokerStars in 2010.[1][2]

I don't understand what the objection is to this particular content. It's relevant, interesting, and well-sourced. Does anyone have objections to restoring this content? If so, let's discuss them here. Rray (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in this edit, with the edit summary "rv sockpuppet edits". That, by itself, is no valid rationale to remove content.
I do wonder whether the sources used are reliable sources, but it seems to me that the facts are uncontentious and verifiable. Amalthea 17:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Pokerstars blog is the official blog for the company, so it seems like, for company information, that it would be a valid reliable source. I'm not familiar with PokerWorks.com though. Since the information is uncontentious and verifiable, a single citation seems like it would be sufficient. Rray (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See project poker, Rray is acting as a meat puppet here for user2005, we should wait for the opinions of other users besides 2005 before deciding what to do. DegenFarang (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be grateful if we could actually discuss the content and the edits. Calling me names isn't productive. Since you removed this content, perhaps you could explain why it shouldn't be re-added? So far no one has an objection to this particular content but you, but the only reasoning you've given is "rv sockpuppet edits," which we've established isn't a valid reason to remove the content. Rray (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And so far nobody has a problem with it being removed but you DegenFarang (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, multiple editors have reverted this particular edit and multiple other edits to this article. But rather than edit war, I've chosen to discuss these specific edits on the talk pages of these articles. Do I understand you correctly? What I'm reading is that the reason this information should be removed from the article is because no one objects to its removal besides me? Rray (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, one editor has done that. He is just using sockpuppets and meatpuppets (like you) to give the appearance of a consensus. DegenFarang (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather discuss content issues. Is there a reason this content should be removed? So far, no valid reason has been given. Rray (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I already told you, "See project poker, Rray is acting as a meat puppet here for user2005, we should wait for the opinions of other users besides 2005 before deciding what to do." - As no other editors have voiced their opinion besides me and you (2005 et. al), this discussion is at a standstill. DegenFarang (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Does Amalthea not count as another user, either? Rray (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also voiced my opinion against you; claiming that anybody who disagrees with you is a "meat puppet" is too many steps too far. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a notable company and it's verifiable, it should be in the article, so count me as having a problem with the removal. If you cannot present a policy-based argument for keeping it out, it should be restored. Amalthea 11:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:primary source is never a WP:reliable source. But if, like I said, we only take facts, and the facts are uncontentious, then a primary source can be sufficient. Amalthea 11:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source that says "we bought this website" is a statement of fact that secondary sources merely repeat. But that isn't even the point here as the tendatious editor removed both the primary source and a secondaty source reporting the same thing. Additionally, this isn't even a controversial thing, and any Internet search can find dozens of websites (ones that are reliable and ones that are not) repeating the same statement of fact. There is no dispute over the fact or statement. The issue is here only because degenfarang wanted to hurt the article by removing this one bit of interesting activity. 2005 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Poker Stars Blog - PokerStars acquires top poker portals
  2. ^ Pokerworks.com - PokerStars Acquires PokerPages and Other Websites

Removal of peacock statements, duplicate sources, non-reputable sources[edit]

I cleaned up a lot of items in the article, such as more accurately reflecting a $100 live tournament victory and removing duplicate citations when all of them are on the hendon mob link. I'd be comfortable with further edits, but my good faith edits should not be blindly rolled back to their previous state. Please discuss any changes here before making them, so consensus can be reached. DegenFarang (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mischaracterize your actions. Do not remove references from an article you have nominated for an afd. 2005 (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to re-edit my edits, but you blindly reverting me will not be tolerated. This is your final warning. DegenFarang (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it back again. If you wish to improve the article so that it may survive the deletion attempt, then do so, but removal of relevant well-cited information does not constitute improvement. It's becoming obvious to me that you have some personal vendetta against the subject of the article, and as such perhaps you are unable to maintain a neutral point of view in this matter. If so, then I suggest that you step back and allow the AFD to run its course without interference. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally object to rolling back multiple edits because good edits get thrown out with the bad. However, I don't think its appropriate to change the article while its undergoing an AfD discussion. If there are additional sources to justify the subject's notability then better to post them at the AfD for consideration. If it survives the AfD then we can work on it together to expand and improve it. And to all, please remember to assume good faith. WP:AGF Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"good edits get thrown out with the bad" that's precisely what I keep saying. The reason I made so many edits was so people could go through them line-by-line and revert specific edits. Just as one really obvious example: "His total live tournament winnings exceed $590,000". That isn't even a factual statement. His live tournament CASHES exceed $590k, not his winnings. Another is "As of 2013, Badger is tied with Men Nguyen and Scotty Nguyen for most Omaha Hi-Low Split-8 or Better tournament wins as ranked by worldpokerrank.com". That is a completely unknown, non-reputable website which hasn't been updated in years. That line should be removed. DegenFarang (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The line about tournament winnings uses the same text as in virtually every other poker bio article. However, using "cashes" is fine too, if the jargon is slightly less user friendly. As for the worldpokerrank statement, the same information is in the Hendon Mob, but not on a single page. It would take multiple references to say the same thing. The accuracy of the statement can be confirmed via the Mob website though. Your other comments remain disingenuous. There is no statement about $100 tournaments, so why pretend there is? There are no peacock terms. There is no genuine issue here. If you want to suggest the Poker Project use the word cashes in the hundreds of articles that "winnings" appears, then do that. It is not acceptable to submit an article for AfD, then make many changes including removing references. Those changes will be reverted. Also, if you believe an article should be deleted, redoing the text seems more than a little odd. Finally, it is has been the goal of many Poker Project particpants to make articles for all WSOP winners. Such an achievement is recognized as not a fleeting accomplishment. We don't delete Michael Jordan's article because he is retired and hasn't scored any points lately. We don't delete Babe Ruth's article because he hasn't hit a home run in a long time. 2005 (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to drop the AFD (doesn't look like it'll pass anyway) but I do ask you to be more flexible about cleaning up the article. You can't simply revert every change I make and then say 'no no no no no' to all of my suggested improvements. Let's come to a compromise here. As to your two points above: 'other stuff exists' is not a reason to not fix this article. I would like them listed as 'cashes' and not 'winnings'. And if it is as you say that the hendon mob proves what that websites shows - then use the hendon mob. Its a reputable source. The website in the article now is not a reputable source, should not be given free advertising and I do not agree that it simply represents that which is on the hendon mob - because it is not reputable. DegenFarang (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that AGF is not a suicide pact, this looks more like an attempt by User:DegenFarang to WP:GAME the system based on his prior history ([2] [3]) against User:2005 and the articles he has created with use of AFD's to achieve his goals. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Rosario and this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger. I saw this begin again two weeks ago on my watchlist with another attempt to AFD the Rosario article [4] however it was closed by Malcolmxl5 as the afd form only linked to the old AFD that was already closed. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 03:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sirex, long time, hope you are well. I ask you to please not make ad hominem attacks and instead assume good faith and judge my edits on their merits - as is Wikipedia policy. Cheers. DegenFarang (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder to editors that this is the place to discuss content not editor behavior. If you have a behavior issue about someone please take it to the individuals talk page or to ANI etc. Let's stick with discussion of content please.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree regarding the use of the term "cashes" instead of "winnings". Using the phrase "cashes" instead of "winnings" doesn't make sense. "Winnings" refers to the amount of money won. "Cashes" would only be applicable if you were looking at the number of times someone had "cashed" in a tournament. The terms should be used where they make sense--"cashes" instead of "wins" might make sense, but not "cashes" instead of "winnings." Rray 19:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe in the past I accused you of being a sockpuppet for 2005 because you always turn up to take 2005's side in a dispute, no matter what the facts are or where the dispute is taking place. I'd like to apologize for that, 2005 would never say something so obviously false about the game of poker. Winnings = profits. Cashes is the total money paid to you after you 'cash' in a tournament. Buy-ins are what you have to pay to enter a tournament. Winnings = (Cashes - Buy-Ins). Saying his winnings are $590k implies that his cashes were actually a lot more, to account for all of the buy-ins. DegenFarang (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of taking 2005's side "in any dispute" is no more civil, helpful, or constructive than accusing me of sockpuppetry. It's also a bizarre statement to make in a discussion where he said that using "cashes" instead of "winnings" would be okay, and I disagreed. Rray 23:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. Every dispute I've ever had with 2005, you have showed up and taken 2005's side, to give the appearance of consensus. DegenFarang (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two paragraphs I think are very peacock-y:

  • Badger has had tournament wins at the 1993 California State Lowball Championship[4] and the 1995, 1997 and 1999 Legends of Poker Omaha championships.[5][6][7]
  • In 1999 he won Omaha tournaments at the Commerce Casino's Los Angeles Poker Classic and Hollywood Park Racetrack's National Championship of Poker. That year he also won the Omaha championship at the World Series of Poker.[8][9]

These descriptions sound like they came from casino marketing materials. They are $100, $300 and $500 buy-in tournaments, not 'championships' and 'national championships'. Do all of these small wins really need to be in the article at all? Other poker players do not have every single tiny win they have described in flowery language, that is what the Hendon Mob link is for. DegenFarang (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with specifying the buy in or winnings for each tournament provided the information and the "tournament" term is found in reliable sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These don't seem like marketing speak to me at all. They read like bare statements of facts. Rray 18:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Do a Google search for "Legends of Poker Omaha championships" the first result is this article and basically every other result is a place associated with Steve Badger (i.e. the Shirley Rosario article, poker-babes.com etc). Nobody refers to them as 'championships' - they are tournaments. Small tournaments at that. DegenFarang (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, to clarify, the "peacock term" that you're referring to in the title of this discussion is the word "championships"? Rray 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
That is one of them, yes. His tournament wins are also referred to as 'titles', that's a peacock statement. There are others. DegenFarang (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you make things up? The titles in question are $300+rebuy=$600, $500 and $1000 tournamnets. Repeatedly falsely stating nonsense about a $100 tournament to decieve other editors is to not act in good faith. Winning a tournamant is to win a "title". Calling that a peacock statement is beyond absurd. Again, virtually every poker article uses the word titles or bracelets. There phrase "National Championships" is what the tournament was called. Likewise World Series of Poker is what the tournament is called. There are no peacock statements. To continue to pretend there are is both bad faith and extremely silly since anyone can click through the references, that you tried to delete, to see that indeed those are the names of the tournaments. Continuing to insist the names the casinos assign to their own tournaments are "peacock" statements will be evidence of bad faith. 2005 (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did just change the single use of the word "titles" to "wins". Maybe we can move on now to some other global crisis. 2005 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I further switched a reference to the Hendon Mob database. 2005 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone, accusations, insults, hostility and lack of basic decency are not appreciated. There is no reason for you to behave in this manner and I ask you to stop. DegenFarang (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the $100 tournament that is listed as "Hollywood Park Racetrack's National Championship of Poker" http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=16875 I realize that's the name of the tournament but it's only listed in one other article on the English Wikipedia (Marsha Waggoner) and is also an egregious peacock statement there, and I'm going to edit that as well. DegenFarang (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the 18 tournaments won was a $100 tournament. Why are you even bringing that up? As has been explained to below, it is not a peaock statement in any sense. It's a statement of verifiable fact. It doesn't matter if you don't agree that "Power rangers" don't deserve their name or whatever. That's what they are verifiably called. 2005 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be some misunderstanding about what a "peacock term" is. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_peacock_terms - "In Wikipedia, a peacock term is language that shows off the importance of a subject without giving any real information." Surely a "title" or a "championship" gives real information? Rray 19:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be pedantic. Special attention has been given to this article to make him seem as important as possible, and I'm trying to make it more neutral. DegenFarang (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to discuss content rather than personalities. Calling me "pedantic" when I'm trying to clarify a guideline doesn't strengthen your position. Rray 23:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Special attention has been given to this article to make him seem as important as possible, and I'm trying to make it more neutral. DegenFarang (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you aren't. The article is as nuetral tone as possible. There are no peacock terms. You now attacking the names of tournaments is truly bizarre. Maybe you should go AfD the baseball "World Series" because they don't allow Japan and Cuba. Maybe you should AfD the Golden Nugget because their casinos aren't actually made of gold. This is an encyclopedia that has articles with verifiable facts, not your platform to name things how you want to name them. 2005 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to compromise by having the buy-ins included. Excluding them is deceptive and makes these tournaments sound more prestigious than they actually are. DegenFarang (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made three changes. Please discuss them individually if you have a problem.

  • Added '$100 buy-in' in front of the 'National Championship of Poker' tournament. Would also like buy-ins added to other tournaments.
  • Removed duplicate hendon mob links to first paragraph of tournaments.
  • Removed duplicate sources from second paragraph of tournaments, including 1 to the New York Times. The NYT source only repeats what is in the hendon mob link which is not in dispute and unnecessary. DegenFarang (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times link is not a duplicate of the hendon Mob so don't pretend that it is. Neither are the other sources listed. Do not make false statements in your edit summarys, especially when they are patent nonsense. The New York Times article is entirely different than the mob stats. 2005 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you for the 5th time to conduct yourself in a respectful manner and assume good faith. If you persist with this type of behavior you will be reported and blocked. DegenFarang (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This link contains all of his career tournament cashes, correct?
So what is the point of having these four sources, which only repeat the info contained in the first source?
DegenFarang (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times does not have career poker statistics. That is a false statement. 2005 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of that source is to verify the statement that he won a WSOP bracelet, correct? That's in the hendonmob link. So it's a duplicate source. The same with the conjelco link and the other two hendonmob links. DegenFarang (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section which lists his 'bracelets' (one bracelet) because it's overkill. It is noted three other places in the article that he has a bracelet and it's a very thin article already. DegenFarang (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of vandalizing this article, maybe try and get a life. The New York Times article is a legitimate source, and more reliable than the Hendon Mob. Conjelco was the official WSOP reporting site so also a better source. But of course you don't care. Again, do not remove reliable sources. The WSOP box is standard for all WSOP bracelet winners. Do not remove it again. 2005 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about including buy-ins[edit]

The recent changes to this article to include the buy-in amounts for each tournament have me puzzled. This doesn't seem to be a standard that's included in other poker player articles, so I'm curious why it's so important to include them here? Rray (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it's because $300 Buy-in tournaments usually aren't reported on Wikipedia; many other buy-ins are in fact reported but generally as part of the whole tournament title, eg. "2012 WSOP $1,500 No Limit Hold'em." It's just difficult to discuss it when somebody is making frequent and multiple small edits all over the place *Cough hint cough* JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Badger_(poker_player)&oldid=1207571052"