Talk:UltimateBet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page. |
[edit] Suggest: Clean Up?
The clean up icon is needed, I will put it up. - Purdonkurt
[edit] Needs to be a seperate article
This is a well known cardroom (unlike it's parent company, which is not well known at all). It was traded on the London Stock Exchange! As far as I can ascertain, it later came under the same ownership as Absolute. It's not a skin or a brand (cf Fortune Lounge), it's a well known independent cardroom that got taken over.
If anybody thinks it should be merged into one article covering both rooms I suggest they open up formal discussion rather than just reverting me. --kingboyk 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC) PS It's unwise to call regulars, especially admins, vandals.
- There has been discussion. There is a discussion Do not revert this again without contributing to the discussion. 2005 02:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- WikiProjects don't own articles. Let's have discussion here please. If you want to merge these articles, you have to explain how it helps the reader or improves the encyclopedia. Until then, I'm exercising my editorial priveledge to restore it to how the original authors of the articles envisaged. --kingboyk 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you refuse to have a discussion then your actions are just vandalism. Shame on you. they'll be reverted anyway, so why are you being obsessive? The discussion is at the Wikiproject because it covers multiple articles. Now please revrt yourself and act responsibly and partipate in the discussion. 2005 02:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have popped over there and said my piece, but my point is that your actions were unilateral and you can't point to a discussion at a WikiProject in an attempt to validate them. Plonk some {{merge}} tags onto the articles and let people discuss it! In the meantime, let the articles stay seperate as they have been for over a year. --kingboyk 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- My actions were not "unilateral". Don't be silly now too. There have been afd's, project discussions, and a ton of edits done by many editors under this consensus. You can't just try to change it because you don't care about other opinions. The changes will be reverted, so please do the considerate thing and revert them yourself, and partipate in the discussion if you feel strongly about your position. 2005 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I want to change it because I don't understand why we have links going to "Tokwiro Enterprises" who I've never heard of, and not to the world famous UB or Absolute. Indeed if you hadn't bypassed the redirects I'd probably never have noticed ;) Incidentally, please don't bypass the redirects even if my demerger gets reverted; let the redirects do their work, and let the poker rooms have their incoming links - it makes things easier if seperate articles become needed in the future.
- As for participating in the discussion, isn't this the discussion? I'm participating. Well, actually, I'm off to bed now. Goodnight. --kingboyk 02:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually no, this is a second discussion in the wrong place. Also, regarding redirects, double redirects should be corrected. All the redirects now seem to only be single ones. 2005 02:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- My actions were not "unilateral". Don't be silly now too. There have been afd's, project discussions, and a ton of edits done by many editors under this consensus. You can't just try to change it because you don't care about other opinions. The changes will be reverted, so please do the considerate thing and revert them yourself, and partipate in the discussion if you feel strongly about your position. 2005 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have popped over there and said my piece, but my point is that your actions were unilateral and you can't point to a discussion at a WikiProject in an attempt to validate them. Plonk some {{merge}} tags onto the articles and let people discuss it! In the meantime, let the articles stay seperate as they have been for over a year. --kingboyk 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you refuse to have a discussion then your actions are just vandalism. Shame on you. they'll be reverted anyway, so why are you being obsessive? The discussion is at the Wikiproject because it covers multiple articles. Now please revrt yourself and act responsibly and partipate in the discussion. 2005 02:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- WikiProjects don't own articles. Let's have discussion here please. If you want to merge these articles, you have to explain how it helps the reader or improves the encyclopedia. Until then, I'm exercising my editorial priveledge to restore it to how the original authors of the articles envisaged. --kingboyk 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This seem to be a tempest in a teapot edit war, as I said @ Wikiproject poker I really don't care so much if its merged or not, but since others do, I'll have to weigh in on the side of merge until the main body of the article about AP and UB are expended, right now the AP scandal section is much larger then the stubbed out main body of the article, this approach is true all over the wiki, once an article grow too large in their separate parts they are made into new articles, the Simpsons is an example of this. right now the consensus is in favor of merge, I don't think you are acting in bad faith Kingboyk, I just don't think this really needs to fought over about, or where it should be fought, anyway I hope that everyone just cool down some.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 05:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
