This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. - Splash 01:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user has repeatedly added claims that PartyGaming blackjack software is not fair: she i.e. fair. look here http://www.undertherock.com/profile/1179649 iGlobalmedia, the gambling company founded by Ruth Parasol that now oversees Partypoker.com, was originally declared to have blackjack and roulette software that was not fair. "My results clearly showed they weren't fair," says famous Las Vegas actuary and casino consultant Michael Shackleford[also known as the 'Wizard of Odds']. An official from iGlobalmedia then acknowledged Shackleford's allegations as true, but dismissed it as a software mistake and not intentional. Regarding the legitimacy of Partypoker operations considering iGlobalmedia's blackjack and roulette operations, Schwartz of the Center for Gaming Research said a history of disputes should give players pause.
This is not the proper article for such issues. Something like this belongs in the PartyGaming article, and it MUST include properly cited sources, not just a bunch of name-dropping. SmartGuy 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user has repeatedly added claims that PartyGaming blackjack software is not fair
-False, I said specifically iGlobalmedia 'originally' offered unfair blackjack. You change my word from 'iGlobalmedia' to 'Party Gaming', which robs the reader of the understanding of time frame. Anyway, "They" did 'originally' offer "unfair" blackjack software, as per respected actuary Shackleford. [In fact, you forgot to mention I said they also offered unfair roulette...which undisputedly they did] These FACTS were not disputed with iGlobalmedia, and I added iGlobalmedia's response at the time...which was included in the linked reference I provided.
I don't know what relevance Ruth Parasol has to the World, and Wikipedia, if not within the context of the company that made her famous - the company that makes Ruth Parasol have an impact on most of those researching her...iGlobalmedia[now renamed Party Gaming]. Your suggestion to offer my information in the PartyGaming article is of course proper but entirely irrelevant as to whether it should be used in relation to Ruth Parasol. To essentially eliminate such essential contextual relevant material, as you have, from Ruth Parasol, equates to manipulation of the truth.
'sources'
Maybe you could bother to check the information for yourself, instead of eliminating it. My 'sources' are open and generally accepted knowledge. My 'sources' include an undisputed LA Times investigation on the subject. EVERYTHING I put down was in the Newsmax article I referenced. A very simple Google search will discover ALL of this. You can contact Mr. Shackleford for yourself if you take exception, no? Shackleford was referenced in the Newsmax article you (oh so kindly) allowed me to keep in the links area(after you first chose to wipe it out),...sooooo where do you want that reference put besides the links area?...or maybe you just eliminated the information with no regard to 'sources' because eliminating the information suits you. If there was a symantic problem with the presention of the link, why not correct it instead of eliminating it? Something's fishy here Smartguy. Looking at your volumous edits, you obviously have extensive contact in the poker world, and curiously you seem to almost exclusively exist to edit poker information here on Wikipedia. You curiously have not answered my question, "Do you have any affiliation with Party Gaming?" -user Bill0756 Aug 8 2006
She is a good person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.176.66 ( talk) 11:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. - Splash 01:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user has repeatedly added claims that PartyGaming blackjack software is not fair: she i.e. fair. look here http://www.undertherock.com/profile/1179649 iGlobalmedia, the gambling company founded by Ruth Parasol that now oversees Partypoker.com, was originally declared to have blackjack and roulette software that was not fair. "My results clearly showed they weren't fair," says famous Las Vegas actuary and casino consultant Michael Shackleford[also known as the 'Wizard of Odds']. An official from iGlobalmedia then acknowledged Shackleford's allegations as true, but dismissed it as a software mistake and not intentional. Regarding the legitimacy of Partypoker operations considering iGlobalmedia's blackjack and roulette operations, Schwartz of the Center for Gaming Research said a history of disputes should give players pause.
This is not the proper article for such issues. Something like this belongs in the PartyGaming article, and it MUST include properly cited sources, not just a bunch of name-dropping. SmartGuy 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user has repeatedly added claims that PartyGaming blackjack software is not fair
-False, I said specifically iGlobalmedia 'originally' offered unfair blackjack. You change my word from 'iGlobalmedia' to 'Party Gaming', which robs the reader of the understanding of time frame. Anyway, "They" did 'originally' offer "unfair" blackjack software, as per respected actuary Shackleford. [In fact, you forgot to mention I said they also offered unfair roulette...which undisputedly they did] These FACTS were not disputed with iGlobalmedia, and I added iGlobalmedia's response at the time...which was included in the linked reference I provided.
I don't know what relevance Ruth Parasol has to the World, and Wikipedia, if not within the context of the company that made her famous - the company that makes Ruth Parasol have an impact on most of those researching her...iGlobalmedia[now renamed Party Gaming]. Your suggestion to offer my information in the PartyGaming article is of course proper but entirely irrelevant as to whether it should be used in relation to Ruth Parasol. To essentially eliminate such essential contextual relevant material, as you have, from Ruth Parasol, equates to manipulation of the truth.
'sources'
Maybe you could bother to check the information for yourself, instead of eliminating it. My 'sources' are open and generally accepted knowledge. My 'sources' include an undisputed LA Times investigation on the subject. EVERYTHING I put down was in the Newsmax article I referenced. A very simple Google search will discover ALL of this. You can contact Mr. Shackleford for yourself if you take exception, no? Shackleford was referenced in the Newsmax article you (oh so kindly) allowed me to keep in the links area(after you first chose to wipe it out),...sooooo where do you want that reference put besides the links area?...or maybe you just eliminated the information with no regard to 'sources' because eliminating the information suits you. If there was a symantic problem with the presention of the link, why not correct it instead of eliminating it? Something's fishy here Smartguy. Looking at your volumous edits, you obviously have extensive contact in the poker world, and curiously you seem to almost exclusively exist to edit poker information here on Wikipedia. You curiously have not answered my question, "Do you have any affiliation with Party Gaming?" -user Bill0756 Aug 8 2006
She is a good person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.176.66 ( talk) 11:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)