This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sportsbook.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I copied and pasted comments from me, Fadeintoyou, and 2005 from my talk page below. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ ( talk) 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your deletion of my contribution. Fadeintoyou ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Forbes is not a reputable source? Sportsbook Review is the primary independent watchdog of the on-line sports betting industry. They're not reputable? The only person shilling a website here is you. If you wish to mediate this, we can. Otherwise, stop vandalizing my edits. Fadeintoyou ( talk) 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that you don't like the truth getting out about your company, but SBR is as reputable a source as there is. The listing of all the websites run by Sportsbook.com is absolutely relevant. Once again, we can either mediate or you can desist using Wikipedia to spread pro-Sportsbook.com propaganda. Fadeintoyou ( talk) 22:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please Assume good faith and Calm down this has nothing to do with editors trying to defend Sportsbook.com, but rather with edits, if they follow a Neutral point of view and are Verifiable, please read WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT and WP:V, if you feel sportsbookreview.com is a Reliable sources please state why, if you feel you want another opinion you can goto the reliable sources noticeboard if you want a third party review of the source. also if you have any association with sportsbookreview.com please read our Conflict of interest guildlines. thank you.▪◦▪ ≡SiREX≡ Talk 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no affiliation with SBR. SBR is the only thing close to legitimate oversight in the online gaming industry. Anyone that is not aware of them has zero business editing this article or any other related to online gaming. So it's spamming then if someone references Morningstar in discussing a mutual fund? The real reason these people are vigilantly squelching my edits is that they have a pro-Sportsbook.com agenda and are using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. This company has serious negative issues associated with it and to make zero mention of them while allowing bullies to stifle the information strikes against the very essence of Wikipedia: spreading truth. Fadeintoyou ( talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Google News deems SBR "verifiable". Is that good enough for you fascists? Fadeintoyou ( talk) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the prod template from the article for two reasons:
Rray ( talk) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone labeled the link to online gambling as online gaming. That's wrong. The gambling industry sometimes uses the term "gaming" for promotional purposes, but that usage is inappropriate to an encyclopedia. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about citing Bettinginfos.at for the statement that "No papers were ever served on Sportsbook.com or Sportingbet, and the case never went to court." It puts them a quite a positive light (and make the NJ officials look like they weren't serious). Does anyone know of a better source? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem with SBR's page on Sportsbook.com being included in the external links? 96.238.40.131 ( talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The link is to objective company information and verified press releases. Content is relevant, neutral and relevant to article. 96.238.40.131 ( talk) 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the old talk page here? Did it get deleted during all of that article-moving mess? ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ ( talk) 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone having a problem getting into the website? Seems the last 2 days i can't get in. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.151.235 ( talk) 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sportsbook.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I copied and pasted comments from me, Fadeintoyou, and 2005 from my talk page below. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ ( talk) 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your deletion of my contribution. Fadeintoyou ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Forbes is not a reputable source? Sportsbook Review is the primary independent watchdog of the on-line sports betting industry. They're not reputable? The only person shilling a website here is you. If you wish to mediate this, we can. Otherwise, stop vandalizing my edits. Fadeintoyou ( talk) 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that you don't like the truth getting out about your company, but SBR is as reputable a source as there is. The listing of all the websites run by Sportsbook.com is absolutely relevant. Once again, we can either mediate or you can desist using Wikipedia to spread pro-Sportsbook.com propaganda. Fadeintoyou ( talk) 22:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please Assume good faith and Calm down this has nothing to do with editors trying to defend Sportsbook.com, but rather with edits, if they follow a Neutral point of view and are Verifiable, please read WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT and WP:V, if you feel sportsbookreview.com is a Reliable sources please state why, if you feel you want another opinion you can goto the reliable sources noticeboard if you want a third party review of the source. also if you have any association with sportsbookreview.com please read our Conflict of interest guildlines. thank you.▪◦▪ ≡SiREX≡ Talk 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no affiliation with SBR. SBR is the only thing close to legitimate oversight in the online gaming industry. Anyone that is not aware of them has zero business editing this article or any other related to online gaming. So it's spamming then if someone references Morningstar in discussing a mutual fund? The real reason these people are vigilantly squelching my edits is that they have a pro-Sportsbook.com agenda and are using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. This company has serious negative issues associated with it and to make zero mention of them while allowing bullies to stifle the information strikes against the very essence of Wikipedia: spreading truth. Fadeintoyou ( talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Google News deems SBR "verifiable". Is that good enough for you fascists? Fadeintoyou ( talk) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the prod template from the article for two reasons:
Rray ( talk) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone labeled the link to online gambling as online gaming. That's wrong. The gambling industry sometimes uses the term "gaming" for promotional purposes, but that usage is inappropriate to an encyclopedia. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about citing Bettinginfos.at for the statement that "No papers were ever served on Sportsbook.com or Sportingbet, and the case never went to court." It puts them a quite a positive light (and make the NJ officials look like they weren't serious). Does anyone know of a better source? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem with SBR's page on Sportsbook.com being included in the external links? 96.238.40.131 ( talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The link is to objective company information and verified press releases. Content is relevant, neutral and relevant to article. 96.238.40.131 ( talk) 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the old talk page here? Did it get deleted during all of that article-moving mess? ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ ( talk) 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone having a problem getting into the website? Seems the last 2 days i can't get in. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.151.235 ( talk) 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)