|
I don't know who the casino personnel are who keep reverting my legitimate edits, but criticism of major casino rules changes are worthy for Wikipedia.
Fair enough, though I don't know why criticisms are constantly being removed. If you check the sources, everything is backed up in them. The sources explain why 6:5 and H17 games are bad for players. Everyone in the casino world knows Harrah's is the leader in these blackjack games. Precise table counts are not available on free internet links, but are available via pay newsletters -- and are well known in the industry!
Please do not make comments like you did on User talk:3bulletproof16. They are inappropriate and are not constructive. Please, if you have an issue with that user, please try and discuss it on their talk page instead of accusing them of being a sock puppet. Icestorm815 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bgtd, I found your page from the AIV report - could I suggest that you consider taking a break and allowing yourself and the other editors to cool off? Thanks! Addhoc 18:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please keep in mind that WP is not a travel guide, and we purposely do not list the number of individual slot machines, table games, or the specific rules a casino chooses to have for their games that an individual casino chooses to have on their floor. This is because that information can change so quickly and is usually unverifiable by referencable, unbiased 3rd-parties. SpikeJones 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors.
Vegaswikian 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at
Caesars Palace, you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do not use edit summaries as vehicles to make personal attacks on other editors. —
C.Fred (
talk) 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Vegaswikian 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bgtd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not violate 3 revert rule
Decline reason:
See Wikipedia:Edit war. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Wikipedia policy clearly states that users may NOT be blocked over content disputes.
"When blocking may not be used
Disputes Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.
An exception is made when dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. (See the BLP policy.)"
VegasWiki said in the block that I was edit warring. He also said 3RVV rule. Well which is it? Because I did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please show me where I did. And policy specifically prevents blocking for edit warring/content disputes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule Bgtd 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
|
I don't know who the casino personnel are who keep reverting my legitimate edits, but criticism of major casino rules changes are worthy for Wikipedia.
Fair enough, though I don't know why criticisms are constantly being removed. If you check the sources, everything is backed up in them. The sources explain why 6:5 and H17 games are bad for players. Everyone in the casino world knows Harrah's is the leader in these blackjack games. Precise table counts are not available on free internet links, but are available via pay newsletters -- and are well known in the industry!
Please do not make comments like you did on User talk:3bulletproof16. They are inappropriate and are not constructive. Please, if you have an issue with that user, please try and discuss it on their talk page instead of accusing them of being a sock puppet. Icestorm815 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bgtd, I found your page from the AIV report - could I suggest that you consider taking a break and allowing yourself and the other editors to cool off? Thanks! Addhoc 18:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please keep in mind that WP is not a travel guide, and we purposely do not list the number of individual slot machines, table games, or the specific rules a casino chooses to have for their games that an individual casino chooses to have on their floor. This is because that information can change so quickly and is usually unverifiable by referencable, unbiased 3rd-parties. SpikeJones 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors.
Vegaswikian 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at
Caesars Palace, you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do not use edit summaries as vehicles to make personal attacks on other editors. —
C.Fred (
talk) 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Vegaswikian 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bgtd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not violate 3 revert rule
Decline reason:
See Wikipedia:Edit war. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Wikipedia policy clearly states that users may NOT be blocked over content disputes.
"When blocking may not be used
Disputes Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.
An exception is made when dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. (See the BLP policy.)"
VegasWiki said in the block that I was edit warring. He also said 3RVV rule. Well which is it? Because I did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please show me where I did. And policy specifically prevents blocking for edit warring/content disputes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule Bgtd 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)