User talk:The Gnome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Thanks, Sam. Here's looking at your page.
The Gnome 00:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Carefree, Arizona

TO: The Gnome

Regarding your concerns requesting data supporting my comments about Carefree, the following quotes from the Nov./Dec. 2006 issue of PERSONAL REAL ESTATE INVESTOR MAGAZINE may help provide a better understanding of the communtity:

"Natural beauty and exclusive custom homes help make Carefree the second most expensive area in metro Phoenix, surpassed only by Paradise Valley".

"Carefree is about quiet and wealthy desert living, without Scottsdale's frenzy and traffic. Carefree's culture is more golf and gallery than Cave Creek's saloon and cowboy".

"Who lives there? About 3300 people live there. Most residents are retired and some well-to-do snowbirds who show up for the winter months. Californians and Easterners outnumber the Midwesterners who used to make up most of the population. Lucile Ball used to vacation at the Carefree Resort. Television star Dick Van Dyke lived in Carefree for a while. Think slow-moving late-model Cadillac sedans with the wives in the back seat".

"Homes: Three, four, five, even $6 million dollar homes are common in Carefree. There's hardly anything available in mid-range single family homes in Carefree".

Photo remarks: "Many beautiful homes are built into the flanks of Black Mountain. The southern side of the mountain is the most prized location. Views of faraway, undeveloped desert and mountains are part of Carefree's prestige".

"Investing in Carefree will always be solid because of the area's status. Nothing here will ever depreciate".

As the above magazine quotes clearly state, Carefree is indeed an upscale enclave and has been known as such to those in-the-know for decades. My family has maintained several properties in town for many years as Carefree is our preferred retreat from our cold Connecticut winters. If you've never been to Carefree I urge you to visit. If the above doesn't clearly illustrate what Carefree is all about, one drive through town certainly will.

Happy New Year, Seanbagleyus (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carefree

(continued)

I added the magazine reference as #7 to the list for Carefree, however my addition did not match the format of the previous 6 references-- not sure how to accomplish this so it matches...

...Thank you for your assistance regarding the addition of the proper reference format, as well as the guidelines/recommendations for Wikipedia's regulations. I completely agree that objectivity and facts must always be the focus of all entries. However I do still beleive that everything I added to describe the town of Carefree was accurate and did not resort to any peacock terminology. Since I referenced a specific publication that corroborated what I've added, I was wondering why you believe it's necessary to drastically edit what I've written.

[edit] BJ HOF

Wong worked for a casino. That does not constitute being a pro. His dust-cover jacket claims he was a pro and that has been copied by others. But in Campione v Adamar he testified under oath that he was not. Max was a card-counter catcher at Barona and consults for casinos. He also invests in teams. He runs a nice party - but that does not a pro make. BTW Arnold wasn't really a pro while publishing BJF - but I let it go. The hype isn't really needed. regards Objective3000 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You said let’s work together. I agree. So let me try to explain the situation clearly. The WP BJHOF article has three sources. One, BJFO, is in fact one of the originators of this advertising idea. The second is Blackjack Heros. This is a guy that set up an affiliate site, copied stuff from other sites and stuck his links all over WP to get traffic to make money from problem gamblers. He has no credibility whatever and is certainly not a separate source. I’m amazed that WP continues to fall for affiliate site SPAM. The third is a LV Sun article by Jeff Haney. Jeff is a nice guy. But this is a fluff article – not investigative journalism. He copied the ad. This is what he does. I know because I have fed him info and sources in the past and one of the articles in which I did that has also been used as a reference. Nothing wrong with what he is doing. It’s a resort newspaper and they run lots of fluff articles about gambling winners. But, all three of your sources are really one source. And that one source is a promotional article. An ad. Now WP is being used to run an ad in the guise of an encyclopedic article. Now if WP wants to keep this ad alive, that’s its business. But please let us keep the hype adjectives out. The article does not require claims that these particular people actually made a living at gambling – a patently false statement that can harm problem gamblers. Yes there do exist pro gamblers (depending on how you define the term.) But let us not add to an encyclopedia as fact self-made and copied claims that specific people in the business of selling systems are among those people with no source that didn’t originate from their own self-serving claims. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wong stated under oath that he never made more than a couple thousand dollars in his life at BJ. How can he possibly be a professional? The only "evidence" that he was a pro is he claims it in his ads and people have copied the ads. But under oath he said otherwise. As for BJHOF; a few guys got together at an annual party and said let's create a hall of fame, nominate ourselves and our friends and a few pioneers to make it look legit. All 21 members, current and forever in the future, were selected before the BJHOF was announced. The "vote" is meaningless since all 21 "nominees" will win. Show me ANYTHING that proves there is any actual, legimizing organization. There is no real controversy over "qualifications" since only a handful of people in the World care. I never responded to my ballot year before last and there was no ballot this year because Max and Arnold selected the "winners" themselves. If you want this kind of nonsense in an "encyclopedia" that's your business. But keep the advertising hype out. Max a pro-gambler? He's a casino card-counter catcher. Objective3000 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you insist on adding characterizations like "professional gambler" to some of these people; shouldn't you add "card-cheat" to Keith Taft's description? He is not an advantage player according to WPs definition of AP. WP says AP is "legal methods." Taft got his family convicted of felonies and imprisoned. That's not opinion - it's a matter of record. Personally, I don't think any characterizations belong in the article. Objective3000 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think you understand. Taft was a "professional card-cheat." This was not something unrelated in his life. It is what got him into the BJHOF. He tried and failed to make money at counting; then turned to illegal methods to win. He enlisted his family to cheat for him and they went to prison as a result. If you add "professional gambler" to some members; why wouldn't you add "professional card-cheat?" Particularly since pro gambler is just a self-serving claim not backed by any 1099s or any other evidence - but card-cheat is backed by guilty verdicts and upheld by the NV Appeals Court. I think the latter withstands WP standards. I don't see how the former gets close. Objective3000 (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If Taft got into the BJHoF on account of activities which you say were illegal (on the basis of court decisions which support that characterization), then the description should be expanded accordingly. It should read, for example, "Keith Taft, 2004, inventor who manufactured hidden computerized devices to aid with play" "(Note: According to law XYZ, this activity was, at the time, and still is, illegal".) A major rule for WP is that the reader must be allowed to form opinions on his/her own, i.e. instead of stating "XYZ is a crook" it's preferable to state "XYZ was convicted in ... for fraud". -The Gnome (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Characterizations like Taft is a card-cheat don't belong in WP any more than characterizations like Wong is a pro gambler. Even though separate court records show that Taft was indeed a card-cheat and Wong was NOT a pro gambler. I don't think the article needs either characterization - even though the law that Taft broke is in fact called the cheating law (NRS 465.083 Cheating.) Objective3000 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, "card-cheat" is a characterization, while "pro gambler" is not; it's a term stating a person's line of work. There is no moral judgement in describing someone as a pro gambler. I would think calling someone in Wikipedia a "crook" or a "cheat" should only be acceptable if that someone has been convicted in a court of law, e.g. "G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon". (But O. J. Simpson is not a murderer.) I'll look this up in WP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. There were convictions. They were upheld by the Nevada Appeals Court. He was a "professional card cheat." That was his line of work. OTOH, Wong's line of work was NOT professional gambler. Objective3000 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: McDermott

The deletion template you had on the page was a prod. With prods, if one disagrees with the prod, one is allowed to remove the prod with a reason in the talk page or the edit summary. The next step, if an editor disagrees with a prod, it to take it to AfD. I disagree it should be deleted because disambigs are cheap and the McDermott disambig is already extremely cluttered. It serves a purpose for those who are looking only for James McDermott. Redfarmer (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander

Your "changed wording" to Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander was a word-for-word copy of a sentence from The Oxford Companion to Chess. We need to be careful about copyright violation. Quale (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for making the appropriate changes to the text. -The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Hi Gnome!

You're complaining about me having deleted some significant news item on the Foxy Brown (rapper) article.
I don't know what you're talking about, take a look at the revision history :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxy_Brown_%28rapper%29&diff=prev&oldid=203856111

You'll see I only deleted a sentence that did appear twice :
On July 22, 2007, MTV News reported that there are plans for Brooklyn Don Diva, a "mixtape", to be released before Black Roses. (...) Brown's next album, tentatively titled Brooklyn's Don Diva is to be released around early 2008.
I deleted the second, redundant sentence.

You probably wanted to warn someone else.
Bye!
Wikizen (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orlando Bosch

Just FYI, this edit was likely in good faith. Although not cited and OK to revert, the edit does not appear to be vandalism. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake....I mis-interpreted what I saw and thought you had removed the other two quotes rather than having restored them. Thanks. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A minor FYI on “Dan Rowan”

After that unsourced claim was posted and then (appropriately) knocked-out by you, I got curious. In looking for what had been the disposition of the body, I discovered that the anon had pretty much cut-and-pasted from Find a grave.com, which is certainly not a “reliable source”. —SlamDiego←T 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)