User talk:Hazir

Premium Charge

Hi Hazir, I don't understand your revision to the Betfair page. I understand "balance", but I don't think it's appropriate to try to achieve that by inserting something that's factually incorrect, and unreferenced. Betfair increased what they charge winners in 2008. They've always charged winners, but now some of them pay more than before (and they're unhappy). But the change doesn't affect who stands the bets. Betfair are no more (and no less) interested in the outcome of an event than they were before. Adonisthefirst (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adonis, your edits are obviously an attempt to understate the significance of the policy change, which created a well documented furore amongst Betfair's members. The fact is that Betfair used to be a neutral provider of an exchange platform, charging the same amount of commission for winning bets, regardless of how successful a member is. However, with the premium charge, particularly successful bettors (as defined by Betfair's criteria) must pay additional charges. Hazir (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hazir,

I'm sorry that you have misinterpreted my motives. Your previous edit suggested that Betfair had gone from being an intermediary which matches customer bets to being counterparty to their bets (and therefore going from "neutral" to having the interest a conventional bookie would have), even if that wasn't your intention, and that's why I undid it - it was factually incorrect. If you take a step back and look at the current article, there is no way in the world you could claim that it understates the significance of the premium tax as a policy change, with or without any recent edits. Could I respectfully ask that you compare the current Betfair article with a properly balanced article like eBay?: That article talks about the company generally, then talks about its products and services, and then deals with controversy in section 9. The Betfair article, even following my most recent edit had "Controversy" and "Premium Charge" as more prominent categories than its products and services! Again comparing with eBay, they too have in the past significantly increased prices for a certain section of their userbase (commercial sellers) which has on more than one occasion "created a well-documented furore", but that doesn't justify greater prominence in that article than the basic information about eBay. Could I steer you toward WP:ASF to remind you of the Wikipedia guidelines for impartiality, in particular that articles should avoid mass attribution? Again in the case of eBay many disgruntled users have attempted to edit the article to make greater prominence of their gripes, and good editing has kept the article objective. The text you reinstated: " The charge has significantly changed the relationship between Betfair and its customers, as Betfair can no longer claim to be a neutral bet exchange provider "where winners are welcome" (its mantra for many years)." isn't factual, is opinion, and isn't referenced, and really shouldn't be on Wikipedia according to the guidelines. As anyone with a knowledge of the UK gambling industry would know, the "winners welcome" line attempts to contrast Betfair with bookmakers whose practice it is to close or restrict the stakes of winning customers. If you're clever enough you can quite happily win £1 million on Betfair next year, premium charges or not, so the opinion that Betfair can no longer claim that winners are welcome is just that, opinion, and shouldn't be in a Wiki article. The use of the word "neutral" makes no sense in English. "Neutral" doesn't mean "all customers pay the same commission rate", and even if it did then no betting exchange is, or has been, "neutral": they all charge different customers different commission rates based on the amount they bet. I won't attempt to rewrite that sentence myself for fear that you'll just undo my edit, regardless of Wikipedia guidelines, but could I respectfully ask that you consider rewriting it so that it's factually correct and does comply? Adonisthefirst (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adonis, The mantra has always been, "where winners are welcome", it's now more accurately, "where winners are welcome, as long as they pay enough commission, and if they don't, we'll tax them extra." The relationship between Betfair and its members did change significantly with the introduction of a Premium Charge. This is not my opinion, it is factually correct. The version you created was so watered down, readers would wonder why some people were so upset at the time! I'm not going to get into a semantic argument about the use of the word "neutral". I think the current version is sound. Hazir (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Life After Death

Hi there. Unless I'm missing something, Life After Death is about a clearly notable rap album? I'd suggest that trying to AFD that article would be a bad idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

Ah, that would make more sense =). I've just had a look and I can't find anything to suggest that the campaign is notable, and I am pretty certain that AFD would result in a consensus to delete (I would vote that way). Don't let possible vandalism and intimidation from the author dissuade you from listing it if you think that doing so would improve the encyclopædia (and if in doubt, I'd be happy to warn him if he does it again). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

List of wineries in the Barossa Valley

Oh don't worry. I'm not going to do any reverting. I tried my best in good faith to see if Stefan's plea of WP:SOFIXIT had merit. I've got my answer. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You make the assumption that your gutted article is somehow an improvement over the original one - I beg to differ. I think all of the winery lists slated for deletion should be built upon, with relevant detail added, such as the year established, production output etc. And no, I'm not likely to do this, I have enough on my plate already in my area of interest (sports betting and poker). It's nothing personal - I just don't see the haste in deletion. Hazir (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine and I understand it's not personal. Though I'm surprised that you think the original unreferenced article with its WP:POV, subjective WP:ADVERT section of "iconic" wines is better. Would you thinks it worthwhile to have any article on List of betting lines for the 2009 NFL season with some random, subjective listing of the "best bets" on which games to bet on? Essentially that is what that iconic wine section is, it is some person's random POV WP:OR on what are the best, most iconic wines from each of these wineries. But again, its alright. I see a lot of benefit to your reverting. Might work out a lot better than I expected. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I would be strongly opposed to such an article. But we are talking about a very different beast here. The online gambling industry is a a cut-throat, competitive one, in which there exists many thousands of back-yard operations, affiliate portals and professional spammers. An article like the one you suggested would be inundated with spam and vandalism on a daily basis. In contrast, those winery lists have been up for ages and have proven to be very civil. I don't see the big deal in leaving them up in their current state as I think they are more likely to encourage participation. Anyhow, I won't labor the point. We are both trying to improve WP, we just have different ways of seeing things. Hazir (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help commenting the communication between you and Agne27 on Talk:Seppeltsfield. When you write "I've no doubt you've seen the Penfolds article, why haven't you plastered it with tags?", I believe the WP:GOFISHING essay would make interesting reading to you. And when you comment "in the same time you spent plastering tags all over the article along with detailed explanations, you probably could have rewritten it", I'd like to point out that no users have any obligations as to which edits they perform, other than following Wikipedia policies in the edits they actually do. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Shackleford

Just a quick to note to point out that someone has removed your PROD template from this page. I have a number of issues with this article as well; it's three years old and yet still doesn't seem to have attracted any references beyond a few shaky external links, which read to me as basically "promotional" in nature. In my opinion, it's time to seek opinions regarding whether or not this article meets things like the requirement for "notability" according to our policies. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Decon, I did some research yesterday and discovered that there's [handful] of articles that could be used to establish notability. The problem is that most of the articles are old/obscure/low interest and would require someone to purchase and host them. I can't imagine this will ever happen (unless Shackleford himself decides to do it) so the article will remain in a derelict state for many years to come. Hazir (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a few references that I was able to find. I did a Google News search for "Michael Shackleford" actuary so as to exclude the other people with the same name. Sometimes you can find better references by using the online databases that your public library subscribes to, and that you can access for free through the library's website. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd Witteles

I have an issue with your reversion of my edit on Witteles' page. It is filled with minor poker accomplishments, that need not be listed. Literally thousands of people have similar accomplishments, winning 500 dollar tournaments, cashing in WSOP events. These aren't wroth noting. Is it's wikipedia's goal to catalog non-events? Witteles is a minor figure in the poker world, and deserves to have a page, but his notoriety come from the Neverwinpoker website, from his WSOP limit holdem bracelet and ESPN appearance, his accomplishments as an online limit hold 'em cash player and his outspokenness in the UB/absolute poker scandal. But I don't understand how listing every minor cash he has made is "wiki-worthy" for lack of a better phrase. Witteles is, at the end of the day, a minor poker figure. Also, I would like your opinion on the user poker2006. He is the person who created the Witteles page, and has done by far the most amount of edits, mostly reverting vandalism (Witteles' association with Neverwinpoker makes his page a target of vandals). Upon re-viewing his edits, and some of the pages he's contributed too, as far as I can tell his entire contribution to Wiki is maintaining the Witteles page, and I suspect he is Witteles himself. This interaction on userpage JoanneB's user talk page I find the most damning evidence of this. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:JoanneB/Archive2006/July. The idea that poker2006 is just a neutral interviewer is preposterous. My point is, those entries, about Witteles' minor cashes, I highly suspect were written by the man himself, and I think his interest in exhaustively listing even his most minor poker accomplishments are at odds with the goal of the site. There is no one who visits Witteles's page, besides the man himself, that is at all interested in how he finished 12th in the 1500 LHE Shootout event at the WSOP. I know I'm new to wiki editing, but it seems to me that Witteles' page should be a great deal leaner than it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xapxapxap (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The creator of the article probably was Todd (or one of his friends) but this is difficult to prove and I don't really see the point in chasing it now - he's clearly a notable poker player and the article is not spammy or promotional. As I said in the talk page, the article could probably do with some trimming but this should be done thoughtfully. Deleting a large slab like you did (at least 1/2 of the article) without thinking about how the article reads afterwards is fairly crude and does not improve the article. There's no rush, so take it easy, chip away at the article, and think about each edit that you make. May I ask, what did Todd ever do to you? Did he insult you on his poker forum? Regards Hazir (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He's done absolutely nothing to me, I actually respect the stand's he's taken against UB/absolute, and other poker issues, and I like him over all. I didn't edit his page to spite him, I just think his page is littered, is all. I do indeed think he's a notable poker player, just not notable for some of the things that's in his wiki entry. My point in bringing up that I believe him to be the author the page, is that I think the page is self indulgent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xapxapxap (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Mafia

Hi. I know that you were close to on the fence as to the AfD on Muslim Mafia when you voted, very early in the process. I just wanted to let you know (in the even that you haven't looked at the page) that it has much more in the way of refs re the book, as well as re the litigation and the political furor that the book has spawned. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a second look at it. I very much respect those here who do as you did, with open minds. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Louis Lesser

I have to admit, Hazir, you're right - he is proving to be more a source for amusement. Oh, to have WP:BJAODN again.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Old Adelaide Family

It's a category, not an article. Please point me at the section of the MoS that says Categories have to pass notability. Articles, yes. Categories, no. I have yet to see ANY category that asserts its notability. If you know of one, please point me at it so I can emulate it in this Category's description. With thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for your note. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the current status? / Where are we up to? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how to proceed. The page is somewhere between an article and a category but technically it's listed as a category. I can't find any evidence to suggest that such a family exists. It just reads to me like a random list of old money Adelaideans. Hazir (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"I am trying to figure out how to proceed." - Yeah. I'm in a similar position.

"The page is somewhere between an article and a category" - Really? I'm puzzled/confused. It's a Category. I can't quite work out why you say "The page is somewhere between an article and a category". But I'm keen to read more about how you have come to that conclusion ...

"I can't find any evidence to suggest that such a family exists." - Now I'm totally confused! Would it be less confusing to you if the category was "Old Adelaide Families?

"It just reads to me like a random list of old money Adelaideans." - Interesting. Random? Why do you say random?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Another P.S.: I'm not particularly interested in fighting/arguing/whatever with you about this. But I am interested in understanding what you are on about. Who knows? We may actually agree with each other!! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no fight, we are just discussing the matter. I think the list is very random. What are the criteria for inclusion in this category? Many of the people listed are from country South Australia, not Adelaide. And Murdoch is actually from Sydney! Hazir (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Keith Murdoch was born in Melbourne. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have [nominated] the category for deletion. Please take a look when you have a chance. Hazir (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Full Tilt Changes

I guess I need to go into some detail because you're not getting it. "Avatars", "additional login security", "hand history" - I mean c'mon, these are incredibly generic and inane "features". Perhaps we should mention that they comply with Verified by Visa or that they have a "call moderator" function or that the table views are customizable?

Hey Hazir,

I agree that "hand history" and some of the other features are quite generic and don't need to be listed in a particular site's article. However, I also play Pokerstars and used to play UB and Party (when the latter was offered in the US) and those sites do not have avatars (nor, for that matter, deal-it-twice or automated tournament deal-making). What do you think about listing "Unique Features" or "Characteristic Features" or something along those lines? I think there is encyclopedic value in describing the differences in software between Full Tilt and other online poker companies. I think if we stick to information that is referenced in (and can be sourced by) places other than Full Tilt's own pages (such as pokernewsdaily articles and the like) the article would have a cleaner, more encyclopedic feel than the current article which, I agree, does not read like an encyclopedia article.

On a similar note, what do you think about moving the discussion of games offered from the intro (doesn't seem appropriate there) into its own section? I think the intro should be more of a history and overview of the company than a listing of its services.

Bkdanilo (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Bkdanilo

I agree on both points. GL Hazir (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hazir,

I'd like to address this point: "The content you keep trying to add in the "features" section belongs on the Full Tilt poker glossary section or help pages, not in an encyclopedic article."

All I did was update the "features." I didn't create a "features" section. "Features" were added to the Full Tilt article on June 21, 2006. I think it is appropriate and necessary to put the features of a software in the encyclopedia article about a piece of software. I do, however, agree that the tone of the "features" section was not completely encyclopedic -- what about a well-sourced "history" type section that chronologically describes the evolution of the software?

In any event, I think we can both agree that the article needs to be cleaned up, and I hope we can work together to do so.

Thanks,

Bkdanilo (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Bkdanilo

I guess I need to go into some detail because you're not getting it. "Avatars", "additional login security", "hand history" - I mean c'mon, these are incredibly generic and inane "features". Perhaps we should mention that they comply with Verified by Visa or that they have a "call moderator" function

or that the table views are customizable? Hazir (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hazir,

I appreciate your concern in keeping Wikipedia clean. I am a little confused as to what exactly constitutes being "promotional." I see how listing a poker site's features is in a sense promotional, but I think that any time you're describing the nature of a business it could be seen as promotional. Perhaps we could agree on what belongs in the article for an online poker site (or any other business for that matter) and go from there? I'm sure you'd agree that the following questions should be answered in any business's encyclopedia article: What is the business? When did it start? What does it sell? How does it operate? What distinguishes it from other businesses in its industry? What is the news reporting about this business?

I think you made a good point about a "promotional tone" which is why I would like to move all descriptions of "games offered" and "features" into its own sections, and have the opening section deal with a general overview of the business. I think that if the above questions are answered objectively and with sources, we can safely say that the article is not promotional but rather informative.

Thanks,

Bkdanilo (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Bkdanilo

• The content you keep trying to add in the "features" section belongs on the Full Tilt poker glossary section or help pages, not in an encyclopedic article. Hazir (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hazir,

My motivation/position is as follows: I would like to improve the Full Tilt article. I ask that the next time you undo any of my edits, you explain what exactly you find objectionable. For example, in your last wholesale rejection of my edits, you reverted past my first edit: a minor one in which the only change I made was capitalizing the 't' in 'television' in a Level 2 Headline.

Thanks,

Bkdanilo (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Bkdanilo

Thanks for your contributions.

I was actually attempting to make Full Tilt's entry LESS promotional. You'll notice, for instance, that in the earlier version (the one you've reverted it to), the introduction is quite promotional. It: - lists the websites where customers can reach Full Tilt - promotes their games offered - explains that FT's software is available for Mac and PC.

I've attempted to add sources for verification and organize the information on the entry so that it begins with a general description of the company, and then describes the services it provides, legal information, etc.

Please let me know if you have a specific issue with anything and I will happily look into it.

Thanks for your interest Bkdanilo (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)bkdanilo

I strongly suggest you take a look at WP:CONFLICT. Your motivation/position should be clarified. Hazir (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I clearly made a mistake in not describing my edits, an error I've attempted to rectify by making the changes one at a time and describing them in detail.

Could you please tell me which of the changes made AFTER Datheisen's 1:47 13 January reversion to earlier versions you take issue with? I would be happy to address your concerns.

As for my motivation, it is as follows: Full Tilt Poker's article is out of date and lacks sufficient citations for verification. I am attempting to fix both of those problems. Additionally, I believe the organization of the article could be improved. Basically, I believe the current version is somewhat promotional and could be improved for clarity and objectivity.

Thanks Bkdanilo (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Bkdanilo

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe you do not have a conflict of interest? You just randomly decided to join Wikipedia and make 50+ edits in two days exclusively on Full Tilt Poker, including a separate spammy article about the Full Tilt Poker Academy (which I have now redirected). Hazir (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you believe I have a conflict of interest, could you please cite an example of a change I made to Full Tilt's article since Datheisen's 1:47 13 January reversion that is not objective or that is otherwise inappropriate? Most of the changes are stylistic in nature.

I believe that my interest in having Full Tilt's article be up-to-date, supported with citations, and well-organized is exactly in line with Wikipedia's interests; I see no conflict.

I appreciate your concern in this matter. Bkdanilo (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Bkdanilo

I don't believe that you have a conflict of interest, I know you have one. I am not inclined to go trekking through your various edits to make a case, your promo frenzy Full Tilt Poker Academy article is evidence enough. As I said, please read WP:CONFLICT and clearly state your motivations on your user/talk page. Hazir (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rakeback

Please review the sources I listed and try and expand the article. If you will not, I ask you not to nominate it for deletion for at least another week. If nobody helps I will try to expand it myself. Perhaps you are not very familiar with rakeback, or just understand it in general terms. I know it intimately well. It is a very complex subject that can easily have a long article with multiple sections and 8-20 links in the table of contents at the top. It is a far more complex topic than 'Rake' which has its own article, for instance. Note that rakeback goes by many names - rakeback, vip program, valueback, rewards program, cashback, rake race, rack chase and on and on - those are all rakeback. Thank you. DegenFarang (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I really think this is bordering on lunacy but I'll give you a chance to build it. Cheers Hazir (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please allow more time. The article has been expanded. I notice your history on Wikipedia seems to be a very cynical one. I don't know why that is or why you enjoy going around undoing people's work or saying no to people all of the time - but I please ask you to move along and let us build an article here and focus your negativity elsewhere. Or maybe for once to roll up your sleeves and actually make a contribution instead of just trying to shoot other people's contributions down. DegenFarang (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do patrol gambling pages of interest and revert clear examples of spam and tomfoolery. Hazir (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is neither. According to you it is just a thin subject and I'm telling you is is not. If you will take five minutes and read the RS's I've provided and do a search for some more - you will see there is loads of information that can be added. Please help with the article or at least stop trying to be ubstructionist. My interest in this article is this: do a Google search for 'rakeback'. You will see nothing but spam and commercial sites giving rakeback. If somebody searches 'Full Tilt Rakeback' then they want 'Full Tilt Rakeback' and those sites are ok. But a general search probably wants information on what rakeback is. There is no credible source now for those people to find out what it is. This page would likely rank high for that term as Wikipedia usually does - and people could be informed about what rakeback is in an objective way - not trying to be sold something. We would be doing a benefit to the poker community. I will work on more content when I can but please don't try and remove the article - it will harm no-one and I will watch it to make sure absolutely no spam or links to rakeback sites are added. DegenFarang (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pokerstars edits

I was looking at this edit and could not understand it. The edit seems to be a perfectly fine encyclopedic addition of content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Even this is mostly good content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Both edits were well disguised Pokerstars spam by a single purpose account. There was probably some salvageable content in hindsight. Hazir (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am readding the encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited it slightly as the Pokerstars bit tacked on at the end is a promotional plug. Hazir (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sportsbookreview: Don't understand your conflict of interest page?

[1]

I would like to know where the conflict of interest is posting the link to where Pinnacle sports is using our independent watchdog review to add credibility to Pinnacle's site. It would be valuable for Wikipedia users to read whey they received the review and what it was based on. We are an industry watchdog that provides information to sports betting users in making the right choice when it comes to online sportsbook providers. Can you please help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsbook Review (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I did not tag the Pinnacle article, someone else ([Dannomatic] did. The promotional content has since been removed from the article (e.g. SBR comment, defunct Pinnacle Pulse service) and I untagged the article. I doubt that you'll be able to create an encyclopedic article for Sportsbook Review. You can call it an "industry watchdog" but it's primarily an affiliate site that makes money through referrals. Regards, Hazir (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stu Ungar

[2] The content had been tagged since last october - 6 months to provide a referenced version, but the content keeps getting returned without sources while the tag keeps getting removed. WP:BURDEN MM4.158.222.78 (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bwin

Hi Hazir, Could you give me a reason why you undid my contribution? I just corrected some minor errors in the general part and as the legal issues of the firm does not belong there I created a section for that. Thanks in advance! Senya03 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Senya03

I saw the addition re the 'millions of customers' and that a large slab of information about legal issues was deleted so reverted (i.e. the changes looked like typical company spam). I did not scroll down to see the new sub-section. I have restored your version. Cheers Hazir (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

External Link on Betfair

Hi Hazir,

I was just wondering why you took out the link to Betfair's Official Blog on the Betfair section? It would seem to fit in with the page about Betfair?

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozzerini (talk • contribs) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The main article already links to Betfair.com and people can easily find the blog (and other sub-sections) from there. Wikipedia is not a links directory. Hazir (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

IsilDUR1

THANKS FOR YOUR VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION HAZIR. I'M SURE ALL THE REAL WORK HAS BEEN FINISHED, ALLOWING YOU AMPLE TIME TO ANTAGONIZE OTHER editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.27.178 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for [this?] Hazir (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Angelo

Yo Hazir I would nominate that TOmmy Angelo page If i was you. LOL at his music career being notable... and he is not notable in poker either. This whole page is spam he had a freind write for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.156.102 (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Block removed

Thanks for the comment, but the block has been removed from my account and the other editors too. 2005 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Weirsky

I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)