User talk:Riitoken

Welcome!

Hello, Riitoken, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Additionally, the graph does little to explain the concept of Bayes' theorem as it is discussed there, it only shows a fractional block of information User A1 (talk)

Hello A1,

Yep. I agree with your suggestions. I made the edit too guickly and while I was tired. The new .png is sharper and cleaner (and actually smaller in size) and no dithering. I removed the + signs seeing as they incorrectly suggest adding numbers in the table. I moved the chart after the table where it belongs. I don't think it needs a caption seeing as the table is really the caption --Riitoken (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats good, but there is still the question of the motivation of having such a graph in there. Three editors have now independently removed the graph stating somethign along the lines of "the graph adds nothing", this is the primary concern. User A1 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it is very possible for "3 editors to be wrong". Some people process spatially accurate visuals faster than tables of numbers. Both are useful tools. Let the bar graph be; it's fine and has value to those with a well developed aptitude for spatial information. --Riitoken (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bayes' theorem. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please discuss this on the talk page of the article and don't add it again unless there is agreement there. In general, you should never revert a revert without discussion on the talk page. Rick Block (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors wrongfully claim that the bar chart does not contribute anything; but if that's true then the table of numbers it illustrates also contributes nothing (and should be removed as well). The bar chart merely provides a spatially accurate visual of the table of numbers; it's the same information in spatially visual form and that has value for readers that are more spatially oriented rather than algebraically oriented. --Riitoken (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the complaint at

See the result of the 3RR complaint at

WP:AN3#User:Riitoken reported by User:Rick Block (Result: Warned). Wikipedia is a group project, not a solo venture. You are expected to take an interest in the views of others before repeatedly making changes to articles that cause disagreement. Being reverted by three different editors should be a clue. Ignoring this warning could lead to a block without any further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I give up ... my opinion is still that the other editors are defending matters of 'taste' only. Not one of them has described how or why the bar graph does not effectively spatially illustrate the table of numbers given in the example. Yes, Wikipedia is not a solo effort; but it does depend on the willingness of others to volunteer time and energy. This incident is a motivation killer. --Riitoken (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Math or statistics article on popular topics are not easy to get agreement on. Even if something is a matter of taste, we still have to be democratic. Otherwise, how should we decide whose taste to follow? EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Risk (clone) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable at best. The time travel thing makes this a borderline hoax. No serious references anyway.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit the page as soon as I can. The time travel section isn't a hoax - it's a legitimate concept that illustrates the non-time sensitive nature of Idea copyright. I'll add references as soon as wiki stops acting up - we're getting a lot of failed pages here in Atlanta right now. --Riitoken (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Risk (clone) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dominate Game has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in

general notability guideline

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

The article Xisk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in

general notability guideline

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

The article Xisk is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xisk until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. andy (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're kinda going crazy at the deletion discussion for

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Confine yourself to the substance of the debate. Read the rules and follow them. andy (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stumbled across this file. It was uploaded by you, and you identify yourself in the summary as being Ray E. Bornert. Is this correct? andy (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, there is no conflict of interest. Who are you? Are you a Wikipedia admin? Yes or No. If you are an admin and you can prove it, then I'll answer your question straight up right now. If you're not an admin then there needs to be some Quid Pro Quo on your part and you need to FIRST register an answer line in the Hasbro poll in the deletion debate. If you're not an admin and/or you're not willing to go on record about any Hasbro relationship or lack thereof, then you have zero business asking any personal questions, any more than I have any business asking you. Quid Pro Quo dude. --Riitoken (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter if anyone is an admin? How does that change anything? And andy, you should probably refrain from digging through people's contributions for the purposes of

chat 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It matters apparently in the case of deletion where there is an elevated level of authority to close a debate and delete an article which might be a work in progress. I obviously thinkthe article should remain so that others may help to bring it up to standards - including finding acceptable sources for the term Risk clone (I'm almost 100% positive there is one in 'Game' magazine but I can't find it). It matters man. Also thank you for being honest about your COI hasbro interests. Please make this same 'public' notation by answering the poll in the debate - for the record. --Riitoken (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a question of outing or even of digging. Rittoken: I was puzzled by the anon IP comment about Xisk on Talk:Risk (clone), by your proprietorial attitude to Risk (clone), and by the various related articles all of which centre round Ray Bornert. I suspected an unrevealed COI so I googled "Bornert riitoken" which yields exactly one hit. This isn't outing, especially since you yourself have stated publicly that you are Ray E. Bornert - it's a strong indicator that you have not been acting in good faith and this is relevant both to the AfD and in judging your future actions on wikipedia. andy (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy so isn't it interesting that you're using google as a reliable source? Again, I'll be more than happy to answer any COI questions you have just as soon as you go on record by answering the Hasbro poll in the debate page. Quid Pro Quo dude. --Riitoken (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to reply to that poll. It's ridiculous and offensive to accuse veteran editors of being Hasbro plants. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Riitoken: I'm not actually sure if it's worth replying to you, but I'll try to get the point across because it's at the centre of your problems with
  here) then you can use them to support an article but if not, then not. You have not provided any such reliable sources for the article. That's one of the main reasons why it will be deleted, as will some related articles. If you write further articles on wikipedia and you don't provide reliable sources then they too will be deleted and your frustration with wikipedia will only increase. As for your conflict of interest, firstly I'm not writing an article about you so I don't need sources of such reliability, and secondly I simply make the assertion that there is a page on wikipedia where you have identified yourself as Ray Bornert, which is an unarguable fact. Anything that exists is a reliable source for the fact that it does exist, it just may not be a reliable source for anything else. andy (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Andy it's simple, I am opposed to the notion that an article cannot exist in a reasonable state while sources are being discovered (this is how Wikipedia grew into what it is now). I oppose the notion that all sources must be found before an article can be started. Were this the case, Wikipedia would never have survived. All readers recognize that Wikipedia is a work in progress and I maintain that this aspect is the central attraction. It is the reason why I contribute. I like seeing the 'please help this article be better' banners. I detest the delete banners because they do not serve the orginal spirit of Wikipedia and they scare away willing contributors. Nobody wants to waste time and energy on something that looks like it's going to get deleted. This does not mean I do not support the higher principles of Wikipedia; but we must keep in mind that they are idealic and something to strive for. This is my first attempt; I'm still learning. I tend to write and contribute to things that interest me. I am interested in the subject of Risk clones and have been for a long time. But the resistance I'm getting just kills the original spirit of Wikipedia. --Riitoken (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm still learning": then why not learn from the experienced editors who have taken part in the AfD? We have all put forward clear explanations of the problems with the article and in particular reasons why it is unsalvageable and should be deleted rather than developed further. I don't propose to rehash these arguments - they're all there in the AfD, chapter and verse. andy (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, learning does not imply that I'm wrong in all cases. I've learned a lot so far and I've made substantial changes to the article at the advice of those in the debate; you have ZERO chance of changing my mind that this article can be fully encyclopediac. But I don't have the Wikipedia authority to make sure the article lives long enough to prove my point do I? --Riitoken (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Riitoken, the AfD process gives you seven days to find some sources for the article. No one is requiring you to find all of the sources for the article before it is allowed to remain. There are hundreds of thousands of articles out there that have no references. All that has to be shown is that references exist (and that they are from
  confabulate 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sigh, Gentleman (and/or ladies), I'm done arguing. I've spent too much time arguing what I believe and not enough working on my idea of what the article should be. There is NO conflict of interest on my part. I'll let the structure and wording of the actual article speak for me. Debates get personal but the Article will be worthy of Wikipedia. It is my first and I'm doing my best. Any ACTUAL help on the article would be most appreciated rather than 'your article sucks' comments in the debate. I am passionate about everything I do; that's how I am; no changing that. --Riitoken (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Passionate ≠ obsessive. You'll naturally find reluctance from other editors when asking them to help you write an article which has almost no chance of not being deleted. No one is trying to personally insult you or say that "your article sucks", we're just saying that the subject of the article doesn't pass the inclusion standards that have been chosen for Wikipedia articles. The content that you've created may be more appropriate on a different wiki, in which case it is not a total loss and you can still post the information that you spent awhile creating in a prominent place on the internet.
  spill the beans 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well I'm moving forward anyway on good faith regardless. I believe in the article even if nobody else does. And that counts. Am I the only one who still believes in the original spirit of Wikipedia or has there been some fundamental policy change from the top? I think my 2 questions at the bottom of the debate say it all. They highlight the shortcomings of the present climate. --Riitoken (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not familiar with the "original spirit" since I've only been here since 2007.

confess 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I completely agree snotty, well said. I am probably just regretful that I never took the time to start an article back in the wild west days; I always meant to; I made a ton of edits to existing articles. Nevertheless, there are a few articles (maybe this is one) where you can still do it the old fashioned way - which was this: make a list of everything the article needs to discuss (i.e. outline) and get that into the db with the correct title and one starter sentence and one ref. or external link that indicates some potential of substance. And then others would add things and make it better and nobody complained that articles were in progress or not fully documented as long as there was honest effort and no apparent lies, defacing, spam, etc. But, I can tell you that the spirit of Wikipedia has definitely changed and that's sad to me. The entire point was to get as many ppl working on as many articles as possble even if they were not finished. If the mindset seen in the Risk clone debate had been present at the beginning of Wikipedia, it would have killed Wikipedia in the womb. --Riitoken (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that has never changed is that Wikipedia is not

talk 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Snotty, I agree in spirit but in practice it is physically impossible to not add anything new - were that the case all encyclopedia articles would be nothing but a title and a list of hard references and the reader would then just read the references (this is a slippery slope similar to the first causes paradoxes - i.e. all the references would just be a title and a list of more references and so on and the entire world would be a list of titles). Anybody, everybody that pulls references together and synthesizes a writtent work is adding something new. And furthermore, those who compose original articles are almost always knowledgable in that field - otherwise how do they judge the overall truth and neutrality of both the article and the references (not all references are worthy it takes experience to judge this). I might know a little about Egypt but it would be insane for me to have presumed to author the original Egypt article. Those who start articles SHOULD know something about the subject. I would rather see a ww2 nazi and holocaust jew author the article on Hitler, as opposed to any two people born after 1980. I have experience with Risk clones - as player and maker and critic. I am qualified to synthesize information that already exists or is apparently, verifiably, repeatedly true by observation. Repeatable, observable truth is it's own scientific reference point. --Riitoken (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're in a majority of one on this. People who are interested and knowledgeable should write articles but they must be prepared to prove the truth of what they say. People like you who have a massive conflict of interest should walk away, but in any case the same rules for reliable sources apply and you seem to be unable or unwilling to reach this minimal standard. You should take your article elsewhere - it's not for wikipedia. andy (talk)

I agree that people who are familiar with the topic of an article are better suited for writing the article, but only to the extent that it's easier for them to pull the information together. Someone who is unfamiliar with the topic can write an equally good article, but it will take them more time and effort and research. Also, people who are strongly connected to the topic of an article may have preconceived attitudes about it or emotions connected to it which hinder their ability to present the material with a

comment 01:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The article Ray E. Bornert II is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray E. Bornert II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WinHoldEm is more than notable; it single handedly changed online poker. And there are more than a few external sources including a Wired magazine article.

As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, you're only allowed a single !vote per discussion. Multiple comments are fine. Multiple !votes are not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be

]

Andy, I'm still learning. The Risk (clone) article was my first attempt at a real article (I apprently failed man); cut me some slack. --Riitoken (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How does No grab you? You've been cut an enormous amount of slack and you persist in gaming the system. Enough. Either play by the rules or leave the game. andy (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely NOT trying to game the system. I may not know as much as the regular admins/editors but I'm learning. Have I vandalized any pages? NEVER. Have I told lies? NEVER. I am simply trying to participate in the Wikipedia experience and learn the ropes. I've got some spare time lately so I thought I'd hunt for sources for things I know well. --Riitoken (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors have been enormously patient with you. You've been provided with policy links over and over again, yet you continue to act as if you either haven't read those policies or are choosing to ignore them. Editors have been banned in the past not for vandalism, but for exhausting the Wikipedia community's patience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, here's the thing, I have no idea who the experienced editors are. This was my first attempt at an article. There's no ranking system and/or admin tag. I tapped out of the Risk clone debate as graciously as I could ... what else am I supposed to do man? Geez!! --Riitoken (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are tap dancing around the issue. Read. The. Policy. Links. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth...

For what it's worth, I wish there were reliable sources about risk clones. I would totally buy a book on that subject. APL (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! you and me both man. I made an attempt at the Risk (clone) article as best I could. I just wanted to help answer a few basic questions that a lot of young aspiring programmers have - i.e. "What is a Risk clone?" ... "Are they legal?" ... "How can I make one and not get sued by Hasbro?" etc. But really more than that I'd love to see some solid game theory strategy on the subject and some professional tournaments. --Riitoken (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI and self-promotion

If you continue to add COI and self-promotional links to articles as you did at

WP:COI policy. Consider this your last warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There is NO conflict of interest. Those articles deal with the subject of 'Computer Poker Players'. Period. Have you read the articles? They all deal with 'Computer Poker Players' playing poker for real money online. How is that NOT relevant to an article titled Computer Poker Players. Get off my back dude!!! --Riitoken (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can't be bothered to read any of the policy links you've been given countless times, here's a direct cut-and-paste from

WP:COI: OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

How to avoid COI edits

Shortcut

• WP:AVOIDCOI

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own
   user subspace, or a website of your organization from other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam
   );

   and you must always:

4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Action
Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment.

Sockpuppetry

case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a

sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riitoken for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ok. I posted an official statement on the evidence page. --Riitoken (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• STOP harrassing me! We obviously disagree about what types of external links constitute spam. I am NOT a spammer for disagreeing with you. You've stalked pretty much every edit I've done for a week. You've accused me of lying. You've accused me of spam and non neutral pov. You've accused me of using multiple accounts and opened an investigation against me. How do I file a complaint against you? ... because for where I sit, you've definitely crossed the abusive line surrounding amins. --Riitoken (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is, you are spamming... Read the guidelines. I know you don't like to do that, but just try please. You may have thought you were being cunning by slipping a reference to your own website in between two others at Three-dimensional chess but Ohnoitsjamie wasn't the only one who spotted that, he just got there first. Your continued presence on wikipedia is on a knife edge: almost every contribution you have made is intended to promote yourself, your products or your political views and your response to well intended advice and criticism is unconstructive, aggressive and abusive. Either play by the rules or go away. andy (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bayes-boys-girls-pants-skirts.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Bayes-boys-girls-pants-skirts.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]