Are you suggesting wikipedia are involved in a coverup?

Or alternatively that Brian Hastings is multi-accounting wikipedia also?

I'm saying if people just throw info onto wiki pages, there's plenty of people who police new content and delete info that isn't correctly posted, referenced or uses questionable language. Is it really that hard to understand?

Haha looks like someone sneaked a cheeky edit under the radar:

So you're saying this was done by an account that hastings doesn't own or hasn't bought (yet) possibly?

Hard to be sure with Hastings, he is a devious bastard with many accounts I hear there is a thread on 2+2 about it

Dude, you need a new hobby, yo.

Yeah, reading a short wiki page and taking screenshots is why I don't achieve my goals

I spoke nothing of your goals, just your hobbies.

o

hahahahaha

That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.

If the multi accounting section of his wiki had been posted and worded correctly, there would be a far greater chance of it remaining.

Unfortunately, now there has already been a deletion, there is a far greater chance that even a correctly posted addition would also be deleted.

With all this knowledge I believe you are actually the man for the job.

You don't mind right?

I think to stay more factual, I'd have stayed completely away from even evaluating how bad multi-accounting is or isn't in comparison to other forms of cheating. He cheated - enough said. And I recall there being a couple of other things in there that I would've removed if it were me. But I'll agree that this is, to come extent, an argument of semantics.

Yeah, I'm not clear on this all works either. I'd hope there would be some way for an appeal to someone not to allow removal of factual information. I've never taken Wiki as gospel truth (nor anything I read anywhere else), but I had always hoped that in the end, truth would usually win out. Perhaps that will still happen here, IDK.

What about it? It really has nothing to do with the point being made, but of course the deletion wasn't appropriate.

I hardly even know what to say to this, it's so ridiculous.

I wasn't the one to "nit pick on a word or two", I was just suggesting the person who did had a point, it was far more than a word or two (which you would know if you had actually been able to read it before jumping in with your comments), and as for sticking up with him...sigh.

That's the kind of mentality I see so often on these forums (and elsewhere) that makes it so hard to have any kind of civil or logical discussion. I agree with another poster and make a simple suggestion that keeping the emotion out of a Wiki edit would give it a better chance of staying, and that means I'm sticking up for BH? Seriously???

I'll take this off on a bit of a rant now. These forums, and the Internet in general, would be so much better without all the polarization. So many people feel a need to take an extreme position, and anyone who doesn't jump right on board with them is to be berated, name-called, and shouted down. A poker site screws up, people are rightfully outraged, but if someone post something a little middle-of-the-road, they're a shill. A player cheats, and anyone who doesn't come in spitting vitriol is defending them. And yes, I'm engaging in a little hyperbole here myself, but sadly, I'm not all that wide of the mark with what I've seen in some threads.

Sticking up for him? Give your head a shake.

Yeah, I would think so. Again, I'm obviously no Wiki expert, but now that people are continually editing the entry with all sorts of nonsense, I think stuff will get deleted with less and less consideration each time.

Not that I don't see the humour in the nonsense, mind you, and perhaps it's true that nothing negative, no matter how objective and truthful, would have remained. But what's been done certainly doesn't improve the chances of a successful edit.

ah, c'mon just tell everyone how much BH pays you to shill for him #randomnvgtrollreply

but seriously ...

He deleted it himself. Hello.

As if wiki are on the ball enough to within a few hours delete a section on some little known poker player because a few words were out of place and perhaps a few % of the entry were not absolutely factual.

LOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18892510

Confirmed: Even multi-accounting trolls can't beat the bots.

I've made a few questionable Wikipedia edits in my past, and I've always been amazed at how quickly they were removed or corrected to be more legit.

You can see for yourself who's doing the edits if you click "View history" in the upper right.

I have faith that the wiki will get straightened out eventually.

Wow. Didn't k now that.

His page is totally written by himself though and anything he doesn't like that the bots might leave, however well written, he will delete it. Zero chance that anything of his cheating will ever last.

Looking at the edit history of a wiki page can reveal an interesting story.

The page used to include a photo of Brian with his then girlfriend, Julianna.
However, on Aug 3 2011, the page was edited to remove the photo and the accompanying text.

That particular edit has some edit notes. 'Broke up with gf, deleted pic - BH'. So in this instance, he did edit this own wiki.. You can also click on the user ID and see what other edits were made by the same user.

In addition, the talk page for the Hastings Wiki also includes a conversation about edits made in the past that lead me to further belief that he didn't start off his own wiki. The user CMagha wrote the original wiki and maintained it for a good while.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk..._(poker_player)

I've only just discovered about talk pages. There's a whole other layer to Wikipedia that I didn't know about before. Discovery is most pleasing.

Today was a pretty revealing day on Twitter, I was skeptical about all the sociopath talk early but he pretty much proved it today.

will be making a long post at some point, but want to get it all together first. brian has been throwing around some lies about our situation, and would like to set the record straight.

long stories blah blah blah.

what was the exact bet detail?
did you lose the bet?
did you not pay the winner of the bet upon outcome?

anything else is just bs