Embers18
Notice edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Spam etc. on Tote betting article. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Embers18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22624 was submitted on Sep 11, 2018 06:56:53. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Embers18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have provided a great deal of relevant information about the vast potential of tote betting operations globally and have highlighted the grossly incorrect notion that tote betting is largely restricted and limited to traditional British tote betting operations which is of course complete and utter rubbish. I have also highlighted new developments within the field which is of appeal to myself as a punter and to many other punters. Perhaps the question you should be asking is why someone is seemingly determined to stop an informed punter from posting relevant information about various other tote betting operations around the world and any new developments within the field of tote betting? This is the second time my information has been taken down . I have posted information about British betting operations, Hong Kong Betting Operations, Swedish betting operations, Australian betting operation, US betting operations and South African betting operations. None of this information had been previously been supplied about these tote betting operations, I would love to know who I'm supposedly spamming for.
I intend to repost my information as it was before rather than allowing implied, omitted or misleading and grossly incorrect information to be perpetuated. I put a lot of time, effort and research into informing fellow punters about the vast array of options available globally and spoke about their potential and of new developments that are now available to them rather than just traditional betting operations and for my time and effort I am accused of posting spam information.
If it sounds like I'm pissed off it's because I am, I thought Wikipedia was about the free flow of relevant information, clearly in this instance for whatever reason it's not. It's the first time I've bothered to get involved on Wikipedia and I did it because the info posted implied that 1) tote betting was limited, wrong and that it was confined merely to Britain which is again wrong.
I'm a semi professional punter, it is how I derive my living why shouldn't I inform my fellow punters of other options and the reality of the size and scope of tote betting after all I thought informing others was what Wikipedia is all about.
Yes perhaps you should consider why someone apparently thinks relevant and factually correct information should be suppressed, information that corrects misleading or just plain wrong information that is currently posted that implies the size of tote betting is A) small and B) limited to Britain.
There's nothing in my post that is inaccurate or not factual and it expands greatly upon the volume of information on the subject that was previously available. If the person or persons who initially posted this information wants the subject purely to revolve around British tote betting perhaps he or she should create a British tote betting Wikipedia page as tote betting is world wide and is not just restricted to Britain.
Decline reason:
In a nutshell - your unblock request states that, if accepted, you intend to continue the same exact editing behavior as before... which is the behavior what caused you to be blocked. Sorry, but if you intend to continue the same behavior that resulted in your block, I obviously cant approve of your request and allow you to keep making edits that were determined to be disruptive and against policy... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:32, 11 September 2018 (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.
Embers18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry but I fail to see what was so disruptive about my edit, and this is the first time I've heard anything about the editing itself having been disruptive. I inserted information about british tote betting in the section where the original poster had been talking about British tote betting and then I logically followed on from that comment with a linking sentence or paragraph saying something along the lines of but tote betting isn't just restricted to Britain etc, etc. I did this in order to deliberately maintain the readability of and to ensure a logical step by step flow of information. As a former journalist I know abut creating a logical flow of information within a story or an article and what I posted and in the order it was posted was perfectly logical. How is that disruptive? I am new to Wikipedia and there is no clear cut instructions on how to edit an existing article so I edited it as I would a newspaper article and inserted my information with a linking sentence or paragraph and then posted it. That is why I said I would post it again in the same manner as I thought I was being queried about the information contained within it rather than the manner with which it was edited. Again there is not one bit of information that I have supplied that is factually incorrect so again what's the problem other than having been falsely represented as spamming. If someone wants to edit my information in the "approved" manner or indicates how it should be edited in the "approved" manner other than being a smart arse without explaining what is so disruptive about any edit I've made then I'm happy to listen.
Decline reason:
As a former journalist you should be aware of the distinction between facts and opinions. If you genuinely can't see how wording like "offers what should amount to an attractive incentive for most punters", "also launched another interesting concept", "nothing short of staggering", "enjoy the opulent lifestyle of racing" is promotional and unsuitable for an encyclopedia, I don't think unblocking you would improve the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2018 (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.
Embers18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok so we're now getting to the gist of the problem which would have been useful if someone had actually told me that in the first place rather than wasting everyone's time. Anyway I write with a colourful, lively, style and I was conveying throughout my writing my enthusiasm about new developments and the subject matter. By the way I'm an a multiple award winning writer so I'll take your editorial input when it comes to writing style with a grain of salt but in saying that I can easily rephrase certain sections. This is how the first part, which someone seems to have a problem with, was phrased prior to my editing it. The Tote was the only bookmaker in Britain which is allowed to offer parimutuel betting on British horse racing in Britain. As of July 13th 2018 the existing monopoly protection the Tote had ceased, and a number of other tote or parimutuel suppliers entered the British market notably Colossus Bets. Other bookmakers offer both The Tote and Colossus bets, tote betting products through syndication, while other bookmakers will accept a Tote bet and pay out on exactly the same terms as the Tote (which is subject to some ambiguity) The pooled bets offered by The UK Tote are: Win, Place, Exacta, Trifecta, Quadpot, Placepot, Jackpot, Scoop6 and Swinger. The pooled bets offered by Colossus bets are: Win - Pick6. Place - Pick6, Saturday7, So lets go through the sections which you seem to have a problem with for some reason, step by step. "offers what should amount to an attractive incentive for most punters", "also launched another interesting concept", "nothing short of staggering", "enjoy the opulent lifestyle of racing" Colossus Bets also offers what should amount to an attractive incentive for most punters, the opportunity to lock in a guaranteed profit on what may ultimately be a losing bet through their cashout and partial cashout options. I deliberately said should rather than does, but it's a fact that since its introduction by it inventor that cashout has become a standard offering right throughout the betting industry and has become an extremely popular incentive for punters otherwise it wouldn't have become an industry standard option. The next part you seemingly have a problem with is this section The company also launched another interesting concept of crowd funded betting syndicates in 2017 and launched their new UK racing betting operation on July 13, 2018 when the previous UK tote monopoly expired. Crowd funded betting syndicates is a revolutionary and a hitherto before never envisioned development describing it as merely interesting is a serious understatement but it could be phrased as the company also launched the new concept of crowd funded betting etc, etc. The next section you have highlighted refers to HK racing Hong Kong tote turnover figures are nothing short of staggering, during the 2016-2017 financial year the HKJC posted a record turnover of HK 216.5 billion. This equates roughly to US $27,585,347,500. That information is supported by a link to a South China Morning Post article which is where that figure is taken from. Well for starters, HK $216.5 billion tote turnover in a year is a fact that is nothing short of staggering. Nowhere else in the world even comes close to that figure how can that be phrased acceptably? Again using a descriptive term doesn't make that information any less factual. Describing it as big, large or even enormous doesn't adequately describe the sheer volume of turnover that comprises that year end total. The next sticking point appears to be this section As a result of this gargantuan betting turnover HK owners and the raceclubs official syndicates are able to pay enormous money for the best horses from all over the globe to race in HK and it attracts many of the world’s best riders eager to gain some of the lucrative rewards and enjoy the opulent lifestyle of racing in Hong Kong. It's a fact that HK racing attracts many of the world’s best riders who are eager to gain some of the lucrative rewards and enjoy the opulent lifestyle of racing in Hong Kong. Foreign riders are invited to ride there by the Hong Kong Jockey Club and receive extremely lucrative retainer contracts in order to do so and can only ride there with the express permission of the HKJC. Again it is an established fact that HK racing attracts many of the world's best trainers, riders and horses as the huge money on offer give them massive purchasing power to buy horses from anywhere in the world and jockey and trainers are indeed feted and treated to an extremely opulent lifestyle. Clearly some of your editors don't understand the size and scope of various tote betting operations around the world and as such have picked up upon descriptive language which they don't consider necessary, I would argue that in some instances I have deliberately used understatements. Just because descriptive terminology has been used in some instances, it doesn't make the content of the piece any less factual. Like I said I have put a considerable amount of time, effort and research into this piece in order to both ensure its accuracy and to provide a valuable overview for punters of the many tote betting options that are available to them globally. The idea was to give an indication of the extremely vast tote betting market and the various operations that exist around the world and I don't want to see that hard work go to waste. As such I am willing to adjust and edit this piece further if necessary and if your editors can provide me with any further issues they have. If someone had actually told me specifically what issues they had with the article in the first place we could have saved all involved, including myself, a lot of time and effort. I also specifically said this was the first time I had used Wikipedia and I have no idea how it works or what the hell I was doing. As far as I knew some smart arse had just taken down my work because they work for a corporate bookmaking company who do nothing but rip off punters, especially the punters who illustrate that they have any idea about what they're doing. It appeared to me as someone was trying to minimise the information available about other betting options which was why I reposted my entire edit again in the first place. The whole point of this article was that I was attempting to illustrate that there are many other betting options available to punters than corporate bookmakers and it appeared to me at least when my information was initially removed as if someone with a vested interest i.e a corporate bookmaker employee was trying to prevent that information from being published. In conclusion if someone has any further objection to language or whatever can you please provide the specifics of them and I will attempt to correct the nominated issue while still retaining the validity of the information provided.
Decline reason:
You seem to be here to want to spread the word about betting options("The whole point of this article was that I was attempting to illustrate that there are many other betting options available to punters than corporate bookmakers") which isn't what an encyclopedia is for(with regards to any subject, not just betting). Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources state about a subject in completely neutral language. I think you being unblocked will involve you agreeing to refrain from editing about sports betting for a least a period of time, and you telling us what else you want to edit about. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2018 (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.
- I'll add that beyond the by now obvious problem of distinguishing between fact and opinion, Embers18 also seems to have a problem with the facts themselves. The SCMP indeed confirms that the turnover of the betting operator in Hong Kong was HK$ 216.5 billion. Unfortunately that's not the tote turnover. That's the total turnover, including, for example, the lottery. The source doesn't mention "tote" or "pool" betting and doesn't say which percentage of that amount was spent on tote betting. (It's also quite a bit lower than the gambling revenue of Macau, which makes it a bit less staggering.) Huon (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)