Ludocrat

Ludocrat:

It really seems that you can contribute a lot to Wikipedia. Your repaging of Hearts needed to be done, for example. However, I don't know what you're trying to get by stirring the Ambition pot. The game is controversial, to say the least, mainly because it was invented by a controversial individual (socialism, unconventional ideas). If you honestly believe Ambition deserves discussion/inclusion on Wikipedia, make your case. Some people will be willing to hear you; others will flat-out ignore you, having already made up their minds. If you're just trying to troll or stir people up, don't. 137.22.15.161 02:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about Mike Church, I don't care about socialism. I believe the game is notable enough for inclusion, as a professional game designer. I'm not, however, interested in stirring people up. In fact, I don't even want to do so. But if it should happen, oh well.

My main opposition seems to be User:EventHorizon, who has given me some good reasons for withholding the article for some time. I'm also a newbie to Wikipedia and have no idea how it really works. This is the first time I've been a signed contributor. I'm willing to hold off for some time. There are more pressing issues re games/game design on Wikipedia than Ambition. Ludocrat 03:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Furthermore, there are many apocryphal claims that Mr. Church appears to have made in order to support his card game. For example, he claimed that Pig (dice) is called "Ambition" in South America (to justify creating more sites linking to Ambition (card game). It may be true, but the fact it totally unnotable. I'm neutral in this: I won't take crap from either side. Ludocrat 06:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to Jan. 31 post

Wikipedia shouldn't carry an article on Ambition for the reasons I explained on my research page. It will only infuriate people. Your insistence on creating a page will be taken either as MC activity, or trolling. Go ahead and do it if you want. I don't recommend it. EventHorizon talk 05:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ambition

That was a terrible decision to revive that page. Ambition is semi-notable at best, and you may have revived a 16-month running politically-motivated attack on an absent individual.

I advise you not to vote if the page is sent to VfD. EventHorizon talk 04:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguous Hearts (disambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hearts (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hearts (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hearts (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)