Jump to content

User talk:Objective3000/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Welcome!

Hello, Objective3000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lradrama 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello and welcome

I noticed your contributions to some of the blackjack related articles, and we had a couple of conversations there. I just wanted to pop over and say hello to you here too. Have fun editing at the Wikipedia. I contribute to some of the blackjack articles and other game-related articles here too, so I'm sure we'll see each other around. Keep in touch. :) Rray 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't read - I can only write a bit:-) Which is to say that I haven't read the Wiki instructions. Just got interested when I saw a comment about something that occurred across the street from me and had to change it.:) Then went to the BJ articles. There is a ton of stuff that could be added. But I don't know that it would help as t would change the balance of the articles. No other changes planned; but I’ll poke in now and again.

My apologies

I mistakenly took your user name out of the history page of edits to Harrah's Entertainment. There have been a few socks used on that page to re-add a WP:POV based criticism section that has not been verified. My apologies.-- bulletproof 3:16 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the reversion that removed the sockpuppet's edit here and some how your edits got mixed in with the sock's edit. see here. Again. My apologies. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Scarne

As you were quoting directly from the book, I removed your comment as it was not properly cited (as we've been stating, you need to familiarize yourself with the WP referencing and citation guidelines). For example, you did not include the page numbers. What I did was reference 3rd-party items that did that research for us and add those instead. The message of "scarne claimed to have invented card counting" is still in the article, along with information about the contradiction of him also saying that card counting didn't work. SpikeJones 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If, as you say, There is no evidence that his discussion with Benjamin Siegal ever took place and it is self-serving, then why would he put such an item in his autobiography? SpikeJones 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I just answered that. Once he discovered that card counting was legitimate and he had been noisily wrong and abusive toward the true experts for decades; he needed a cover story. He changed his story to a claim that he had in fact been the inventor of card counting and that he claimed it didn't work publically so he could play it privately. The Siegal story was a part of that nonsense. In reality he never understood BJ. In the last version of Scarne published just after his death, he claimed "As a matter of fact, I often split 10-valued cards when the dealer's upcard is a 10count. Under most conditions this gives me an advantage of 7 7/13% of each split hand." This is just plain nuts. Objective3000 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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 14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackjack Hall of Fame

You have removed the description of Max Rubin and Stanford Wong as "former professional players". This description is supported by various published articles and books. Therefore, your changes have been reverted. In case you have similar sources demonstrating that they were not, please provide them. I remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting personal opinions or original researsch. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying your message to my Talkpage on the Talkpage of Blackjack Hall of Fame, because I believe it can contribute to the discussion about the contents of that entry. If you want, of course, you can remove it from there. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's continue this discussion in public. I posted a response to your comments in the the relevant Talk Page. -The Gnome (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
About "characterisations", Keith Taft, etc : I don't think you understand. Suppose we have an article about "the Hall of Fame" of some sport, e.g. American football. The list of inductees could include people who, besides being Hall-of-Famers, are well known for other activities, such as acting in movies, being successful in business, or even getting involved in crimes. Now, the list of inductees or the article itself SHOULD NOT include all those other details. They should only state the reason this or that athlete is in the list, or details about his football career, e.g. "Running back; Buffalo Bills 1969-1977; San Francisco 49ers 1978-1979". (Yes, I'm using the very characteristic example of O. J. Simpson!) However, the article would contain a link to the biography page of the relevant personality, whereby, of course, those other aspects of his life would be stated. I hope this is now clearer. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, "card-cheat" is a characterization, while "pro gambler" is not; it's a term stating a person's line of work. There is no moral judgement in describing someone as a pro gambler. I would think calling someone in Wikipedia a "crook" or a "cheat" should only be acceptable if that someone has been convicted in a court of law, e.g. "G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon". (But O. J. Simpson is not a murderer.) I'll look this up in WP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an edit of yours

I reverted an edit of yours in the Card counting article. Just as a friendly FYI as to the reasoning behind that, if you're going to change a statement that's cited, you really need to include a citation for the new version. The criterion for information in the Wikipedia is verifiability, so even if you think the previous statement was inaccurate, it shouldn't be changed unless you include a citation to support the change. So if you want to revert it back, I have no objection as long as you include a citation. See WP:V and WP:RS. Rray (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to provide a citation.

It's called Math Skills; I gave my short proof in the article which anyone who can read & count can easily verify for themselves.

Do you complain that people don't cite 1+1=2 ???

Michael.Pohoreski (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you just added this to an 18 month old post. What are you talking about? Objective3000 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

off-topic: speed count

regarding your earlier comment about speed count being a scam. I am not familiar with this specific technique other than what I've read in advertising and I'll check out the msg boards later tonight as I see there is some commentary along your same lines. Is the scam the cost to learn it, or is it a scam that the method doesn't work? (if it matters, I don't count when I play although I know I should.) SpikeJones (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I'll dust off my copy of KO and try to put it to use. Thanks for that. I'm just happy that I try to follow basic strategy and told friends last week that they were full of crap that the 3rd-base player controls the cards the dealer gets. (I was right, right?) SpikeJones (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd suggest that we move our discussion here to your talk page or over to my talk page, since our disagreement has little to do with the article at this point. (I never asked that my page be re-added to the page as a reference, anyway.) Does that seem fair to you?

I think including a bibliography or a list of sources for my websites is a good idea, and I think you'd obviously agree. But I think accusations of "copying" are out of line. Rray (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I used the lighter word of copying instead of plaigerism for a reason. Nearly everything on that page appears to have been taken from Arnold's book. I know of no other source for this info. I just spoke to Schlesinger and Epstein and they don't either. Doesn't mean I'm not wrong. But each of us has extensive libraries and three+ decades in the field. Arnold and I don't always see eye to eye. But he appears to have done some great, unique, and difficult, research here, and if this is the source, then pardon me but I think "copying" is a valid comment considering the lack of attribution. Objective3000 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. (The article on my website covers more than just the subject of Scarne - I don't know that I have multiple sources for that particular section of it.) I have no strong opinion on the content of the Scarne article (here) anyway. I'm open to your opinions on how to improve my website, by the way. You have my email address; feel free to email me. Rray (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wow. I didn't think that my seemingly innocent question about reverting 2 removed references would have resulted in all that conversation. Thank you for all that side education. SpikeJones (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Please reply to the comment left on Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Surrender

Thanks for your responses! I also appreciated your prior comments on the Blackjack article talk page, where you were in my opinion a voice of sanity. I liked your change on splitting aces, it was a good improvement. On Early Surrender, I need to combine your comment with what's already there, but I'm not aware of anywhere else that has Early Surrender. Can you help me out with any information? I thought Early Surrender was a far-out weirdo thing that happened in AC due only to Crosby's paranoia about dealers revealing hole card information. I guess it exists elsewhere but would like to know more so I can revise the article to be accurate. Any help is appreciated! Dickensmelville (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ES is available in Vancouver, Egypt, Moscow (if still open), Kenya and a few other African nations, and as of a couple years ago a few casinos in the south of France. ES10 is available in many places in Europe. Objective3000 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Piracy demo image

Why do you keep removing the image of the Pirate Bay demonstration from File sharing and the law, an article in desperate need of images? It is pretty obvious that an image of file sharers demonstrating against file sharing laws is relevant in an article about file sharing and the law. I sympathize with your striving to make the article NPOV but you should get to work on the text instead of deleting a relevant image. I will reinsert the image once more, and if you still disagree I suggest we take it to Wikipedia:Third opinion to avoid an edit war. Äppelmos (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Pirate Bay

"You do not understand. You are trying to state your opinion as fact. I have no interest in argueing the point. I am only trying to maintain a NPOV" What the hell are you talking about? You claim torrents are illegal, yet refuse to provide any sources to back up what you are saying. I ask for sources, you claim you have no interest in arguing the point, that I am trying to present my opinion as fact, and that you are trying to maintain NPOV? J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I said that torrents used for copyright violatoin have been ruled illegal by courts in several countries. Do not put words in my mouth.Objective3000 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to someone saying they wished people would realise torrents were legal, you said "You're incorrect. That is based upon a country's legal system, and in many it is completely illegal." Further, please provide some sources for what you're saying. Shouting about how everyone apart from yourself is non-neutral is a little suspect at best, but the fact that you refuse to provide any sources for what you are saying means that no one is going to believe you anyway. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Civility

I honestly don't see where you are coming from. If you have an issue with comments in an edit summary, contact the user involved. Do not undo sound edits, and especially do not continue to undo them when others revert them. If you have a problem with the content of the edit (not the summary) then please explain it. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're being incredibly pendantic here- I've never seen any policy of that sort. Contacting editors that refuse to follow policy is not a waste of time- if they continue to act inappropriately, they can merely be blocked. There was nothing wrong with the edit itself, so it should not have been removed. I've got no interest in reverting good edits to teach a user to behave- that's ridiculous. Should we delete user's articles every time they offend someone? No- we remove violating material, and there was nothing wrong with that edit. Why make the encyclopedia worse? J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
So, contact/warn the user, report them if they continue. In any case, reverting the edut doesn't remove the edit summary from the page history, you'll need to delete the revision for that, so your argument doesn't make much sense. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding MIT Blackjack team play and skilled players at Max Rubin's party

Objective3000 previously has purposely erased factual, easily verifiable, worthwhile contributions to the historical description of the MIT Blackjack Team and its players. I am the only MIT player to win at Max's party and many have tried. The best players in the world go to those parties, but you would never believe it listening to his abusive and belittling comments about miniature golf. Objective3000 - you should visit my site CEJBlackjack and sign up to take lessons - I will teach you what real blackjack skill is. I offer you an introductory skill assessment for free! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitted (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you need to be more careful about making assumptions about people when you don't know who they are. I have been to Max's. I know most of the people there. I have made NO abusive comments. I will not characterize your comments as condescending since you don't know me. Your additions are clearly self-promoting and not appropriate. No one has heard of your site and Max's party is a party. We all thank him for it, but no one seriously thinks the winner is the "best BJ player in the world." I think you are taking this a bit too seriously.Objective3000 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Who you are? Did you win at Max's party?? You've made belittling and condescending remarks about who wins at Max's party and who attends. It's a party, at which the best people have shown up in the past. The competition is serious - and I personally know most of the winners and they are some of the very best in blackjack. I hardly believe you were more than someone's tag-along guest if you ever did attend, because you show almost no comprehension for the skill of the players. Is one of his previous party attendees who made over $100 million betting horses just a foolish amateur too? A party is just a party? No one has heard of my site? It's new. Do I not have a right to include it unless it's more than N years old? Other people's sites were included - I am just following the accepted convention. Mitted (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

First, I in no manner made belittling or condescending remarks about people at Max's party. In fact, you have been the one doing exactly this. You have repeatedly put down my experience even though you know nothing about me. And you are contradicting yourself. If everyone at Max's party is so great, and I am so "ignorant," why does he keep inviting me?:) Look, Max runs a great party. And has some great guests. But you are taking this far too seriously. This year none of the semi-finalists managed to correctly count down the deck and a lawyer won. So what? It's a party. Max gets some promotion and the guests have some fun and get to meet old friends. As for sites, none should be included. Mike and Semyon got theirs in and they should probably be removed. Hard to say. But, they are far more well-known than you. I am not insulting you, that's just a fact. The entire article is poorly written which is why there are two banners pointing out the deficiencies. Your additions don't help.Objective3000 (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I have yet to see you make even a single apology for your numerous attempts to belittle players skill at the party. And now I see you've opened your can of twisted logic, and somehow I am belitting the party because I point out you are not so great to be passing such extensive judgement on other people. And now you can't be bothered responding on my talk page? I can't be bothered responding to you if you are going to take on the approach of a child who twists any argument just so long as he can avoid apologizing. If I have to, I will be talking to Max about your attitude. I consider this discussion over. Mitted (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I am sorry, but this is simply false. I am not guilty of any of your accusations. Again, you are taking a party much too seriously.
2. It is common practice to respond on one's own page on Wiki. In fact, that is what is nearly always done. You are now twisting that into some sort of strange....
3. Why do you keep demanding an apology when you are the one that has constantly insulted my knowledge? I have made no such comments about you.
4. You are apparently new to WP. Please read the rules. Your attacks are not allowed.
5. Say hi to Max for me. This is the third time you have threatened me. Max will find it very funny as I have been a part of the field before you were of legal age to enter a casino.:) Come to think of it, I'll e-mail him tonight myself.
Look, I have helped a vast number of people in the field. If you wish, and your training program is up to my standards, I will help you. But please get over the fact that someone else can have an opinion and that WP, as a dictionary, has certain rules. I have not made a single negative comment about you despite your condescension and insults. Not my style and not the correct forum. Perhaps you have a good product. But WP is not a sales site and how would anyone know with your attitude? If you calm down for awhile, I will contact you privately.

As I said, I consider the discussion over. I don't debate people who make such gross mistakes as calling WP a dictionary. If you want a free skill checkout from one of the best in the world, come to my site. Thanks. Mitted (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop this war. You are making yourself look ridiculous.Objective3000 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You can e-mail your apology to my blackjack site. Thanks. Mitted (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop editing my Talk page immediately.Objective3000 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are in violation of Wikipedia Etiquette, and have committed numerous faux pas. It reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. Mitted (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, stop editing my Talk page immediately. Stop these attacks.Objective3000 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop starting up edit wars with me on other pages and start learning some etiquette at the very least. You are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Mitted (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing is not an edit war so s/he has not started any. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done wasting my time w/Wikipedia. The article is laughably incomplete and incorrect, and I no longer cite it. Mitted (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it's tagged. You don't have to leave there are plenty of other articles out there...Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  09:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop editing my Talk page.Objective3000 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Page vandalism

I've semi-protected your talkpage for a week so that it can't be edited by IPs. Black Kite 13:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that apart from a few instances of I.P. vandalism, most of the disruption seems to come from Mitted. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The IPs are clearly mitted as they are taking the same actions and making the same attacks on the same pages, this page and Black Kite's talk page. Five editors thus far have reverted his self-promoting edits and three additional editors have reverted his vandalism. Unfortunately, one self-promoting edit is still present. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In that case s/he needs to be reported for sockpuppetry. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait and see if it is out of his system. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay

This is not an edit war, this is policy. Its just users who are typically not registered who do not realize that Wikipedia is not a blow-by-blow account. In the past if enough users change it the admins semi-protect it to keep the "Active" status. If the pirate bay stays offline long enough that will probably happen again. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is an edit war. Otherwise it would not have been changed 100 times. The site bounces up and down constantly, is unavailable in large swaths of the world, is only partially available in others. Calling it "active" is as incorrect as calling it up or down.Objective3000 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Objective3000, as you are a well-known blackjack expert), I kindly ask you to review my suggestion on Blackjack Discussion page regarding adding new link to Blackjack calculators External links section. Alextlu (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced card-counting systems

I added some information on Unbalanced card-counting systems. I notice you had just removed it. Can you please comment? Did it not meet the quality, or did I miss something important when adding this info. Thanks, 98.210.115.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for the effort. A few problems. There were several errors, in particular your insistence that accuracy is unimportant. There is no need for details in th earticle, and it tends to suggest that the info provided is all that is needed. Also, it appears to borrow heavily from a copyrighted source.Objective3000 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just curious as to why you undid my edit on even money. I explained it fairly clearly. I have reverted it back to my edit. If you plan to change it again, please discuss it with me.Mk5384 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The case that you have no money is obscure. And you could just 'mark' the bet since it will always pay. Insure for less is not relevant to the discussion. The point is that even money and insuring a BJ are the same, contrary to popular belief. The extra wording dilutes the object of the paragraph.Objective3000 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes I have made are absolutely true. If you choose to revert my edits again, you must cite sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk5384 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, you reverted long-standing text without sources.:)Objective3000 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The popular belief is that insuring a blackjack and even money ARE the same. I have explained the subtle differences. As far as your version of basic strategy, it seems to be just that. Uston, Grossman, Wong, and Revere, to name a few, all espouse the stratiges that I have changed. And as far as resplitting aces being available in 30 to 40% of casinos, you have offered no sources to back this up. Having played BJ all over the world, I can assure you that you are wrong. With all of this having been said, I would rather not get into an edit war over this. The public is far too misinformed about BJ, and if you do know your stuff(which I think for the most part you do), I would much rather put our heads together to improve the article rather than reverting each other ad infinitum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk5384 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your differences are not real. Grossman, Wong and Revere, all of whom I know (knew in the case of Revere) do NOT agree with your BS. If you want us to put our heads together, revert your post and take it to the BJ discussion page.Objective3000 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Forgot, the source for RSA is www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage162.htm.Objective3000 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed if you truly know/knew these people. In Revere's book Advanced Card Counting Strategy he has an appendix on BS, which says to surrender hard 15 v ace, hard 16 v 10,ace, and hard 17 v ace if dealer hits soft 17. How's this for a compromise? Keep what I've said about even money. You can not mark the bet without casino credit approval. ( At least in AC, per the CCC.) I think I have shown the subtle differences that exist. Revert the other two edits for now. Even assuming that you are correct about RSA, 30% and "on occasion" seem compatible, but I won't split hairs. As far as the BS tables go, I will cite the sources for my changes, upon which time I hope you won't have a problem going back to my version. Is this agreeable to you? Incedentially, if you are being truthful about knowing these people, you probably knew my father.Mk5384 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The BS rules you are talking about are single-deck. (Except that you would also surrender 77vT, if you could go back in time and find a single-deck table with surrender.) The table states that it is for multiple-deck. AC is highly unusual. I have never been asked for a credit check to mark a bet. And certainly not for a bet with a 0% chance of a loss. If your father was/is in the field, I probably did know him. Objective3000 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you consider the term clown to be derogatory, perhaps you should join a support group to bolster your self-esteem. I do not assume that I know more than "everyone else". However, when it comes to BJ, I know more than you do. Mitted apparently does as well, which is why I solicited his help. And he is not the only one who seems to have or have had a gripe with you. You sir seem to be the one who assumes that he knows more than everyone else.Mk5384 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop the name-calling. Mitted tried in vain to get his name in WP to advertise his site. (Now defunct.) He was barred for a substantial period for vandalism. If you have a source, then provide it and I will explain the problem. But, your basic strategy mods are incorrect.Objective3000 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently even when you've been proven wrong, you refuse to admit it. That's very childish. (I'm sorry; does "childish" constitute name calling?) I will wait to revert the BS tables for a few days. In addition to Revere's book, I have other sources, and want to have all of my ducks in a row before I change it. (Although something tells me that even after being shown numerous sources proving you wrong, you'll continue to deny it.) Revere's BS table is not for single deck games, and your comment makes me wonder if you've ever read the book, let alone knew him. But I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. As far as the blackjack insurance/even money issue your claim that they are exactly the same is false. You have stated that the example I cited is obscure. Yes it is. That obscure difference is what makes it SLIGHTLY different. Do not change it again.Mk5384 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You continue the name-calling, falsely claim you have "proved" something, make claims about my future actions, and now are giving orders to another editor. Please read WP:CIV and stop attacking editors.Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed Uston, Grossman, Wong, and Revere's books, that you gave as refs, and none of them agree with your changes. I have also posted four modern refs on the Blackjack discussion page that agree with the current table. Basic Strategy is well-documented and the Blackjack page in WP has been vetted by numerous people. That is not to say that it is 100% correct and WP is a living work. But, insisting that you are right and everyone else is (various names) is not a good path. WP is a product of group consensus. It's seemingly arcane rules do have a purpose.Objective3000 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark?

Who is Mark? (I assume you were adressing that to me.) In any case, it gave me reason to revisit your talk page, for which I'm greatful. I knew you had caused problems here, but I had forgotten just how many editors have had problems with you. By the way, TYPING IN ALL CAPS will not make something that isn't true true. Nice try, though.Mk5384 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but as I said, I'm done. You won't goad me into posting on the RfC page. But as you feel I've made a personal attack against you, you should probably file a report against me.Mk5384 (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The last editor I had a problem with was you, many months ago. We all have problems with editors like you now and again. But, most of us do not get blocks. There are now fourteen editors having a problem with you, and you are the only editor that I've seen merit a Request for comment for bad behavior. Yet your response remains constant personal attacks, snide remarks and false accusations. This is harmful to WP. Please try, for once, to be civil, as I requested many months back.Objective3000 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
And the numerous editors with whom you had problems before me? They were all like me too, right? You couldn't have possibly done anything to cause those problems, could you have?Mk5384 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you are reading. Many months ago I had problems with you calling me names in your continuing style. Prior to that, you would have to go back over a year to MitTed. He never made a single edit to WP that was not self-promoting. He was blocked and then used a sock-puppet to vandalize my Talk page. And then you asked him to come back to fight me again.Objective3000 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You're only making yourself look silly with the comments you keep adding to the RfC page.Mk5384 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
As I see someone else just filed an ANI against you, I will leave it at that. Please try to be civil in the future.Objective3000 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Issue closed as Mk5384 has been barred from Wikipedia.Objective3000 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Undo's is not Appropriate

I am not sure of your style as a contributor, but just undoing other peoples contributions is wildly inappropriate and only leads to an undo war. If you think something may be incorrect i recommend actually contributing by writing or correcting. Undo is not a contribution to wiki. Please contribute. Deathmolor (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "inappropriate" about an undo. I am sure your contribution was made in good faith. But it had several problems and was unattributed.Objective3000 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually you did not cover those issues. The issues you listed were referencing what I said in the discussion you said absolutely nothing about what issues you had with the article, if they were one in the same you were not clear as you list them in point form and without proper english. Again you're taking the easy way out of an edit. If you personally have issues you should discuses them in detail and properly. Deathmolor (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Please respond tothe issues onthe Talk page.Objective3000 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you are the person not responding, I have responding to your points as much as I could but your points have no baring in fact nor are they in any way related to the article itself. I find it difficult to respond to anything with no point of reference to tie it to the subject at hand. Also you reference without citation. 700 shareware has no meaning in a historical reference in an article. Shareware now and shareware then are two very different things. Deathmolor (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I have responded in detail. You have not responded to my concerns. You just keep posting without consensus. You are now in violation of WP:3RR.Objective3000 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No you are in violation of the 3RR, (1) i write something (2) you remove it (3) i remove your undo, (4) the forth revert is clearly yours. Of course that does not include edits done in an attempt to satisfy the reference requirement. Please follow the rules you submit to me prior to asking that i do such. I personally refuse to beat other editors over the head with Wiki rules unless its absolutely necessary. You may wish to adopt that stand point as well. Deathmolor (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Please reread WP:3RR. WP rules exist for a purpose. I do not see why you refuse to abide by them.Objective3000 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well you can say it over and over again but the 4th edit was indeed yours quite clearly. The idea of the WP:3RR rule was framed to stop editors who in good faith cannot determine a proper course of action while still leaving the disputed information intact for others to review easily. Basically 3RR's so to speak keeps someone who wants to undo a contribution from succeeding alone at the task. He would need to involve other editors to make it stick. This of course is for editors who take actions in good faith. Also the rule is described more as a guideline, of course there is no reason to go further if parties are in agreement and progressive edits are being made such as adding material and expanding on the information, even correcting errors is allowed if it resolves the argument. The more you try to fit the square peg in the round hole the more it begins to look desperate. Why not work with me? Help me with a rewrite, do some research, and look into the subject further there is no need to make this so hard and fast. Put some effort into it instead of taking the easy road. Deathmolor (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have asked for you to work with me over and over. You just keep posting the disputed edit and claiming there is consensus when obviously there isn't. And this is the fifth time you have said I am taking the easy road. Please, please read WP:CIV. You have violated it numerous times. You can debate the text all you wish. But, making personal comments is not acceptable. I am NOT putting a square peg in a round hole. I am not looking desperate. These are personal attacks. I gave my arguments, and you have completely ignored them. Your edit is filled with errors as I have detailed. Remove your edit, copy it on to the Talk page, and then we can discuss it until there is consensus. That is how collaboration works.Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
By all means use the {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}} flags as you see fit i will not consider that an edit war. If you dispute the facts present then present it for review within the article and arrive at a consensus the proper way and not continue to insist it within the discussion and removal until an ambiguous approval from you. This is neither constructive nor cooperative in the least. If you have a specific point to make cite it the proper way, within the work itself and then we will have something to work on. Right now the 3rd opinion you asked for was clearly in favor of constructive editing rather then a complete removal. He only supported removal if the result was not an edit war. If you know an undo will cause me to revert that undo then the obligation falls on you to hopefully contribute, i would prefer not to use other forms of dispute resolution, i would prefer to just simply do this as recommended by the 3rd opinion. Deathmolor (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you have done nothing but ignore WP rules and post insults. You have declared that there is no dispute. You have not discussed anything. Objective3000 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3O and RfC issued. 3RR warning given. Dispute is now settled.Objective3000 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale reverting

[1] I spend 30 minutes adding sourcing to an under-sourced article, and you revert it all in its entirety minutes later. Why don't you look at my userpage to see if I'm the type of editor who "spams" stuff in articles. What's the deal? Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hardly wholesale. I did not accuse you of spamming. I said "looks like" as it is unusual to see a brand new book added four times in one shot reffed for info that is in dozens of respected books. The first, second and third refs you added already had better refs. The last paragraph is incorrect. I'll work on it. Objective3000 (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I no longer see any Axelrad refs in the article. Every single paragraph needs to have a citation, or someone could justifiably remove the uncited info. I added the Axelrad refs to paragraphs that had no citations. I've started a discussion about it on the article talk page. Normally, in the spirit of collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, we try to discuss content and sourcing issues before reverting editors who are trying to improve an article. Please join that discussion. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
All gambling-related pages have very heavy spamming. We cannot start a new discussion every time someone adds a link or ref.Objective3000 (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not? That's how we do things. Why didn't you check my userpage before reverting me? Like I said, I spent 30 minutes finding the page numbers and adding them so that some of the unsourced text in the article would have sourcing only to have you remove them minutes later without, apparently, bothering to check into what had just occurred. Have you been editing in this manner in other articles besides this one? Cla68 (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
We all edit links and refs this way in the gambling articles. They are bombarded by links and refs. I have explained the problem with the refs on two pages. If you disagree, please respond to my response instead of characterizing my editting. That's how we do things.Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Removal of contributions is by some editors, and this editor is one who subscribes to that philosophy, is completely inappropriate. Please find another method of contributing then wholesale removal of other editors contributions. Deathmolor (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This person spammed WP with TEN links to a useless gambling affliate site. You have not made an edit to WP in six months. Now you come here to continue some war against me from back then by responding to an old edit. The RfC went against you. Get over it and some attacking people.Objective3000 (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Please cease promoting software or books you have authored, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I think it is OK to include a brief note on your user page listing your work, including links to them; they establish your interest and bona fides. But links to them should not be included in your edits, and, if they are properly used as references, they should not be so used by you. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume "good faith" as per WP:CIV. In the aprox. 1,000 edits I have made, I have never "promoted," or even mentioned my software. I have never tried to add my name or create an article about me or my software, which I could well do. I have never placed a link to any of my work as an external link. Those that exist have been placed there by others. I have added refs when someone has specifically requested a citation as my sites are really the only sites available for some of this info. My 580 page book is FREE and contains none of the blinking casino affiliate ads you see on other related sites as I turn down all affiliate deals. In the three years I have been here, no one before has ever challenged any of these links and I believe they fall within WP:COI and WP:SBS. If not, anyone is able to provide a civil response.Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
     You say "as my sites are really the only sites available for some of this info" and (here) "over 70% of the cites in the WP gambling pages fail ... many of them are simply casino-affiliate sites that have grabbed info from other sources ... I rarely remove these cites as there are so many and good sources few".
     Uncle_G said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schlesinger:

We're writing an encyclopaedia here, not name checking the famous, the important, and the expert. ... It's about whether this person's life and works have been documented in depth, in published works that are independent of the subject, meaning that a neutral and verifiable biographical encyclopaedia article, free from original research, can be written (based upon such documentation) about this person's life and works. An encyclopaedia systematizes knowledge. Does the knowledge of this person's life and works exist, written down, fact checked, reviewed, and published?

     What he didn't explain is this: A commercial encyclopedia like Encyclopedia Britannica has a staff of paid editors to decide whether or not an article or some particular material will or will not be included in their encyclopedia. We obviously don't have that, but to maintain our mission as an encyclopedia, and not just a random conglomerate of articles about anything anyone cares to write about, we have to have some kind of screening mechanism. That mechanism comes through the policies and guidelines concerning verifiability, notability, and reliable sources. In short, and at the risk of repeating what Uncle G has said, before a person, place, thing, organization, or idea can be included in Wikipedia it must have:
  • already been recognized
  • as important or significant
  • by objective, independent, and provable third party sources
  • with a established reputation for fact-checking
  • which are independent of both the subject of the article and of Wikipedia itself.
(All of those are an hugely-abbreviated summary of the "real" rules set out the the policies I linked to above and of dozens, if not hundreds, of additional pages and discussions refining them, so please don't try to use them to judge whether or not a particular article or edit can be included here, refer instead to the actual, detailed policies and guidelines.)
     This is all best summed up by the first sentence in the verifiability policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

(That policy goes on, later, to define what it means by "reliable source", which is quite a bit more restricted than what someone might consider to be a reliable source just off the top of their head.)
     One consequence of that policy is that there are subjects and information which are of considerable interest or importance to people or to segments of our society which simply cannot be included in Wikipedia because the facts about them cannot be established through sources which meet Wikipedia's high standards for reliable sources. It is for that reason that when you say "sites are really the only sites available for some of this info" and "I rarely remove these cites as there are so many and good sources few" you are not justifying the existence of those citations and sources, but instead you are instead admitting or, at least, strongly suggesting that the citations and sources and the information that they support do not meet Wikipedia's standards and should be deleted or considered for deletion from Wikipedia.
     Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and it's often said that you can "contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are", but the true fact of the matter is that if someone is going to spend much time here that it's awfully difficult for them to do so without conflict and frustration unless they obtain a good working knowledge of the rules. You now have slightly over 1,100 edits, which indicates a commitment and desire to work here for which you are to be commended:
 You've been given a cookie, because you've jumped right in and tried hard to help build Wikipedia. Bon appétit, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
In that light, let me make a few suggestions (not all of which are directly related to what I've said here):
Good luck with your editing and best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for all the effort in your response. A couple of brief comments. First, as I said before, it appears that the majority of cites on the gambling pages are invalid. And, most of the people with pages associated with gambling clearly should not have pages. I realize this is not a reason for keeping another page, even if that page is about a person with a stellar reputation in the field. But, it is bothersome nonetheless. Secondly, as I understand it, my books are a valid source for citations as they were edited by Don Schlesinger who has an established reputation for fact checking. In fact, he has fact checked most of the good Blackjack books and probably hundreds of published articles by other authors precisely because that is his reputation. Unfortunately, someone claiming to be me deleted three year old, valid citations on hole carding first under a now banned username, and now as an IP. regards,

Objective3000 (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

If you revert me for adding an external link to a legitimate website with a photo (which is not available on Wikipedia due to copyright issues), please explain yourself or i will rollback. I am using proper sources that are used on Google news as well. If you feel that I am in error somehow, please explain. Be Well! Meishern (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the sites are very poor and include misinformation. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
All the external sites are poor for referencing gambling, most are banner farms. I found one that isn't wall to wall affiliate banners, and Google news lists it as well. I take sites like that more seriously as news sources. I linked it externally for photo, which we cant use on Wikipedia due to copyright, and the other external links do not have photos. I figure if find a gem might as well use it to improve content of Wikipedia, because frankly i don't like the vast majority of references or external links used on most gambling pages here. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
No, all external sites are not poor for gambling refs. This one is both a banner farm and simply awful. It has content just like that of scores of sites that just take the names of several people and make up stuff about them. The info on Wong is laughable. Sorry, for being blunt -- but this is a terrible site where most of the info is incorrect. Linking to incorrect info, because you can't find a good picture makes no sense for an encyclopedia. Thanks for the good faith effort, but the links degrade the goal of WP -- to provide accurate, referenced material. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the verbiage is weak, that is why i didnt reference the content, just the photo. I spend hours looking for a site that has as many banners as the NY Times. I hate when articles have no photo of the person due to copyright issues. Now I will directly link to photo and not the webpage and have the link description reflect that. I didnt want to get into this with you, since this page is full of issues with your reverting skills, and I need not add another. I will ask for consensus on talk pages of blackjack players for consensus of direct link to photos. I am puzzled by why you selectively leave banner farms with no additional info, and remove pages with no banners and useful info (photo). Instead of reverting Wong and my other edits (which took hours), consider spend the same amount of time researching info not found on the page. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
First, I don't understand your comment "this page is full of issues with your reverting skills." Like anyone that has been around here long enough, I have had conflicts with a couple of people. One was community-banned from Wiki as he had numerous such conflicts. Another made no edits that did not involve trying to get his own name in WP. I also don't understand your comment that I should spend time researching on Wong's page. I have spent decades at BJ research and have known Wong for 18 years. On your comments on selective reverting, I refer you to the sage advice that "2005" gave you. Please stop worrying out banner ads. They don't matter. What matters is verifiability. You appear to want to help the WP project. Great. Just keep in mind that verifiable information is more important than pictures.Objective3000 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that there is so much evidence of this editors reverts are completely baseless that until he changes his behavior, any editor from now on who has an issue is perfectly welcome to revert it back. Sorry Objective you have stepped over the line too many times. Deathmolor (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please be civil. Making a attack with no evidence because an RfC went against you six months ago is quite pointless. My reverts have stood the test of time well over 99% of the time, including this time. You are the one that received the 3RR warning when last we met, not I.Objective3000 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Please learn to read an edit summary

Please stop saying the changes weren't explained. They were explained in the the edit summary.[2] See where it says, "Popularity already covered in first paragraph. No need to repeat again."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate, resorting to ad hominem already. I know how to read an edit summary. Nowhere did you explain the removal of the LA Times quote "one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading" and "the most visible member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright or pro-piracy movement." This article is filled with refs from unreliable, biased sources, all of which should be removed. Instead, you removed one of the very few WP established reliable sources.Objective3000 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I did explain the removal. Please read the following sentence: "Popularity already covered in first paragraph. No need to repeat again."" Second, the LA Times article was NOT removed from the article. It's still in there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No, you removed two of the quotes from the LATimes. With no explanation.Objective3000 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, its popularity is already covered in first paragraph. There is no need to repeat the same point in the second paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The quotes clearly cover more than popularity. The fact that Alexa says it is an active website is interesting, even though Alexa is inaccurate. The fact that TPB claims a huge number of registered users is interesting, even though they have been convicted of crimes and are well-known for inaccurate info. But, the LATimes, a respected source accepted by WP, describes the actual function and legal status of the site. Your continued deletion of these quotes is unexplained and unacceptable.Objective3000 (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Objective3000/Archive_1&oldid=1140390420"