User talk:Jlp35

Andrew W Scott (gambling expert)

Hello. I have many concerns about this article. Please take note of the tags I'm about to place on it. In the meantime, welcome --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jlp35, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message

You wrote:

First of all let me say I'm mildly annoyed at having my work changed, but I can also say I am totally new to editing on Wikipedia (although I have used it many time). So I freely admit I don't really understand the rules. So if you can help me to get this article in the within the "rules", whatever they are, I'd appreciate it.
Should I be posting this here or on the talk page of the actual article?
Here are my comments about the points you've made:

1. Firstly, about neutrality. I admit I know him, but I tried to write the article in the neutral tone you'd expect of an encyclopedia. I haven't removed the neutrality tag you inserted, because it says not to until the dispute is resolved. So I'm trying to resolve the dispute :) I have thoroughly read the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page, and have changed the title of the article back to refer to him as "gambling expert" rather than "gambler", since you just used the POV tag and not the POV-title tag. Scott has been accepted by the Courts in Australia as an expert witness, writes on gambling matters in the media, and also appears in the media as a gambling expert. I think that's good enough to refer to him as a "gambling expert". It's not just my POV, there are many independent 3rd parties that clearly accept him as an expert. Let me know if you have a dissenting opinion on that.
I also note that on the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page it says: "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." I note that you haven't made any such note. Can you please tell me why you think the article is not NPOV? Now that I have expanded and somewhat re-written the article, do you still dispute the neutrality of the article?

2. About Andrew Scott's notability, he's pretty bloody notable! In fact I was very surprised there wasn't already an article about him, which is why I decided to write one. He's been on national television in Australia many times, and gets trotted out by the current affairs shows whenever they have a story on gambling, there's been numerous magazine articles and newspaper stories about him. Have a look at this page: http://www.blackjack-masters.com/printmedia.php which shows photographic evidence of 22 separate print media appearances in Australia and New Zealand. I personally know that is just the tip of the iceberg. I've also cited a newspaper article that both establishes his credibility and shows that casinos don't like him. He's probably the most well-known advantage play gambler in Australia.

3. About renaming the page from "Andrew W Scott (gambling expert)" to "Andrew W Scott (gambler)", I find that particularly annoying. Mr Scott is more than a mere "gambler". Most gamblers lose, Mr Scott wins and has taught thousands of others to win. He's been involved with gambling for 21 years, and not just as a gambler. In fact I happen to know there was once a period of more than a year that he didn't place a single bet, but ran his school mentoring other advanatage players and appearing in the media discussing gambling. So does that make him a gambler or a gambling expert? I think a gambling expert. He has been accepted by courts in Australia to appear as an expert witness on issues of gambling. He is a the Gambling Correspondent for Crikey, Australia's largest independent online media outlet. He's written gambling articles for MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19839900/, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19801517/, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19795871/. In fact, he does not consider himself a gambler, he considers himself a "professional blackjack player" which actually doesn't really involve gambling. The reason I chose the expression "gambling expert" is that the average person understands casino play as gambling, without making a distinction between losing play and advantage play. If you are unaware of the whole culture of winning gamblers, have a look at this page: Advantage gambling

4. About asking me for a citation for him getting the highest mark in Tasmania for Accounting, how the hell do I prove that? I read it once. But it would be pretty embarrassing to ask the guy for proof as if I didn't believe it!

5. About the rumors that he's won more than $15m in over 100 casinos - he freely admits he's played in more than 100 casinos, but is cagey about the exact amount that he's won. I thought I covered it by saying "it's rumored". Do I have to prove there's a rumor??

6. About the book he's allegedly writing, you're saying I need a citation that a rumor exists that he's writing a book? How on earth can I do that? Do I need to prove he's "yet to officially acknowledge this"??

7. I have deleted the tag at the top about not having references (because the article now does).

8. I carefully read the instructions in the tag about notability. It said "please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability". I believe I've now done this, so have removed the tag. Feel free to re-insert it if you think I've yet to establish Scott's notability.

Anyway, sorry if the tone of this was a little argumentative, it's just a little demoralizing to post something that you thought was pretty good as your first article and have someone come along and find all these faults with it :( Jlp35 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond here asap. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(delete this later if you want) - no worries, actually on re-reading what I wrote, I was a bit harsh. I'm a newbie and not really sure of what I'm doing, so I appreciate the help... Jlp35 (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi. Sorry it's taken me some time to reply... You made a lot of points and I want to respond fully.

Much of what you asked is covered in the links I posted above in your welcome message, but I'll assume you've not had a chance to read it yet, or you're overwhelmed by quite how much there is to learn when you first start out at Wikipedia. We're quite a formal community and it's a little offputting to a newbie, but bear with it.

OK, into the responses. I'm going to break it down point by point. They won't fit with your numbering (sorry) but never mind.

I'm mildly annoyed at having my work changed, One of the key points about Wikipedia is that no-one "owns" any article. (We have a policy called WP:OWN). When you submit changes to the encyclopedia, it says below the "Save page" button " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Wise words. Annoying huh? Think how annoying it must be for expert physicists (or whatever) who contribute here and have their words amended by non-experts. However, over time, the articles improve. Changes made to your work have already made the article far more fitting for an encyclopedia... sorry, I know it's annoying.
You can post to my talk page or the article talk page. It's appropriate to keep this between our "user talk" pages, as at the moment, it's really just a two-way. If we were seeking general consensus or looking for others to join in, we'd take it to the article talk page.
Neutrality. I removed in my initial edits unsourced claims regarding the subject that (because you did not source them) were written as your subjective opinion. Subjective opinions of the editors are not allowed (I see you found WP:NPOV). For example, "expert gambler" and "one of the world's most successful high stakes gamblers". A good rule when making claims in Wikipedia is the "Says who?" rule. Fine to say he was a professional gambler, not so fine, without back-up, to call him "expert" or "one of the world's most successful". To give an analogy, I might believe that Adam Gilchrist's occasional forays into bowling makes him one of the finest bowlers in cricket history (obviously, I don't... bear with me) but my opinion's not worth a jot. If however, Richie Benaud said so in a book he wrote, even if I think it's a crackpot claim, the claim is worthy of being inserted, as it's come from a reliable source that's verifiable.
POV article titles are an absolute no-no and it's not necessary. That's why I moved it and when you removed it, someone else moved it back again. Please leave it where it is now.
I didn't leave a note, because what I did was to request citations for the remaining claims. Properly cited, those claims are not POV. Uncited, they are. It was a shorthand for dealing with many POV problems that I didn't have time to deal with longhand.
Notability needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. The article needs to explain that he is notable. Notability is determined in Wikipedia by "multiple, non-trivial" references to the subject in reliable sources. Some of the information you placed on my talk page would help towards that - it is always better to include this in a new article from the start.
Why isn't the article simply called Andrew W Scott?
The Accountancy claim must be demonstrable or removed. As simple as that. And "because he told me" won't cut the mustard either, I'm afraid.
Similarly for the book. On future things that have yet to take place, see also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
No worries about your tone... you've had a frustrating experience. It takes a while to get used to Wikipedia.
Finally, let me say that although your first encounter with editing may have been rather frustrating, for many newbies it ends with the rather less satisfactory experience of a badly formed advert-y biog article being rather summarily speedy deleted... so consider yourself a success! It looks like the article is here to stay... just watch it improve. Thanks for joining us... feel free to get stuck into editing any of the other 2 million or so articles! And if I can be of any further help, please do drop me a line. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries with the help on the article. Where Dweller leads, I tend to follow (or vice versa), we both have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. One suggestion would be to find some more independent sources to verify things like Scott's appearances at 2006 and 2007 WSOP (I found a commentary describing him losing in the 2007 series). That way it doesn't just look like you're using the various sites he contributes to in order to verify the claims. Independence is alway a good thing in a reliable source! Oh, and by the way, welcome to Wikipedia from me too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott sources

Hey, try this to begin with. Not ideal but it's a start... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Expert"

Hi. If you've got a citation from a RS that he's an expert, please do add it. The important thing to do is to make it clear that it's not Wikipedia (or you!) calling him that, but an RS. Something along these lines: Bloggs, described by the Alice Springs Telegraph as a "certifiable genius" has invented 33 types of underpants since the unfortunate lawnmower incident of 1934.<ref>genius reference goes here</ref> Hope that's helpful. --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troublesome sentence

What does this mean?

Many of his greatest protegés have gone on to enter into Blackjack playing arrangements with Scott.

Puzzled. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profit sharing? I've read those books about breaking Las Vegas and all that jazz, kids from MIT. Good stuff it was too... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it means. The stuff that Scott has done is actually even bigger and better than the MIT stuff, but he has (until very recently) kept a relatively low profile. I've heard he had more than 70 people on his team (but I can't prove it!) Jlp35 (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth expanding "playing arrangements" so the non-expert (Dweller) can enjoy it as much as the expert (The Rambling Man)... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just changed "playing arrangements" to "profit sharing arrangements", to clarify it. I'm off to bed now, thanks guys for your help. Jlp35 (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Andrewscott.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Andrewscott.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]