User talk:Mitted

Welcome!

Hello, Mitted, 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!

Who erased my addition to MIT blackjack Team page?

This is a valuable addition to Wikipedia's category "MIT Blackjack Team".

1. Give me a break. I've been to Max's party and know most everyone that goes.

2. You are in violation of WP:CIV. There is no excuse for name-calling.Objective3000 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Objective3000. First it's a derogatory remark about listing everybody who ever won at Max's party - while having no comprehension that I am the only MIT player to win and this is an article about MIT Blackjack Team. Then it's belittling comments about miniature golf, and insinuations that lawyers win, not professional blackjack players - while having no idea what being a professional blackjack player is really like. How anybody would let you into Max's party is beyond me. In fact I might just e-mail this entire set of comments of yours to Max Rubin to let him know how you feel. Is one of his previous attendees who made $100 million betting horses an amateurish fool put-put-puttering about too? Wow!

Edit Warring

Your edits have been out of line and not conducive to Wikipedia's standards. I've made a post on the edit warring page here to get an administrative opinion. I've also added a welcome banner to this page that will provide reading material on the type of material that should be considered for inclusion in articles. Rurik (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing this reading material. I am learning about wikipedia etiquette and faux pas, etc. I noted that it says one should be able to apologize, which Objective3000 was incapable of. I won't bother asking him again, since I don't consider him to be of good character. Rather, I read over his talk page and saw that numerous people before me have thought he was ignorant and not of good character as well, so I consider the issue closed. Hopefully at some point Wikipedia will put some restraint on people like this. I will certainly be learning more about filing proper complaints instead of getting into edit wars. Mitted (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit. Please do not insert unsourced promotional material into articles. Please see WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Thanks. Black Kite 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you give me a link to the online source I'll have a look as how it can be included. Thanks, Black Kite 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the link on your talk page as well: http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article/0,2322,324,00.html Mitted (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that article and unless I read it wrongly, it doesn't appear to be a competition that actually involves playing blackjack, but is a set of related activities. I'm unconvinced that a winner of this could call themselves the "best blackjack player in the world". Black Kite 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - the competition involved 3 parts, and yes a very significant portion of it related to being a professional blackjack player, including direct test of various blackjack skills. In the article I am called "The most feared man in the casino business" for 1999. So, it's more than blackjack. But, I was only making the smaller claim related to blackjack since that seemed more reasonable to me. And I was the only MIT blackjack team player to win, including numerous attempts by others on my team. The caliber of the total set of winners at the party since 1997 is the very highest in professional blackjack. So whether you personally are convinced or not really reflects on your lack of understanding of the situation more than anything else. I am new to Wikipedia but it is shocking to see the low standards here. Mitted (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think it more reflects your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy (not surprising, as you're quite new here and it can be arcane). First of all, your edit said "Best Blackjack player of the year, 1999" whereas the article says "...and the unofficial title of "Most Feared Man in the Casino Business." So to use that source in the article, it would have to say "In 1999 a member of the Amphibians, who would still like to remain anonymous, won Max Rubin's 3rd annual Blackjack Ball and with it, according to one website, the unofficial title of "Most Feared Man in the Casino Business." As an aside, as you are the person referred to in the article, this page might be useful too. Hope this helps. Black Kite 23:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this BlackKite. I believe I have made a correct entry now to the MIT Blackjack Team page, and I also put a citation with it. Please let me know if you think it is acceptable. You are the first person I've encountered who I'd say is a credit to Wikipedia, and I would like to thank you for helping me make a correct contribution here. I would also like to ask - I added a mention of my site which I recently founded, but only because other team members had mention of their sites - is this ok? And if not, what is the difference between their sites being mentioned while mine is not? Thanks. Mitted (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that looks better - I've just tweaked the reference so it appears with its title in the References section. As for the sites, I'd say that's OK, but some references for them wouldn't go amiss. Black Kite 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about editors met on Wikipedia

Talk note to myself: Wow - this guy Objective3000 acts like a pathological liar. I've seen guys like him before. He needs to lie because he can never admit he's wrong and he needs to apologize. He should be barred from Wikipedia if it is possible. Mitted (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd note: he even directly lied onto BlackKite's talk page after breaking into the discussion which had nothing to do with him in order to continue warring with me! He doesn't seem to check even basic facts, and refuses to apologize!!

There is nothing wrong with that though, see my further comments on BlackKite's talk page. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with not checking basic facts and lying about people, and then claiming to be an editor at Wikipedia? Objective3000 has purposely shown a reckless disregard for the truth in his posts and edits. Mitted (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I meant was that there is nothing wrong with posting in another discussion. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 12:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 12:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've spent enough time with Wikipedia for now, thanks. It's obviously just a hacked version of what really happened on the teams while I was there, and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to correct something that is fatally flawed. Mitted (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know there hasn't been anything posted here in a while, but I'm taking the chance that you still check it from time to time. I'm having a problem with this Objective 3000 character, and you seem to have gone through the same thing. Furthrtmore, you seem like a truly knowledgeable BJ player. Objective 3000 claims to know/ have known Revere, Wong, Grossman, et al, but his knowledge of BJ is certainly flawed, and he has repeatedly reverted my edits. I'm trying to improve the BJ article, and maybe even get it back to featured status, and an edit war with this clown will not serve any productive purpose. I could really use your help, and would appreciate it if you would contact me on my talk page. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]