This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please carry the conversation on at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Conflict_of_Interest.2FAdvertising.2FContentiousness. Fredbauder ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an unused and unmonitored account. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I was editing blackjack eight months back, and your constant reverting got to me a bit. Left this whole section in fact. I thought u owned blackjackhero and that casinocity. However I didnt know about the other 2 domains, and i was just surprised to find this name everywhere, and looked it up on wikipedia, no article. So don;t think i was attacking you in that way, cuz thats out of order, someone did it to me a few months earlier, outed me, and I was mad pissed off. In any case, just wanted to let u know i have no connection with goldberg or whoever else, and am not here to attack u in any underhanded way. Nobody contacted me by the way, i am nobody's puppet. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 02:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi "Objective3000".
I'm really sorry to bother you but I just registered to Wikipedia in order to be part of that fantastic tool (mainly about my field, Gambling) and the least I can say is that... it's unmistakable at first glance!
Let's make it short, I think it would be nice to add that link: http://www.arnoldmcdonald.org/code/main.php?p=6600000 to the page on card counting. It's my website, it's free, no advert, etc. It's dedicated to card games, Magic, etc. It's merely a tool I devised to allow people practicing card counting with several systems. The purpose is not to get some free advertisement (it's a personal website, I couldn't care less about advertisement!), it's simply to provide a free (and I think helpful) resource for that article. There are almost no free resource for practicing card counting on the web!
Problem is I understand nothing about how adding a reference! I edit the section and I can't see the already available references. I'm completely lost. Thus, would you be so kind to explain to me how to proceed? I just spend one hour with the Wikipedia help system, I tested with the sandbox, well, it doesn't work at all.
Thanks for your time. And again, really sorry to bother you about that! I simply had to ask to someone in the know :-).
OTDFTB ( talk) 06:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your time, Objective3000!
Well, it doesn't help me that much about how to add a link but anyway, I'll fight with Wikipedia help system :-).
You say there are dozens of free apps like that on the Web. Why there is none referenced in that page then? Can you name one? Mine is free, belongs to a non-profit-making website and is available all the time. The few I found are for smartphones (and then not open to everyone) or belong to gambling websites (mainly there to attract people). You also have to pay for many of them. Besides, none of them are cross-platform (they require Windows, or #.Net, or MacOS, etc.). I don't think we are talking about the same material :-).
Or maybe I've been unluncky...
Cordially,
OTDFTB ( talk) 17:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're damn right, card counting is not only a matter of adding and subtracting numbers. Thanks for the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OTDFTB ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice you reverted my additional side bet on this page. Fair enough. I am a less than part time contributor. However, I only added that particular side bet because it is refered to elsewhere in that section (and I had to go somewhere else to find out what it was). Should that other reference not also be deleted?
" The house edge for side games is generally higher than for the blackjack game itself. Nonetheless side games can be susceptible to card counting, often requiring bespoke counting systems. Most side games do not offer sufficient win rate to justify the effort of advantage play; exceptions are "Lucky ladies" and "Over/Under" " Alan LeHun ( talk) 23:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur. It does seem strange to me that I had to google a term that I had come across on Wikipedia. I shall leave it to you to ponder on any further edit, on the grounds of your greater knowledge on the subject, but I do feel the term should be either briefly explained or removed completely. Ty and Tc. Alan LeHun ( talk) 15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Objective3000 and thank you for your time.
On the 28th of November I attempted to edit the 'Card Counting' page (with the section written attached to the bottom of the message) and the change was removed for various reasons primary being a one time comment in addition to the method being relatively new.
In terms of the high card count the method has been developed and tested by the team at [dele]
Here you will find an explanation of the method and its differences to the standard methods of card counting: [dele]
And here is a pdf. file demonstrating the mathematics behind the method: [dele]
The one time comment was due to having never had anything of worth to put on wikipedia that was not already on there. This new method does deserve a mention as it is a completely new way of card counting that proves to be effective and that people who are interested should know about, with the mathematics side which can be quite complex and long winded referenced.
Please look over the message again and offere some feedback if the wording or formatting isn't to your liking.
Many thanks,
KnowGambling
Recently a card counting system has been created which removes the fast mathematics needed from the process of counting. The method known as the High Card Count is based on averages and follows the equation:
"The Count for each round = The number of players on the table (including the dealer) - The number of high cards (10-A) that were dealt during the round"
This method proves to be less profitable than traditional methods providing under a 1% advantage to the player but is much more accessible and is becoming increasingly more popular among beginners due to its ease.
Reference - [dele]
Hey Objective3000, I am really new to Wikipedia and one of my areas of expertise is around blackjack, card counting, and other forms of advantage play. I noticed that you seem to be the most active individual within these area and I was wondering if you would assist me in adding additional details to existing pages and in creating new pages regarding professional card counters and teams.
Thanks!
Pharaoh8787 ( talk) 15:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are willing I would love to send my updates before I go ahead and officially make the updates. I am new the site so what is the best process for me to do this? Also I was looking to add information on pros that are retired and previously ran teams, but are no longer active. Pharaoh8787 ( talk) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia's "rollback" feature works since I don't have access to it, but having said that it looks like you rolled back to a much earlier revision, and I'm not sure why you chose to do so, reverting some apparently uncontroversial edits of mine such as this typo fix edit in the process, when you reverted my more contentious edit relating to Mac OS X. Please don't revert excessively.
I do believe that I had some useful things to contribute in those edits, so I'm going to try to re-add all of that content.
P.S. The text I deleted wasn't "well-supported", the whole point I was making on Talk was that the text I deleted wasn't "well-supported", indeed it appeared to be itself OR with a "reference" added which did not in fact prove all the points it was trying to make. You may well of course be able to find some famous person saying the same thing as the text I deleted said - but if so, you need to cite them - not some random collection of old pieces of software. Citing raw data with no analysis of possible counterexamples, and furthermore raw data that does not come from a reliable source, is just OR, plain and simple.
P.P.S. I actually wrote approximately half of the text in that article, so... just FYI, I'm not some random clueless person.-- greenrd ( talk) 20:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Digital rights management has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Aoidh ( talk) 12:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You may be right, but I don't think so. Searching news adobe adept drm -site:Adobe.com is instructive, read for yourself. Almost nobody thinks it works, nor trusts that they will continue to have access to the restricted content. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to say to click to select the past month. Anyhow, this discussion includes comments by Adobe's product manager which clarifies their intention. Doesn't really concern me personally, I don't have any DRM'd Adobe books, but WMF in general is rather "libre" in its orientation. WP of course relies on access to sources to enable wp:V. So long as the changes don't impair that access, I CBA'd what they change, it's just a dumb business decision. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
R u a bot or a person can u help me understand wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.242.123 ( talk) 02:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Your upload of File:ComplexQuartly.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know, talk pages of redirect-pages generally don't get much traffic. Your proposal (which I would be inclined to support) would be best made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
What is your problem with the documentation of a fact, in its own separate article? There is an active campaign by a very notable organization to oppose DRM by reassigning its meaning. Do you deny the notability of opposition movements? Would you delete the page about the Tea Party movement because it has "nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party"? That is not objective 1, much less 3000. As you are active against Free Software Articles in general (apparently, at least mentioned above) I would ask you to disclose your biases. Do you--for instance--work for a firm that creates DRM technology? Metaeducation ( talk) 09:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I have to admit that I find your insistence in inserting "At the beginning of each round, zero to three players place their bets in the "betting box" at each position in play" into the Blackjack article stunning. This is absolutely incorrect and as I pointed out, is hilariously contrary to an illustrative picture to the right of this text which shows a four handed game. Willfully adding information you know is incorrect can be termed "vandalism" but I suspect what we have here is instead a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I am not going to get into an edit war with you over this... it is so obviously incorrect that I doubt anyone reading the article will not realize immediately the error in your action and I am not going to spend any further energy on this in any way, shape or form. I will leave it to another editor to have to deal with your inexplicable need to insert obviously incorrect information back into the encyclopedia. Marteau ( talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just saw that the conversation seemed to drift off into talking about climate change and all kinds of other stuff then what section it should be placed into. I think somewhere, somehow, that off topic cov. should be rolled up, but maybe I picked the wrong spot. What is the accusation that you were responding to? You appear to be responding to Kerani. His response seems on topic (he says it seems relevant to his political views and should stay in that topic and that a new controversy section would be difficult and fraught with negative repercussions), I don't exactly see the allegation. If you want I would be happy to roll up what is under that statement of yours and leave your statement, that would serve the same purpose of taking most of the Off-topic conv out of the main flow. -- Obsidi ( talk) 00:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Objective3000. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Weight issues with religious views sourced only to a Youtube video.The discussion is about the topic Neil deGrasse Tyson. Thank you. -- Obsidi ( talk ) 05:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see this report and comment where appropriate. Viriditas ( talk) 04:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You removed my properly referenced statement that both SOPA and PIPA are dead from WP:SOPA initiative/Learn more diff. In the edit summary, you called my statement "an opinion" although it was supported by reliable sources. The question on the page is "Are SOPA and PIPA dead?", and I provided reliable sources that say they are dead. You removed those and reverted to the answer "Not at all". How can it be "Not at all" if those sources say they are dead? Vanjagenije ( talk) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi -- I left you a long rebuttal to your views on "assumptions" and to the relocation within the article of the name change on the Nightly News over on the Brian Williams' talk page. I am eager to hear your response, and, as you, do not appreciate others' allusions to "vandalism" and "absurd[ities]." I mean nothing like that; you and I, at least, seem just to have a sincere disagreement as to how the article should be structured. Bruiserid ( talk) 11:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Per your comments, I have added more references to the Brian Williams article. You took something out citing references so I added more. Wowee Zowee public ( talk) 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edit on Talk:The Pirate Bay seems to imply that you issued a abuse request to CloudFlare about the pirate bay, meaning you have a legal relation to the site. If this is the case, I would encouraged you to disclose this on your talk page, as recommended by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Belorn ( talk)
WHAT is "grossly undue"? The only mention of "undue weight" on the talk page is about the name change of his program, which doesn't even appear to be in the article any more. – Smyth\ talk 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to bring other people into the conversation. Continuing at Talk:Brian Williams. – Smyth\ talk 11:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Call me an idiot, but to someone like me coming to the article without having been involved in the previous discussions, it's not obvious from the talk page what the tag refers to or why it is still there. That's all I want to understand, I'm not taking a position on the argument itself. Is your opinion simply that the entire controversy section is given undue weight relative to the rest of his career? – Smyth\ talk 12:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. – Smyth\ talk 16:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What is your problem with me copying this to the article talk page? I'm only trying to stop others making the same mistake I made. – Smyth\ talk 17:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I understood that that was your original objection. That's why I surrounded it with a box indicating where I copied it from. This isn't a private conversation, and anyone is free to quote it anywhere relevant. – Smyth\ talk 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine. – Smyth\ talk 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the details you have provided on my site are inacurate. There is no security issues (maybe McAfee gave a false positive). Secondly, the page displayed is completely relevant, contains no commercial content and was written by Al Moe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyjoe1012 ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for fighting so hard against a wall of stubborn. I would never be able to go that far in saying what you said. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 01:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For diligence in promoting proper application of guidelines and common sense in the face of dedicated opposition, I hereby award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 20:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
About about this edit where you text got deleted. I'm not sure, but it was NOT intended, to delete then or ever). It seems I SHOULD have gotten an edit conflict but I didn't. I think WP might be broken, this has not happened to me before today I think. I just remember edit conflicts occasionally.
We are both editing frequently, but the times do not match very closely so I'm a little confused. But sometimes I take my time to edit and look up stuff elsewhere delaying me pressing "enter". In any case, I'm not trying to destroy something you wrote. I'm really sorry, I had not even seen this text of yours before. comp.arch ( talk) 18:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"a person, group, or company that owns or runs a manufacturing plant." [1]
"Entity that makes a good through a process involving raw materials, components, or assemblies, usually on a large scale with different operations divided among different workers." [2]
The manufacturing analogy for software is often used, too often, as it breaks down, one of the reason, software is not as reliable ans engineering. Developer is ok, and vendor. Anyway, not too important for the DRM article or it's talk page. comp.arch ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You are currently at WP:3RR at Software manufacturing. Please be advised that continual reverting may get you blocked. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You need to try to understand how to apply policies and guidelines. WP:NOTDIR applies to article content but not to valid links to articles in the "see also" section. If you have a problem with the content in an article, rather than trying to block links to an article, address the problem in the article in question. In the case of List of The Pirate Bay proxies, fixing that article or nominating it for deletion is the correct course of action. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Sir, you claim to be "objective" and dedicated to making Wikipedia non-partisan, and yet it is puzzling why you forbid any mention of the deeply notable controversies involving Trump's plans to deport up to 25 million American residents, at least half of them full citizens? How can this not be in violation of policy requiring mention of such significant controversies in the article lead? This is a deep puzzle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.77.212 ( talk) 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the point in having an unstable link, and at least add the Alexa rating of the highest site.
I mean if you are going to be stubborn about the site's ending don't edit out useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.31.156 ( talk) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
But for a site that should have up to date information deciding that having information that is known to be false/not the most current information is misleading. Some teachers even accept(as false as it is) wikipedia as a source... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.31.156 ( talk) 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Objective3000,
Just querying the removal of a citation I added to support:
Dealer hits soft 17 Each game has a rule about whether the dealer must hit or stand on soft 17, which is generally printed on the table surface. The variation where the dealer must hit soft 17 is abbreviated "H17" in blackjack literature, with "S17" used for the stand-on-soft-17 variation. Substituting an "H17" rule with an "S17" rule in a game benefits the player, decreasing the house edge by about 0.2%.[citation needed]
The source provided has been written by Henry Tamburin ( /info/en/?search=Henry_Tamburin) a gambling expert widely recognised as an authority on the subject. The information linked as a citation related directly to the effect of H17 vs S17 on player advantage.
Would be great to understand a little more about why you chose to remove my citation: http://blog.888casino.com/casino-guides/blackjack/hitting-and-standing-chapter-2_5#basic-hitting-standing
Very best wishes
Holly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly.guacamole ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yourmanstan ( talk) 02:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey,
I just did a bunch of updates with minor details to the craps article so that new players can have a better understanding to the minor rules. For example, I had no idea that a player could take down bets. I am still new to the game I just asked the floor to fill in the minor details. Can you make sure everything on the article is now correct? Also I had also removed the casino advertisement, however I later realized that casino which offer no edge bets are extremely rarely and therefore possibly notable enough for a mention. Any opinions? Valoem talk contrib
Here is another situation the article doesn't answer. If I lay odds behind the don't come bar is the lay odds working when the point is off by default? Valoem talk contrib 23:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Objective, On Tyson's page, Harvard College is written in several places. An undergraduate can only get a bachelor's degree at Harvard College or Harvard Extension School, and that is what it states on the diploma, you can see it written on other luminary pages such as Brian Greene. I would like to revert back to Harvard College, where it is listed on his page in several places. Best wishes and take care. Snowfalcon cu ( talk) 18:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the talk-page run-off voting for the lead picture at Donald Trump. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 12:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I hope this goes to the right place!
I wanted the contradiction to be erased. Keep the NBC quote if you like but add something like 'but DT had already cancelled their business dealings/contract in Feb 2015' - add quote and delete from second section. Please :) Dormouse7 ( talk) 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Ignore that revert I made - I misread the diffs! Thanks, Garchy ( talk) 19:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | ||
In recognition of your conciliatory input on the Jesus talk page. MaxwellArcher ( talk) 03:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC) |
I'm not particularly keen on carrying on the back and forth that you initiated at Talk:Sean Hannity, but to set the record straight (again), I didn't accuse you of anything. I said that you equate "respected" with "liberal," since the only sources falsely claiming (without evidence) that Trump referred to all illegal immigrants as "animals". An accusation implies that you are doing something you're not supposed to be doing. There is nothing wrong with inherently getting your news from left-wing sources, which you deny doing anyway. You were asked by myself and another editor to name a reliable conservative source and a liberal source at Talk:CNN, and you were silent in response. You were more than happy to smear conservative sources as purveyors of "fake news," though. I don't know which Congressman said Trump should "apologize," but something tells me that this individual is not the final authority on truth, and also failed to provide any evidence that the president was referring to illegal immigrants in general during a discussion about MS-13. Sanders was spot-on in the press briefing. I said nothing uncivil toward you, and expect the same treatment, starting with an apology for accusing me of "repeating fake news". Mr. Daniel Plainview ( talk) 18:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Daniel Plainview blocked as sock of Hidden Tempo. O3000 ( talk) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This edit removed the inline tags. The concerns are not yet addressed. Restore them. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |