Other answers point that your license would be open source but it wouldn't be free anymore, and that people don't want to read non standard licenses. Both are true, and good points.
However, there is a better reason why you shouldn't do what you intend to do: your code wouldn't be useful for many people anymore. MIT license is compatible with GPL and similar licenses. Adding a restriction not allowed by GPL (or similar) license prevent your code to be used combined with software with GPL (or similar) licenses.
However, answering your questions:
It still would be open source if you define it as "source is available", but not according to OSI definition.
What I would do to show people that's a different license: name your license with a completely different name, not including MIT in the name, so people can see easily that it is not a standard license. Begin your license with a text like this one:
RYAN THE LEACH VERY SPECIAL LICENSE
This license is the same than MIT license, with the following exception: you must notify me, Ryan The Leach, as the original author, if you make any derivative work based on this one. You can notify me mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org. Given you comply with this point, you can use or change the software in any way allowed by the MIT license.
TEXT OF THE MIT LICENSE:
Here goes the full text of MIT license
I also recommend to include a second paragraph, just before the text of the MIT license:
I will give permission to use this code under standard MIT license (without the exception above) to any person who request it when contacting me, so this code will be compatible with GPL and similar licenses.
This way less people will be discouraged of using your code, and it will be useful for many more people who will be allowed to mix it with GPL code. However, people that make a fork of the fork will not be required to notify you.