User talk:ViperNerd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, ViperNerd, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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!
Contents |
[edit] User talk:71.12.13.137
Hello. Thanks for warning this user, but it is encouraged that one does not insult vandals. Also, you may want to use the following warning templates:
{{uw-v1}}
{{uw-v2}}
{{uw-v3}}
{{uw-v4}}
{{uw-v4im}}
When using them, please substitute them. You may want to try them in the sandbox. If a user vandalizes after a last warning, please report him/here here. Also, please do not edit warnings left by bots. Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Clemson University football recruiting scandal
An editor has nominated Clemson University football recruiting scandal, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sources for Clemson University football recruiting scandal
As I mentioned in the AFD, New York Times has a few articles that would be helpful in sourcing. Even if this information is not considered worthy of a standalone article, I think it would be highly notable in 1981 Clemson Tigers football team (where it is just barely mentioned), and it would probably fit nicely in Clemson Tigers football (no mention whatsoever). Cheers. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! Believe it or not, most of those articles deal with Clemson football going on probation for the second time in less than a decade, just after being caught for one of the longest lists of violations in NCAA history. I had planned to add the 1990 probation as another section to the existing article, as it nicely extends the history.ViperNerd (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great. I'm not interested in writing football articles (the steroid one being exceptional for me because I used to work in substance abuse counseling), but let me know if you need help with citations. WP:ATT and WP:CITE are good guides. Secondary sources (such as NY Times articles) are usually more important to have than primary sources (such as those NCAA reports), so give WP:PSTS a glance as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help standardizing refs in this article! ViperNerd (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Happy to do it. We could use a non self-published source for the CLEMSON UNIVERSITY PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION press release; the Googledoc could have been written and uploaded by anybody. It's not enough for it to be true, it has to be verifiable. The (fabricated?) comment in the AFD probably stems from this. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I believe the fabrication that is mentioned over and over in the AfD was in regard to the "first program to be placed on probation the year after winning the national championship" statement. Thanks to good research by Thor, I've since removed that incorrect statement which I believed to be true. Wiki in action! ViperNerd (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Some unsolicited advice
If your intention is to see that Clemson's cheating and deviousness are well documented on Wikipedia, that's fine, but technically that makes you a single-purpose account, and other editors will regard your positions skeptically for that reason. It would help your case for you to avoid soapboxing Shame on Clemson statements,[1] which will call into question your POV. Just the facts, man.
As you have probably noticed by now, I am interested is seeing that these articles are written from a neutral perspective, rather than one as written by each team's boosters and entirely lacking critical information. For this to work you will need to be as neutral and fair as possible—all evidence of WP:POVPUSH will be held against you.
CobraGeek (talk · contribs) is on a similar mission, but has some advantages over you in that he seems to be a more fluent editor. It might be helpful for you to make a few less controversial edits in non-football, non-college related articles, just to pick up some experience. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User might be a good thing to try if you don't know where to go. I learned much of my stuff watching recent changes and fixing obvious vandalism, learning rather slowly about policy as needed. Neither approach requires a huge time commitment, but I wouldn't recommend vandal-fighting for the impatient. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- VN, Edgarde is mining gold here, this is good advice. I'm going to agree with your summation that we need to wrap up the current debate, it is just degrading to worthless gibberish. I read that you found the up-to-date reference for the NCAA article probation list (see how easy it is to find good references?), it would be a good faith coup for you if you would restore the deleted information from the current reference before "someone" makes more of an issue of it. I'll finish up with some unsolicited advice of my own, please take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and memorize it before you do further editing. Please try to read it from someone else's view of your behavior. Thanks man, good luck. Thör hammer 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edits to South Carolina Gamecocks
I noticed you recently undid an edit that I made which was adding in a reference to verify information about the rivalry. As I have stated, the sole reason for removal should not be that it links to a Clemson webpage, but rather because the source is not related or unverifiable. Since you removed this reference, you should also remove the unverified statements in the article to which the reference was made, or find another reference (I have tried and there isn't one online). Zchris87v 09:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I fail to see your problem with the statement that your ref was attached to. The Carolina-Clemson football rivalry is in fact the longest uninterrupted series in the South, and the 3rd longest uninterrupted series overall. Both these statements can be verified by the reference already provided to the 2006 NCAA football record book (p.111), thus your reference was unnecessary.ViperNerd (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clemson Basketball
Judging by the articles you have written or contributed to on Wikipedia, you have a history of ONLY posting information positive to the University of South Carolina and negative toward Clemson University. You hide behind the claim that everything is factual, and in most cases you are correct. But you seem to only highlight the negative aspects in Clemson-related articles. YOUR biasness has been noted as well. I on the other hand, have no intention or reason to go to any USC-related article and add on only negative aspects (while citing my sources) of information. Because WE ALL KNOW South Carolina has one of the MOST pitiful histories in terms of sports of most major College sports. Do I need to go to the football page and note the all time losing record? Do I need to go list the hundreds of players arrested during their time at USC? I mean that is a notable part of their history and without it one might get the impression USC is a respectable school with a decent athletics program.
Honestly it's a war you don't want to start. People can't even agree on what to put on the Clemson-Carolina rivalry page much less start editing each others articles. You don't want a Clemson fan going through and accurately documenting all of the infractions and trouble the sports programs at USC have been in now do you? Because it has happened before, and even though it was cited and accurate, guess what... it was DELETED.
So no matter how much you claim truth and accuracy in your postings, your history of postings relating to Clemson are strictly POV. So for everyones sake stay away from Clemson articles, and we'll stay away from South Carolina articles.
One can only wonder how a computer with an internet connection ended up in a trailer park in the first place. --Jober14 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you aren't familiar with Wiki's rule of No Personal Attacks. I won't stoop to trying to insult you, as it rather pointless to make ignorant claims about people I don't know, and I'm not really interested in blatantly breaking the rules here. Also, if you want to start adding arrests to South Carolina articles, be my guest. Blatant POV editing of that type will likely be quickly removed. Plus, it's not as though Clemson doesn't have the same types of documented troubles (perhaps not as many, but typically more serious) that can be added to their articles. You're right, it's a road neither side wants to go down. The all-time record (and the bowl record) is already noted in the infobox of the USC football article, as it is a notable piece of information, and this is an encyclopedia. I don't see anyone making the argument that since those records aren't "positive information" that they should be deleted from that article. Why don't you prove that you are here to make Wiki better and add the all-time record to the infobox on the Clemson basketball article? As far as your claim that USC athletic history is "pitiful," one only has to read the various articles here to know that's laughably false. USC's basketball and baseball histories are more storied than Clemson's, while neither school has much to boast about in comparison to some of the true national powers in these sports. ViperNerd (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
i think this whole thing is just hilarious. i mean i make a few edits and all of a sudden this dude starts whining and crying to the "wiki authorities" about it.. news flash man..
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." as quoted at the bottom of every screen. Enjoisktboarding2 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
