User talk:Bucsrsafe
Wow
[edit]Hey man, let me tell you right now. From experience I know this. You have to be careful with the Nash page, Bryant page, ballhog, etc. I just logged on for the first time and I see downwards and his ridiculous comments accusing you of being a sockpuppet of me. That is what this site is all about. They are too biased here. It is run by the biggest nash fans. You can just see how the article was even before I came on here. Just be careful. My friend did the same and he got blocked for a week. Something needs to be done here. wikipedia is also europe name and lots of canadians and british are here too so they crave nash. Hganesan 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
- It's pretty sad that you're talking to yourself now. Hint: when you add the exact same text from another user, it's obvious you're the same. Simishag 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk to me:
Steve Nash
[edit]It's hard to point out exactly where to look on the discussion page, but just start reading through the whole thing and you'll see a number of editors express that individual matchups against other players don't belong on the page. Also, when you use the words "some" or "some people" without providing sources, it is considered " Weasel Words" Maximusveritas 00:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- i understand that, but i dont really see why individual matchups if relevant like against billups and kidd cannot be put on the page when they show that nash is not at his best when he comes up against other elite point guards. please explain because i think it should be there in some capacity. if its ok for people to write about when nash dominates other players, why not when other players dominate him???
- I don't think its ok for people to write about Nash dominating other players in individual matchups and I don't think anyone has done that. If you can find a source from a notable columnist talking about how Nash gets dominated by other elite players, then it would be notable enough to go in the article. Otherwise, it seems like Original Research, which is not allowed. Maximusveritas 00:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- well the whole article is about how nash is so good as a player and does so well, there should be something about how one of his weaknesses seems to be him underperforming against some elite players and his weak defense. 2 or 3 lines is not enough in my eyes to look at the main weakness of his game, given that the rest of the article is about his qualities as a player. i reckon it should be included and you dont need critics to tell you a fact that billups and kidd dominated his this season.
- You do need critics in order to show that this is a notable criticism that alot of people have and that it's not just something you made up. For example you can do a Google search for "Nash" and "no defense" and get a number of hits about his bad defense. So that's something we can and should talk about. Like I said in the discussion page, though, we can't go through and talk about what Nash did in every single game against certain players or the article would get to a ridiculous length. If you can find some notable stuff about his bad defense to add, that would be fine. The problem is that most columnists don't like to criticize Nash, but I'm sure there's some stuff out there. Maximusveritas 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- well the whole article is about how nash is so good as a player and does so well, there should be something about how one of his weaknesses seems to be him underperforming against some elite players and his weak defense. 2 or 3 lines is not enough in my eyes to look at the main weakness of his game, given that the rest of the article is about his qualities as a player. i reckon it should be included and you dont need critics to tell you a fact that billups and kidd dominated his this season.
- I don't think its ok for people to write about Nash dominating other players in individual matchups and I don't think anyone has done that. If you can find a source from a notable columnist talking about how Nash gets dominated by other elite players, then it would be notable enough to go in the article. Otherwise, it seems like Original Research, which is not allowed. Maximusveritas 00:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Tags on other user pages
[edit]Please stop removing the sockpuppet tag from User:Hganesan. He has been identified in the past as a user of sockpuppets to circumvent blocks. You were found to be ok so I won't add it to your page, but you have no business removing it from his page. Simishag 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleting Content on Nash
[edit]Who are you to decide that it's not a valid source? It's the most statistically sophisticated look at defense available. It shows that Nash is not the best or the worst. It's orders of magnitude more valid than a silly Espn.com ranking of point guards.
The Animal 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If as you now claim, your only objection is that the article doesn't give a precise place for Nash, then why did you criticize the source. And if I find his precise rank, I guess you'll have no objection to including it. And why didn't you go to the discussion page to suggest removing it?
The Animal 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
yes i will because the reliability of the source is sketchy. also you dont consult to remove, you consult to put it on in the first place. yes try and find his position, then we will look at it. my suspicion is that among starting point guards, he is pretty low. also, its a good thing to find stuff about Nash's defense because it is undermentioned in my view. BUCSRSAFE.
Are you really unfamiliar with 82games.com and APBRmetrics in general? Why is Dan Rosenbaum and 82games.com sketchy? The Animal 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
yes i am unfamiliar with it because it is not a legitimate, well thought of sports site like foxsports, espn or cbs sportsline. if they published a report like that, then it would be absolutely fine. BUCSRSAFE.
You should look into APBRmetrics. I believe you would actually find some sound support for some of your opinions on Nash. I probably don't care enough to continue trying to post content on Nash, but for what it's worth (very little to you, I'm sure), your online etiquette is quite lacking.
The Animal 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
yeah i will look into it. why is my online etiquette bad? honestly, if there was a position i would probably support you, just the point that he is not in the top 10 or the bottom 10 which solely consists of bench players is not really relevant. BUCSRSAFE.
Hganesan
[edit]Stop vandalising people's userpages. You will be reported if it occurs again. --Downwards 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have done it again. You are now reported. Cheerio. --Downwards 07:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Putting down for wikipedia's records what you wrote on my userpage (in red):
- OK SECONDLY, HOW DARE YOU CALL ME HGANESAN. I HAVE BEEN CLEARED BY 3 DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND WE EDIT FROM DIFFERENT CONTINENTS. IF YOU SPENT TIME LOOKING, MAYBE YOU WOULD KNOW. ALSO YOU VANDALIZED MY USER PAGE TOO BY PUTTING UP THAT I WAS A SOCKPUPPET. SHOULD I DO THAT TO YOU TOO BECAUSE ITS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED LIKE YOUR ONE TO ME? IF YOU DONT WANT YOUR PAGE VANDALIZED, STILL DONT UNDERSTAND HOW I WAS DOING THAT, THEN DONT DO IT TO MINE AND ANY REPORTING IS GOING TO BE DONE BY ME BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS PUTTING A SOCKPUPPET TAG WHEN I WAS CLEARED ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO AFTER EVERYBODY REALISED THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE PERSON WHO DID NOT WORSHIP NASH. FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR TIME. BUCSRSAFE.
User pages
[edit]If you want to talk to people then use the talk page not the user page. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
[edit] |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
Just wanted to say thanks for helping out earlier with the reverts, and sorry you got blocked. The way to avoid that is just to revert once or twice at most. It's tempting to keep doing it but as you can see, it probably won't end well for you. Other people will come in to help (as you and others did), and if it persists, it's usually easy to get an admin involved. Simishag 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I am compelled to ask you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's personal attacks policy due to your unacceptable behaviour.
No personal attacks! --Downwards 22:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Personal Attack Warning
[edit]Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Your comments on Downwards' talk page, were a clear personal attack, especially "you are just such a loser".--A. B. 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Use the discussion page for discussion, not the user page.
[edit]Use the discussion page for discussion, not the user page. --Downwards 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a heads-up on the Ronaldo article. You're close to violating the WP:3RR rule in regards to the Birgit Prinz additions to the article. Make sure you work to build a consensus on the talk page as is being done (currently it's too early to say there's a consensus either way). Metros232 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can quote a published source that mentions Nash's defensive deficiencies, then you can restore some of what you recently added to that article. As it stands, however, your edit is nothing but POV and original research. I do agree with you, to an extent, but you need to cite an authoritative source to demonstrate that it is a commonly held opinion about Nash.
BTW, a low steals average does not necessarily mean that a player is a bad defender, so I wouldn't use that argument in the future. Lots of players get high steal totals because they take foolish chances on the defensive end. And just because someone hasn't been named to the All-Defensive team doesn't mean he's a bad defender. Zagalejo 02:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You recently made the following change to the second sentence of the Michael Jordan page: "Widely considered one of, if not, the greatest basketball players of all time, he became one of the most effectively marketed athletes of his generation and was instrumental in popularizing the NBA (National Basketball Association) around the world in the 1980s and 1990s." I just deleted this change. I understand the whole debate that is going on with this page (about whether Jordan is "one of the greatest" or "the greatest"), but I did not make the change in order to dispute the validity of the content of your addition: I undid your addition *solely* because it was very poorly worded. Read it again and you'll see that it's remarkably awkward phrasing. If you wish to make the change you did, please find a better way of saying it. Thanks! Joseph Petek 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Barry Bonds
[edit]Actually, you'll find I left a message on the talk page, and that large edits to pages are supported by policy, most specifically WP:BOLD. Phil Sandifer 12:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)