Hello, Downwards, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Dvyost06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused, here. You keep undoing my edits to the Dennis Johnson page. You correctly pointed out that I had inadvertently removed a reference, which I then restored. But you also commented that I had added extra undocumented material to the "And now there's a steal by Bird!" section. I freely admit that I did, but I have no idea how to document it, because I was describing an eyewitness account. Instead of just reverting, could you perhaps instead give a little guidance on the proper way to introduce eyewitness material to an encyclopedia?
What's with the repeated deletions of external links on the Matt Harpring home page. The page linked to is currently #8 on any google search for Harpring and #20 for "Matt Harpring"? Not exactly tangential.
Well that wasn't a test, it was fact I was adding on the article, you may not of realised it, don't worry, I'll go ahead and revert it now that you know. Sorry about the confusion. Good luck, safe wikipediaing. Keep up the good work.
Lemme tell you RIGHT NOW I am not the Buscrafe guy, it's so funny haha. You guys think nobody else doesn't like nash. I just logged on now for the first time and I see you think I am him. LOL. I don't even know who he is. What a joke you think anyone who posts the slightest facts against your will is me. What a joke man. Hganesan18:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan[reply]
THESE ARE FACTS I am posting. you can post stuff too as long as they are facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I believe the redirect at Bifrose should be there for convenience, as you say, it's easier for folks using the search engine. However, I think for consistency and clarity, all computer viruses should be in the form 'Foo (computer virus)' and trojan horses in the form 'Foo (trojan horse)'. This helps when one is talkings about, say, the AIDS virus; biological virus or computer virus or trojan horse? You see already there is very inconsistent naming, (computer virus) and (trojan horse) is barely used (and not even in these examples! [corrected A-Day(c)(t) 05:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)]). The virus listings and trojan listings and their respective articles are still very much a work in progress. Please be patient with this, and I hope we can share a common understanding. Thank you - A-Day(c)(t)02:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you move an article that's on afd, please make sure that it still points at the discussion instead of a redlink; this helps the discussion be found if you stumble across the article (or actually wrote it), instead of just reading afd. You can do this either by making a redirect (as I've done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Nations (Advance Wars)), or by editing the link in the afd notice. —Cryptic(talk)15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be making valid edits but I have a bit of concern about the number of external links you are adding. Can you just add one or two major links rather than the large number you are putting in. Thanks. 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
What are you referring to, exactly? I have just reverted sections of a vandalized article (Alexander Ovechkin) which I noticed had a lot of external links; perhaps you are talking about that. Downwards23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.
I note you removed the ° from Andy Hunter°'s name in the article title. Although he was indeed born as Andy Hunter, he is always accredited in his musical work as Andy Hunter°, so to remove the degree mark is probably incorrect. //User:DJRaveN4x
Hi, just for your info (no action required), I recreated the Brent Price article which you had deleted. You did the right thing as it was a mess to begin with. Whilst I was editing it you must have killed it off, so I recreated it. :) Cheers, keep up the good work. bye! Downwards03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edit that I made wasn't meant to destroy the wiking. That is perfectly fine, what I really meant to do was change some grammar back. Sadly, I didn't notice the link. It is totally my fault. Yanksox03:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recent warnings, remember to sign them. Also, you need to substitute those templates, like {{subst:test}} instead of {{subst:test}}. Thanks, --Rory09623:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!! Please, don't forget to sign your posts!! Anyways, the Basketball ron anderson is no more or less notable than the hockey one. Since there are other Ron andersons out there, a disambig page is needed. When someone is to type in "Ron Anderson", they need to be brought to a disambig page for the simple reason that there isn't one ron anderson that is far more notable than any other. Bryan Adams, for example, takes you to the singer's article, and not to the disambig page because the singer is far more notable than any other bryan or brian adams (including the hockey player). If Ron anderson the basketball player was as notable as, say, Michael Jordan, then there would be no contest and he would be far more notable than the hockey player (and whoever else goes by that name).
Am I going to create an article for the hockey ron anderson? Probably. But not now. And if i don't, then someone else will. But that is not the point. The point is that there are other ron andersons who are about the same in notability and the others shouldn't be excluded just becasue there isn't an article for them yet. So, to answer your question, i am not going to "fix" it becasue it was broken and is now fixed. Have a good day! Masterhatch00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.
I noticed that you have an interest of Basketball and would like you to join WikiProject NBL|WikiProject NBL. Please drop me a line on my talk page and also add your name to the members list if interested.
The reason why I removed one disambiguation header from David West (basketball) is anyone with half a clue would be able to find this link either by removing the _%28basketball%29 portion from the Address bar and pressing enter, or by simply typing "David West" in the search field. No need for the headers. Also be mindful when reverting suspect edits that you could inadvertently undo any other changes that were made.--Downwards23:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. What's the matter with you? I can empathize--even accept--that many are presently unable to acknowledge the radical genius of K-Fed. So, if you must remove him from the accepted list of enfants terrible, I won't bitch. But why did you also remove my addition of Thomas Pynchon (and yet you left that hack Jim Morrison on the list)? Even casual students of literature cannot credibly deny that Pynchon fits the bill. For decades, critics have used precisely that snooty term to describe him. Get with the program!
And don't get me started on the hours of scrupulously researched (and referenced!) work you obliterated when reverting my Pape Sow edits. You thoroughly runied my day.
My response:
first: You left no "signature" so I don't know (read: care) who wrote this.
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.
As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. — Ian MankaTalk to me‼03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, but unless I require a reply, it's time-consuming and pointless. As long as I believe the message got through, it suffices as is.------Downwards05:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your beliefs that it is "time consuming and pointless" to sign your posts on talk pages, you only pass on the time to other editors to clean up what you didn't do -- for example, when I am going around and subst'ing templates, and I see an unsigned talk page message, I have to dig within the history to find who said what, and attribute the comment. Honestly, does typing four tildes take longer than a second? Please try to sign your posts, as a courtesy to other members. — Ian MankaTalk to me‼03:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't even have to type 4 tildes, if you prefer, there is a button above the edit window (3rd from the right) that will insert the tildes. --rogerd03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, sorry. I often do it, other times I don't. It's not a hard-and-fast rule I'm going to stick with. That's life. Sorry. --Downwards03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My edit of the Ed O'Bannon article which you reverted. was not a test or an experiment. I was copy editing a mistake in word usage. "Indignation" was used when the context actually fit the definition of "indignity" rather than "indignation." I will note copy edits in my edit summaries from now on. --JamesAM04:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly so your name shows up as blue rather than red in page histories and watchlists, and so people won't mistake you for a noob. You could just put {{userpage}} as the only content, or even just redirect it to your talk page. The red link is a bit annoying though. — May. 16, '06 [07:10] <freak|talk>
All the stuff about his questionable calls and him beinga choke artist is true. Lets look at game 1 against the spurs were he didnt take his open shot to tie insted taking a fadeaway 3 to lose the game. Game 3 he airballed a free throw on purpse which gave the spurs plenty of times for the opputunity of a game winner.--Northbay04:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Steve Nash2.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Crapness of the ages, I thought you were reverting me over the spelling... extremely sorry. Now I'm blushing :(. Now I saw what you're removing, and I see the error in my ways; next time I'll use a magnifying glass. Again, sorry, and thanks for catching my mistake! Master of PuppetsFREE BIRD!02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that you repaired some vandalism on a page and then proceeded to call the person who vandalized the page a spastic, as much as this is probably true, I think it is also pretty disrespectful especially because the user was claiming to be commiting suicide soon.
User:Hganesan has returned (not sure how, he's supposed to be blocked still) as himself and also as User:Bucsrsafe. He has now stooped to accusing me of being a sockpuppet of you, which I find to be pretty uncivil but also somewhat amusing. I have reported this at [1] and [2].
I thought you might be interested to know and to provide additional evidence if necessary. Simishag21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I believe he holds a vendetta against those who don't think his edits are up to scratch or are not in the spirit of an encyclopedia, in particular both you and myself. I'm fine with it; he's a loose cannon and level-headedness always prevails. Also I don't know how he's doing it but Bucsrsafe and him are somehow connected, even though their IPs don't match up (look at his contributions). Maybe he's using a computer remotely, I don't know. It's all very fishy. Cheers. :) --Downwards02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like your commentary for why your removed my additional information of Jackson's book. Is it just excessive? If the problem regards a citation, I can provide that. I have relatively little experience editing Wikipedia articles and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Minutiaman05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must've started editing straight after you had already changed it.. it must've been erased accidently, as I didn't notice.. --Downwards05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits to the TS page: I noticed that you changed the word "unvoluntary" to involuntary. In the few months I've been watching the article, this is the second time an editor has changed "unvoluntary" to involuntary. The term "unvoluntary" is used in the medical literature describing tics, and the use of that coined word was/is (hopefully) explained in the text. Can you please have a second look and see if that isn't clear, so that I can make whatever changes are needed so that future editors won't continue to (wrongly) think it's a typo? Thanks ! Sandy02:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Cyde↔Weys17:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Downwards. Thanks for looking out for me. I haven't had a chance to be on WP much the past few days, but I really do appreciate you making me aware of the situation. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I track the new users I welcome for a few days after they start contributing. I notice you kept reverting what appeared to be reasonable edits by The Animal and Sugar Daddy to the Tim Duncan article. You called one edit vandalism. What's going on?
I noticed that besides the incorrect assertion of vandalism you made against The Animal in your edit summary for his verifiable, good faith edit to the Tim Duncan, you've made a couple of other inappropriate claims of vandalism:
In your edit summary, you claimed Brianfast vandalized the Ha Seung-Jin article. This was a verifiable, good faith edit; see the article talk page for details.
You also claimed in your edit summary that 128.91.107.150 vandalized the Yao Ming article and you slapped a {{subst:test1}} tag on his user talk page. Again, this was a verifiable, good faith edit; see User talk:128.91.107.150 for the details.
Just like the guy before me said, stop saying everyone is a vandal (I didn't say everyone was. I said you were). i did not vandalize your user page(You most certainly did. You admitted you did (see the copy/paste I extracted and put on your talk page)), i wrote some comments on it because i didnt know that was not allowed because it had been done on mine before. if you want to persist being immature by reporting people for honest mistakes then thats fine (it's very suspicious, not honest.). but i will now report you for continually slapping a sockpuppet tag on my page after i had been realised to be somebody else and also for being so silly over an honest mistake(who exactly determined you are somebody else? Different IP addresses don't mean anything). if i was actually vandalising your page then fine, but what i wrote were just honest comments (Your comments were not only immature, but in ALLCAPS - that is troll-like behavior in my books.). you could have told me where to post comments on your page because i am quite new to this without being so rude (That is a load of BS. You know exactly were the discussion page is; you've made comments on mine before). if you want to report people then thats fine but dont be surprised if others then have little time for you (By 'others' you mean you. I care not what for your time. I've seen your contributions and all you do is edit Steve Nash and Steve Nash's talk page.). as i said i will report you too for what you did to my page, just in response to your own lack of maturity and understanding. (On the contrary, I have a much firmer understanding because I've been investigating your contributions and they are suspiciously like Hganesan's. Bye!!)--Bucsrsafe16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
all that needs to be said is that you clearly no nothing about basketball. nash's deficiencies are clear for everybody to see, he doesnt play a lick of defense. if you cant understand that, then watch some games. the lack of respect you garner is remarkable, there are tons of people complaining at you on this talk page for being immature and calling people vandals. how about you just leave people who know things about the nba alone and go elsewhere. just cos you love nash and dont want anything bad about him to be noted in the article. last time i checked, the game was half offense and half defense. he doesnt play a lick of defense, therefore isnt an elite player. just look at jason kidd and thats who is an elite, sure fire hall of fame point guard. nash can win as many unjustified mvp's as he wants, just cos the voters are stupid enough not to include defense, he will never be as good as kidd. as for you as a user, you make me laugh, you still think i am that other dude, so misguided and stupid. we are on different continents, if you bothered to check your facts, you might get somewhere. just continue writing funny stuff cos you are a joke with some of your comments. you take yourself so seriously, so what if somebody writes something on your userpage, big deal, who cares? you do, that makes you sad. also whats wrong with caps, dont you like it? anyway i am out, you are just such a loser. --Bucsrsafe19:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I should go elsewhere. Without your banned clone Hganesan around here, wikipedia is just not the same anymore. You're not the same. You really need to team up with a new pariah and if you don't get one soon I'll get very depressed!! Toodle-pip. --Downwards06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a succession of blocks by numerous admins over the last month, User:Hganesan has returned yet again to Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant. I don't want to waste a bunch of time edit warring with him again, so I'm instead going to try a new tactic. I'd like to get as many NBA editors as possible together on this, so that we can make a single unified push to the appropriate admins. I am at a loss for other tactics we can use to avoid his continued attempts to push his agenda and his unwillingness to compromise. Please contact me at User talk:Simishag if you're interested in helping out. Thanks. Simishag23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted your userpage per your request, If you'd like I can redirect it to your talk page, then protect it from recreation. If you would like this, please leave me a message on my talk page. — xaosfluxTalk22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to click on those links, I believe you. I reverted your information because not only did you not provide a source, it was not submitted in a wholly presentable manner. --Downwards05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Previosly I have change ' to ’ and "" to “”, because I think, that in favourite article typography must be at excellent level (like in a paper book). There is a tradition to use in typography ’ instead ' (the last one is used only in computer-based texts). And I’m not understand why you revert this change... — fatal_exception?!22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, I didn't revert your specific edit, as such (by "reverting" I understand the term to mean when you deliberately notice someone's changes and consciously erase them - I never did this to you). I saw the ’ and found that that was not the standard apostrophe character on native English speakers' keyboards and I changed them to ' to reflect it as such, as it is an English language article.. hope this clears up further.. --Downwards22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. First of all, I have no any critic on you, I just want to understand... I don't mean any foreign languages. I'm talking about english typographical tradition: in most of english language books that I've seen there are ’, not '. But in Internet ' is more popular, because of usage on keyboard (it comes from coding needs). So, the usage of ' in good designed texts is uncorrect (the analogy: the usage of - instead — or "" instead “”). If I'm wrong could you give me the link to this rule?
p.s. I have open Google books project and type any words: everywhere there was ’, not '.
I can't move the Grant Hill page because there already is a disambiguation page -- I don't think I can do that as a non-admin. If you're an admin or know someone who is please go ahead and make this change, but otherwise I'm just going to revert to what I had before. The basketball player page was made the main entry by vote more than once and someone keeps reverting it to the disambig page. Drunkasian 2006-07-07 09:12 PM (UTC)
It's your duty to contact an admin, not mine. All I know is that erasing a page's info is wrong, as it erases (or at least obfuscates) the page history aswell. In future go to the talk page and put {{move|Grant Hill}} so that it can be moved. Also the discussions on the talk page you speak of were thoroughly searched and no clear consensus could be found, so I don't know what led you to the conclusion that the article should be moved.--Downwards22:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. 24.148.67.7203:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the heads up! I am indebted to you for informing me of this obscure rule. I will endeavour to conform, lest I be blocked from <insert whatever you are talking about>. You are a true friend. Bye.. --Downwards04:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior, actions, and refusal to post on the talk page are becoming somewhat polemic. I'm going to kindly ask you to also use the talk page and don't make abresive edits and edit summaries. Thank you, Yanksox11:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to tone this done a little, but this techinicalities involving atheltes is not worth getting in a revert war without talk page discussion. Yanksox11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes it's not what you say but HOW you say it. i reverted the page back to your edit and 24.148.67.72 (talk·contribs) does agree with your version. however what we do NOT agree with are antagonism and personal attacks (such as calling someone "obtuse"). that being said Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. 12.100.11.14613:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Clifford R. Robinson. Some edits have been made to the article in order to bring it into harmony with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines shown there. All edits that do not follow these guidelines have been changed to match what our MoS recommends. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so. --Fxer16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In future, do not revert back to an earlier version of the article, thus erasing the subsequent edits of others, because you feel it's already "perfect". This article does not belong to you and you are obliged to explain an alteration of this magnitude. You failed to do this.--Downwards02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
208 says: You say I dont own the article. Well,neither do you. I added pertinent info. I did include the changes you made ( yr into year, etc). You are the one acting like you own the article.
208 says@ 2:50amEST Explanation of this magnitude: I added info from various sports website on Vanessa & Kobe, as well as info from a Laine Family(Vanessa's family) interview. family.
208 says: I was told that having links to non existent page just makes a collection of links. That is why I deleted the link. Why not create a page for him?
208 says: So what is the issue? I dont understand the purpose of having a dead link?
The issue is don't remove the link, it leads to a legitimate wikipedia entry. You explained why you removed it, and your reasoning was poor. --Downwards07:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
208 says: O no, dont try that Downwards. NOW the link leads to as u said quote a legitimate wikipedia entry. My reason for removing it was not poor, it was verbatim from what I was told by a wiki admin. The Chubby page was just created @ 04:02,22 August 2006 by Zagalejo. Prior 2 that it was a dead link, & that is y the dead lik was removed.
Hi, I was curious to know why you took my link off as spam? you mentioned that it wasn't a fan site but many of those links are not fan sites as well. I think that the video is very relevant to showing his capabilities. thanks. Videoawards19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Downwards, I've been seeing you everywhere I go within Wikipedia's basketball related articles. I think the work you do is of an unusually high quality, and I'd like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball. It's a WikiProject that is going rather slow at the moment and the more positive members who join and work at it the better. Cheers. KOS | talk13:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Downwards,
I'm afraid I don't see the reason for rv'ing category "Chinese people" from the Yao Ming page. this is not a logic question regarding whether or not all Chinese baketball players are Chinese. It is placing people in categories that are useful to searchers. If Yao Ming is not listed under "Chinese people," then he does not show up on the page for that category, whether he is a Chinese basketball player or not...
If you can show me a Wikipedia guideline that says "Chinese basketball players" should not also be listed as "Chinese people," then of course I will admit my error.
Thanks!
Ling.Nut02:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to edit the line about how many points and assists he averaged during the summer league, then it needs work.
You keep editing the page to make it say this:
"In the 2006 Pepsi Pro Summer League. Travis Diener averaged 20.3 points and 6.5 assists per game, with just one turnover per game."
What I think you meant to do was put a comma after "League", not a period. Also, read that sentence out loud: it doesn't sound right to say "per game" twice like that.
I propose this:
"In the 2006 Pepsi Pro Summer League, Travis Diener averaged 20.3 points, 6.5 assists, and 1.0 turnovers per game."
For some reason, you want to change it to "one turnover", but saying it as "1.0 turnovers" keeps it in the context of sports statistics, in my opinion. Will this work?
As for the mention of the RealGM.com bandwagon in the trivia section, there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be there. RealGM.com is one of (if not the) biggest NBA basketball message boards on the internet, and everyone there knows who Travis Diener is just from the cult-like following he has on the Orlando Magic message board. Even the Orlando Magic General Manager, amongst certain Magic players and staff members, knows about the Travis Diener bandwagon. It is of my opinion, and the opinion of many Magic fans, that this is an important trivia fact.
Also, RealGM has their own Wikipedia page. This isn't some small, two-bit message board. It's one of the most well known Orlando Magic fan boards on the internet.
Yes, I take your advice on the "1.0 turnovers" and the full stop; now fixed. However the RealGM thread means nothing unless you make note of the reason why he's popular, e.g. what has he done to warrant such attention? Wikipedia is not a tool to report on just anything that goes on - it needs encyclopedic merit. I'm afraid RealGM forum discussions just are not notable.
In reply to message:
Refrain from rolling back to earlier versions of the page which serve to obfuscate the article's objectivity or mislead the reader with sub-standard references and a poorly presented information. As explained in my edit summaries, two of your sources are not from reliable news sites, but are the opinions or viewpoints of individuals. They do not warrant inclusion as citations for the facts. Facts are to be presented as facts, opinions are to be presented as opinions. Your version makes no mention of the fact that your sources are biased. This is not acceptable for wikipedia. Thank you, --Downwards 08:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
you claim that: "Your version makes no mention of the *fact* that your *sources are biased*"
1) This is only your subjective opinion. You cannot call your opinion a *fact*. (No, it's not an opinion. Your sources ARE biased. You are discriminately selecting sources in order to support a particular view. It's called "cherry-picking".)
According to wikipedia's definition of fact, your belief that the above sources are biased is only your opinion. Again, you cannot call this a fact.
2) You are saying that www.nba.com/cavaliers (cavaliers' official site) is biased against a cavaliers' player, which is quite counter-intuitive. In addition you call this a *fact*. (Again, wrong. I was referring to the blog which is written by someone called The Optimist. It's a webpage where he writes from his point of view. This is made clear in the "Contact the Optimist" page - where he states something like "The Optimist may not always be right, but he's entertaining". (Of course, I take it you clicked on the link as advised) Therefore, his writings are hardly objective. You fail to make mention of this.)
Its the official website of Cavaliers not a blog. The phrase "The Optimist may not always be right, but he's entertaining" is a joke, it does not prove anything about the objectivity of the article. Obviously, no single author is always right. This phrase does not mean that www.nba.com/cavaliers is biased against a cavaliers player.
3) The only *fact* is the video of the incident (which you didnt want to have on the page). Any other article discribing the
incident is subject to personal interpretations.(It certainly is. Therefore why are you steering the reader into believing it was intentional? Intentional in what sense: Varajao went out of his way to cause harm? Or was just careless? Again, you fail to mention this. You just state "intentional hit", nothing more. Your viewpoints are not facts.)
Intentional is by definition not careless. Of course my view points are not facts (note that you are claiming otherwise). But there are hundreds of reports around the world supporing the same view. In addition, the video is mostly self-explanatory. There are reports of Barbosa stating to the reporters after the game that Varejao admitted he did it intentionally (I havent found any sources in english yet for this; thats why I removed the relevant sentense; however there exist many sources in international press, which i will have to cite in the end if I dont find anything in english.)
4) The vast majority of the edits in the article are presenting the same view of the incident with mine and of the sources I am
citing. Being the only one that consistently contradicts this view and reverts to your own version of the article, you are violating wikipedia's popularity rule. (I only cite what's verifiable from an objective point of view. Not every source is objective. Having said that, if you use information from sources that have a subjective viewpoint, you are to make this clear. And there is no "wikipedia popularity rule". )
What you consider objective point of view is based on your opinion. The same way you consider www.nba.com and other sources subjective, me and the editors supporing my view consider your sources biased. Wikipedia typically resolves such disputes based on the majority rule, i.e., what the majority of the editors believe correct.
5) Your claims on obfuscating the article and misleading the readers are posed without any reasoning. (See above.)
It would be nice to resolve this dispute peacefully, without having to enter a wiki-war (where the article is moving on now). (If you want it resolved peaceably, then quit reverting and removing my other changes, e.g. I italicized The Simpsons link, and add a ==References== section. By being lazy and indiscriminately rolling back the article to the previous version, you've erased my changes, which are legitimate. Understand the consequences of your actions.)
For this purpose exists wikipedia's "dispute" tag and the discussion part of the article, where we should move and try to
resolve this dispute. (Whatever it takes to improve the article is fine by me.)
Regards,
Peacuful resolution does not mean quit your point and accept my. Based on wikipedia practices, you started making edits on my section on Varejao's sportsmanship. Since there is no concensous on your edits, it would be nice to wait until we reach one. Besides, I didnt undo your other changes. In fact I expanded the References part.
Although "looking nice" is not the main goal of the project, a certain consistency in style is considered to be desirable. Please bear this in mind. DS16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a clearly unnecessary wikilink is hardly an act of being inconsistent. Not to be rude, but don't you ever question things, or do you just follow for the sake of it? --Downwards07:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I find it somewhat disturbing that you make it a regular practice of following behind me and making exceptionally minor edits to pages immediately after I have made any edits, I would not be bothered quite as much if you would restrain yourself for at least a few minutes(!) before swooping in. I FREQUENTLY run into edit conflicts, and have to re-write entire paragraphs because you've felt it necessary to intercede to capitalize one letter of the entire text according to your personal fancy meer seconds after my edits are saved. Have some patience please!!! Sugar Daddy03:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response to that is: I edit as I see fit - it isn't anything do with you. What is the specific issue that has prompted your tirade? --Downwards03:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Downwards, see the "Date and time" tab in Special:Preferences. If you have yours set to anything other than "No preference", the following will appear identical:
Cnwb, I think a reasonable solution would be to keep the dates wikified, but move them out of the section headers, as non-plaintext elements do often cause bugs in section linking, especially the default edit summaries produced when section editing:
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.
Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. tomf688 (talk - email) 15:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the slight mix-up on the Goran Visnjic article. It seems that your revert of the vandalism came in just seconds before mine. It looks silly but was just an accident. Evlekis03:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The correct category is Spurs players. Try clicking the category to see for yourself. Then click the San Antonio Spurs category too. ... See what I mean? Clipper47103:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Barkley, John Salmons, Barry Sumpter, and Igor Rakočević
The San Antonio Spurs category for these articles has been removed since none of these players ever, ever, ever, ever, ever played for the Spurs. Clipper47104:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; 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.
I believe that it should get its own section on his page, since it has become a big overnight sensation on YouTube, and even NBA.com. FamicomJL00:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.
That people do not vote the same way as you on the category to which Mahinmi belongs does not mean they are clueless. I see someone gave you an Npa2 a couple days ago, so this is an Npa3 --Mikebrand22:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an unusual situation- both you and Clipper471 seem to be useful editors with awards and barnstars both, yet you've got some sort of edit war going that has spanned several days over this article. It's not even an issue that is particularly debatable. Just decide between you two (you're the only ones editing this article anyway) and keep that article quiet for a bit. This is sort of a dream conflict: simple problem, intelligent sides. --Iriseyes05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your tendency to attack other editors certainly contributes to your struggles on this site. I would not have been set off if you had not attacked me with "Christ give this guy a brain"[3] in my first edit to Ian Mahinmi in which I felt it necessary to remove a category. Another editor saw just as I saw that it was incorrectly categorized. He asked for a vote[4], to which he and I voted for one category. But you still refused to accept the vote and reverted the categorization change with a summary of "no matter how many clueless people think so".[5]
In Erick Barkley, you responded with "rv bs"[6] (which you also used in other articles I edited), "thicky"[7], "reverted f'up"[8], and "Idiot"[9].
In Igor Rakočević I also removed the same category, to which you responded with "rv bs" (the same edit summary you used with my other category removals) . Seeing your revert as what was "to me" an obvious mistake as well as an instigation, I removed the category again. But you only reverted again with a much "clearer" explanation of "you'd think you'd get it the first time".[10]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Igor Rakočević. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Igor Rakočević).
...and actually, I was just going to even extend the block, for the sheer massiveness of the revert-warring, plus the personal attacks. Enjoy your break. [13]. Fut.Perf.☼06:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Downwards. I'm not sure if we've interacted or not, but I've always been impressed with the quality of your edits to basketball related pages. You're obviously very knowledgable in the subject, and your close eye on numerous pages has kept their quality at a high level. However, a few editors have expressed concerns that you are not being considerate of them as fellow contributors. As much as it is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is also a community, and none of us can build this encyclopedia on our own. So, while I appreciate that you feel all your actions are trying to improve the encyclopedia, I respectfully ask that you follow our guidelines of civility, no personal attacks, and the three-revert rule.
Specifically, rather than edit warring, please consider discussing the article on the talk page. If a consensus develops there, please respect it and do not try to go against it in your editing. If no such consensus develops, I encourage you to request the opinion of a neutral third party, or (if applicable) get the opinion of fellow editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association.
In the end, however, it is up to you to uphold these suggestions. I realize that you are not the only one acting in a less-than-desirable manner, and that it takes at least two to edit war. As you yourself said, having you blocked is a detriment to the quality of the encyclopedia; if you make a conscious effort to cooperate with fellow editors in a friendly manner, then we can all forget about this unpleasantness and focus on improving the encyclopedia. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Cheers,
EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Steve Nash. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. theProject05:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert these twice? It is Wikipedia's rules that an article shouldn't be in it's sub-cat and parent cat. And, as for Gomes, he was born in Connecticut, but of Cape Verdean ancestry, thus making both for the purpose of Wikipedia. See Dana Barros. I'd appreaciate if you didn't change these minor edits again.--Thomas.macmillan14:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, same rule for these guys. Read the Wikipedia rules, you obviously have no clue about them. Please stop reverting my efforts to better categorize people.--Thomas.macmillan03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article Andris Biedriņš, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.
If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page
Hi, I noticed that you have been mistakenly reverting edits to various articles on basketball players by re-inserting the Category Category:American basketball players. This category is redundant for players already listed in Category:African American basketball players, which automatically includes them in the parent category as well. I see you've already been warned that your actions are not appropriate; if you persist in making these reverts, you will be blocked. | Mr. Darcytalk23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours because of disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. | Mr. Darcytalk23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "ugly" thing was within context. The editor in question said that Ben Hangloten was ugly, so I thought I'd do it back to him. Of course, none of this affects you, but you are grasping at a reason to hold a vendetta against me because you don't want your edits continually reverted. So don't adopt this holier-than-thou attitude, you're reverting aswell. You're no better. Only difference between you and me is I don't have IP-blocking rights, whereas your time on here has seemingly been spent sucking dong to afford yourself that privilege; to sum up: I'm not worthy!! --Downwards01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is your refusal to discuss the matter civilly with other editors. If you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner, you can't edit here. That includes discussing controversial edits on talk pages, rather than reverting continually, and it includes avoiding making personal attacks. If you are willing to work with others in a civil manner, then I'll unblock you. (But comments like your last one there aren't helping your cause.) | Mr. Darcytalk02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've unblocked you unilaterally. I've asked Thomas.Macmillan to stop making his category edits pending some consensus on how best to handle this matter. All that said, if you keep referring to users as "ugly" or make comments like the one you made to me above, I'll block you for violating WP:NPA and the term will be much longer. We have strict policies here on how you can and can't talk to other editors. I'm asking you again to abide by them. | Mr. Darcytalk15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The disambigous link you set was for a specific individual named Bobby Jones - "Bobby Jones selected in the second round of the 2006 NBA Draft, see Bobby R. Jones." I created a disambiguation link which refers only to the generic name Bobby Jones, of which there are 7 wikipedia references. It will direct you right to that page, from which a user can select the specific Bobby Jones that interests them. Bobby Jones (golfer), for instance, is one of the world's top golfers of all-time and, most likely, more well-known than either Bobby Jones (basketball) or Bobby R. Jones. 10stone5talk09:35, 09 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm resetting this once more to fit with Wikipedia guidelines. After which if this is changed by you once more without any sort of justification - I will assume you are simply attempting to provoke me and will formally complain to the Wikipedia admin that you are creating uncomfortable condition which seems to me to be more personal in nature. I can see from some of the above citations that this is not the first time that you have provoked the ire of the Wikipedia community. As I've stated clearly here, I am providing fair warning. One more unjustified change to my edits by you and I will alert Wikipedia management of your disregard for the common courtesy which this web site requires. Thanks 10stone5talk17:27, 09 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew about the basketball world, you'd know there are twoNBA players named and commonly referred to as Bobby Jones. One is retired, the other is active. The title Bobby Jones (basketball) could confusingly lead some to think, even if initially, that this is the current NBA player when in fact it is the retired one (it's happened to me a number of times and I'm into the NBA). Thus, the disambiguation link I placed was more suitable. Having said that, I have now moved the retired Jones to Bobby Jones (North Carolina Tar Heels) and the active Jones to Bobby Jones (Washington Huskies). Bobby Jones (basketball) is now a disambiguation page. Your link on the newly-named Bobby Jones (North Carolina Tar Heels) remains thus, matter closed. Oh and um, you can corkscrew your warnings up right your bum, because you're just as guilty! haha bye --Downwards02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you are looking to get banned. So I'll be happy to comply with you passive-aggressive wishes and once again report you to the admins for unjustifiably removing documented edits against user wishes. Best of Luck!!
The whole wikipedia project involves removing documented edits. And a large proportion of them are against user wishes. Depends whose edits is better. Clearly yours were not.
Stop diruptive edits - Lithuanian SSR is nae given by occupiers, short name IS and was Lithuania. Care to write "Republic" to very other country? If you do not know a thing about state you're writing about go to library.--Lokyz16:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is being disrupted? Lithuania was referred to during its political climate in 1964 as the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. Refrain from whitewashing the past to suit your own biased view with your edits. The article was fine before you arrived. Would you also like to erase history further by adjusting the Olympic medalbox to say that Arvydas Sabonis did not compete for the Soviet Union in the Olympics? Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union, whether you agree with it or not. The country was not liberated until the 1990s. And if you're going to be on English Wikipedia, learn to spell. Otherwise, go back to your own natural language wikipedia. --Downwards17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Downwards, thanks for expanding the basketball information and adding a great reference in the article I created today. Good job. I was going to research his basketball history tomorrow, but you saved me the trouble. Thanks! Regards, Accurizer03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The persistence you are showing in enforcing your recent changes to the Drazen Petrovic article is all the more concerning considering the absence of relevant information within those edits. Regardless of that, let me address your issues:
If you insist on qualifying that Sibenik was part of former Yugoslavia in the main body of the article, you should also qualify - in the main body of the article - that it is NOW in the Republic of Croatia;
There is no need to qualify Denkendorf to be in Bavaria, since Denkendorf links to the article Denkendorf, Bavaria, which is to be about the town Denkendorf in the state of Bavaria (as is obvious from that article's title);
Removing links for articles that do exist. (e.g. Bavaria - You continually erasure of it from the Infobox is without merit (Petrovic died in Denkendorf, Bavaria). You say its specification "is obvious from that article's title" -- What is obvious to you is not always obvious to others. What article are you talking about? There are two places in Germany named Denkendorf. Unless you have solid grounds for wiping off this fact (i.e. if it's blatantly false), then do not remove it.
By the way, I see you've attempted to kickstart the Šibenka-Bosna controversy article. I am looking at the history of your new article and from its humble beginnings I judge that it is a very poor start.This is an example of your so-called articles-in-progress?? Where are your references? Your whole argument for adding the "red links" in the Petrovic article are based on the creation of "future articles" - you cannot even do this. It seems you lack the basic knowledge in how to use this website. It is clear you have a plan but you do not know how best to carry it out. Until you do, I suggest you refrain from rolling back the edits of others. This article does not belong to you.
Others things you reverted: I capitalised national basketball federation to National Basketball Federation, and you have gone and changed it back to lowercase. You re-applied a link for 1993, a link which already subsists in the sentence prior. (Now who's being obvious?)
The only positive you gained out of this is that I will concede to have it stated that Šibenik is a city on the Croatian coast. I will leave this addition in.
Thank you for taking the time to reply, as well as for your vote of confidence to the eternal task of improving oneself; now I finally have a reason to get right to it.
There is no irony, actually, because the sentence continues "...is all the more concerning considering the absence of relevant information within those edits." So, since you are so pedantic in accounting for the effects of my recent edits to the Drazen Petrovic article, let's (quickly, as it turns out) summarize yours:
you prevented multiple occurrence of the 1993 link (the work of a bot) - congratulations;
you specified in the infobox that Denkendorf, Bavaria is in Bavaria - good job (now you just have to find out what county and district it's in);
you made clear to everyone that Šibenik was in SFR Yugoslavia in 1964 - that addition was pure gold of necessity;
you erroneously capitalized National Basketball Federation (yes, you see, incidentally, there was no institution of such name in the former SFR Yugoslavia) - oops;
and...umm...errm...that's it. Oh, no, wait - you added a "th" to July 9. Niiicee.
As far as you mercifully allowing ONE of my edits to stand - incidentally, one that you made necessary with an obsolete edit of yours - I can only humbly express my gratitude while informing you that, contrary to your opinion, you are not God and have no facilities to let me do anything.
It happens to be true, as you have stated, that this article does not belong to me, and neither do the future articles you are taking time out of what must be a very busy schedule to piss on; the beginnings are humble, but all articles belong to all Wikipedians, so their state is the responsibility of all Wikipedians - including you, as a matter of fact.
To conclude - as we are both humans, and humans err, and I'd like not to waste time on more reversions - you should do good to refer me to a Wiki guidelines page regarding future articles that corroborates your claims; then I'll be ever so happy to concede to you and won't have to go back and correct your unfortunate edits. Cheers. Damir10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from your inane and boorish replies what sort of editor you are. If you want to discuss the edits in a civil way free of sarcasm such as that of a smartass, I'm here. In the meantime I'm still shaking my head at your train wreck of an attempt on the "Šibenka-Bosna controversy". Better luck next time. --Downwards21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you should be shaking your head at is this pathetic answer to a whole list of my valid arguments, which include a request to support your claims with Wikipedia guideline pages; I'll assume, then, that such don't exist. In case the topic of my "train wreck of an attempt" article interests you beyond misplaced gloating (which is unlikely), I've decided to make the Sibenka-Bosna controversy part of the BC Šibenka article instead of a standalone article. Much success with the development of your interpersonal skills. Damir11:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are making serious efforts on replacing "NBA" with "National Basketball Association" in every single one NBA-related article, I don't see what point it makes to do so in the Toni Kukoc article. Furthermore, qualifying the NBA as "the North America's" NBA seems even more pointless: what mental concept conflict or link conflict exists to justify that? See also: Talk:Toni_Kukoc. Damir07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, your reasoning is poor. "European" is not what qualifies Kukoc in that sentence; it's the expression "one of established European stars". You see, from Kukoc's qualifier we find out not merely that he was European (which is obsolete to qualify), but that he was a European star - a basketball player with a notable status in Europe, not elsewhere, at that point. From your qualifier, on the other hand, we learn nothing, to be mild. If, by some chance, your argument is that there exists Nigerian Basketball Association, or something similar, I'll expect to see "North America's" added to every links-to-NBA article. Damir10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When writing to contributor a note, firstly examine properly evidence. Didn`t you noticed that anon removed information? And probably you did not noticed how "explainable" anon`s edit summaries were. And probably you did not notice that anon tried to stage a case against me too? But did not have prepared good it enough, so it was rejected and admin decided to block the page due to anons "case". So next time then starting accuse somebody like you started the whole thing investigate everything properly. Cheers, M.K.20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the information removed was not cited properly in the first place (which you must have known), so when it got removed why was your recourse to put it back up? And why did you remove the fact that he was Lithuanian? You are just as bad as the person you were warring with (or worse). --Downwards22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all do you familiar what should be done then info is removed? Probably you not. Do you missed and infobox, which has necessary information, in the corner too? As i see you trying to claisfy contributors by as "bad" and "worse" so, I strongly suggest you to look at your block long and you could find some answers. M.K.16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the very beginning:
"Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy, mandate the provision of sources. Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."
Because you challenged it I have to provide a source, but this was nothing that would have been challenged and could have easily been cited the next day when articles were released about it. By being far too overzealous in your editing all you've done is harmed wikipedia on a temporary basis to police what didn't need to be touched. --BHC04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempts to force the issue regarding WP:CITE violate the spirit of the rule in favor of rigid adherence thereto. The purpose of WP:CITE is to prevent falsehoods from creeping into WP articles. The President said exactly what I said he did in his speech. The citation is the speech itself. What you have done by violating WP:3RR THREE TIMES, is a violation of the spirit AND THE LAW of WP, in direct contravention of what makes WP work, namely consensus and collaboration. You have, in effect, taken ownership of the article, which is anathema to the furtherance of the Project. You claim to have the best interests of the Project in mind, which is nice, but your actions indicate that you don't have a firm grasp of what the interests of the Project actually are...and a quick review of your talkpage indicates that this is not the first time you've been admonished for your inability or unwillingness to believe that the rules apply to you in a measure equal to that which you attempt to mete out rules to everyone else. Desist or take the medicine you prescribe. Like I said, it's your choice. Tomertalk06:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I'm referring you to this, and since you're obviously still online, giving you 5 minutes to revert your latest 3RR violation. Thereafter, I will revert your reversion and report you for it. Cheers, Tomertalk06:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
em sembla que no ets espanyol, ni, és clar, català. Doncs que tens que dir??
Si ets americà, jo puc comprendre, perque tots ho sabem, que ets una mica retardat. Potser que no ho compreguis perque no ets d'aqui. Però si es així, perque no ho deixes? He triat escriure algunes coses noves, per a que no solament sigui cambiar la seva nacionalitat.
Ah clar, voldries que t'escrivis en la teva llengua...
You would like me to write in your language. Well, I could be that polite, if you were as well. Respect my people, you brainwashed warmongering american, go and die in iraq or vietnam, if that pleases you, and leave catalonia in peace once and for all and maybe some poeple will start respecting you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.34.52.128 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
For the record, in case anyone doesn't understand Catalán, the above contains personal attacks in both Catalán as well as the misspelled ones in English... Tomertalk04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and remove the "Others" section. I've included the information in the intro paragraph, so I don't think they need to be mentioned again. Cheers. --Ytny (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, don't forget to warn vandals when they vandalize. Hopefully it will get them to stop and become useful contributors. Thanks --AW23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Kirk Hinrich (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. Check carefully, bot. That was Greybobhuey212's edit.--Downwards02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back then you had stated the dates were "over"-wikified. But I believe Quadzilla has already explained his reading on the guidelines of wikifying dates to you. Old matter. Chensiyuan11:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could use your assistance in keeping various unsourced and questionable assertions from being repeatedly reinserted on NBA Records. I'm not sure if you've been watching that page (it's relatively new), but there are either two pin-heads or just one pin-head and his sock-puppet placing unsupported statements into that article and removing cite tags. I've cleaned it up a lot, with some help from Ogp, but I'm getting kind of tired of it. In my opinion, you're as good as they come when it comes to wiping out nonsense on NBA articles and I'd appreciate an ally in keeping the NBA Records article clean from unreliable information. Myasuda02:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:HG-portrait.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] I honestly could not give a toss. I upload that image over a year ago, and even then I believe I merely cropped it from an original existing uploaded image. If you don't think the image is acceptable, then get rid of it. As I said so delicately before, I do not care.--Downwards22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice that you're doing a lot of vandalism repair on basketball player articles, which is greatly appreciated.
But I wanted to talk to you about your last edit on Dirk Nowitzki. I understand that you restored some of the trivia items that I deleted as they were backed up by sources, but I don't think they belong in the article. WP:TRIV specifically advises against trivia sections, and I don't think any of the items in Trivia and Personal life sections are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, since they don't add anything to Nowitzki's notability. But I do like to get your opinion before deleting them again.
Well then, instead of labeling it as TRIVIA, we call it something else and we're cool, right? The threshold of info here I am led to believe is verifiability, not someone's pre-set definition of triviality.--Downwards22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll be sure to do that. You've made me seen the error of my ways, and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity you've given me to improve my insults. I wish you well in your recovery and in your quest to save the world one article at a time. (nothing much going on in your life at the moment, hey?) --Downwards22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make one thing clear. You do not have my permission to crop any of the images which I own and upload in Wikipedia. Do you understand? Another thing you better refrain from adding any insulting coments. Who the hell do you think are to referrer to somebody as ugly? Tony the Marine23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your uploaded image is permitted to edited by any user, anonymous or registered, so therefore, as another editor, I do have permission. If you own it, why did you let wikipedia have it? And was that you in the photograph? I do not have the original so I can't even remember your face. Could you send me another so I can re-assess? What was Walt Frazier like? Is he tall? Thanks, bye! --Downwards05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full dates are almost always supposed to be linked, see here. Also, see the references sections of featured articles such as here, here, or here. If you see the section that says "my preferences" (on the top of your screen if you use the default skin) linking dates like that makes them appear the way an editor prefers, that's the reason for wikilinking them. Quadzilla9911:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This the exact section I referred you to: "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:
If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work', displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:
I reverted your changes to the bamf article for a couple of reasons:
there are potentially other things that BAMF may mean besides just the dane cook, linking to the redirect is appropriate in this case.
The warnings of Dane Cook's acronym really need to be there, I have (anecdotally) noticed a decrease in the "vandalism" of the article with those comments. McKay17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand I needed to find a better reference, but as you can see I was not making it up. Thank you for finding a propper reference for Jeff's article. --Josh22:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't stop reverting the article to non-standard formatting and unnecessary and confusing abbreviations, you may be blocked from editing for disruption. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 07:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you above observing the policies because you're an Admin? You want an explanation and source for edits others perform? No one owes you anything. Where are your explanations? You've reverted three times! As I understand it, that's a reportable violation. You've deleted a legitimate category, remove the fact he played at Cleveland State. Your edits need explaining. I am going to report you for the 3 revert rule. --Downwards07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you removed the fact that he played at Cleveland; I replaced it (as this diff clearly shows). I also replaced the category, and reverted your disruptive reverts. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you're reverting.
As for sources; they're not owed to me, they're required by Wikipedia policy. Why people like you insist on editing without giving explanations and sources, and then respond to attempted correction with aggression and this sort of personal attack is beyond me. (I see that you have history of edit-warring and perosnal attacks.)
Forget my "history of personal attacks", this is about the Jim les article. You're just taking ownership of the article. Where the heck are YOUR explanations? You're no better/wose than me, only difference is, you're an Administrator. I will be compiling my case against you in the coming days. Sorry, it's just your poor administration and communication skills, or lack thereof. And no, no personal attacks will be involved, so look elsewhere for your reversion excuses. Bye for now! --Downwards08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you've already made personal attacks. You've also admitted that you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I strongly suggest that you calm down, look at Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, especially the Manula of Style, and start editing more thoughtfully and with more courtesy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nationality part of steve nashs bio should remain canada, unless you can provide evidence that he has nationality in the UK. In all of the references, steve nash is canadian, therefor his nationality should remain canadian. Since there is somewhat of an ongoing deal about it, it should be discussed on the discussion page with no more reverting till all have come to a decision. Hit me up on my talk page, Warrush01:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm an Australian research student and I'm writing my thesis on Wikipedia. This may sound like an odd request, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in participating in an interview about your opinions, views and experiences while using Wikipedia? The interview would be conducted via email and you would be anonymous in the published study. I notice that you've had experience dealing with editing conflict and also with suspected sockpuppets, so I'd be particularly interested in talking to you about these issues. If you're interested in participating please either email me or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! tamsin07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, Downwards. I'm looking at an edit you made to the Mike Conley, Sr. page; among other (very useful) changes, you added him in the categories of African-American basketball players and American basketball players. The problem Conley, Sr. isn't a basketball player; his son, Mike Conley, Jr. is. I think you added the cats because Conley, Sr. played in high school and college, but do you think a non-pro career is worthy of category inclusion? Raggaga02:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False accusation of posting rubbish ahd vandalism =
There's the proof you need! Happy now?!? Maybe you owe me an apology for falsely trashing my reputation. Thanks! --Inetpup07:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Downwards owes a lot of apologies, I wouldn't hold your breath.
I noticed one of your edit summaries said that you don't remember Payton ever playing for the Hawks. He was signed by the Hawks, but never actually played. It's a judgment call. Do you think that's worth including, or is it better to just leave it saying "Payton played for ______" and not include the Hawks? Davemcarlson01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Interesting way of doing it, and I agree. But I don't know if you know this or not, but Brooklyn is a borough. Not a city. The city it's part of is named New York City. This city is in a U.S. state named New York. Just for your own info.
P.S. I actually responded to you promptly the other day, but ironically, your final message posted asking me whether I want to respond actually caused an edit conflict, disallowing me to post when I pressed ENTER. And then I literally had no time to post it again as I had to turn off the computer and leave because It was 6:00 PM and I usually go home at that time. Goodbye. --Downwards04:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any damn nonsense...Durant is a swingman who is 6'9 do you want to see the pre-draft measurements to back that up? You are an idiot that is not nonsense it is facts.
This guy keeps deleting valid nicknames that I have posted on the Michael Redd article page. First off, citations do not belong in the fieldbox on the front page, so I have no reason to cite them. Second, unless he reads the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or watches FSN North/FSN Wisconsin, he is unlikely to be able to confirm the validity of these nicknames. Third, a simple Google search would prove these nicknames to be real. You obviously have the Internet, so hop on over to Google sometime. Finally, he deletes these continuously and with no regards left in the summary of the edit (i.e. a reason for having deleted valid information).
Thank you for correcting me on my own user page. I suspected that was the reason why my edit kept getting deleted. However, the fact remains that there are no other links in the boxes of player pages. I question some nicknames, i.e. Amare Stoudemire's "Man-Child," but somehow they got that through with no reference link. I put the nickname links in the trivia page, and so nobody makes any corrections to the box, left one link in the box to refer to the trivia section. Thank you for your help, although I would have loved it if you had told me why sooner.
Hey you just deleted my edit on darko milicic. espn reported he signed a three year deal with the grizzlies. how do i cite that so it is acceptable? I guess Darko DID sign with the grizzlies.... u fucking moron
Hello - you put up Aaron Mckie for speedy deletion because the search engine would automatically redirect to Aaron McKie. However, the search engine seems to have difficulty with capital letters in the middle of a word (try searching for Shirley Mckie, which should give you Shirley McKie), so indeed it is a useful redirect. Thanks, ugen6405:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He left this message on my talk page after I added Garnett to the Boston Celtics players category.
Kevin Garnett
Thank you for experimenting with the page Kevin Garnett on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.--Downwards 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC) --Berserkr73110:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that nobody likes you and your a bad editor so why not give up? Jeez, you generate more controversy than a Chinese laundromat. All you're doing is just messing up real people's work. Maybe you could get a job as a sweeper or maybe even a grocer. You gave it your best shot but let's face it, just like real life, wikipedia is a popularity contest and clearly you don't have what it takes to succeed at either --KatoABJV
Look I don't think i'm out of line saying you should just give up on editing. Read what people write about you, notice a theme? Perhaps that nobody likes you? You aren't getting back at society for rejecting you by messing with real people's work. Not only that, you deleted a legitimate question somebody asked me on my own talk page! It looks like everything you do is a personal attack and out of spite. KatoABJV01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. On the Michael Redd page, there was a back-and-forth for months between Downwards, some other users, and myself wherein we would make changes to the article (i.e. added nicknames, the fact that he's left-handed, etc.) and he would delete our information and revert to older edits that contained false links and deleted the good information. This guy must have a watch-list of 100 articles and absolutely no life, because every time I checked back on that article, along with three or four others, the information was changed. It seems that he does this for spite and glorification of his own ideals, and as one of the other users stated, it is like vandalism in reverse. He insists on using citations for the nicknames in the info box, even when the information (including citations) are right there in the article. This user is a joke, and if there were a "vote to ban member" function, he would be looking for new sites to troll. ShinyHubCaps02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your support, I read your next comment it sounds like par for the course for it. It uses the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of wikipedia. I mean obviously it's some kind of crumb bum thing, probably sitting in a pile of it's own feces, projecting it's frustration with the society that rejected it onto a place like wikipedia where no one can break it's jaw for it. I keep telling it on my revert summaries that messing with actual people's work isn't going to get it laid but it just doesn't listen! KatoABJV19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is a recurring theme that individuals have problems with your edits. I personally have seen many edits and reverted articles (or "undos" if you will) where you do not say WHY you did, in fact, undo them. So thank you for taking the time to send me a message, yet I do believe that an explanation is in order. If that means me sounding harsher than I would like, then let it be so.
You referenced the Wikipedia points of how to do citations and the verifiability of a statement. Furthermore, you went about it in a certain condescending way as if I were a moron. And I quote:
Hi, could you please direct me to the guideline in Wikipedia which states you don't need to cite as you claim in the summary of this edit and this edit?
Now, these things I know are true. Like the information that so many others have provided, they don't need to be cited.
1.) I am familiar with the Wikipedia standards that you did later supply, including Citation and Verifiability.
2.) I cannot direct you to a guideline that says I don't need to cite. I know that users do need to cite; however, the material which they must cite is determined by the other links you so arrogantly threw in my user page. Included in these are the following:
attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged
I'm sorry for believing that nicknames are not likely to be challenged. The fact of the matter is this: you can show up to a new place or be introduced to something for the first time, and you are not going to understand all of the lingo or context of what is said immediately. Much like the original poster of the nicknames for which a citation and edit war was so vigorously fought, I watch the Milwaukee Bucks and follow their broadcasts regularly. The nicknames used were neither direct quotes, nor were they questionable because everybody who KNOWS anything about the material (Michael Redd or the Bucks, or even Milwaukee as it is in the newspaper all of the time) would agree with this. There is no guideline in Wikipedia that says nothing needs citations ever, but on the other hand, there is nothing that says that somebody's nickname needs it. You should probably go edit Spud Webb and Penny Hardaway, because their nicknames would be questionable, right? You also pointed out that I think it is correct because of other lax editors, but the fact of the matter is that if it is common information that could be verified in a two-second Google search AND standard with all other well-maintained pages of similar nature, it should NOT have to be removed for lack of a citation. The nickname of a player, and certainly a nickname that can be heard practically all of the time, is not material that should be challenged, and nobody thought that it was likely to be. For that matter, why not cite his height, college, or draft position? It all seems to be fairly standard.
Additionally, the information was re-stated within the article. Why does it need to be cited twice in two different places? Why can it not stand as fact with citation in the article, and as accessory information or a brief overview for the information box?
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.
Nicknames are not original research, nor are they bias in any way. That leaves only one pillar left: Verifiability. The other standards include moments that are very decisive, as in "This is definitely not neutral" or "This indicates original research and not reputable fact," whereas Verifiability is more of a case-to-case basis. In this case, I don't believe that an individual's nickname needs to be verified, especially since the "type and quality of material" was fine before the citations and before the user wars, as well as being standard with all other pages. Sure, 500 users on 300 NBA player pages are wrong, but you are the only one who is right... or at least that's what I hear when you say that all other users on the other pages are lazy in procedure and make it seem as if I disregard the policies completely. I have cited my fair share of information, as well as made scores of grammatical and spelling-related corrections. Just because people spell things wrong does not mean that we change the spelling of them. It is similar here: you claim to be "doing the right thing" (as you said on my page) and undoing the work of others rather than correcting it yourself (and eventually doing that after time number twenty), yet there was nothing wrong with this one, or the other ones, as everything was standard and did not need to be verified. That's my rather roundabout way of explaining it, but it is true that not all information needs to be verified. You kept deleting the Trivia note that Michael Redd is left-handed, AND it was cited. However, it does not appear to be something that needs citation.
You had better rush over to the article on peanut butter and cite the fact that it is often used with jelly.
should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation
This makes it sound like you should do authors of pages and dates of publication rather than a reference link to an existing web page. Do we all follow this rule as such? We should probably just delete every page with inaccurate citations, yes? That is an example of everybody giving slack to the rules and allowing it to catch on, yet you never go on a crusade saying, "People! People! Do not just copy the URL! Write in the form of a card catalog! And the blog on xxxxxx.com isn't a reliable source!" Of course, if that were the case, you would just delete the page without saying why.
Remember that these are in fact guidelines to using Wikipedia. They are not the Internet's answer to speed traps, meant to catch you and persecute to fulfill their quotas. Let the articles be and let them expand rather than chasing away potential editors with your means of deleting every non-cited addition they make. Allow the guidelines to act as just that, and know that not everything needs to be cited. I mentioned that the other users said how the other player pages did not cite nicknames, yet I still was able to come to the conclusion that nicknames do not need to be cited. That stands true for similar information, such as height and birthdate. That stands especially true if the information is already cited in the article, like the Michael Redd nicknames were in the Trivia section.
By the way, I'm heading over to the Maurice Williams page... should I cite the fact that "Mo" is a nickname?
Sorry for the long talk and peppered sarcasm. It is late, I am tired, and I was offended by the condescending way in which you questioned my technique. Wikipedia does not belong to just you, you know. ShinyHubCaps06:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha come on lil' champ, you can't say i'm a troll. Complaints about me? one. Complaints about you? over 100. I've already won the popularity contest. Hey relax guy, you're all right! Just throwing ya a lil' chin music for messing with important people's work. It's okay i'm sure you'll learn how to be popular someday it's just that reverting things and demanding unnecessary citations isn't gonna do it. Hope things turn around for you. KatoABJV23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been in a few disputes with User:KatoABJV, recently; today, you reverted an edit they made at Don Mattingly, a page I don't believe you've edited, before. I was wondering if I might inquire as to how you found this edit, and more specifically, whether you're following this editor to revert their edits? – Luna Santin (talk)04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "bigger man" isn't as innocent as he makes himself out to be
Hi Luna, in response to grievances by your hard-done-by complainant, I have cited several examples where he has conducted himself quite egregiously and/or inappropriately over the past couple of weeks.
Actions such as:
Attempting to obtain my password using an anonymous I.P. address
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:28:58 GMT
To: "Downwards" <email_address_withheld>
Subject: New temporary password for Wikipedia
From: wiki@wikimedia.org
Someone from the IP address 141.154.232.29 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.
The new password for the user account "Downwards" is "<withheld>". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.
If it was you who requested this new password, then you should log in to Wikipedia and change it to your desired password
by clicking "My Preferences" at the top right of any page, or by visiting the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences
If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may
safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.
~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't understand why you deleted my additions to the trivia section of Michael Finley. Just because what I added didn't have a source? Everything I put in is easily verifiable and true. I just don't have time to look for sources to document what I've added. Please don't remove my additions again. Michael Finley is one of my all-time favoritte players and I know everything I put in is true. Thank you, and by the way, Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. What I added can't even be described as being bold because it'f fact not opinion. Does it really bother you if people know that Stan Van Gundy coached Finley in college? Let us amateur editors have some fun, all right? Thanx.
He makes protestations that essentially I "violate the spirit of Wikipedia" by undoing his inadequately sourced changes which he believes are legitimate in their inclusion. His justification is the notion that anyone is allowed to edit, however, failing to comprehend that this is not a preclusion from abiding by an accepted and established editing process which must be followed by all.
Unscrupulously conducting himself in a malicious, rude, anti-social and uncivil manner
For someone who has to illustrate the point that he finds another's behavior "rude" (as claimed here) and "disgusting" (as claimed here), it is unconscionable that he neglects to tone down his own behaviour. This largely comes in the form of posting nasty, unmitigated personal attacks in his edit summaries. (refer to KatoABJV's edit history) Examples of these include:
1) Unprovoked, condescending remarks that typically feature the terms "awww" and/or "lil' champ". He shows no sign dropping the wanton acts of invection he so boisterously indulges himself in – simply read his edit summaries.
3) Adding unhelpful and deliberate "flame" messages to the Talk Pages of editors I have recently communicated to, in order to foment a backlash by recruiting these users to help fight his silly cause. When I noticed these irrelevant and uncontributitive messages and removed them accordingly, he reverts with the claim "you know you can't change other people's pages"; the irony lost on him that he is doing the exact same thing (and to date I have not heard of any Wikipedia policy that sanctions the right of an editor to turn a third party's Talk Page into a battleground, especially when the discussion is personal and not about content.)
Claiming he is in part vindicated by his actions for the reason that "Downwards has hundreds of complaints about him", all the while not taking into account that they concern past matters during the course of my time here and by all means do not concern him. (I believe the precise term he used on his own Talk Page was "outdated queries")
In accordance with the advice provided in "Don't feed the trolls" essay, I have taken the prudent approach to avoid any contact with him (unless necessary), in the hope that he will cease and desist his combatitive actions. It seems this had some positive effect, as days progressed he did ease off, and concede that he will be "the bigger man", curiously, however, an hour later he posts this: "you're a jerk, Goo". In light of his constant abuse, I continue to monitor and scrutinise his contributions, lest he gets away with posting more rubbish.
All I have done "wrong" is follow and enforce the rules that apply to everybody. Clearly this "causes him grief". This is his own problem for not properly understanding Wikipedia protocol. He disregards my explanations, makes excuses that are not supported by anything other than the excuse itself, and makes little effort to resolve conflict. If anything, he exacerbates and creates arguments. Personal remarks about a person's looks, of which he expects a response, are not conducive to conflict resolution. Granted, I have not made any real attempt to peaceably resolve his issue here (personally I fail to see why following the rules that everyone else follows is difficult), but can you blame me for lacking any desire to actively engage with someone who behaves in an obnoxious and rude manner? If he conducted himself in the presence of an Admin in the way he has done with me, it is reasonable to presume he'd be blocked.
In conclusion, am I to allow this person to continue to behave according to his own perception of the laws here, lest I be accused of editing under the guise of enforcing policy? Is he not bound by the same palpable rules that apply to everyone else? Would a solution to this be to from now on avoid picking him up on his bad editing? And if so, would this not be remiss of me as one who expects everyone to do the right thing?
Having explained the above, this is my declaration that I will continue to ignore this socially-unskilled and disruptive individual. I'm apt to channel my energies into matters that don't waste my time. Thank you for listening. --Downwards22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
look, I didn't mean to offend you so much, I was just having a little fun trying to make you think about not being rude to people, I never denied any wrongdoing. it's over, it's been over and clearly you didn't get the you're a jerk, goo reference. Thats okay though, I have to tip my cap to you for such a thorough condemnation. Well done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KatoABJV (talk • contribs) 23:52:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Did you know? was updated. On August 20, 2007, a fact from the article John Kuester, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Please add to the discussion page your concerns about references in the nodwick article. Simply placing a template asking for the article to be updated is unhelpful, and is likely to be removed for lack of support. I would be happy to discuss with you the issues you have with the article. Timmccloud04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look you made a very long argument against me, but in a way you supported my own points. It's not about the letter of the law but being a decent human being. I'm not being a hypocrite and you know it, I only said those things because you're the lil' champ that ruins people's work, guess I was right about you not being popular enough to matter, huh? But in all seriousness, why don't you just cite things if you have a problem with people who don't? I mean if a quick google search shows the deron williams nickname is kingpin why just delete and not cite it? The burden of proof may not be on you but what kind of attitude is that? Hahaha, what kind of person does that make you? If you really cared about wiki you'd want wiki to be the best place it could be, and that would involve adding citations to things instead of just removing them.
Look, somebody must've hurt you at some point, maybe an unrequited love, maybe the kids at recess, I don't know. But wikipedia isn't the forum to take it out on. We're not the ones that didn't accept you, but your past behavior is just going to prolong your isolation. It's a real shame that the basketball wiki community has someone like you acting like they own the place, kinda surprising some one like you is into sports. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KatoABJV (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
I invite you to participate in the discussion of this proposed guideline, right now there is an agruement on the notabilty of NBA Developmental League and Continusonal (spelling) Basketball League players, should one game indicate notabilty, or a whole season, or if they won an all-star or major award. Thanks Jarandawat's supSports!04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LeBron James has received some heavy editing recently. Would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee(Talk) 18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE SEE THE ADDITION ABOUT MICHAEL FINLEY A LITTLE B4 THE CHARLES BARKLEY COMMENT JUST UP THE PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.78.43 (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Thank you very much" for editing my changes to LORENZO WILLIAMS (basketball player)...The article had practically nothing and i think i upgraded it, yet you reverted it, the second article i improve you did that. KEEP REVERTING IT, I'LL KEEP REVERTING IT BACK!!!
Once again, you strike, and in the bulls(third)eye may i add...
IF YOU WENT THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF CLICKING HIS EXTERNAL LINK, YOU WOULD FIND HE IS AN LA CLIPPERS, SO IT IS CONFIRMED!!! YET, I INSERTED A REFERENCE TO THAT, HAPPY NOW?
I think you hide behind a veil of politeness (never shouting, never insulting horribly), to go about your business of ruining other people's works (I CHECKED YOUR TALK PAGE, AND YOU HAVE ABOUT 100 COMPLAINTS OF YOUR MODUS OPERANDI) but, as i said in my first message to you: "KEEP REVERTING, I'LL KEEP REVERTING IT BACK".
Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.
I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.
Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:
Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)
Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.
If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.
I've unblocked 8-Hype and will be happy to extend the same courtesy to you provided you promise me to stop the reverting until there's a consensus solution. More details are on 8-Hype's talk page. Do those conditions look acceptable to you?--chaser - t17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reblocked 8-Hype for 48 hours and extended your block to one week for block evasion and continuing the edit-war with an IP address [15][16] I know it's yours because the Whois data [17] indicates it's an IP from the same ISP when you evaded a block a year ago [18][19][20]. I've also semiprotected the articles.--chaser - t21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, could somebody block this guy from Michael Redd article?
1.) He reverts to editions because of an edit war with me.
2.) His reverted editions contain bad links, which I tell him frequently.
3.) He does not list reasons for his edits.
4.) He just made an edit that did not revert vandalism, however did revert my good material.
5.) He does not read my rationale for the edits I've made, which I have left in the discussions page.
6.) We have talked about our edit war here, on this page, and on my talk page, and we had come to an understanding. Shortly thereafter, he made his old changes again.
I also recommend banning him, because he may or may not be a Wikipedia robot. He's programmed to make the worst possible edits on any given page. ShinyHubCaps (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let me say that we have gotten to deep into a war. It is obvious what the administrators did to both of us. For now, I decided I will not revert any edits before I speak to you about it, and it would also be appropriate from your side to do the same.
Around October 18, I decided that I want to have a common scheme for the infoboxes of Boston Celtics (which is my favorite team, of course) players, and applied it to every player according to the article of Glen Davis, which was a good example. Several days later, however, you decided you want to have it your own way, and partially reverted edits although there was no need for it.
First of all, let me point out:
"I decided that I want to have a common scheme for the infoboxes"
and then you say-
"you decided you want to have it your own way, and partially reverted edits although there was no need for it."
How come you've given yourself the right to determine what's to be included and yet when I do, and consider that my edits are in line with the rules, it's an injustice? Have you even familirised yourself with the rules? E.g. what sanctions have you been given to add flagicons, especially after I have told you (many times) they're pretty much banned?
What you also did is editing other things that I haven't touched up, yet in a provoking manner (at least this is how I think of it). Nevertheless, there were also many contributing edits from your side which I really liked. But your negative edits preponderate, because the way you reverted edits was totally disrespectful.
Disrespectful to whom or to what? I was simply aligning my edits with the set guidelines. How is that disrespectful? What are you on about? Re-adding flagicons where not warranted even after you have been advised not to, what do you call that?
I really don't want to repeat this process of editing and reverting, so before either of us changes articles that affect us both, I suggest we talk about it beforehand and agree on a consolidated version of the article.
I've already tried to tell you that flagicons are not of value (and are not to be used), that adding silly unnecessary links are not integral to to the article, and adding players to categories
No, you're not sorry at all. You've gone and reverted an edit, which is fine (it's something you're adept at), and then complained to an admin and said it was "PROBABLY" Downwards. Where is your proof? And anyways, what makes you any better? -- you reverted aswell - did you report yourself for that?
Having said that, I do not want to continue an 'edit war' either so if you're willing to compromise on a few things such as removing flagicons, I'll settle. Bye.--Downwards21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. This was my mistake. I will remove all the flagicons of Boston Celtics players (please remember, I am keeping a scheme). I hope this is the first step in the reconciliation of interests. And Pruitt is a Boston Celtics player now, because he played against Atlanta on November 9. Cheers! | 8-Hype21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this guy the worst editor on wikipedia? lol look at how many people complain about him! I wish I could pick on this guy he thinks he's a little trooper or something must get no respect in his real life so he thinks he's the boss around here. That kind of aggressive attitude he has must mean he represses his feelings of hatred for those around him and directs it towards people trying to work on wiki. I bet he never would act like that in real life or somebody would break his jaw for him. Why is he even interested in basketball I doubt he's even a sports fan. Seriously downwards I'm begging you, stop editing. Look at what your edits do to the wiki basketball community. Things are a lot worse because you are here, PLEASE think about that. Who wouldn't be happier if you just went away? People try and talk to you like reasonable adults and you just respond with snotty comments like "bye" I would really like to hear you justify your behavior so if you have any response i'd love to hear it. Hope things turn around for you,
KatoABJV (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Redd III a.k.a. Why I accused you of vandalism
It's not necessarily vandalism (although negotiable, see below), but I knew it would get your attention.
1.) You need to post reasons for your edits, especially if you are reverting the edits made by others. Anyone can change Wikipedia; you do not own Wikipedia or the means by which it operates. If you undo somebody's work, you must say why.
2.) We have discussed the nickname citations before on your talk page and resolved that it should remain the way it is, without citations. I was very hospitable, and we did hammer out a conclusion. About a week later, however, you went ahead and changed it again, claiming that a citation was "blocked up," despite the fact that the citation you reverted to had nothing to do with the point it was supposed to validate.
3.) The article was locked because of this edit war. It was lifted presuming that you had relented, and then you came back anyway. Didn't you notice that it was locked at one point?
4.) Every time I undo your edits with those useless, clutterful links, I tell you to check the discussion page. Have you ever, even once, checked there? I have my rationale listed in point form, so anyone can understand. That fact that you ask "And why are you re-instating uncited material," tells me that out of the million times I have directed you to the discussion page, you have never checked it.
5.) I do know what vandalism is, and I believe that reversing useful information is vandalism. In your last edit, you undid two interesting items from the Trivia section. If I went and undid all of the work that you did in any given page, that would be vandalism because I would be tearing down established material and, if I were like you, I wouldn't give a reason.
I posted this also on my talk page so you might see it there as well. Sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. It does not need a citation for the reasons I have stated in the discussion page, and a moderator has agreed with me in this instance although not in all instances, so it is not a general rule. As I have mentioned before, the spirit of Wikipedia is more important than the letter because, in theory, you could cite every sentence and maybe every word in an article, but nobody expects you to because of the vague "debatable" guideline. Everything is potentially dubious and debatable, so do we cite everything? I think I explained it better in the discussion page... please consult. (A more harsh version that is bias against you as a user is listed above in the "Blocked for Edit Warring" section; regrettably crude, but it contains some of my general points.) ShinyHubCaps (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been warned several times to start acting in a respectable manner, and you have decided to disregard those warnings. You can't really work in a collaborative environment with that kind of attitude. Therefore, I have decided to block you for a period of six months, during which time I hope you will consider changing your attitude. One (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know your ban must be up soon, but this place has been so much better without you. Downwards, why are you the way that you are? I hate SO much about...what you choose to be. I'm sorry if youre in a wheelchair or something. KatoABJV (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading Image:Diaw.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Thank you for uploading Image:Brian Skinner.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Ben Gordon, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend caution when reverting content, instead of blindly reverting check the diffs of your edits. In that last revert you broke the link to Puerto Rican people to Puerto Rican, as well as removing the use of the {{PUR}} template. If you want to restore the birthplace to the lead do it manually, although since the birthplace is in the infobox they are generally avoided in the lead if nationality is already mentioned, see Babe Ruth. - Caribbean~H.Q.00:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Ahmed_II.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've been blocked for six months for repeated disruption, and even after that you're proving to be disruptive. You have to recognize that you don't own the articles you touch. At this point, you risk becoming indefinitely blocked. --harej23:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, come on downwards. Why can't you just be a lil' champ about it and not revert things. I am shocked, shocked that you cannot find it in your heart to sod off with a lil' dignity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoABJV (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not move the key section to the bottom of the page on all NBA award pages such as this one. If you look at a sports list, especially for a featured one, you will notice that it is conventional to have the key on top. Thanks.—Chris!ct05:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are users harassing people, getting them banned, telling mods they are vandalizing, reverting edits endlessly, etc. over that name info on Spanoulis. This guy Sergiogr is obsessed with it. I made the mistake once of restoring a large deletion on that page which included that (I thought someone vandalized the page) and that Sergiogr guy reported me for vandalism and I was banned for weeks from the site.
I was just recently reported for "abuse" by him to a mod and threatened with a ban because he claimed I "restored false information like a made up meaning of that name", that's why I removed the name info. I can't stand this guy's harassing any longer.
He then sent me numerous threatening messages as did a bunch of other users, I assume friends of his. It's not worth it man. You probably just made his people to harass list. He will systematically start to revert every edit you make, if you restore them he will report you to mods that are friends of his and get you banned for "vandalism". Even if the info is sourced and legit you will be banned. Just giving you a heads up, he's an out of control editor here, just stay away from him and let him dominate the pages he wants to control.
Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chris McCormack (techno), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
You really want the community to re-debate this Mark Davis move? And you're ready to move war to enforce your view? Come on. The born-1963-player (doesn't exactly flow real smoothly, does it...) played less than 1/10 as many minutes as the other. You really don't think that qualifies the other to be the primary target? What's your point? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.
Please note that a person cannot be an expatriate in New Zealand and in the US at the same time. Based on the definition from wiktionary, Expatriate: 1. One who lives outside one’s own country. 2. One who has been banished from one’s own country. That a person stayed in a location while making a film does not make them an expatriate nor a resident of that country. Even if by some stretch of the imagination they could have been considered an expatriate while filming Lord of the Rings, that ended some years ago now, and they are no longer in New Zealand. By that faulty logic, you would be working non-stop to add expatriate categories to hundreds of articles to encompass each and every actor who lived in a country temporarily while filming a picture. The articles of Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler do not support the categories that you added. On another note, be reminded that WP:CIVIL would suggest that edit summaries such as "Oh dear, we are protective, aren't we?" are inappropriate, as I see you have encountered in the past. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are applying the set protocol for NBA PLAYERS to the players that DO NOT play in the NBA. For NBA players that are currently in NBA site protocol is not to capitalize position, however for players in OTHER LEAGUES currently it IS to capitalize position. Excuse me for following what the guidelines are. I have never and will not change any position to capital for an NBA current time player. I don't care if you feel the need to change them all so that EVERY player on earth has to follow the NBA guideline because you probably believe the whole world revolves around the NBA and the US. But do NOT accuse me of not following site guidelines when I actually am and you actually were not in the matter. I will allow you to change them per your opinion NBA guidelines must rule all. But if you ever falsely accuse me again of going against site policy I will report you without hesitation.
Downwards I just can't believe this, you are still editing and being a jerk even after a SIX MONTH ban. I mean how could you even show your face let alone undo edits by real people. I just can't fathom what made you the way that you are, you are divorced and you are bitter and you should not be taking that out on the basketball community. PLEASE just sod off with a lil' dignity.
KatoABJV (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I would like just to inform you that there is no consensus in changing well established categories with BD. These edits are nonconstructive. Please read instructions in {{Lifetime}}.
The Wikipedia standard for sorting of biographic articles is a sort key of "family name, personal name(s)" (if appropriate), regardless of the order of those elements in the actual name. See Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category. This is so that all the people with the same family name are correctly sorted by personal name. In other words, we want to have Ha Seung-Jin appear between Pat Ha and Timothy Ha. Without the "extra" comma, all the Asian-style names get sorted before are the western-style names. Studerby (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I told you before to stop reverting pages over and over just for kicks. Keep it up and you will be reported again. And your really nasty little comments you leave when you revert are against site policy. Keep it up.
Hi. Where there is a DEFAULTSORT applied above a series of categories, please do not remove it. It is a policy that these fields will be applied to EVERY article in due course (see {{DEFAULTSORT}} for details).
I have restored the DEFAULTSORT to Hero of Alexandria for you. You may not have noticed that the 'Of' in the template was capitalised -- this is why the template is needed on this page. For the sort to work correctly, all words in the article title need to be capitalised.
Please check other articles you have edited and restore the template if it is no longer there. Thank you.
Think it has become obliviate that this person need some help. The community should host a fundraiser for the him to get back on his feet. DO you agree? if he really is indigent we can by help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.229.212.139 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your constant insistence on improperly labeling proper names as lower case
You have been for years on basketball articles changing league names like Adriatic League, Spanish league, Greek League to lower case. This has been corrected hundreds of times and yet you keep on doing it. Well from now on this will be reported. The PROPER names are Spanish League, Greek League, Adriatic League, Italian League, etc. That is their official English name. What exactly do you not understand about this? Let me help you out since you seem completely incapable of grasping this. [21]
The official English names under the ULEB umbrella are Greek League, German League, French League, etc. That is what they are officially called under ULEB umbrella in English. That is their NAME. They are not called Greek league, Spanish league, etc. So please once again stop changing the proper names of the leagues in lower case. You have done it on so many articles and you just revert it back endlessly. It is a clear error and clearly incorrect editing. At this point if it continues it will be reported because it's gotten out of hand at this point. --Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Downwards! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 186 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Downwards criticizes those who edit pages per Wikipedia's policies and intent for various groundless reasons. Offensively chastising a user, let alone a newer user, for failure to cite a source and reverting the page multiple times during my edit goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As you were deleting, reverting, and locking out my changes, I was in the process of attaching the necessary citations for my factually accurate statements on Jarvis Varnado. Stating that this site is not Twitter and usually otherwise childish banter further indicates your lack of maturity to handle such a principally simple operation. Further, my attendance at the game as a published sports writer and Wikipedia user gives me authority to cite to a published primary source and provide secondary sources without violating the Wikipedia:No_original_research Policy. Please act mature; get yourself some help. At any rate, I'll bury the hatchet. Spread the Wikipedia:WikiLove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.14.73 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha hey don't worry about DW look at his talk page he's a vintage nobody and he's not any other body. He's the project pariah, we've been trying to get him to town out for years now! He's a deeply disturbed individual but don't worry, nobody respects him here either. And DW, remember that you are the lowest rank because no one likes you, youre not allowed to be offensive to others
74.115.162.11 (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Downwards,
Have you considered creating a basic user page? Your name coming up in red makes you seem like a newbie.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, why did you change Nkem Ojougboh from Nigerian to African American? Even if he is African American, you shouldn't remove the Nigerian cat because he was born there.--TM04:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - don't create a "new" category for this - you obviously knew one existed (with over 500 people in it I might add). Just put in to rename the category - a bot will move over everyone automatically. Actually, at this point you should put in a merge request since both categories exist. Rikster2 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Downwards, please do not create any new Parade All-American categories. We are aware of the possessive plural spelling problem (i.e. the absence of the apostrophe in boys' and girls'), and we have requested that the existing categories and their contents be moved to categories with the correct spelling. Creating new categories with the correct spelling only complicates the present problem. Thanks for your understanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
As a result of this ANI thread, I have blocked you indefinitely for repeated addition of unsourced ethnicity categories to biographies of living persons. You will be unblocked as soon as you agree to stop adding the categories or to source them in the article when you add them. This block is necessary because it seems you have failed to respond to any of the concerns about this matter left on your talk page. To appeal the block or to agree to the aforementioned conditions, add {{unblock|reason}} below this message and an admin will be along shortly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Natureium (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Osarius, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Joe Forte, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article. You may remove the deletion tag yourself once the article has at least one reliable source.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Osarius}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Igor Rakočević. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Igor Rakočević).
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Sicko. Thank you. Ryan Delaney talk 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
