User talk:ViperNerd: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:01, 21 February 2008

Welcome!

Hi ViperNerd! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Can you change User:ViperNerd#My Creations to User:ViperNerd#My Contributions. This would be more appropriate being you are not original author of the article. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Then please tell me who wrote it?ViperNerd (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I am looking at this article University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal&action=history Igor Berger (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.12.13.137

Hello. Thanks for warning this user, but it is encouraged that one does not insult vandals. Also, you may want to use the following warning templates:

When using them, please substitute them. You may want to try them in the sandbox. If a user vandalizes after a last warning, please report him/here here. Also, please do not edit warnings left by bots. Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Clemson University football recruiting scandal

An editor has nominated Clemson University football recruiting scandal, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Clemson University football recruiting scandal

As I mentioned in the AFD, New York Times has a few articles that would be helpful in sourcing. Even if this information is not considered worthy of a standalone article, I think it would be highly notable in 1981 Clemson Tigers football team (where it is just barely mentioned), and it would probably fit nicely in Clemson Tigers football (no mention whatsoever). Cheers. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! Believe it or not, most of those articles deal with Clemson football going on probation for the second time in less than a decade, just after being caught for one of the longest lists of violations in NCAA history. I had planned to add the 1990 probation as another section to the existing article, as it nicely extends the history.ViperNerd (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm not interested in writing football articles (the steroid one being exceptional for me because I used to work in substance abuse counseling), but let me know if you need help with citations. WP:ATT and WP:CITE are good guides. Secondary sources (such as NY Times articles) are usually more important to have than primary sources (such as those NCAA reports), so give WP:PSTS a glance as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help standardizing refs in this article! ViperNerd (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do it. We could use a non self-published source for the CLEMSON UNIVERSITY PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION press release; the Googledoc could have been written and uploaded by anybody. It's not enough for it to be true, it has to be verifiable. The (fabricated?) comment in the AFD probably stems from this. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe the fabrication that is mentioned over and over in the AfD was in regard to the "first program to be placed on probation the year after winning the national championship" statement. Thanks to good research by Thor, I've since removed that incorrect statement which I believed to be true. Wiki in action! ViperNerd (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson University recruiting scandal

Couldn't help but notice you went to Clemson fans all over Wiki inviting them to debate the AfD on my Clemson recruiting scandal article. Don't you think it might not make it quite so obvious you are pursuing a personal agenda if you bothered to invite one or two USC fans that contribute to Wiki to debate the issue? Try not to be so transparent in your motives.ViperNerd (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for noticing, everything on Wiki is out there in the open for everyone to see. Please note that it is customary per AFD policy when filing an AFD to make notifications to concerned parties (projects, creators, interested parties, and major editors). Please also note that a WikiProject College Football notification was made (as it should have been), so fans of any school from across the College Football Universe are invited. The Clemson invites were made because the article is about, of all things, Clemson University. You could easily make your own invites for USC alums [here], the more debate the better the result (It's hard to say whether they will be interested, not everyone is a football fan, so you will get mixed results - but do give them the info). Remember, none of this is personal, it is about the business of building an encyclopedia. When it gets personal it is time to find something else to do because it is harmful to both the editor and Wikipedia (stress sucks, caffeine makes it worse). There are a lot of really nice people here who will help you with whatever problems you are having, including dispute resolution, and I see User:Edgarde is giving you some good advice already, he is very good and always on top of things quickly. If you have questions or need help with anything please feel free to ask, I am happy to help. Sorry so long-winded, I write code and type quickly... Thör ^hammer 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to pardon me if I might take your actions a bit personally after reading your lengthy attack piece on me masquerading as an AfD nomination. If you would like to prove otherwise, you could just go ahead and withdraw the AfD, as it most certainly is going to be denied anyway if the views of the majority of editors who have commented have anything to say about it. ViperNerd (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Please remember that the only way other community members have of knowing what kind of person you are here is by your recent edit behavior. Even if you are a nice guy at work, you might be viewed as a "bad guy" here based on your recent edit history. Every time an editor makes a helpful edit, or disruptively reverts verifiable content, or uses sockpuppets, they are telling the community who they are. I might help someone today with something, but I would also report and request a block for their disruptive edit behavior tomorrow. The key is that this is a project to build an encyclopedia, and behavior to the contrary is counter-productive and it makes everybody else's job harder, which hurts the project. The WP:AFD recent edit history is listing your recent edit history, not attacking you personally. As far as withdrawing the AFD, I still think this style of article is a horrible idea and opens the door to more disruptive behavior on Wikipedia, which hurts the project. At the rate your edit history was going, I wasn't going to ask you to change anything because it wouldn't have worked. Unlike the BOT, I don't particularly like being called a Tater, I am a Terrier. And we've never had a single major NCAA infraction, so I don't have a dog in this fight except for the black-eye the state gets from this and the steroid scandal articles. Thör ^hammer 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson University football recruiting scandal

Please stop adding the copy/paste of the NCAA report. Every creative work created in the US since 1978, except for works of the United State government, is automatically copyrighted. It doesn't matter if there is a copyright notice. It doesn't matter if they publish it on their website. It doesn't matter if they send out copies to anyone who asks. It is a copyrighted document and we have no permission to release their content under the GFDL. If you continue adding it, you will be blocked. I don't really care about your tiff with opposing fans. I do care about copyright violations. --B (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VN: I think there is a need to rewrite this section. As I mentioned in Talk:Clemson University football recruiting scandal, the Violations by year section is excessively long anyway. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just gave it my best shot. Check it out and see what you think of the revision. ViperNerd (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should get you past the WP:COPYVIO concern. I would have done it differently, but this is pretty good. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some unsolicited advice

If your intention is to see that Clemson's cheating and deviousness are well documented on Wikipedia, that's fine, but technically that makes you a single-purpose account, and other editors will regard your positions skeptically for that reason. It would help your case for you to avoid soapboxing Shame on Clemson statements,[1] which will call into question your POV. Just the facts, man.

As you have probably noticed by now, I am interested is seeing that these articles are written from a neutral perspective, rather than one as written by each team's boosters and entirely lacking critical information. For this to work you will need to be as neutral and fair as possible—all evidence of WP:POVPUSH will be held against you.

CobraGeek (talk · contribs) is on a similar mission, but has some advantages over you in that he seems to be a more fluent editor. It might be helpful for you to make a few less controversial edits in non-football, non-college related articles, just to pick up some experience. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User might be a good thing to try if you don't know where to go. I learned much of my stuff watching recent changes and fixing obvious vandalism, learning rather slowly about policy as needed. Neither approach requires a huge time commitment, but I wouldn't recommend vandal-fighting for the impatient. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VN, Edgarde is mining gold here, this is good advice. I'm going to agree with your summation that we need to wrap up the current debate, it is just degrading to worthless gibberish. I read that you found the up-to-date reference for the NCAA article probation list (see how easy it is to find good references?), it would be a good faith coup for you if you would restore the deleted information from the current reference before "someone" makes more of an issue of it. I'll finish up with some unsolicited advice of my own, please take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and memorize it before you do further editing. Please try to read it from someone else's view of your behavior. Thanks man, good luck. Thör ^hammer 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to South Carolina Gamecocks

I noticed you recently undid an edit that I made which was adding in a reference to verify information about the rivalry. As I have stated, the sole reason for removal should not be that it links to a Clemson webpage, but rather because the source is not related or unverifiable. Since you removed this reference, you should also remove the unverified statements in the article to which the reference was made, or find another reference (I have tried and there isn't one online). Zchris87v 09:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I fail to see your problem with the statement that your ref was attached to. The Carolina-Clemson football rivalry is in fact the longest uninterrupted series in the South, and the 3rd longest uninterrupted series overall. Both these statements can be verified by the reference already provided to the 2006 NCAA football record book (p.111), thus your reference was unnecessary.ViperNerd (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 I noticed you recently undid an edit that I made which was adding in a reference to verify information about the rivalry. As I have stated, the sole reason for removal should not be that it links to a Clemson webpage, but rather because the source is not related or unverifiable. Since you removed this reference, you should also remove the unverified statements in the article to which the reference was made, or find another reference (I have tried and there isn't one online). '''[[User:Zchris87v|<font color="darkorange">Zchris87v</font>]]''' 09:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 :Sorry, but I fail to see your problem with the statement that your ref was attached to. The Carolina-Clemson football rivalry is in fact the longest uninterrupted series in the South, and the 3rd longest uninterrupted series overall. Both these statements can be verified by the reference already provided to the 2006 NCAA football record book (p.111), thus your reference was unnecessary.[[User:ViperNerd|ViperNerd]] ([[User talk:ViperNerd#top|talk]]) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
+[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the '''only warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits.<br/> If you [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] Wikipedia again{{#if:|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4im -->