User talk:Downwards

This guy was the worst!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.16.17 (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040610/ai_n12549057

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  --Dvyost 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the citations are wrong. 210.213.169.171 02:15, 2 November 2007 (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?

Thank you for your attention,

Stephen Foster

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.

This wierdo is obssesed with yao mings height, check out what he did at yao ming's wiki page, very childish.

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. Hganesan 18:41, 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 think it's better to redirect from Bifrose, while the real article is Bifrose (trojan horse). I'll elaborate soon. A-Day ^(c)_(t) 02:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• OK :) Downwards 02:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Woot! A-Day ^(c)_(t) 03:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for editing my page on Leta Hollingworth.

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]

G'day mate, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL, the latest footy-related thing we have going on here. Drop us a line with any questions. Cheers, Rogerthat ^Talk 02:22, 28 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. Downwards 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Sorry about that. And I forgot to sign the first message. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

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.

Perfecto 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually did summarize my edit. I typed in "RV" (as in "reverted"). I felt this was sufficient (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Ovechkin&diff=next&oldid=37533658 )

thanks, Downwards 00:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. J. Miller 05:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I realize that the page was going to be deleted anyway, but edit summaries like, "giveashit" probably aren't the best course of action. Please WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's nice. Downwards 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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! Downwards 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH better looking, nice work! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know we never met, but I seen some of your of excellent work with basketball articles so

Sorry[edit]

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. Yanksox 03:09, 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, --Rory096 23:55, 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! Masterhatch 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it does not quite work that way. Your logic had potential, though. I shall move it back. Downwards 07:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Just a heads-up:

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.

Thanks. :)

Hbackman 03:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate,

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.

Cheers

Jasrocks

Please stop removing disambiguation headers; this could be considered vandalism. Septentrionalis 21:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Downwards 23:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to serve our readers, not require them to jump through hoops, no matter how large or low to the ground. Septentrionalis 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the reader. --Downwards 02:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who previously added the information based on history. And the information is factually true.--Bonafide.hustla 04:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great – bye. Downwards 04:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nash has not been named MVP- in fact, no one has been named to date. Please verify your facts before modifying articles.

I know he hasn't. Why are you telling me this? --Downwards 05:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake- read it wrong. Imacdo 12:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on why you think David Leroy Wood is the most notable of of all of the David Woods at the David Wood talk page. After a net search and a Special:Whatlinkshere check I still believe WP:D is appropriate in this case. Thanks. 69.3.70.175 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up. The conversations continues at Talk:David Wood... 69.3.70.175 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Created a stub as requested at Talk:David Wood/David Wood (actor).... 69.3.70.175 (talk · contribs) 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

(six hours later) I can do the WP:AFC process if I have to but am still hoping you'll do the article creation....69.3.70.175 (talk · contribs) 09:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

After waiting a couple of days, I thought I'd ping you one more time to see if you'd follow up as you proposed at Talk:David Wood. 66.167.252.202 (talk · contribs) f.k.a. 69.3.70.175 (talk · contribs) 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! It was not an edit by me... I seem I have removed it already, or not? Let me know. Good work!! (Attilios 07:23, 1 May 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.

second: Haha, you got me. Very funny. :)

third: No original research allowed

Cheers.

--Downwards 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), disambiguation pages follow the following standards:

• Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed
• Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line

Thanks --rogerd 03:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I just presumed that around here it was do-as-you-wish-as-long-as-everyone-else-is-doing-it. Cheers :) --Downwards 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Manka Talk 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.------Downwards 05:22, 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 Manka Talk 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. --rogerd 03:22, 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. --Downwards 03:40, 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. --JamesAM 04:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up. You were right, sorry.. --Downwards 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please create a userpage? — May. 13, '06 [07:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

No, I don't want nor need one for the moment. I see no point. May I ask why you request?--Downwards 22:01, 14 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>

A good idea is to do a redirect from your user page to your talk page. --Адам12901 ^Talk 02:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Northbay 04:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-bloody-tastic. Take it to a forum. --Downwards 05:00, 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to revert you, I meant the IDIOT who edited before you. --Downwards 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Hope we're cool.. :) --Downwards 03:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<gangsta> We be cool fo sho. Fiddy scent!</gangsta> God I hate doing that... :P Anyway, sorry again, and cheers! Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 03:43, 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.

Thanks, Vaniac 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And? --Downwards 03:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Simishag 21:06, 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. :) --Downwards 02:47, 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. Minutiaman 05:05, 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.. --Downwards 05:11, 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 ! Sandy 02:03, 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↔Weys 17:43, 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]

Please do not bite the newcomers!

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?

--A. B. 13:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were garbage edits. --Downwards 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? And how can they be called vandalism?

--A. B. 05:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 because you disagree with an edit doesn't mean you can label it vandalism. See WP:CIVIL
--A. B. 09:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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!!)--Bucsrsafe 16:45, 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. --Bucsrsafe 19:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it wasnt a personal attack, cant you take it? just go somewhere else. --Bucsrsafe 06:01, 23 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. --Downwards 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucsrsafe, contrary to what you said earlier today (23 June), your comments above (22 June) were most definitely a personal attack, especially "you are just such a loser". I don't always agree with Downwards, but your comments were way over the top. See the "Examples of personal attacks" section of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--A. B. 15:15, 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. Simishag 23:29, 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you changed my edit to adam morrison,but adam morrison really did say,in an interview with yahoo,that he liked the team and city of charlotte.heres the link:http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=An0x.QlQ10q5CbyVvOFJlO3hKrcF?slug=ap-bobcats-morrison&prov=ap&type=lgns67.185.26.89 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC) you changed my edit,but adam morrison really did say,in an interview with yahoo,that he liked the team and city of charlotte.heres the link:http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=An0x.QlQ10q5CbyVvOFJlO3hKrcF?slug=ap-bobcats-morrison&prov=ap&type=lgns67.185.26.89 05:22, 29 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. --Downwards 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but i said according to yahoo...???67.185.26.89 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. --Downwards 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. English is not my native language, but I’m sure, that apostrophe should be “’”, not “'”. Isn’t it? So I want ask you why you revert my edits? — fatal_exception ^?! 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your edits (I don't even know you). I changed the apostrophes from ’ to '.--Downwards 22:11, 4 July 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.. --Downwards 22:48, 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 '.

p.p.s. Thank you for answer and sorry for my grammar :). — fatal_exception ^?! 23:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look ass Derek Fisher, Devin Brown, & Bow Wow are all facts. And another fact your are a BIATCH user warned. --Downwards 08:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Downwards 22:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions that serve as an example for us all. Davemcarlson 06:23, 8 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. 24.148.67.72 03:39, 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.. --Downwards 04:17, 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, Yanksox 11:43, 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. Yanksox 11:47, 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. 12.100.11.146 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to participate in this discussion. — Jul. 16, '06 [14:47] <freak|talk>

When using certain 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. -Isopropyl 00:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to User talk:202.164.194.199, please remember Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies. Blarneytherinosaur 03:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pray that he recovers. --Downwards 04:03, 14 August 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. --Fxer 16:01, 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.--Downwards 02:21, 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?

Hi, because I don't want/have to, but that is not the issue. --Downwards 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Downwards 07:03, 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. Videoawards 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can fix it yourself if you want to by reverting me. If you don't, I can do it either way. 1ne 23:27, 24 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 | talk 13:33, 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.Nut 02:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Got it, Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. Now I'm wondering, tho, why "Chinese basketball players" hasn't been placed within "Chinese people" as a subcategory. Tks! Ling.Nut

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.

Grand Royal 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

FonUi
(My (Downwards) comments are in red.)--Downwards 23:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (FonUi comments in red.)--FonUi[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. Muéro 06:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. DS 16:46, 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? --Downwards 07:34, 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 Daddy 03:05, 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? --Downwards 03:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind moving the azerbaijani and iranian national heroes pages to list of too please

I noticed that you de-wikified the dates on the Thank God You're Here article. It's best to keep dates wikified, so that they can be displayed in user-defined formats. Cnwb 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, what are user-defined formats? --Downwards 07:51, 9 October 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:

• January 9, 2006
• 9 January 2006
• 2006-01-09

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:

(→Section title - this is an example)

They may also be have low aesthetic appeal. —freak(talk) 14:16, Oct. 9, 2006 (UTC) . —freak(talk) 14:07, Oct. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ahmed II.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

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]

Thank you for experimenting with the page User talk:Alexman132 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. Metros232 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from vandalizing the Shaq page. If you continue to do so, it will be reported to the wikipedian authorities. that is all.

Thanks for adding more info/helping me out on Harvey Catching's page. :) FamicomJL 03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont disambig links that already redirect. Thanks, KazakhPol 05:28, 15 November 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. Evlekis 03:47, 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? Clipper471 03:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Clipper471 04:23, 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.

Your word choice on Nov 20 when referring to Clipper471 and the edits you two were making to the Ian Mahinmi article is offensive and violates the NPA policy. Please refrain from such attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Mahinmi&action=history

I'm convinced that his last name should be spelled with č instead of ć, since ć does not exist in the Slovenian alphabet, and both interwiki links from the article use č. Scobell302 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When warning a user about vandalism, it's better to use the defined templates, rather than get down to their level. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder why each time you, BOB, or I try to add that someone deletes it... FamicomJL 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. FamicomJL 00:48, 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 --Mikebrand 22:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. // Clipper471 04:37, 24 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. --Iriseyes 05:32, 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]

And the best personal attack of all of them... In Barry Sumpter, you used "F off idiot" as an edit summary.[11] and "rolled back to referenced version edited by anon mong"[12]. Clipper471 06:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, I'm only here trying to help. It's to the detriment of the articles' quality when you block me. Bye! --Downwards 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...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. theProject 05:28, 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.macmillan 14:55, 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.macmillan 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You know you can be blocked for that? Follow the rules. - Darwinek 16:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am going to seek to have you blocked, as your edits are disruptive and counter to wikipedia policies--Thomas.macmillan 00:12, 13 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. Darcy talk 23:16, 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. Darcy talk 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, referring to other editors as "ugly" [14] is not acceptable, either. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:36, 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!! --Downwards 01:37, 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. Darcy talk 02:36, 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. Darcy talk 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be facetious, it really makes you like like an asshole. =) Cheers, --74.111.179.228 03:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert about the move request. I just put a note on the talk page explaining my reasons. Jokestress 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were right about my edit to Hakeem Olajuwon I linked to the wrong section of the interview. It's fine now. Kudos for being so diligent. Quadzilla99 02:16, 31 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. 10stone5 talk 09:35, 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 10stone5 talk 17:27, 09 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew about the basketball world, you'd know there are two NBA 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 --Downwards 02:05, 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.--Lokyz 16:51, 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. --Downwards 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me it added a summary of Kobe's career. What's the problem?--Twlighter 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your objections to including the fact that Duncan's wife is white? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.221.241 (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You did not provide adequate references to enable independent verification. Any more questions? --Downwards 03:45, 15 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, Accurizer 03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Regards :) --Downwards 05:25, 22 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);
• Do you have objections to the subjects of future articles about Sibenka-Bosna controversy and European Championship for Junior Men? If so, I'd be interested to hear them; otherwise, there is no reason for you to keep removing links to them. Damir 07:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement:

"The persistence you are showing in enforcing your recent changes to the Drazen Petrovic article.."

Having pointed out the irony, let me illustrate what you have been doing throughout the last week with your reversions:

• Persistently applying links for articles that do not exist or are not likely to be created soon (e.g. Aleksandar Petrović (basketball), European Championship for Junior Men, Balkan Championship, Balkan Championship for Cadets, Balkan Championship for Junior Men, Šibenka-Bosna controversy (which you finally created today, which is I concede is fair enough - I'll touch more on what I think about it later). Unless you have a solid reason for weaving a sea of red into this article, I'm removing these links.

• 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.

In the meantime, work on improving yourself. --Downwards 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Damir 10:03, 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. --Downwards 21:49, 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. Damir 11:37, 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. Damir 07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about as pointless as saying Toni Kukoc is European. But I don't see you erasing that. --Downwards 06:34, 22 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. Damir 10:21, 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). --Downwards 22:40, 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.