Talk:Clemson Tigers men's basketball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject ACC, an effort to expand and improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Atlantic Coast Conference. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] NCAA Appearances List

After careful investigation into the formatting of other team basketball pages, I believe there is NO standard format on whether to list the individual appearances and runs in the NCAA tournament. This holds true in both ACC and SEC team pages. A notable one being Kentucky, they list ALL 49 years they have made the tournament. This negates the argument that this addition is only being done to make Clemson look good. With there being no standard of when to add in NCAA Appearance and when not to, a reader may get the impression Clemson has never made the tournament on first glance by seeing those years left out of the info box

I believe by adding this information to the Clemson page, we are helping the reader get a brief understanding of Clemson's accomplishments. No matter how small objecting fans like to point out they are. How one page displays information has no bearing on how another does. If editors of a the South Carolina page feel it is an unnecessary inclusion, then that is fine. But since no editor has made an unbiased comment against the inclusion, any reversion of this addition WITHOUT comment should be taken as vandalism that is motivated by school-loyalty (or in this case hate). --Jober14 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm more curious why you feel it necessary to add that Minnesota's 1997 NCAA tournament record was vacated to this article. You realize this doesn't mean Clemson can count that game as a win, right? Clemson does not retroactively advance to the Elite 8 that year. It just looks rather petty to mention it in a Clemson article as it has no bearing at all on the school's win-loss record. Not to mention how silly the ref links make the infobox look (as well as the absurd inclusion of a separate category for second round appearances, LOL), but if you want it ugly, that's your prerogative. I'll leave it to other Clemson fans to argue that point with you. In actuality, all you are helping to point out in the infobox is that Clemson only advanced past the first game in the NCAA tournament half the time they got there. But hey, if you're proud of that... ViperNerd (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's noted that Clemson violated rules for an unfair advantage, then it is noteworthy to note teams that won because of an unfair advantage over Clemson. No one is saying that Clemson gets to count it as a win, or an automatic seat in the elite 8. It should just be noted that the team that beat Clemson was later declared to have an unfair advantage. Much like the 1981 Clemson football team (except without vacation of records in that instance).

On your second point, as I stated before, there is no accepted standard for how and when to display a team's post-season "achievements". It would inconsistent to display the 1st, 3rd and 4th rounds without the 2nd. Thats just there for consistency. Otherwise people might think Clemson has never lost a 2nd round game. I prefer just to list all.

And to address your comment about it being a "point of pride", for programs that have accomplished so little, their fans and schools take pride in even the smallest victories. Much like other smaller programs mention just making the tournament. Also in the same way USC fans point out Back-to-Back NIT championships and Outback bowl wins. No one is saying those are not great accomplishments, they are, but maybe not so in comparison to winning a true NCAA title or playing in a BCS bowl. It's all in the eyes of the person reading the article. Let them make the judgement on what facts are "great" and which ones are "good". The pride a fans have in their team is not comparable to other teams and other fans. Pride is a very POV statement anyways, and shouldn't be used to agree or disagree with the display of items in a wikipedia page. Jober14 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry man, i'm just going to keep on deleting it from the page.. it has no place on here. and i've already stated my case about a thousand times.. plus, it's already written in the grid.. so i don't see the point really. Enjoisktboarding2 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people might not believe it, but I've got to side with Jober14 on this one. The infobox is there to display info, it's used on the basketball articles of schools that have dozens of NCAA appearances to list each and every one, whether that info is listed in a year-by-year table or not. It's a quick way to examine a school's post-season history, and since the information is notable and sourced, it should not be deleted simply because someone feels it doesn't "look right". As silly as I think it is to mention 2nd round appearances in the infobox, if an editor feels it belongs in the article, then it should be left in the article. An edit war simply isn't going to accomplish anything, as the article will just be protected if this back-and-forth keeps up. Your time might me better served to find other articles that need attention. ViperNerd (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Enjoisktboarding for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Jober14 (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

wow dude, you are a huge fag.. i was going to let it go until i saw what you wrote.. i've stated my case already.. and can prove that i have.. so you accusing me of bull like this is just pointless.. have fun trying to out edit me! next time, think before you do something so foolish.. and grow up... this isn't a dictatorship 74.242.239.226 (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a dictatorship? then why are you so intent on having it your way? --Jober14 (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm not, i was going to let it go, but you can't control what people edit, and that is what you're trying to do, dictate what i can and can't write.. this is probably the third time you've whined to the mods or whoever you're trying to notify.. yet you STILL have no case.. as for me, i could care less, i don't stoop to that level.. i have an opinion, and i will continue to make it known.. but you'll never see me try and involve other people in it.. i fight my own battles.. Enjoisktboarding2 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't think it looks right to be on a page is no justification for it's removal. Your personal preferences should have no bearing on this page, or the factual information displayed on it. We've been over this. There is NO accepted standard on when and when not to display said information! Even ViperNerd sees that. You continue to use 3 screen names and an IP address (or two) to delete content in hopes to catch me in a 3RR violation. Since you have no other case for deleting this material I had to report you for using sockpuppets. Its not fair to other editors for you to have 4 or 5 different ways to delete material.

In addition, you state you could "care less" about this situation... well then why do you "stoop to that level" and call me a fag? Those kind of statements violate wikipedia's policy on civility. If you expect everyone else to follow your rules, then we have to expect you to follow the basic ones of this website. I'm done arguing with you though, since you continue to be an unproductive editor of this article, it seems the only way anything will be settled is if someone of higher authority on this website settles it for us. It's the road you have forced me to go down. Jober14 (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

oh stop whining, you sound like your 5.. look at it this way.. in your opinion.. there's no justification for me removing it.. in my opinion, there is.. that's what makes america great.. i can disagree without getting my head cut off.. have i or have i not been discussing this with you ad nauseum? your big brother attempt at trying to ban me from making comments is silly, just like your life.. if this is what you do all day.. sitting back reloading your browser waiting for someone to jump all over for editing a little bee ball page, than you need to take a step back and realize this: "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, than DO NOT SUBMIT IT." oh and i called you a fag? get over it. i don't expect anyone to "follow my rules".. unlike you.. i don't claim to be the authority.. that's precisely the difference here.. you think if someone disagrees that it's grounds for a freakin' trial.. and if personal preferences had no bearing on any page, no one would bother to edit them!! its as if you think everyone's a robot like you, going through the motions. i know it's hard for you to realize, but people do have interests and ways that they think something should look.. This site wouldn't exist if that weren't the case. Enjoisktboarding2 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, but to remove it you have to have proper and legitimate justification. Your opinion that it doesn't look right is just not good enough here on wikipedia. If there was proper justification to never mention NCAA appearances or runs in the info box, then those options in the infobox would simply not exist. If you have a problem with that, then you need to take that up with the infobox and it's creators on that template's page. But to say it looks cluttered in one article and not the other is contradictory and hypocritical.

You need to realize that just because you have an opinion does not entitle you to absolute rule over certain aspects of an article. You have made getting the mod's involved necessary. You have failed to show documented proof that these pieces of information should NOT be included on this particular page. Plain and simple. All you can say is that I'm a loser, Clemson stinks, has pathetic basketball history, and the page looks cluttered. That's it! When you edit or remove information from a page without proper justification, it's called Vandalism. I think the fact that these options are even included in the Infobox Template speaks loud and clear that adding in this information is acceptable. There is no condition that your team has to be good, or that it must be put up for a vote to be added.

Your whole argument is based off personal preference and the ability to do whatever the hell you want on Wikipedia. This is a free and open site, but it has standards. Please abide by them. Jober14 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

wait, i thought you were done arguing? lol.. i'm not going to keep justifying why i think it should be out.. i have already said it over and over and you still don't get it.. i'm not taking any thing up with anybody.. i don't care enough to do that.. i do care enough to continue to take it out however. nothing that i am doing is contradictory or hypocritical.. and it's not a matter of having documented proof haha, what kind of explanation is that? there is no website on the face of the earth that has the ability to document anything of that caliber. it's called opinion, and everyone has them.. feel free to continue battling it out with me, i really don't mind. you are of the mindset that anything anyone else does is wrong, and since you haven't embraced any of my arguments towards you as an editor, i have to believe that you know you are wrong.. and now you resort to cursing? tsk tsk tsk lol.. 74.242.238.117 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png

The image Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)