User talk:Simishag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{unblock|See "Unblock request" below}}


Welcome!

Hello, Simishag, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 14:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Basketball

Hi! Thanks for all your help with the basketball article - I'm going to request peer review with a view to getting it on WP:FAC. I thought you might be interested. Neonumbers 11:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was taught that a cut is made in order to receive a good pass? Hence, a cut may be made right through the keyhole, if the defenders are poorly concentrated, or there is some open space on the other side — and, a cut isn't much use if you cut into the keyhole where all the tall guys are and you've got no space. This page says its to elude a defender or find an open space... which in a more general sense is to find an advantageous position... correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain on this. (Have edited the article accordingly.) Neonumbers 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the best place to discuss this is on Talk:Basketball rather than here. The glossary you linked actually looks like a pretty good reference to link into the page. I don't want to get too pedantic about it, but my experience with the term "cut" suggests that it is a move toward the basket. The cutter is trying to break down the defense and is looking to take a shot immediately after receiving the ball. I've heard lots of sportscasters use "cut in" and "cut to/towards the basket" but never "cut outside" (I've heard "break out/outside" a few times). It's not just a move into space to receive a pass; the goal is to shed or beat the defender(s) and take a shot. Simishag 06:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Licence to kill (concept)

Hi. I see you reverted my addition of a clarifying definition to this article, and tagged it as a Minor edit. That reversion probably was arguably not a minor edit, since the definition wasn't vandalism, so in future you may want to consider not tagging that sort of change with minor.

Your edit summary said the definition wasn't sourced, which is a fair cop! Thanks for pointing that out. I have expanded the article to give sourcing. In doing research I discovered an additional meaning used by US editorialists, particularly during the Terry Schiavo affair, relating to assisted suicide and termination of life support, so I added that meaning as well. I gave cites for both definitions. I hope that addresses your concerns. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you think we can work together to make the article even better. Yours, ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (PS you can respond here, I'll see it, and prefer conversations to not be disjointed)

[edit] Re: user 72.154.62.149 & NFL edits

I can't block him for 3RR since I've reverted him myself, so I have reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You might mention the situation on Kurt Warner, I am not familiar with it. Thanks! --W.marsh 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Iran hostage crisis

w2hy did you remove some of my text in Iran hostage crisis This is true according a an documantry I have see on USA cabel TV

Somehow I doubt that, but if it's true, then you should have no difficulty adding a citation to that source. Your grammar and spelling are pretty bad too (not just here, they were lousy in the article). Simishag 00:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The compliment is sincerely appreciated. He may never grow up, but at least the guy will never be able to claim (truthfully, anyway) that no one here made a sincere effort to work with him as newbie. As my mother would say: Lord knows I tried! lol 8-) Mwelch 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hganesan

Hey i've noticed you've been reverting alot of hganesan and his sokpuppets edits good work, i've noticed this guy messing up alot of the articles here on wikipedia over the last week or so its getting pretty extreme now. I dont know what can be done about this guy? he doesn't seem to stop and he's obviously crossed the line from someone who is ignorant of what wikipedia is to someone who is purposefully trying to mess things up.

---Duhon May 20th 2006 UTC

Duhon all that hganesan and I are doing are posting articles and putting on relevant facts that you are deleting, and you are loving steve nash like no other. Something should be done to you.

Wow. Besides your refusal to attempt anything close to working with other editors, your rants on various pages and the mailing list, your endless revert wars and personal attacks, your ongoing sockpuppetry, now you're making thinly veiled threats, which goes against WP:ATTACK. Simishag 23:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More thanks!

Thanks for resolving the "popularity/vilification" problem in the Jeff Gordon article. It was becoming a bone of contention and you provided an elegant solution we all should have thought of earlier. Hats off to ya. --Iamvered 10:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nash article

just to tell you that in the discussion page, you say jason kidd is the only mvp to have beaten his wife. just one small thing, although an infinitely better point guard than nash, he hasnt won mvp. shows how much you know about the nba really, doesnt it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

shrug. It was a hypothetical example meant to illustrate an unacceptable form of writing. Simishag 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] message from Bucsrsafe

yeah, simishag you couldnt be further away if you tried. ever heard of two people just having the same views on nash. only you are sad enough to speak to yourself, dont judge others by your low standards. also it is perfectly valid to find 4 examples of nash doing this. its not cherry picking, just pure fact. the defense bit in player profile is like 2 lines long and it is his main deficiency. just cos you are so biased to nash, his defense sux. you have already vetoed putting in the fact that he was rubbish against kidd and billups this season and in past seasons too and now you are arguing that for example, ridnour who scored 11 a nite, guess what, comes in and nash guards him and he puts up 30. coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no, nash cant play defense and me and this other dude will keep on editing it cos its just so biased that the article has so little attention on his poor defense. no personal grudge against you, but dont accuse people of being other users and let others put stuff that is perfectly valid even if you disagree with it. BUCSRSAFE.


BTW simishag, the 30 points to ridnour was put up a long time ago, AND someone, not me, put up the fact that he scored 0 against kidd, even before i started editing wikipedia. And you and the others took it off. Hganesan 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah that was me that put up the thing about what kiddy did to nash. i do concede that maybe that isnt that relevant cos he has had ok performances against kidd too. BUCSRSAFE.

yeah ok, i wont remove that again, glad you finally saw that i was a different person to him. i didnt know he had been proven to use different accounts. BUCSRSAFE.

I cant believe you agreed with my point, thanks. BUCSRSAFE

yep, ok my bad on the "moving screens" rule. glad you thought the concept should be included in the article. --Bucsrsafe 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His return

If I can help, feel free to let me know. Mwelch 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow i wasn't aware of his return, i actually though he had gotten tired and left. I too would like to help if possible. Duhon 9:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I have generally been inclined to think your editing constructive and Hg's deleterious, but Hg notes validly in a post at WP:AN that you've disrupted the Kobe Bryant article by appending comments apropos of another editor into mainspace. Irrespective of the merits of your comments or their contravention of WP:NPA (about which I'm not overly concerned), you surely untowardly used the encyclopedia to illustrate a point (even if it was an otherwise accurate point and one the recognition of which by other editors would serve the project). One would normally offer a {{test2}}, {{verror2}}, {{npa}}, {{civil2}}, or {{agf0}} here , but I think encyclopedic purposes would be served more by my noting two things:
  1. You do not evince a particularly propitious (at least vis-à-vis the encyclopedia) when you untowardly make comments about other editors (or, really, anything non-notable or irrelevant) in mainspace; it becomes difficult to assume good faith when an editor does not hestitate to disrupt the project to advance a given view, even when the adoption of that view would benefit the encyclopedia. The potency of your–generally valid–argument that another editor is disrupting the project is diminished when you, too, disrupt the project, your good intentions notwithstanding.
  2. In general, in view of the collaborative nature of the project, you do not do well to criticize another editor rather than his/her contributions. Not only do you put off other editors, but you don't advance a valid argument (see, e.g., ad hominem). If you are correct and another user is causing more harm than good, other editors will observe that; even if you desire to raise the issue with others, it's inappropriate to comment on another user when commenting on his/her edits will make a point more forcefully and maintain, even with that user, the collegial atmosphere on which the project depends.
Cordially, Joe 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, anything you need. Hganesan obviously hates Nash and loves Bryant and is determined to get his pov added no matter how many times he gets banned. BenihanaLee

I'm all for this. I'm surprised the mods haven't done their weekly ban of him yet with all the stuff he's been doing. 128.6.78.50 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • His block log is here [1] if anyone's interested. I'm afraid I'll have to step back from this one a bit; my edits about "hated players" were viewed as disruptive. Still, compared to him I'm clean. I'll be happy to help with research on this issue if necessary. Simishag 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)



Sorry for the insanely slow reply. I've been spending very little time on WP as of late. Thanks for the heads up though. Plenty of admins are aware of the Hganesan situation so things should be ok there. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

I think a block is a little harsh. All I've tried to do is clean up after an editor who has over the last month:

  • been blocked 14 times by multiple admins, for multiple reasons (edit wars, incivility, sockpuppets, you name it)
  • used multiple sockpuppets to get around blocks
  • refused to participate in discussions or attempt to achieve consensus
  • claimed the existence of a conspiracy among editors to push an agenda on specific articles, while openly espousing his own agenda on his user page
  • protected "his" edits aggressively, regardless of problems with POV, sourcing, weasel words, you name it

I don't think I broke any rules here, with the exception of one childish edit yesterday, which I already apologized for. I would like to see the specific evidence here; "edit warring" is pretty tough for 1 or 2 back and forth edits on various pages. It's not like I changed something 10 times.

Am I being blocked because I'm looking at the edits of User:Hganesan? I'm not stalking here; he's got a long history of boorish behavior that a lot of people disagree with, and I think I'm fully justified in examining the rest of his edits.

I see you blocked Hg for 2 weeks. This makes the 4th cycle of this nonsense. What's going to happen after 2 weeks? I posted around yesterday looking for support on this matter; you can look at the end of this page to see the interest I've received so far. Simishag 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the unblock request on User talk:Hganesan:
Just remember sceptre, what goes around comes around, God is on my side; he will bite you sometime when you least expected it.
That rather sounds like a threat to me. I certainly haven't said anything like that. Shouldn't admins be looking at this more seriously than a simple edit war? Simishag 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been unblocked. I think this edit war is going to stop now he has been blocked for longer. Will (message me!) 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your taking an interest in this matter. Simishag 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If PS2Pc must apologize for an insanely late reply, who knows what I must do? In any case, I'm glad you understood my mild castigation apropos of the Kobe Bryant/Hganesan troubles; I wrote as I did mainly in order that someone less familiar with the situation wouldn't happen upon the issue (from WP:AN) and summarily {{npa}} or block you. I assumed that you understood that your comments, accurate as they may have been, were perhaps made indecorously, and I meant, as you seem well to have appreciated, only to remind you of how best to effect a civil discussion (about which all of us need to be reminded). In any case, you queried me with respect to how one ought to deal with the situation and I took weeks to get back to you. I assure you that my failure to respond wasn't a function of my not caring about your reply, and I hope you'll not infer any malignancy; instead, I simply undertook several mainspace tasks that consumed more time than I'd expected them to, and, obsessive as I am, worked on them to the exclusion of all else. It seems that others have been of help to you, and I hope that the Kobe Bryant situation is well under control. If you continue to want a third opinion, though, I'd be happy to help; otherwise, please accept my sincere apologies for my deriliction. Joe 06:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peyton Manning Article

i wrote on the intro about peyton's apparent "choking". why do you not think it is relevant. i accept that its covered in the main body, but that the other stats in the intro are too, it is relevant to say at the start that the basic understanding of manning is that he racks up the yards but fails to perform when it matters. --Bucsrsafe 12:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was irrelevant, just inappropriate for the lead. It's known as "poisoning the well." User:JC5639 recently added something similar to the lead and it was promptly reverted. The main problem is that it takes a very small sample and claims that the sample is representative of his career, and to make matters worse, it makes that claim at the beginning of the article where it unduly influences the reader's opinion. It's fine in the criticism section, which is well cited, but it's not appropriate in the lead. Simishag 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

when evaluating his career, its relevant and the intro is supposed to provide an intro on peyton. given that the biggest debate around him is that he is a statistics man and cannot win big games, i think its relevant and if his statistics are going to be noted in the intro then his inability to win in big games should be too. either we have both or none at all. --Bucsrsafe 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject American football?

I noticed that you are involved in the NFL wikiproject. I started a new project at: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football to help clean up the non-NFL football articles (mostly football strategy type articles). Please consider joining this project and helping out where possible. --Jayron32 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks re: 311 Boyz

Well, I don't know anything about 311 Boyz, but I do know that blanking talk pages is vandalism. So I was ready to make reverts as necessary for the integrity of Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nice catch on Watergate

Excellent vigilance, sir...! I wonder how these vandals maintain their vandal-energy when their "contributions" are easily detected and reverted.. Must be sugar, or those violent video games..!!!

I liked your statement about Watergate and the Oil Crisis affecting American questioning their government, but moved it from the lead-in to the ==aftermath== section. I have been trying to tighten up the rather long lead-in and have been trying to prune and find more apropriate places for important statements in the lead-in, including the removal of close to 200 words that I originally contributed to the lead-in. There's just so much to say about Watergate; it's such a multi-faceted event. I am hoping to tackle the ==investigation==, ==significance== and ==aftermath== sections soon.

All the best, Ukulele (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)