Varejao edits
editRefrain 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)
Reply:
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*.
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*.
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.
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.
5) Your claims on obfuscating the article and misleading the readers are posed without any reasoning.
It would be nice to resolve this dispute peacefully, without having to enter a wiki-war (where the article is moving on now). 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. Regards,
STOP PUTTING YOUR OPINIONS ON ARTICLES
editHi there - are you aware of the three revert rule? You're up to two.
Quit adding your opinions on the Anderson Varejao site. In your edit summary you mention "cheating" -- but where in the article does it say anything about "cheating"? You've made your agenda clear. NO OPINIONS!!!!!
Reply:
I am supporting everything I write with appropriate sources I am not posing my opinion. I am aware of 3RR, you are the one who started reverting my article on sportsmanship. If you disagree with the article mark it as disputed and explain ur reasons on the discussion part. Brute force approaches will not take us anywhere. If you search the www.nba.com/cavaliers/... article for the word "cheating" you will find the relevant text.
I'm only putting this on your user page because that's the way you prefer it
Could you quit continually reverting to a particular version of Anderson Varejao
editYou are still not understanding how wikipedia works. You are maintaining a stance or viewpoint with undue weight.
First point: Keep your opinions to yourself. Do not use words like "cheating" and "sportsmanship" unless they appear in the citations. Whether the hit was intentional or not is one's perception at this point. FIBA has not even investigated and made a ruling on it, so how can you possibly know the truth? Your sources are taken from blogs (of inherent subjectivity), and not news sites, which typically hold an objective viewpoint. You fail yet again to make this clear to the reader.
Second point: I have adequately and clearly advised you previously not to take the lazy option and revert to a version of the article which YOU think is perfect. The very nature of Wikipedia dictates that the information is continually being edited and added to, and always in a state of flux. I'm telling you this yet again, your recent actions, as I have observed, have effectively ERASED the hard work of other people who are legitimately trying to improve the article. e.g. there was some vital information there (thankfully I have restored it) about how the referees did not see the hit and subsequently did not call a foul. It was properly cited, and yet you removed it - Why?
I believe the above is reasonable enough to follow, and if I have to tell you this again, I will be involving others.
P.S. why are you using another username to make your edits? AFLadelaide contribs That's called sock puppetry and frowned upon at Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing it.
Cheers --Downwards 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
the word "cheating" is in the source (www.nba.com) i am citing, apparently you make your claims without even bothering reading the sources.
Barbosa claimed said that his teamate acknowledged that his action was intentional.
Dont you even bother reading the summaries of my edits! As I say in my edits, which you reverted, the was a foul called, which you can verify on the video. In addition, the edits removed the video for some reason, which as you have agreed is the only fact.
Keep your warnings for your self.
FunUi