70.143.68.157

Welcome!

Hello, 70.143.68.157, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

References to and quotations about Vick

I appreciate your efforts to create a better encyclopedia. However, the information you have included does not adhere to WP:NPOV or to WP:BLP. Please review those and if you have any questions, i'll mark this page for watching so that we can discuss. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not violate either of those policies. These posts merely post these players' controversial public statements in support of Vick. There is no opinion conveyed through any of them. This is interesting information that belongs in these players' profiles. If you google news their names you will turn up hundreds of articles written about their comments in defense of Vick. The bottom line is it is a public comment by the player himself. Nobody is passing judgment on it or saying anything bad about them. All I did was post the facts. I think it's pretty clear the bias is coming from you here because you are a sports fan and don't want anything that could hurt their image being put on wikipedia.

Vick Related Comments

No, they do not violate either of those policies. These posts merely post these players' controversial public statements in support of Vick. There is no opinion conveyed through any of them. This is interesting information that belongs in these players' profiles. If you google news their names you will turn up hundreds of articles written about their comments in defense of Vick. The bottom line is it is a public comment by the player himself. Nobody is passing judgment on it or saying anything bad about them. All I did was post the facts.

It's pretty clear the bias is coming from you here. You are a member of the Wiki NFL project. You are clearly an NFL fan and don't want anything published that could negatively affect these players' images or the NFL's image.

There is no need to get into an editing war here. These public statements clearly belong in these players' wiki profiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.68.157 (talk) 05:09, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this in one place. You posted facts that did not belong in the articles you presented them in. Stephon Marbury can make all the statements he wants. What you are implying - by your statements - is that these are critical pieces of information explicitly important to these peoples lives and their articles. They are not. If you want to include them on the relevant subject page (the bad news article) that's one thing - but these do not belong. They do not meet the criteria for inclusion and don't belong. I am actually not an NFL fan and what you have just said is relatively WP:UNCIVIL. Please consider the fact that others do indeed act in good faith as i have assumed with you. If you want to take this up with a larger audience you are welcome to; but these statments do not belong in the artilces you are placing them. Certainly not with the context you are providing. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Response

Yes, these are clearly important statements that belongs on these players' pages. When people make controversial statements that generate media firestorms - as these players have they belong on their pages. You are the one who is out of line here. Go look at every politician's wiki page out there - they all include their controversial statements. Go look at controversial sports figures - same thing. Look at Keith Hernandez's page - it has his controversial statements about women and baseball. Just b/c the statement references Vick doesn't mean it does not belong on their page too. If they said something bad about President Bush, should that only go on Bush's profile or on their profile too? If they said the terrorists did a good thing on 9/11, obviously that wouldn't just go on the 9/11 page - it would also go on their page.

Think this through. It's clear these statements belong. I will take this to higher people at Wiki and it's clear that you will lose, especially b/c you are biased towards the NFL and are a member of the NFL wiki project.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.143.68.157 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Refractored content

dogfighting statements

Quoting Wiki policy here: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks."

You are being completely disrespectful and completely removing factual statements made by these players merely b/c it makes them look bad. You are clearly an NFL fan as you are a member of the NFL wiki project. If you want to alter how the statements are presented that's fine but the bottom line is the statements themselves belong on these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.68.157 (talk)

I refractored this here for your records. I have marked this page for watching and will be glad to respond to comments if i feel it is needed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't feel it is relevant enough to Portis' life to create a section about. It did not create media firestorm; it was over just as quickly as it was said.►Chris Nelson 00:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

---