User talk:ViperNerd

Welcome!

Hello, ViperNerd, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

User talk:71.12.13.137

Hello. Thanks for warning this user, but it is encouraged that one does not insult vandals. Also, you may want to use the following warning templates:

{{uw-v1}}

{{uw-v2}}

{{uw-v3}}

{{uw-v4}}

{{uw-v4im}}

When using them, please substitute them. You may want to try them in the sandbox. If a user vandalizes after a last warning, please report him/here here. Also, please do not edit warnings left by bots. Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Clemson University football recruiting scandal

An editor has nominated Clemson University football recruiting scandal, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Clemson University football recruiting scandal

As I mentioned in the AFD, New York Times has a few articles that would be helpful in sourcing. Even if this information is not considered worthy of a standalone article, I think it would be highly notable in 1981 Clemson Tigers football team (where it is just barely mentioned), and it would probably fit nicely in Clemson Tigers football (no mention whatsoever). Cheers. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Believe it or not, most of those articles deal with Clemson football going on probation for the second time in less than a decade, just after being caught for one of the longest lists of violations in NCAA history. I had planned to add the 1990 probation as another section to the existing article, as it nicely extends the history.ViperNerd (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'm not interested in writing football articles (the steroid one being exceptional for me because I used to work in substance abuse counseling), but let me know if you need help with citations. WP:ATT and WP:CITE are good guides. Secondary sources (such as NY Times articles) are usually more important to have than primary sources (such as those NCAA reports), so give WP:PSTS a glance as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help standardizing refs in this article! ViperNerd (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to do it. We could use a non self-published source for the CLEMSON UNIVERSITY PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION press release; the Googledoc could have been written and uploaded by anybody. It's not enough for it to be true, it has to be verifiable. The (fabricated?) comment in the AFD probably stems from this. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe the fabrication that is mentioned over and over in the AfD was in regard to the "first program to be placed on probation the year after winning the national championship" statement. Thanks to good research by Thor, I've since removed that incorrect statement which I believed to be true. Wiki in action! ViperNerd (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to South Carolina Gamecocks

I noticed you recently undid an edit that I made which was adding in a reference to verify information about the rivalry. As I have stated, the sole reason for removal should not be that it links to a Clemson webpage, but rather because the source is not related or unverifiable. Since you removed this reference, you should also remove the unverified statements in the article to which the reference was made, or find another reference (I have tried and there isn't one online). Zchris87v 09:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see your problem with the statement that your ref was attached to. The Carolina-Clemson football rivalry is in fact the longest uninterrupted series in the South, and the 3rd longest uninterrupted series overall. Both these statements can be verified by the reference already provided to the 2006 NCAA football record book (p.111), thus your reference was unnecessary.ViperNerd (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of portion of Lou Holtz article

It's not necessarily the content you deleted that is the issue. It's that you unilaterally deleted sourced information and did not go through any necessary steps before deleting the information.(i.e. debate it on the talk page). The text stated that he was not directly involved with the NCAA infractions, but the infractions listed were sourced and attributable to his tenures at the different schools. It would be prudent I think to discuss it on the talk page of the article instead of unilaterally deleting it. I am not sure the deletion will hold otherwise. Tedmoseby (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look up the definition of the word "unilateral" because I can assure you that I'm not the first or only person to remove this section of this article that seems to seriously violate guidelines of WP:BLP. Merely including sourced and verifiable information in a Wiki article of a living person is not the gold standard. In this case, there is too much speculation and guesswork involved with regard to how many (if any) of the violations that occurred at the schools in question can be directly tied to Holtz. In the absence of sourced information to the contrary, it's typically Wiki policy to err on the side of caution in these cases. But feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page if you feel strongly that this information has a legitimate place in the article. ViperNerd (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I feel strongly about it one way or the other. It just seemed to be an overly large chunk of an article to delete. I fully agree with the WP:BLP, but if it isn't the first time it has had to be deleted obviously someone thinks it is notable. Regards. Tedmoseby (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New article started

I was surprised Brad Scott was a redlink--he's the most recent South Carolina coach with a significant tenure that doesn't have an article. Took the liberty of starting one ... feel free to fill anything in that I missed. Blueboy96 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How are you going to spin this disaster?

Since you are intentionally seeking my correspondence (as evidenced in [post]), I have several rhetorical questions for you: How are you going to spin that disaster of a football team that USC put on the football field today? With Spurrier now 1-3 at USC against Clemson (including today's debacle against an interim head coach with no previous experience even as a coordinator), how is the "Got Spurrier" experiment working out for you? How is that "but we are in the SEC" line working out for you? How does it feel to have been outscored 87-20 in your last two games? How is that New Years Day bowl picture shaping up for you?

And since you might not have a dictionary handy, the rhetorical implies that I don't really expect an answer, but feel free to hack away...Happy Thanksgiving.--CobraGeek (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow...you had to wait over THREE MONTHS to respond to a link I left on your talk page? Wonder why that is? Oh, I think I've got it...you couldn't dare talk trash during yet another underachieving Clemscum football season until you beat your rivals. Glad to see you finally feel brave enough to poke your head out of the cave you've been living in all season. Congrats on the big, big win over another mediocre Carolina squad who will in all likelihood still be invited to the Outback Bowl on New Year's Day, thanks to that SEC schedule you jealous Taters love to try to belittle. If not Tampa, we either go to the Peach (I refuse to dignify the corporate name) or at worst to Nashville. Where do you think your team will be playing their bowl game? I've got my money on the Clemson Idaho Invitational, a.k.a. the Smurf Turf Classic, a.k.a. the Humanitarian Bowl. Pack your parka, it's probably gonna be chilly in Boise in late December. By the way, that's quite a lofty achievement for a team ranked in the top 10 at the beginning of the season, and picked by pretty much EVERY SINGLE SPORTS ANALYST IN AMERICA to not just win their first conference title in 17 years, but to positively breeze their way to the ACC championship and an Orange Bowl appearance, and maybe even an outside shot at a national title. Hmm...funny how most people around the nation (including Tater fans) didn't count on that classic Clemscum choke job. But oh well, you beat USC, so that makes y'all world-beaters I guess, I mean after all, that's the way the game is treated by all the rednecks in Pickens County. Who cares that you absolutely WASTED one of the most talented squads to ever suit up in the orange and purple clown suits, right? 7-5 is exactly where y'all wanted to be at the end of this season, I'm sure. Hell, I bet Terry Don Billy Bob Jimmy Joe Phillips signs Yabba Dabo to a ten-year contract as head coach, because that's another thing Clemson is good at, throwing big contracts with fat buyouts at mediocre coaches when they beat the Gamecocks. I guess Tater fans are getting just as familiar as their Carolina cousins are with one particular phrase..."Wait 'til next year."

Oh, and Thanksgiving was two days ago, douchebag. ViperNerd (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow...you had to wait over THREE MONTHS to respond to a link I left on your talk page?

Yeah, I actually have a life and don't spend my days being a fanatic on Wikipedia like yourself. CobraGeek (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you're claiming it was just total coincidence that your oh-so-busy schedule brought you back to Wikipedia the very same day Clemscum beat Carolina (in a game you were favored to win at home, I might add) at the end of a horribly underachieving season. Suuuure. And I suppose you'd like everyone to believe that National Championship the Taters won isn't tainted either. Clemson University...a tradition of spin and denial since 1982. ViperNerd (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Carolina-Clemson rivalry article

Thanks, I brought up the blood drive a while back and no one responded, so I figured it was worth adding. As for the game ball run, if you add it, I think it should go under the football section as a subsection. There's a good article here on the run. It seems like it'd put a good wrap-up on the football section, and it raises money for multiple sclerosis. I don't think it's quite a rivlary, but definitely worth mentioning under football - here it says that the ball is handed off in Greenwood, so it's not really a competition, but more of a team effort. & it doesn't really seem to have much of a frame of reference outside of the rivalry game, so I think it'd be a good addition to the article. Also, about the infobox - I added the stuff based off of the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry article, but you were right about the information being in the article. The only thing that's not mentioned is the "most recent game", which I think is worth adding. Seems like a decent compromise since it'll change from year to year. Zchris87v 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

CobraGeek is NOT a fanatic

Yet for some inexplicable reason, he is impersonating me on a Gamecock message board, complete with a link to his life's work, the Wikipedia article detailing USC's steroid "scandal." Truly pathetic. But then again, we are talking about a Clemscum fan, so I guess no one should be surprised. I suppose when you're unemployed and living in a trailer park, you've got to fill the time somehow (between all the tobacco chewing and livestock fornication). ViperNerd (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Murder on John Dillinger

Hello. I want to talk to you about "murder" vs. "death" on the John Dillinger page. Was he indeed convicted for the acts that were felonies that happened during the deaths of these police officers? If so, then perhaps "murder" is the correct term, but if not, then we must say "deaths", not "murders". As per WP:CITE, we must cite these convictions if we're going to use a strong term like "murder". –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 09:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that you are fully aware that you just asked a question you already know the answer to. Of course he wasn't convicted for those acts, as he was killed by law enforcement agents before he could stand trial for those crimes. It's a 100% certainty that had he been taken alive, the government would have prosecuted him with charges of felony murder at the same time he was on trial for felony bank robbery. Can we really say beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed all of the bank robberies mentioned in the article? After all, he wasn't convicted at trial of any of those crimes either, so why are they fair game? You're reaching. ViperNerd (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve Spurrier

You're doing a yeoman's job on this article! Are you planning on adding an image of Coach Spurrier on the sidelines at Florida? I think the article could really use a photo of him in the place that catapulted him into the ranks of coaching elite. At any rate, keep up the great work! ViperNerd (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ViperNerd. Unfortunately, I have no spectacular digital images of the Evil Genius on the sidelines in the Swamp, but I am in contact with several folks at the University of Florida, and I will add it to my wish list of images that I will ask them to release for Wiki use. I actually have some paid writing work to do this afternoon, so I may take a break from the Spurrier article for a day or so. It still needs footnoted sources for a lot of the Redskins and USC material, and that takes time on the internet to find quality source materials (I try to stay away from fanblogs, etc., even for Wiki sports articles). Please feel free to flyspeck in my absence----it looks like you take some pride of authorship in this article, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vipernerd, do you know how to eliminate the small font for the awards, chmapionships, etc., in the coach's info box? Or is this something that is programmed into the college coach info box template? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion though

Looking over your edits, there really shouldn't be a situation where you have to worry about the three revert rule. You might want to, in the future, make sure to discuss your edits with those who disagree with them, on the talk page, and perhaps ask for an outside opinion. You will find your edits will 'stick' more when discussed, modified, and agreed upon, then when they are reverted back and forth. WP:DR is an excellent guide to dealing with disagreements, from the most trivial, to the most severe. Prodego ^talk 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring continuously, violating the three-revert rule many, many times, and block evasion through the use of open proxies on multiple occasions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd for more information. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

ViperNerd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is ZERO evidence that this anonymous IP was me, and this much is admitted by the admin who blocked me. In fact, I fully believe that another editor (User:Wolfkeeper) deliberately used this proxy to implicate me in edit warring using a sockpuppet, and it appears to have fooled a couple of admins. This same user stated recently that they would "do everything in [their] power" to bring about exactly this course of action.[1] An indefinite block in the absence of actual evidence is an absurd injustice, even for Wikipedia. "Likely" is not good enough when someone has publicly stated that they are actively pursuing a vendetta against me. I do not use IPs to edit (unless I accidently forget to login); if I did, it would have been apparent in the recent dispute at Tu-160. I'd like this block lifted on the grounds that the accusation is patently FALSE, and indeed was likely reported by the actual user of the proxy.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=There is ZERO evidence that this anonymous IP was me, and this much is admitted by the admin who blocked me. In fact, I fully believe that another editor ([[User:Wolfkeeper]]) deliberately used this proxy to implicate me in edit warring using a sockpuppet, and it appears to have fooled a couple of admins. This same user stated recently that they would "do everything in [their] power" to bring about exactly this course of action.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tupolev_Tu-160&diff=304897510&oldid=304881126] An indefinite block in the absence of actual evidence is an absurd injustice, even for Wikipedia. "Likely" is not good enough when someone has publicly stated that they are actively pursuing a vendetta against me. I do not use IPs to edit (unless I accidently forget to login); if I did, it would have been apparent in the recent dispute at [[Tu-160]]. I'd like this block lifted on the grounds that the accusation is patently FALSE, and indeed was likely reported by the actual user of the proxy. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=There is ZERO evidence that this anonymous IP was me, and this much is admitted by the admin who blocked me. In fact, I fully believe that another editor ([[User:Wolfkeeper]]) deliberately used this proxy to implicate me in edit warring using a sockpuppet, and it appears to have fooled a couple of admins. This same user stated recently that they would "do everything in [their] power" to bring about exactly this course of action.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tupolev_Tu-160&diff=304897510&oldid=304881126] An indefinite block in the absence of actual evidence is an absurd injustice, even for Wikipedia. "Likely" is not good enough when someone has publicly stated that they are actively pursuing a vendetta against me. I do not use IPs to edit (unless I accidently forget to login); if I did, it would have been apparent in the recent dispute at [[Tu-160]]. I'd like this block lifted on the grounds that the accusation is patently FALSE, and indeed was likely reported by the actual user of the proxy. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=There is ZERO evidence that this anonymous IP was me, and this much is admitted by the admin who blocked me. In fact, I fully believe that another editor ([[User:Wolfkeeper]]) deliberately used this proxy to implicate me in edit warring using a sockpuppet, and it appears to have fooled a couple of admins. This same user stated recently that they would "do everything in [their] power" to bring about exactly this course of action.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tupolev_Tu-160&diff=304897510&oldid=304881126] An indefinite block in the absence of actual evidence is an absurd injustice, even for Wikipedia. "Likely" is not good enough when someone has publicly stated that they are actively pursuing a vendetta against me. I do not use IPs to edit (unless I accidently forget to login); if I did, it would have been apparent in the recent dispute at [[Tu-160]]. I'd like this block lifted on the grounds that the accusation is patently FALSE, and indeed was likely reported by the actual user of the proxy. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}