User talk:DangerousJXD

This is my talk page. Here is my user page. Follow the talk page guidelines.

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar. It's greatly appreciated to be appreciated. JosephSpiral (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

I like your user page. You list many good points about Wikipedia clearly and succintly. I am glad to see someone note that the welcome message was helpful and influential. I prefer to use a variation of a customized welcome message and should probably do so more often. Donner60 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tag

Hi there. I noticed that you tagged the page ERTYUM,NVGCDFGTD for speedy deletion, but then removed it right after. Just so you know, you did it correctly -- I would indeed say that it was a test page, and the {{db-test}} tag is sufficient by itself. An admin will eventually come along and review it, and delete it if appropriate. —Darkwind (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary...

...is stupid. See Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Drmies! I know IPs are human; they just don't act like all the registered humans here. I have encountered two, count em, 2, IPs that edit like productive registered users on a regular basis. Literally every other IP I've encountered is either a "ghost", "hopper", or an IP that is unproductive. I know that edit summary was harsh but judging by the fact the IP reverted again, I think the IP doesn't care. I dislike interacting with IPs because it's awkward. The unproductive IPs are annoying you know. One IP edited my sandbox (!?!?). One IP is making unproductive edits against consensus over and over at this page. IPs sometimes insist on removing "fictional" from the lead of fictional characters. I only get disgruntled at unproductive IPs. I treat IPs that are productive like any other user. I just don't encounter productive IPs as much as the vandals. IPs don't interact with other users too, that's annoying, especially when it is expected that the IP say something. It's refreshing to see an IP make a good edit. All my edit summaries, and everything else I say, are stupid. I struggle putting words together. So. To recap: I treat good IPs how I treat any user. I treat unproductive IPs how I treat any other unproductive user. The way I treat IPs is appropriate. Some users treat other users, IP or not, like dirt. I don't do that. That particular edit summary isn't a typical edit summary of mine. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I hope that last statement is true. Behind every IP is a human, even if a vandal, and I know a couple of IP editors who have contributed much to Wikipedia. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Phillis Jackson

A point of contention of mine going back almost ten years now... Two sets of opinions, but somehow yours is correct? I have a source and so do you. Let's compromise and remove him being the greatest, and I'll stop changing to most overrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealEricB207 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure you're just trolling but I'll explain anyway. Opinions don't belong on Wikipedia, only verifiable, factual information. The fact Phil Jackson is considered one of the best coaches in NBA history is easily verifiable. If it was deemed necessary, a lot more sources could be inserted after the statement in question to prove it even more. However, the information is factual, so therefore, doesn't necessarily need more references. Your claim is an opinion only and would not be properly verifiable. It isn't even factual. The opinion that Phil is one of the best happens to be factual. Regular Wikipedians like myself don't edit with opinions in mind. Phil Jackson being one of the best is a fact; just because that happens to be my opinion, doesn't mean anything, same with your opinion. All that matters is which opinions are the factual opinions. Somebody might think the Sun is cold. Their opinion is wrong because the Sun is hot. That's a fact. Your "source" appeared to be you just slightly altering the existing source anyway. The opinion that Phil Jackson is overrated cannot be properly sourced in accordance with Wikipedia's policies like the fact can. The information belongs in the article. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In some reality the sun might actually be cold, but that really has nothing to do with an opinion on ones ability to perform a task. Science can be proven. Red Auerbach might call Phil a shit coach that had the benefit of the greatest collections of talent on every single team he ever coached. Being overrated doesn't mean he isn't quality, since you seem to have a hard on for the guy. Who's the greatest basketball player? I'm sure you have "facts" for that too. As you said, opinions have no place on Wikipedia. There is no to verify either opinion as fact, unless the basketball hall of fame comes up with an award for greatest coach of all time, and then basketball, or time, stops.TheRealEricB207 (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)