User talk:Slamshady1991

Welcome!

Hello, Slamshady1991, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm Blue Square Thing. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a reference from ABC news but wikipedia said that it was on the blacklist of websites for references Slamshady1991 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste the link here and I'll investigate it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To come back to this, as you've chosen to add in to the lead that there are "numerous" examples of poor sportsmanship. When? Neither link that you added to the article claim this - in fact, one almost claims the opposite in one part. The Talksport is sensationalising stuff as clickbait anyway, and makes no claim about sportsmanship, which is rather different from feeling aggrieved about Gary Platt. I'm utterly unconvinced that the Australian source can be used to back up claims about sportsmanship either - certainly not in the sort of way that you've attempted to paint it. Unless you have way more than that - and I do mean, waaaaaay more - then this isn't anywhere close to enough to support the claims you're making. In February you didn't have the sources to back up your point of view either - and this source rather undermines anything you might want to include in the article about walking (and, by the way, sportsmanship? Err, how about adding something to Ashwin's article then...)

Further down in the article there's an Approach to cricket section. That includes a more balanced view of Ponting. Balance. Look it up, cause you need to know what it means in this context. I'd love to see a few more proper references in the section - maybe from Wisden and so on - the most significant one there seems to return nothing, which is worrying. I appreciate that you don't like Ponting much, but we need to be balanced (that word again) in our writing. He played hard and backed his players. Some people didn't like that but I've seen exactly the same behaviour from almost every professional cricketer. They all do it to a greater or lesser extent. So don't single him out. Write neutrally. Look for balance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got nothing against Ponting and I'm trying to be balanced here. I corrected the fact that Kohli was Cricketer of the decade and not Babar Azam despite being from Pakistan and numerous other incorrect stats on other cricketers profiles but when you call someone statistically the best captain in history then statistically he is the "only" captain in Australian History to lose 3 ashes series and i mentioned that. Now go ahead and change that too and suck on Ricky's dick which couldn't inseminate his wife you biased cunt. Slamshady1991 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to revert yourself there old chap - that sort of thing will get you blocked in double quick time. You can remove this as well whilst you're at it - trust me, that sort of stuff is water off a ducks back to me but will agitate other people really quickly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then Mr.Balanced. Tell me are these references enough to paint precious Ponting a sore loser/insecure captain and a cheat.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/whinger-ponting-is-just-a-bad-loser-555459

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cricket/half-a-century-of-cheating-claims/news-story/9aa8e7b116691b5c734e50e9e9a9682e

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ponting-labelled-a-disgrace-to-australia-233695

Slamshady1991 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror isn’t a reliable source, the Australian article is paywalled so I have no idea what it says and the CI article is the opinion of one ex umpire and, although it’s interesting, isn’t doing what you’re claiming it does I think. As an addition to the section way down the article that deals with his approach to the game it might be helpful; to add this claim in the lead, however, I think you need to be a tonne more careful and write with an appropriate style.

You need to be mindful that if you claim that Ponting had a particular tendency to be a much worse sport than other cricketers that you need to be able to show that was the case beyond any shadow of a doubt. So far you’ve claimed poor sportsmanship because he didn’t walk but no one else does very much anymore either, made a general claim based on him not liking losing but no professional sportsperson does, tried to use obvious tabloid journalism to support the same general claims which you should know isn’t good enough, and then suggested that the opinion of one ex umpire in their 80s about the way his team played means that this proved he was any worse than anyone else? All of the time ignoring the fact that there’s a section in the article called Approach to cricket where this sort of stuff might go. If you’d bothered to read me edit summaries or what I’ve written above you might have noticed that the main problem is that you’re dumping the obvious POV in the lead. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL if the mirror isn't reliable then the source you used when casting Ricky Ponting as player of the decade (2000 to 2010) a time when Shane Warne, Rahul Decoud Dravid, Kailis and Tendulkar were at their peaks not to mention Adam Gilchrist and Glenn McGrath. Lol that's the problem with Wikipedia that people who know nothing about cricket are allowed to to write about the game. You were the nerd who was allowed to play with the Boys because he brought the bat and ball. Slamshady1991 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did wonder about that source and almost removed the fragment. On looking at it it actually seemed that it might be reasonable though so I kept it in the article. I'll go back and look at it again at some point perhaps. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]