Talk:2009–10 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page Neutrality[edit]

Why are fans of Clemson's in-state rival (South Carolina) editing material on this page in an attempt to put a negative tone to the article? Jober14 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the same reason that fans of South Carolina's in-state rival (Clemson) are editing material in a similar fashion on USC's 2009-10 basketball season article? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Also, I see from your user page that you attend or attended Clemson, so please help me out with a few questions. Is the inclusion of notable losses enough to make an entire article have a "negative tone"?
No, but we should make sure that we're just stating facts and not trying to prove any other point. I know it's difficult when you're fans of opposite schools. I welcome any edit of anything I wrote that may seem POV toward Clemson. All I ask for is an explanation. Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should only notable wins and accolades be included in Wikipedia sports articles? Would that approach truly make an article "neutral"? In the case of the two losses that I added to this article, they were both notable in some way, and not simply "typical" losses incurred during the course of a season (like the upset by Texas A&M), that much should be obvious from a cursory glance at the primary sources for these two games, but I can explain it in more detail if you would like.
A cursory glance of the score between Clemson and Duke shows nothing unusual. Season and career highs/lows are achieved in almost every game. Clemson may have had a negative season-related stat happen in the Duke game, but there are other stats both negative and positive of other games for both Clemson and opponent that aren't noted. Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone can agree that 12 points in a half of modern college basketball is pretty rare, especially for a ranked team in a traditional power conference, and is thus notable. It's made even more so when it also is the lowest statistical measure in the seven-year history of a given coach at a given program. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and I think you understand how I feel when a fan of the rival team comes over to make that edit. Jober14 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine much the same as I felt when a fan of the rival team made a similar edit in the USC basketball current season article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, if you have such a problem with this type of edits, then I guess I'm left wondering why you aren't pursuing the issue across more articles than just the one for the team of which you are a fan, but I think the answer to that is pretty clear.
I really only care about Clemson and Clemson related sports articles. I do other edits to other articles, but this is my primary editting on wikipedia. Does this make me a bad person? No, I just ask that we're doing things in a neutral way. Clemson has had (and will have) its heafty share of shitty things happen over the course of a season, but to have fans of rival schools come on here and just edit and add the negative aspects really doesn't add anything to the article. Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it only seems highly negative only because Clemson hasn't yet had a notable win to balance the section out more. I'm sure now that conference play has begun, that will probably sort itself out down the road. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a Clemson Fan I can only hope you're right! Jober14 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove notable and well-sourced content again without a valid reason or consensus that removal is warranted. Continuing to do so will constitute edit-warring and I guess I'll have to report it, and I'd rather things not get to that point. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right and I'd rather be able to come to an amicable solution to the addition of anything I might see as overly negative and anything you might see as overly positive from me. I really don't do much to defend my edits, I'd like to see the same from both sides. Regardless of what colors you wear. Please don't let other bad fanboy editors spoil it for those of really trying to make a contribution.Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And on a side note, just because a newspaper article calls it total domination doesn't mean it was. It's just their point of view. Much like the Rod Gardner Catch/Push Off debate. I respect you're opinion of the lack of a call, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. Let's just present both sides of an issue when appropriate and let the reader make the decision. I appreciate you taking time to read this. Thanks Jober14 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this year's Carolina-Clemson football game (since that has spilled into this discussion), I agree that "total domination" would be an overstatement, but there is no doubt that it is a "dominating" performance when an underdog, unranked team doubles up their ranked rival in a game. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it was dominating, I'm not arguing that fact, but when put with other notable games of the series, and listed as the only one that was "dominating" I think it can be taken out of context. Please see my discussion at Talk:Carolina–Clemson_rivalry#2009_Game_Notability Jober14 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/duke/schedule?season=2008-2009
    Triggered by \bstatsheet\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2009–10 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009–10 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009–10 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009–10_Clemson_Tigers_men%27s_basketball_team&oldid=1196555929"