User talk:Shntn 007

Welcome!
Hello, Shntn 007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Citing claims
Hello. I'm one of the people who have removed information you've added to the AB de Villiers article recently.

The reason that the claims you've added have been removed is that they require substantial sources (i.e. "proper", reliable sources - heavyweight stuff) to support them. If you're going to claim that de Villiers is one of the greatest batsmen of all time, which is what your edits seem to be primarily doing, then you need to support that. The main section of the article should have a section entitled something like Legacy or Playing style or there needs to be a subsection which supports the claims in a sensible, well argued way. The article on Don Bradman, for example, does that in a number of sections and uses a wide range of different sources - not self published or recentest "lists" - to do so.

If you want to claim that de Villiers is one of the greatest ever then you need to build a case for that, not simply stick it in the lead. For the record, I tend to think he's nowhere near one of the greatest of all time, but you may be able to find sources which suggest otherwise. His CricInfo profile, for example says that "He has been ranked among the top Test and ODI batsmen in the world and has established a cult-like following in T20 cricket..." although "The one stage de Villiers did not set alight was international T20 cricket" (from CricInfo). That, to me, doesn't sound like they're suggesting that he's one of the greatest of all time (I don't think anyone's suggesting that he wasn't a quite handy batsman who you'd quite like on your side in many cases).

I hope that helps explain why your edits have been removed. Look at he Bradman article to see the ways that a case can be made (albeit for Bradman that the case is self-evident). Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So, you read this, yes? Sorry, but you're consistently adding stuff into the article which is very clearly not what we're looking for. I'll put it simply: you can't claim he's one of the greatest players of all time. He's not. There are no substantive claims that he is - he was never a Cricketer of the Year, for example.


 * If you have citations that show that he is, can I suggest you discuss them on the article talk page (or here if that's too tricky). Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind he has been cricketer of the year 3 times go and check the facts i think you are a bhakt of little tendlya well ab de villiers is not only all time greats but finest batsman ever.
 * I mean a Wisden Cricketer of the Year. He was ODI Player of the Year three times, yes, but never got a look in at Test level and never won the Sobers award - and I wouldn't conflate that with cricketer of the year. Are you seriously suggesting that that makes him the "finest batsman ever"? Unless you can find multiple, substantive sources (hint: someone writing an opinion piece or a blog doesn't count) that suggests that he is then its POV only.
 * As for what you think of me, you're several thousand kilometres off the mark old chap. I suggest you have a think about several things before you make an idiot of yourself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Get a life and do not try to be over smart you clearly said he was never the has an average of above 100 the first batsman over 9000 runs to do that will be an all time great and he is. Give me the sources which claims and in written that he is not a modern great and all time best.
 * It doesn't work like that. You're making the claim: back it up. There are, fwiw, 14 players to have scored more than 10,000 ODI runs. Does that make them all one of the greatest of all time? And that's not including any batsman who played before the 1970s. Think about that for a moment: you're immediately excluding Bradman, Hobbs, Grace and so on from any comparison. Don't any of them have a claim to be one of the greatest batsmen of all time? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Its not about making runs but how you make it and the impact you have over the game does anyone you have mentioned scored fastest 50,100 and 150 with the career strike rate over 100 any odi player`? I am not saying that there arent other great players but he is definitely one of them.
 * Ah, you see: "I am not saying..." - what you think, what you say, doesn't matter. The statistics themselves don't matter - are you serials saying that someone like Frank Woolley wouldn't have been handy in an ODI? (here's a hint: look up some details before you try and reply to that one - Woolley was a phenomenally fast scorer in a totally different age). Just as "it's not about making runs" it's also not just about strike rate or whatever other stat you want to throw in there.
 * I'll say again: you need to find substantive sources that say what you're claiming. I can't find them. We can say that he was ODI Player of the Year three times. We absolutely can't say, without a number of really substantive sources, that he is one of the greatest batsmen. That's just POV, and we don't do POV. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I want you to provide me the link stating that ab de villiers is not all time great and that too reliable sources stating he is not an all time great should be written there. Even in sachin tendulkar profile cricinfo has not mentioned that he is all time great only only prolific run scorer so according to you he is also not all time great so go and edit his wikipedia as well.
 * It doesn't work like that: you're making the claim, so find substantive sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesnt work like that you are making the claim so find substantive sources in written that he is not all time great.
 * OK, if you're going to pursue that line of argument that becomes a competence issue. Are you sure you understand where you're going with this? You're making the claim, I'm not.
 * I note that you've not responded to the 3RR warning below. Do you understand the problem with that or not? Blue Square Thing (talk)

Then why you are claiming that he is not all time great without any reliable source.


 * Really? I'm removing your claim that he's one of the greatest. If you want to make that claim in the article then you need citations to do so. I don't have to show otherwise because I'm not claiming anything in the article. If you can't see that then there is a competence case that needs answering.
 * The 3RR waring below? Or are you trying to ignore that? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You look like a frustated Australian or an indian who has done nothing useful in your and just cannot digest the fact if someone is much greater and better than your heros who are not in the same league as de villiers keep jealousing he will remain alk time greats until you die and even after that.Man if you think de villiers is not an all time great there is something wrong in your life or mind. http://www.espncricinfo.com/25/content/story/1146989.html

Above is the link of cricinfo link of finest odi crickets in last 25 years devilliers is there with other greats does cricinfo include him without being great it is last 25 years not 5 years. And you know how many big and spectacular players missing from that list says it all. Again you tried to act oversmart i have seen you have reverted the article before as well of other users what the hell is wrong with you and who are you? Are you a former cricketer or a cricket expert? Why are you blabbering like anything here i am sure you are one of tendlya or ponting fan who is just jealous of devilliers being better woul have slapped you if met.


 * There's really no need to be so aggressive. It comes across as simply rudeness, and that doesn't exactly make me feel very good about myself. Your last words, in particular, are really quite nasty and threatening. I think it would be better for everyone here if you thought about how you speak to editors.


 * I reverted the article because someone else did for the same reason but missed the section in the lead.


 * I'll properly review all the sources you added at some point, but I wonder if it might be better to change the wording of the article to something more neutral and, in my view, closer to the facts; how about something like "de Villiers is considered to be one of the most inventive one-day batsmen of his generation. His range of shots have been described as "< >" and he <>.


 * It's important to me that I mention that I'm not the only person to have reverted extreme claims on the de Villiers article. There are other editors who have done the same: One Of Seven Billion, Transcendence and S0091 have all done the same thing in May 2019. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for my inappropriate behaviour i shouldnt have said. I am sorry. But i think there is enough sources claiming that he is in that league of greats of the game cricinfo jury included him in all time odi team hence he should be the one regarded as greats of the game if not the greatest.

I knew it this idiotic person will person will interfere again. First he was barking to provide a source now after providing the source which also quite heavy stuff the espncricinfo jury including a player in all time great list he has no reason to remove the claim yet he did it like a fool. Probably a jealous person and thinks he knows better than espncricinfo team.


 * The sources don't day he's one of the greatest batsmen ever. They say various things, including that as a limited overs batsman he's quite good. But that's a totally different league to being one of the greatest ever - the emphasis with de Villiers is totally on his limited overs career. That's a very specific emphasis - and it's mainly on his domestic T20 career if I'm honest. You can't compare that with a "great" Test player. But what you're writing says "hey, I don't care about any other form of cricket, in the form I think is most important he was quite good so that means he's utterly one of the all-time great players in any format". And that's simply not true - and it's not what the sources say either.


 * You can write better than this. You can write more intelligently than what you're trying to insert into the article. Be that person, not the twit who wants to call someone "the greatest". That just makes you look like an immature child.


 * Don't worry if you don't get the emphasis quite right - that can be worked on. I'm happy to help with written English and other people will tweak things as well. That's as it should be. But don't write that "he's the greatest ever"; that's just silly: look at what the sources actually say and then reflect that not you're very generous interpretation of it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Being part of the best team of last 25 years does not include him in all time great are you mentally handicapped? Are you a better cricket expert than cricinfo jury team? A great player will be a great player his with average of above 50 in both ODI and Test you are simply jealous. I am sure a little tendlya fan cannot digest if someone is better than your hero. And from where the hell you think that a batsman should be great only by playing test cricket though his average is above 50 in test but your thinking is very illogical you are just jealous or you donät have any other work i guess. I do not understand the problem you are having with calling him great why dont you just get the hell out of this page. Keep your thinking to yourself.


 * Oh, I'm sorry, was cricket only invented 25 years ago? Did no one play the game before that? Oh, in that case you must be right - if anyone is one of the best limited overs players in the last 25 years then they must, surely, by definition be absolutely one of the best batsmen in any for of the game ever.
 * Do you see the way that the logic of your argument is simply failing to stand up? Cricket is a very old game. Very old indeed, and for most of its history limited overs cricket wasn't played at the top level of the game. Now, simply say what the sources you found before actually say and that'll be OK - but what they don't say is that he's one of the greatest batsmen to ever play the game - I mean, it's not that hard to understand that is it?
 * I'm not mentally handicapped the last time I looked. Thanks for your concern, but be careful about making personal attacks on other editors. I've explained to you before that this can be extremely hurtful to other people; I thought you'd begun to understand that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

So according to your logic there should not be any player within this 25 years to be called as great because cricket is an old game? Are you on weed or something? If a jury of most experienced panel including him with the best team of last 25 years he is automatically in the list of all time greats if not the greatest ever be it great in odi test or t20 a great will be a great i do not think it is difficult to understand but the problem is jealousy.


 * OK, I'll try a different approach: how many people do you have on your list of all-time greats? This is a serious question: we know Sangakarra isn't on your list (per this diff), despite averaging more than de Villiers in Test, T20I, first-class and T20 cricket (considerably more in both international versions) and playing close to double the number of ODIs that de Villiers did. I don't know if I agree with your judgement there or not: after all, he did make it into the CricInfo all-time World Cup XI (source) and did win the ICC Test Player of the Year in 2012, the same year he was named as one of the five Wisden Cricketers of the Year, and he was named as Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World twice - none of which de Villiers achieved as it happens (he was also named ICC ODI Player of the Year twice - I seem to recall you using this as a justification for de Villiers being a great in the past).


 * So, who is on your list? How many men and women are on it? And if Sangakarra isn't then what are the criteria for making it to that list? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Haha you are really funny I can also see lance klusener in that team is he also an all time great for you? Its only a world cup team which is a tournament and the palyers who performed well at that event. His average is 41 in ODIs whatever the average you are so silly. Even vivian richards average is below sangakkara so is he better than vivian richards also? Dont make fun of yourself people will laugh at you by comparing devilliers to sangakkara. Devilliers already received 3 times player of the year by icc you are just wasting my time. Great players are not only judge by their avereges but the impact thez have on the game and ability to change the course of the game destructive at same point.

May 2019
Your recent editing history at AB de Villiers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You need to undo your edit straight away - you need to understand why this is important and deal with the consequences of it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Your recent editing history at AB de Villiers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You've been warned about this before. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.