User talk:71.164.190.66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page 2003 Fiesta Bowl worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ZacBowling (user|talk) 06:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get a clue. Buy a vowel.

Stop vandalizing the 2003 Fiesta Bowl page or you will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.178.38 (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan Fouts watched the wrong part of the play, sport. http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/6483719 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMvjADmxhVw

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for continuing to insert personal opinion into articles in violation of the neutral point of view requirement and for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to reliably source your edits and to discuss controversial changes rather than engaging in an edit war, and to note that Wikipedia articles are not the place for expression of one's opinion. If you believe this block to be inappropriate, you may place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page (which you will still be able to edit) to request review by another administrator. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "reason here"

Decline reason: "No reason given for unblocking. east.718 at 06:15, November 29, 2007"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] The announcer quote is 100% accurate.

The Dan Fouts' quote "Bad call, bad call" (quoted exactly and in its entirety) is in no way, shape or form biased.

Why is it repeatedly being removed?

He (Dan Fouts), the game's announcer, made the statement immediately upon his watching of the replay.

The quote is 100% accurate and from an unbiased source.

Why was I banned for stating a factual quote from a highly respected football announcer?

Please watch the game tape here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMvjADmxhVw&feature=related - (The quote occurs right after 60 seconds into the clip.)

Thank you.

Regardless of whether the quote is accurate, your contribution doesn't sound very neutral, to me -- phrases like "The great Dan Fouts" and "summed it up best," coupled with the unusual bolding of the statement, pretty much give that away. Sounds more like personal commentary/opinion than encyclopedic writing (easy rule of thumb: if a reader can tell what the author's opinion is, the piece isn't neutral). Please review WP:NPOV -- it's something we take very seriously. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what - You review it.

The quote stands as 100% accurate (and neutral) from an unbiased/neutral announcer.

You want to stick your head in the sand as to its complete and total accuracy (and neutrality)? - Be my guest.

Again, I'm not addressing the quote, but your presentation of it -- that's a key distinction. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)