Hello, Simishag, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 14:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was taught that a cut is made in order to receive a good pass? Hence, a cut may be made right through the keyhole, if the defenders are poorly concentrated, or there is some open space on the other side — and, a cut isn't much use if you cut into the keyhole where all the tall guys are and you've got no space. This page says its to elude a defender or find an open space... which in a more general sense is to find an advantageous position... correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain on this. (Have edited the article accordingly.) Neonumbers03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best place to discuss this is on Talk:Basketball rather than here. The glossary you linked actually looks like a pretty good reference to link into the page. I don't want to get too pedantic about it, but my experience with the term "cut" suggests that it is a move toward the basket. The cutter is trying to break down the defense and is looking to take a shot immediately after receiving the ball. I've heard lots of sportscasters use "cut in" and "cut to/towards the basket" but never "cut outside" (I've heard "break out/outside" a few times). It's not just a move into space to receive a pass; the goal is to shed or beat the defender(s) and take a shot. Simishag06:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see you reverted my addition of a clarifying definition to this article, and tagged it as a Minor edit. That reversion probably was arguably not a minor edit, since the definition wasn't vandalism, so in future you may want to consider not tagging that sort of change with minor.
Your edit summary said the definition wasn't sourced, which is a fair cop! Thanks for pointing that out. I have expanded the article to give sourcing. In doing research I discovered an additional meaning used by US editorialists, particularly during the Terry Schiavo affair, relating to assisted suicide and termination of life support, so I added that meaning as well. I gave cites for both definitions. I hope that addresses your concerns. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you think we can work together to make the article even better. Yours, ++Lar: t/c00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (PS you can respond here, I'll see it, and prefer conversations to not be disjointed)[reply]
w2hy did you remove some of my text in Iran hostage crisis
This is true according a an documantry I have see on USA cabel TV
Somehow I doubt that, but if it's true, then you should have no difficulty adding a citation to that source. Your grammar and spelling are pretty bad too (not just here, they were lousy in the article). Simishag00:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The compliment is sincerely appreciated. He may never grow up, but at least the guy will never be able to claim (truthfully, anyway) that no one here made a sincere effort to work with him as newbie. As my mother would say: Lord knows I tried! lol 8-) Mwelch00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey i've noticed you've been reverting alot of hganesan and his sokpuppets edits good work, i've noticed this guy messing up alot of the articles here on wikipedia over the last week or so its getting pretty extreme now. I dont know what can be done about this guy? he doesn't seem to stop and he's obviously crossed the line from someone who is ignorant of what wikipedia is to someone who is purposefully trying to mess things up.
Duhon all that hganesan and I are doing are posting articles and putting on relevant facts that you are deleting, and you are loving steve nash like no other. Something should be done to you.
Wow. Besides your refusal to attempt anything close to working with other editors, your rants on various pages and the mailing list, your endless revert wars and personal attacks, your ongoing sockpuppetry, now you're making thinly veiled threats, which goes against WP:ATTACK. Simishag23:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving the "popularity/vilification" problem in the Jeff Gordon article. It was becoming a bone of contention and you provided an elegant solution we all should have thought of earlier. Hats off to ya. --Iamvered10:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just to tell you that in the discussion page, you say jason kidd is the only mvp to have beaten his wife. just one small thing, although an infinitely better point guard than nash, he hasnt won mvp. shows how much you know about the nba really, doesnt it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah, simishag you couldnt be further away if you tried. ever heard of two people just having the same views on nash. only you are sad enough to speak to yourself, dont judge others by your low standards. also it is perfectly valid to find 4 examples of nash doing this. its not cherry picking, just pure fact. the defense bit in player profile is like 2 lines long and it is his main deficiency. just cos you are so biased to nash, his defense sux. you have already vetoed putting in the fact that he was rubbish against kidd and billups this season and in past seasons too and now you are arguing that for example, ridnour who scored 11 a nite, guess what, comes in and nash guards him and he puts up 30. coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no, nash cant play defense and me and this other dude will keep on editing it cos its just so biased that the article has so little attention on his poor defense. no personal grudge against you, but dont accuse people of being other users and let others put stuff that is perfectly valid even if you disagree with it. BUCSRSAFE.
BTW simishag, the 30 points to ridnour was put up a long time ago, AND someone, not me, put up the fact that he scored 0 against kidd, even before i started editing wikipedia. And you and the others took it off. Hganesan20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that was me that put up the thing about what kiddy did to nash. i do concede that maybe that isnt that relevant cos he has had ok performances against kidd too. BUCSRSAFE.
yeah ok, i wont remove that again, glad you finally saw that i was a different person to him. i didnt know he had been proven to use different accounts. BUCSRSAFE.
I cant believe you agreed with my point, thanks. BUCSRSAFE
Wow i wasn't aware of his return, i actually though he had gotten tired and left. I too would like to help if possible. Duhon 9:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
As you know, I have generally been inclined to think your editing constructive and Hg's deleterious, but Hg notes validly in a post at WP:AN that you've disrupted the Kobe Bryant article by appending comments apropos of another editor into mainspace. Irrespective of the merits of your comments or their contravention of WP:NPA (about which I'm not overly concerned), you surely untowardly used the encyclopedia to illustrate a point (even if it was an otherwise accurate point and one the recognition of which by other editors would serve the project). One would normally offer a {{test2}}, {{verror2}}, {{npa}}, {{civil2}}, or {{agf0}} here , but I think encyclopedic purposes would be served more by my noting two things:
You do not evince a particularly propitious (at least vis-à-vis the encyclopedia) when you untowardly make comments about other editors (or, really, anything non-notable or irrelevant) in mainspace; it becomes difficult to assume good faith when an editor does not hestitate to disrupt the project to advance a given view, even when the adoption of that view would benefit the encyclopedia. The potency of your–generally valid–argument that another editor is disrupting the project is diminished when you, too, disrupt the project, your good intentions notwithstanding.
In general, in view of the collaborative nature of the project, you do not do well to criticize another editor rather than his/her contributions. Not only do you put off other editors, but you don't advance a valid argument (see, e.g., ad hominem). If you are correct and another user is causing more harm than good, other editors will observe that; even if you desire to raise the issue with others, it's inappropriate to comment on another user when commenting on his/her edits will make a point more forcefully and maintain, even with that user, the collegial atmosphere on which the project depends.
Yeah, anything you need. Hganesan obviously hates Nash and loves Bryant and is determined to get his pov added no matter how many times he gets banned. BenihanaLee
His block log is here [1] if anyone's interested. I'm afraid I'll have to step back from this one a bit; my edits about "hated players" were viewed as disruptive. Still, compared to him I'm clean. I'll be happy to help with research on this issue if necessary. Simishag18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the insanely slow reply. I've been spending very little time on WP as of late. Thanks for the heads up though. Plenty of admins are aware of the Hganesan situation so things should be ok there. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a block is a little harsh. All I've tried to do is clean up after an editor who has over the last month:
been blocked 14 times by multiple admins, for multiple reasons (edit wars, incivility, sockpuppets, you name it)
used multiple sockpuppets to get around blocks
refused to participate in discussions or attempt to achieve consensus
claimed the existence of a conspiracy among editors to push an agenda on specific articles, while openly espousing his own agenda on his user page
protected "his" edits aggressively, regardless of problems with POV, sourcing, weasel words, you name it
I don't think I broke any rules here, with the exception of one childish edit yesterday, which I already apologized for. I would like to see the specific evidence here; "edit warring" is pretty tough for 1 or 2 back and forth edits on various pages. It's not like I changed something 10 times.
Am I being blocked because I'm looking at the edits of User:Hganesan? I'm not stalking here; he's got a long history of boorish behavior that a lot of people disagree with, and I think I'm fully justified in examining the rest of his edits.
I see you blocked Hg for 2 weeks. This makes the 4th cycle of this nonsense. What's going to happen after 2 weeks? I posted around yesterday looking for support on this matter; you can look at the end of this page to see the interest I've received so far. Simishag20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember sceptre, what goes around comes around, God is on my side; he will bite you sometime when you least expected it.
That rather sounds like a threat to me. I certainly haven't said anything like that. Shouldn't admins be looking at this more seriously than a simple edit war? Simishag20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If PS2Pc must apologize for an insanely late reply, who knows what I must do? In any case, I'm glad you understood my mild castigation apropos of the Kobe Bryant/Hganesan troubles; I wrote as I did mainly in order that someone less familiar with the situation wouldn't happen upon the issue (from WP:AN) and summarily {{npa}} or block you. I assumed that you understood that your comments, accurate as they may have been, were perhaps made indecorously, and I meant, as you seem well to have appreciated, only to remind you of how best to effect a civil discussion (about which all of us need to be reminded). In any case, you queried me with respect to how one ought to deal with the situation and I took weeks to get back to you. I assure you that my failure to respond wasn't a function of my not caring about your reply, and I hope you'll not infer any malignancy; instead, I simply undertook several mainspace tasks that consumed more time than I'd expected them to, and, obsessive as I am, worked on them to the exclusion of all else. It seems that others have been of help to you, and I hope that the Kobe Bryant situation is well under control. If you continue to want a third opinion, though, I'd be happy to help; otherwise, please accept my sincere apologies for my deriliction. Joe06:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i wrote on the intro about peyton's apparent "choking". why do you not think it is relevant. i accept that its covered in the main body, but that the other stats in the intro are too, it is relevant to say at the start that the basic understanding of manning is that he racks up the yards but fails to perform when it matters. --Bucsrsafe12:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was irrelevant, just inappropriate for the lead. It's known as "poisoning the well." User:JC5639 recently added something similar to the lead and it was promptly reverted. The main problem is that it takes a very small sample and claims that the sample is representative of his career, and to make matters worse, it makes that claim at the beginning of the article where it unduly influences the reader's opinion. It's fine in the criticism section, which is well cited, but it's not appropriate in the lead. Simishag18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
when evaluating his career, its relevant and the intro is supposed to provide an intro on peyton. given that the biggest debate around him is that he is a statistics man and cannot win big games, i think its relevant and if his statistics are going to be noted in the intro then his inability to win in big games should be too. either we have both or none at all. --Bucsrsafe18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you are involved in the NFL wikiproject. I started a new project at: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football to help clean up the non-NFL football articles (mostly football strategy type articles). Please consider joining this project and helping out where possible. --Jayron3202:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know anything about 311 Boyz, but I do know that blanking talk pages is vandalism. So I was ready to make reverts as necessary for the integrity of Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent vigilance, sir...! I wonder how these vandals maintain their vandal-energy when their "contributions" are easily detected and reverted.. Must be sugar, or those violent video games..!!!
I liked your statement about Watergate and the Oil Crisis affecting American questioning their government, but moved it from the lead-in to the ==aftermath== section. I have been trying to tighten up the rather long lead-in and have been trying to prune and find more apropriate places for important statements in the lead-in, including the removal of close to 200 words that I originally contributed to the lead-in. There's just so much to say about Watergate; it's such a multi-faceted event. I am hoping to tackle the ==investigation==, ==significance== and ==aftermath== sections soon.
Your random outdents make it hard to follow what your reply is in response to. Please try and use '*' or ':'s to maintain the indents and keep order in the discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Simishag: Actually, willful failure to pay a federal tax -- or more specifically willful failure to timely pay a federal tax, is a federal criminal offense in the United States. It is a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the statute under which the offender is convicted. See 26 USC 7202 (felony) and 26 USC 7203 (misdemeanor). Willful failure to timely file a return is also a separate offense (also under section 7203). Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In editing a number of wikipedia pages for clients and friends, I try to adhere to the principal of not only objectivity, but of proper attribution, verification, and content. You cannot not take a research fact and attribute it ONLY to the news organization or journal that reported it, when the author's name and title is left out. In other words, are we to believe everything we read in the newspaper or a journal ( or wikipedia) without knowing the source of the research and being able to check on that author's or organization's credentials. In the Ali and Ruth stories, I took what was reported via the AP and sourced the author of the studies. This is only proper. Can you imagine a medical research project's findings being reported without the Doctor who authored and supervised the study.
These were not AP studies, but SMG studies that were sourced by many new organizations. Over the years, misperceptions and misrepresentations about the studies have permeated the sports and cultural landscape of the nation. For example, NASCAR is far from the 2nd most popular sport in America or eve viewed sport. Figure skating is far more popular and achieves higher television ratings than NASCAR events.
I don't mean to argue or quibble with you, but to simply inform you that I don't believe that you should report any research fact or finding without citing the organization or group that conducted the study. That way people can judge, pro or con, the validity, bias, or credibility of the study and the facts.
In certain case, I have posted more "glowing" aspects of comments by media and others about client work. This is done, not as an ad, but to allow the reader to source the cites posted and make their own determination. For example, in the ESPN Sports Poll, whoever wrote the story made major errors of fact. They claimed ESPN was the first to conduct sports research when it was 6 years behind SMG. It also said that their founder was the first to address the Sports Summit, when SMG's founder was first two years earlier.
My point is that research and statistics lie more than almost anything else and its important to source the work so everyone can judge the work and its author.
"Marketing research studies" are, to put it nicely, not on the same level as peer-reviewed medical studies. But that said, there are countless articles on Wikipedia that refer simply to the journalistic agency (AP, New York Times, Lancet, etc) that reported the story. There is no requirement that the AP author be mentioned inline in the article, or that all the sources used in the article itself be mentioned inline. For that matter, there are plenty of articles that don't even mention that; they simply report the key facts and have a footnote to the source article. This is a matter of style, not attribution. However, if you want to make it about attribution, then I don't think SMG counts as a reliable source.
Your claim about the popularity of NASCAR vs. figure skating borders on preposterous. NASCAR runs races in front of huge crowds, has major long-term television contracts and an enormous number of sponsors large and small. TV ratings for skating have declined for a decade,[2] and now skating can't even get a fee for TV rights (revenue-sharing only).[3] I'm sure plenty of people prefer skating to auto racing, but that's a poor proxy for establishing overall importance and popularity. And regardless, I don't see what any of this has to do with NASCAR, which is about the sport in general.
Anyway, your pattern of edits shows a clear agenda to promote Nye Lavelle and SMG with information that is at best tangentially related to the article. Your claim that you are doing this for "clients" further suggests an agenda of promotion. Simishag (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kris...
I will certainly agree with you that marketing research is not close to par with medical research. I was using a blatant comparison. Too many people actually use the propaganda you reference to claim their sport is bigger, better, larger or faster growing. My comments are far from original research. First, all of the info is sourced. Check the sources and if you like, ask and will send you more info. However, what I am trying to accomplish is to create facts, not fiction. Columnists are lead columns with fiction. NASCAR is far from the most attended sport in America and far from #2. More people will attend a high school football game and their kid's little league or youth soccer game, than will attend any total of NASCAR events. Next. NASCAR attracts a good group of traveling fans that go from one venue to another.
I'm not here to argue with you, just to open your eyes to real facts!
Wiki says about original research the following...
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
"No original research" is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.
So, in talking about the NFL, ALI, Ruth etc... what I am promoting is the person or entity and a FACT that is supported by on-going research of over a decade compared to other similar studies such as Harris Polls , ESPN etc... and I show what the AP, a very reliable source says about the topic and the research. I have avoided saying that NASCAR is one of the most hated sports in America, but that is true as well. Just because the info is sourced and attributable to a company, thats the whole point of WIKI. If you were writing a research report on NASCAR for a sports management course, you could contact the author of the study to interview them and get more facts. learn more tidbits etc...
Popularity
While baseball is known as "America's national pastime", football is the most popular sport in the United States. According to the Harris Poll, Professional Football moved ahead of baseball as the fans' favorite in 1965, during the emergence of the NFL's challenger, the American Football League, as a major Professional Football league. Football has remained America's favorite sport ever since. In a Harris Poll conducted in 2008, the NFL was the favorite sport of as many people (30%) as the combined total of the next three professional sports--baseball (15%), auto racing (10%), and hockey (5%).[11] Additionally, football's American TV viewership ratings now surpass those of other sports, although football season comprises far fewer games than the seasons of other sports.[12] Furthermore, college football is actually the third-most popular sport in the US, with 12% of survey respondents listing it as their favorite. Therefore, fully 42% of Americans consider some level of football their favorite sport.
See, here the Harris Poll is referenced as the source. My point is to show the weakness of the Harris Poll not in attacking their very poor methodology, but in providing new and additional facts that show how popular NFL football really is. In this case Harris and other pollsters conduct phone polls that ask "What's your favorite sport" or "who's your favorite athlete?" The problem with such polls is that a simplistic question such as they pose gives a simplistic answer. As I am sure you have, most Americans are fans of several if not more sports. Some they love, some they hate and some they don't know about or could care less about.
However, having used the data and seen its results, I can tell you that there are a lot more Americans that 12% who love and like college football. See tonight's World Figure Skating Championships TV ratings next week and see how high they are compared to NASCAR and other sports. The Harris Study quoted is a very poor methodology for judging popularity and fan bases. So, instead of syaing they suck real bad, I simply put forth verifiable facts and comments so that any marketer or researcher looking at the popularity of the NFL could make their own analysis as to which fact they chose to accept.
Thus, writing...
However, the Harris Polls only allow one unaided selection of a "favorite sport." Other studies and polls such as the ESPN Sports Poll and the studies released by the Associated Press and conducted by Sports Marketing Group from 1988 to 2004, show higher levels of popularity for NFL Football since they list from thirty to over 100 sports that each respondent must rate. According to the Associated Press, the Sports Marketing Group polls from 1988 to 2004 show NFL Football to be the most popular spectator sport in America. The AP stated that "In the most detailed survey ever of America's sports tastes" researching "114 spectator sports they might attend, follow on television or radio or read about in newspapers or magazines, the NFL topped all sports with 39 percent of Americans saying they loved it or considered it one of their favorites."[13] The total percentage of Americans who liked or loved NFL Football exceeds 60% of the American Public.
The AP does not typically make the comments it does without verifying and they chose to use the SMG studies because their own pollsters and researchers found the methodology employed to be far superior than other studies that misled their papers and readers.
My point is not to advertise, but to accentuate good and objective work and facts and allow the reader to verify such facts. If I wanted to advertise, I could have simply removed the misleading Harris data. Instead, I chose to offer comparative data for readers to evaluate. Also, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Score.
On that page, there was a debate about the usefulness and reliability of Q scores and what they really represent. I took portions of Mr. Lavalle's white paper to illustrate the actual debate and give an educational guide to anyone who wished to analyze how popularity should be measured and why the Q Scores really aren't worth the paper they are printed on. While not saying that, what is given is a blow-by-blow description of how such a methodology can be misused.
Take a read and let me know if you agree after reading the work!
It seems to me that you are complaining that certain polling methodologies do not reveal the complete picture of how much Americans prefer different sports. That's certainly true at some level, but your analysis of the problems looks like original research to me, and I think you're splitting hairs about the "flaws" in the Harris Poll. People can like more than 1 sport, and more than 1 car, and more than 1 color, and if you want to run a poll asking people to rank their top 5, that's all fine. But you are claiming, without evidence, that asking them for a single "favorite" is not reasonable. Among other things, that happens to be the way we conduct elections in most of the US. But this is all outside the scope of NFL. Simishag (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely wrong on this point. First, who's research do you think the NFL used to expand to Charlotte and Jacksonville when everyone in the US thought Baltimore and St. Louis? Next, the NFL has a popularity section and claims to be the most popular sport. Its far from propaganda to set facts straight and provide "objective" and attributable data. I don't know what your sports bent is, but I have never seen NASCAR gain 20 to 30 Nielsen ratings or placed in 8 to 9 oclock prime time spots. Yes there are sponsors and there are many for PGA golf too. What do you think is more popular with Americas, PGA Tour golf or high school football or basketball?
What the media and corporations give us, they give us. They are different niches for different folks. Perhaps, you don't like what is written or sourced by SMG's work. That's fine. So, argue a different point of view and provide a better source of data that simply removing relevant data that is important to distinguish fact from fiction. If I have clients and I wish to insure that proper data and information is posted, that's far from propaganda.
I have presented both sides to a story. You may not like the message or the messenger, but please, lets deal with facts and reality. If there are better sources of data, let's provide them. if there are problems that you truly see, express them. However, don't negate valid information or data, just because you disagree with it. Let's get the truth out, and stop the misinformation. Isn't that why we are all here for?
See...
Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.
Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
I am assuming, and please correct me if wrong, that you are a male from the interests I see you involved in. However, I do see you are interested in NFL football. Here are some data points you may wish to consider.
This is true despite the fact that a 1993 survey conducted by the Associated Press (AP) and the Sports Marketing Group Inc. reported that women (or women paired with men) held four of the top seven spots in sports popularity in the United States. Women’s figure skating and gymnastics were two and three, respectively, following only NFL football. Pairs figure skating and ice dancing, featuring both women and men, held two of the remaining seven spots. Furthermore, the survey went on to reveal that numbers of female fans are on the increase, as well as numbers of male fans interested in women’s sports (Bridge 1994).
Kris... you see, women love sports too and we can't have one-sided and old sports writers mentality judging what we view, attend and participate in.
As for research about elections, what you are missing is that yes, we do have elections and under your analogy, the networks and sponsors would ask you to vote on one sport and the sport that came out #1 would be it. No basketball or NASCAR for you or figure skating and gymnastics for me. What you need is not one preference, but a measurement of a "total fan base" and potential or declining "fan base" and that's what this measures. The more "fans" the more popularity. If 100,000 fans attend a Dallas Cowboys game 8 times a year, that does not mean 800,000 "fans" attended a Cowboys game. It means there were 800,000 visits or impressions, but say 80,000 had season tickets and went to every game, then the only difference assuming that no one went to more than one game would be 20,000 times 8 games for 160,000 plus the 80,000 for a total of 240,000 individual fans attended a Cowboys game. This goes for NASCAR attendance #s as well.
Like I said, not here to argue with you, but hopefully educate you on some of the finer points of research and how anyone can lie with stats and why objective and real facts in these sports stories are placed. Too many students and others using wiki for papers and they need to see the real data, not the prop!
I don't think I can respond to all your points in detail, but I will offer the following.
You appear to have joined as a Wikipedia user within the last month (March 2009). In that time, almost all of your contributions have been aimed at promoting Sports Marketing Group and Nye Lavalle by gratuitously adding them to a wide variety of sports-related pages and other pages as well. You appear to be aided in this process by User:TonyPew. Along with the conflict of interest that I noted elsewhere, an unbiased observer (and I think I am one) would have a hard time viewing these actions as anything but promotional activities (or "propaganda" if you prefer) on behalf of SMG and Lavalle.
Your claims about sourcing don't hold a lot of water, mainly because SMG is a self-published source. SMG took a poll and then published its findings itself. There has been no peer review and no publication of methodology. In fact, I don't even know if the findings are even publicly available, which is a significant problem. The AP picked up the story and ran a summary of the findings, but as I've said before, we are not obligated to say that "the AP published findings by SMG." Again, that's an issue of style rather than attribution, and when viewed in the context above, it's clear that you are using attribution as a crutch to further your promotional activities.
You seem to jump around a lot with various claims about the popularity of various sports. If we're going to talk about "sports marketing" (whatever that is), I think we should stick to big-boy professional sports (and quasi-pro sports like college football/basketball). That's where all the money is, and it's what advertisers and media outlets care about the most, which tells me that it's what people in general care about the most. Your discussion about youth sports (Little League, high school football, etc) ignores some key points which I think are highly relevant:
People don't attend youth sports simply because they are "sports fans". They attend because their children, family or friends are participating in the sport, or because they otherwise have ties to the local area. There are plenty of people who don't care a bit about televised professional sports, but who will attend their child's games religiously. Likewise, there are lots of people who love pro sports, but who will not bother with a high school game, even if it's down the street and free to attend.
Attendance of youth sports is almost never a matter of economic concern, because such events are either free to attend or are nominally priced. Contrast this with professional sports (or quasi-pro sports like college football & basketball), which must compete for entertainment dollars with other sports and non-sport activities. This is of critical importance to marketers.
As for NASCAR, I'm a fan, but I'm a fan of other sports too, so I'm not trying to defend NASCAR as such, but you seem to be ignoring some obvious facts. You are undoubtedly correct that NASCAR's total attendance is below that of other major sports. This is unsurprising; the big 3 leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA) have substantially more matches (or "events") every year, while NASCAR (Sprint Cup) has only 36 events. On the other hand, NASCAR's average attendance per event is almost certainly higher than any of the other leagues, as most of the tracks seat upwards of 100,000 people and routinely sell out. The "traveling fan" does not represent a significant portion of total attendance; the vast majority of fans come from the local area. As for TV, ratings for NASCAR are generally comparable to other sports leagues. As for the lack of prime-time exposure, that has almost nothing to do with ratings. Most races are on Sunday and are scheduled to start in the early afternoon (local time), primarily to complete the race during the daylight hours for the benefit of the drivers and the fans at the track. Historically, most tracks didn't have lights, and local residents don't want cars screaming around the track all night long. However, there are a few Saturday night races and they seem to do okay in the ratings.
As for figure skating and ice dancing, I'm not sure why you are so hyped about it. Lavalle's prediction was that NASCAR and figure skating would be the sports of the 1990s. I'd say that was 50% right. The brightest moment for figure skating (in a marketing sense) came not from any impressive sporting achievement, but from a shocking and tawdry act of violence perpetrated by one competitor onto another. Lavalle made a bold prediction about TV ratings and good for him, but I think he got lucky with the media frenzy over Kerrigan-Harding. I am not at all surprised that skating broke records for TV ratings in 1994, nor am I surprised that it's been downhill since then. I also think high TV ratings for skating can be easily explained. The highest ratings for skating have been during the Winter Olympics. The Olympics receive wall-to-wall network coverage for almost 3 straight weeks, pre-empting all normal programming on the network. They are a spectacle of sport, and their infrequence attracts many viewers who otherwise wouldn't care. National pride also figures into this. Also, ever since I can remember, there has never been simply 3 straight hours of 1 sport. The network jumps around from sport to sport depending on what else is going on, and to attribute high ratings solely to 1 sport is probably not justified.
Anyway, like I said before, the networks don't care about skating and they are not willing to pay for broadcast rights. People may tell a pollster that they really love watching skating, but that obviously has not translated into eyeballs in front of screens. Your claims are not really benefited by the inclusion of surveys and anecdotes from 1994. The media/sports landscape has changed drastically since then. Simishag (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is spamming sports articles. But, you removed SMG from wiki and now you can't source the research via SMG since its been taken down by you guys are your request. Reading the logs, it seems you guys wanted to combine facts into one article. I'm a guy so I take exception to the girlfriend comment and I am searching for negative predicitons and when I find them will post. I think it because of his speeches to our classes and different projects to build up wiki knowledge in sports maangement, marekting, promotion and all. I talk to some of my class mates and profs, but don;t pick too many bones. You should see some of the other sports excutives and how promotional and non-cited their pages are. 76.108.148.153 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)richard[reply]
Please explain your summary line "not helpful or relevant" applied to this edit. And in future, please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than deleting maintenance templates in such cases as this. -- Smjg (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:V says it should have a citation, what exactly does it mean on your revert? Nevada is the only state where someone can just come in and build a casino where they want or is it saying in all parts of the state there is gambling currently. CTJF8300:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Simishag, at Talk:History of the Las Vegas Valley, you commented "oppose" because you feel that the articles should be separate. The problem is, there is only one article. There is History of Las Vegas Valley, and there is not History of Las Vegas. You may wish to return to the discussion and revise your argument so that it applies to the actual situation. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Simishag. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Simishag. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali in media and popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
