Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(259 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1:
Line 1:
<nowiki>{{Unblock| you know it by now, I was not supposed to be blocked anyways. Even more, user Sceptre Violated Admin and wikipedia policies. I had only reverted on the Kobe Bryant article TWICE with the important game. , please be fair here. I see One PRO NASH supporter kept reverting again and again on the ] page, yet he is blocked 15 minutes?? What is disgusting is the admin blocks user bucsrsafe for three hours, for NOTHING. He was reverting back to the accepted version!!!!! C'mon now, this is trash.
==Delete the "only" under Baron Davis==
That being said, I know there must be fair admins out there. I request admins to actually take a look at my recent edits, and unblock me. The guy who has blocked me the last 4 times has done so unfairly every time. I have been blocked unfairly ever since may 28th. Starting from that block, I have been blocked for false speculations and lies by two clueless admins on the 28th and the 3rd of June who thought I was another user (bucsrsafe), and that is a lie and has even been proven false, and most recently for no reason whatsoever by one of those same admins. It is corruption here. I can only request that justice be served here; I did nothing wrong. It is frustrating to me because almost no other editor but me on this site has a clue about basketball and the NBA. For example, if you look at the recent ] edits, user Duhon took out the whole section I wrote in for the slam dunk competition. He claims LeBron is ineligible to participate. That's outright wrong; you do not become ineligible, there are no league rules like this. Also, while other players have not participated, this situation is so different. They have not been hyped like LBJ has by the fans and media to participate. Everyone talks about this excessively before every all-star game. I understand not having a whole section for it, but removing the whole thing is absurd, he could just shift the info to another section. Just one example of how I am needed here to set the record straight. Well, just remember y'all who are trying to bring me down, what goes around comes around, God is on my side; he will bite you sometime when you least expected it.}}</nowiki>
==The magic Johnson is repeated twice in the nash article==
Request denied (again). ] 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone delete it it is called repetition.
:Request reviewed and seems amply justified. Enthusiasm is one thing, aggressive pushing of your viewpoint wquite another, and failing to learn from the experience of multiple blocks for doing so is another thing again. And attacking the janitors is just plain foolish.
==I WAS TOTALLY CIVIL IN THOSE POSTS AFTER I WAS UNBLOCKED==
:Oh, and one of the last four blocks was from a different admin (if you alow that Sceptre merely extended the block at one point). You've been blocked by Sceptre, Jossi, Stifle, PSPcGAMER, Madchester and William M. Connolley - numerous blocks from numerous admins. Time to take the hint, I'd say. ] 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, but you seem to have some difficulty in understand that edit warring is simply not acceptable. You've also shown a lot of problems in being civil to other editors. Misplaced Pages's community has developed a set of policies that lets us all work together for the better of the encylopedia. If you don't feel you can follow those guidelines, it would probably be better if you found somewhere else to contribute your sports knowledge. I am declining to unblock you since I see no indication you're even willing to admit you may have been in the wrong. Shell <sup>]</sup> 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
THERE WERE NO POSTS THAT VIOLATED ANY CIVILITY THE HELL WITH EDIT WARS THERE WERE NO EDIT WARS, THEY WERE STARTED BY THE FOOL WHO HID EVERYTHING I WROTE. ] 19:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
How many of them have blocked me this month? ] 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
You call this being civil?
Listen I need to be more specific here with my message. It is not just him who has unfairly treated me, it is mainly him, but also other admins like you and the other editors out there. ]
Yeah that is totally civil. There is nothing uncivil about that. That is a hell of a post too. There is no caps or no attacking there.
] 21:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Just remember JzG, unfair treatment is never a good thing. It never is. ] 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
==THE SCARY THING HERE IS THE ADMINS ALLOW IT==
:I see nothing unfair. You violated policy, which you have violated before and been blocked for it. That is not smart. Haven't you worked out yet that calm debate works where edit warring and insults do not? ] 22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
THAT IS THE SCARY THING RIGHT HERE. THEY LET THIS BULL**** PASS.
] 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Of course, given you are blind in this situation, you don't. You have been against me from the beginning. I never violated any policies after my second to last block in may, i didn't even post here till june and I get blocked in may amid false lies and false speculation. This is the kind of injustice I have been dealing with ever since then. Bottom line, it is never a good idea to lie. You know the truth, everyone does. ] 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
==LOOK AT THE FING BIAS ON KOBE TELL ME ABOUT THE THREE PICS==
:So you say, but the facts are against you. Unblock request denied. ] 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
WE GOT A PIECE OF CRAP WHERE HE IS SHOOTING A FREE THROW, THEN A MUG SHOT AND ONE WITH HIS WIFE RIGHT AFTER HE WAS CHARGED. GREAT WE HAVE PUNKS HERE PUTTING A CRAPLOAD OF THE OLD RAPE CASE THAT NOBODY GIVES A S*** ABOUT ANYMORE. LOOK AT HOW LONG THAT CRAPLOAD IS. I UNDERSTAND 1 PIC BUT TWO?? OUT OF THREE??? WHERE ARE ALL THE GOOD KOBE PICS OF HIM DUNKING OVER PEOPLE.
] 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
No the facts are all on my side, I am the only one who 100% of the time posts facts and the truths in all my edits. I make the articles fair and non-pov, and many times ADD/ACTUALLY POST great info to the articles, you can check my edits and you will find several of them, most recently for kobe and lebron. . Or . ] 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
- You need to find a picture that is not copyrighted.
.
==HELP ME ON KOBE==
] 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
:::REQUEST DENIED! Not with that attitude. --]]]] 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
PUT BACK THE 22 OUT OF 125 NOT VOTING FOR HIM UNDER MVP CANDIDACY IT IS TOTALLY SUBSTANTIATED READ THE DAMN ARTICLE. ] 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
==Do you all want to see unfair treatment and corruption? Here are just a few right here==
- That's not what was unsubstantiated. The alleged "media bias" is. You can't expect 100% of the people to vote for him. That's why it's called "voting". You need to compare how many didn't vote for Nash, Nowitzki, James, Billups etc... to confirm what appears to be a media bias. What if 30 didn't vote for James? Would that mean they were biased against him as well?
Yeah it would retard. Why did you delete the whole statement though and the fact that 22 out of 125 did not vote for him AND THE LINK??? ] 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
I'm talking everything from may 28th, and the 28th and one after being false speculation and lies, and the ones after being plain admin corruption]
You are even trying to get into an edit war while your are banned... And, you claim to be civil... I don't think calling people retards is civil.
I NEVER said I was being civil right now on my discussion page. THEY ARE VANDALIZING, DELETING EVERYTHING FACTUAL AND RELATED THAT I WRITE ON THE NASH PAGE.] 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
==The Nash lovers are taking over I need help==
Take a look at the nash page, discussion and history. look at all the complaints I have been receiving because the nash lovers are scared and terrified about what I have written. Please help me keep wikipedia bias free. Look at the current nash page for example, the bs under player profile. The fool puts the stats up for assists and TAKES OUT ALMOST EVERYTHING I WROTE FOR WEAKNESSES. WHERE ARE THE STEALS STATS?????? F***. Then they say he has been rated 9th greatest of all time HOWEVER. F*** THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE RECENT WAVE OF SUPPORT. KEEP IT REAL KEEP IT REAL. SOMEONE PLEASE PUT ON THE FACT THAT HE HAS NEVER WON A CHAMPIONSHIP OR MADE THE NBA FINALS AND THAT IS HOW HE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER GUYS ON THE BACK TO BACK MVP LIST. I GOT 13 NASHTY GAMES IN WHICH NASH SUCKED. PUT THEM BACK ON OR KEEP THE KIDD GAME AND THE RIDNOUR GAME ON DEFENSE. THIS IS DISGUSTING. THEN THEY KEEP ALL THE GOOD I WROTE LIKE HE WILL BE A FUTURE HALL OF FAMER AND HE IS ONLY THE 11TH PLAYER IN HISTORY TO WIN MULTIPLE MVPS.
] 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
==Misplaced Pages is Crap right now, Help me out here==
----
We have biased, corrupt administrators watching over this site; PS2PCGamer and William M. Connolley to name a few. Everytime I put a legitimate stat about Kobe or Lebron or Nash, it gets deleted. There are racists here on wikipedia- intent on glamorizing the white boy and putting down and criticizing the black men for being ballhogs. Enough, I need help on here to change this. I'm calling on all Kobe supporters and Nash critics to get on this site and change it to make it NEUTRAL.
] 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
'''Anyone who likes Kobe Bryant as much as Hganesan should be sterilized...and Im not even kidding.'''
I think you should try submitting to Encyclopedia Dramatica instead of Misplaced Pages. You have it in your head that everyone loves Steve Nash and everyone hates Kobe. This is not the case. There are plenty of people that try to keep the articles bias free, you aren't one of them. The fact is that you are adding POV material or irrelevant material to both the Kobe and Nash articles. Now, because we remove YOUR material doesn't mean we are anti-kobe or pro-nash. It means that we are non-biased and objective. If someone writes "Steve Nash is the greatest PG ever", it will get deleted. If someone writes "Kobe Bryant is the worst player ever", it will get deleted. Furthermore, I wish you would stop acting like you are on some high moral ground. Your very first edits to wikipedia were completely and totally biased and just because you have tried to appear non-biased by posting selective facts, doesn't mean you aren't being biased in your edits. It's clear you have an agenda. Now, with that said, you probably do have a lot you can contribute to Misplaced Pages. However, it appears that you believe that you are right and every other single person is wrong as to whether something is relevant and belongs there. It would help greatly if you would discuss in detail things rather than constantly revert to your edits. -EW
IMHO, your unblock request evidences some desire to comport your behavior with our policies and guidelines (and, of course, the requisite underlying knowledge of those precepts), a desire to work collaboratively (which work is inhibited by the making of vituperative or otherwise gratuitously untoward comments), and, most importantly, an appreciation for the general rules of grammar and syntax to which even descriptivists here must adhere. You will find, I think, that when you focus your arguments on content rather than on other editors, and when you write in a comprehensible fashion on talk pages and in a formal, encyclopedic fashion on mainspace pages, others will be much more willing to discuss your concerns and more amenable to implementing your solutions (provided, to be sure, that they are consisent with our ]). Even as ], others will surely be inclined to help you edit better and disinclined to block you straightaway when you err when it is evident that you are ] and are here to improve, rather than to dirsupt, the project. Just yesterday I noted on the ] that
You're adding all the fucking POV. You faggots are putting mugshots of Kobe on his page, how is that bias free?? You guys suck shit right now that is the problem. Irrelevant material?? You tell me how 0.8 steal average, 0 championships i irellevant??? THEY are both FUCKING RELEVANT TO HIS MVP AND DEFENSE. WHY THOSE STATS ARE DELETED BUT ALL THE GOOD ONES STAY. YOU PIECE OF SHIT. You're SCARED cuz your favorite boy nash has a shitty resume for an MVP. I discussed my posts retard. See the Steve Nash discussion page, you can't argue against anything I wrote there, I discussed enough and compromised enough for you nash lovers. When have I deleted and Kobe criticism?? I deleted ONE BLURB ONCE, and let it be put on again, not millions of times like you NASH FAGGOTS. Anyone who reads the articles and does not edit knows what I mean by this blatant Bias. Fags, AGAIN EW EW YOU SUCK. I posted those two facts about him being a future hof and 11th in history with multiple mvps, those have not been deleted. FUTURE HOF IS POV TOO THEN.
EW YOU'RE A PIECE OF SHIT DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT MY FIRST POSTS HAVE YOU SEEN ME PUT BACK MY VERY VERY FIRST POSTS?? I KNOW THEY WERE BIASED THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T PUT THEM BACK ON AGAIN, WIMP. ALMOST EVERYONE TAKING OUT MY STUFF HAS PRO NASH AGENDA THAT INCLUDES YOU, HENRY, DOWNWARDS, PS2, THE OTHER IPs, etc. I ONLY POSTED FACTS I NEVER WROTE HE IS THE WORST PLAYER ETC. I POSTED FACTS EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS BIAS. DAMN I'M SICK OF THESE COMPLAINTS AND DELETION OF MY POSTS. I NEVER DELETED ANY KOBE RAPE CRAP. DID YOU SEE ME DELETE THAT?? I MIGHT HAVE ADDED, THOUGH HE WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY BUT I NEVER DELETED THAT STUFF AND IF I EVER DID ONCE I DIDN'T DO IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. NOW PEOPLE DELETE SOME STUFF OFF MVP CANDIDACY FOR HIM OVER AND OVER AGAIN. DAMN YOU GUYS ARE HORRIBLE AND SO ARE SOME OF THE ADMINS ON THIS SITE BECAUSE THEY JUST SINGLE OUT SOME PEOPLE FOR NO REAL REASON.
] 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:''At some point, an indef block of the user as having exhausted the community's patience might be in order. I think the user can become a valuable contributor, and I think we ought to work with him toward that end, but the user seems unwilling or unable to comport his editing with our policies and guidelines (most notably, even irrespective of POV/OR issues, with respect to style and the necessity that one affect a formal tone) and certainly has had a deleterious effect on the articles he has edited. Once more, I don't think an indef block is now appropriate, and I am eminently confident that we can help the user to edit productively, but it should be noted that, thus far, his editing and presence, taken cumulatively, have been more disruptive than constructive.''
They don't single you out. You try to dominate an article and you have this "my way or the highway" attitude. You're edits have all been POV or POV motivated. Furthermore, you don't follow the rules regarding disagreement. In just one week, you've had a million complaints on your page and have been banned twice. You need to stop and think, that maybe it's not everyone else who's acting innappropriate. Maybe it's just you. Just a suggestion. Oh by the way, thanks for pointing out the "Future Hall of Famer" POV that you posted. I corrected it.
I am very hopeful that you will begin to contribute productively, though; notwithstanding your professions that no one else here must be at all knowledgable apropos of basketball, I, for one, consider myself well versed in the history of the game (especially relative to the NBA), and I find your knowledge of basketball to be facially plain. You won't be able to impart that knowledge to WP's readers, though, if you act disruptively. There are many basketball-related projects on which you may undertake to work here (e.g., ], ], ]), and I am certain you will find plenty of editors willing to help you edit productively here if you express some willingness to change, as it seems you have, at least in part. If you should need help navigating the sometimes complex principles that underlie our work here, I'd be happy to help; feel free to drop me a line. In any event, I hope that you're using this time (a) to familiarize yourself with how best to edit here, (b) to ], and (c) to find some articles here that need improvement, in order that you might get started editing as soon as you return (for this, you may see ], where you will find many articles in need of skillful revision and expansion). ] 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello 128.6. They do single me out. Put the freaking 0.8 steals average back. I know the rules, if you can't argue against what I write, then I keep it. THOSE GAMES WERE THERE TO PROVE HIS WEAKNESSES. ATLEAST ONE OF THEM FOR EACH WEAKNESS SHOULD BE THERE. ONCE IT GOT DELETED BY YOU, I PUT UP 13. And I WAS NOT THE FIRST to put up the jason kidd game btw. THAT's WHY I WAS SAYING DON'T MESS WITH IT. You can't stop me unless you have legitimiate argument against why they are wrong. Look at my RECENT POST for the STEVE NASH when I posted all that info under strengths and weaknesses and the MVP 2006 and THEN and argue why some of it should not be on??? I am just too superior. I can take down and beat up all your arguments for it. WHY?? Because what I post is REAL! I KEEP IT REAL. FRAUD NEVER WINS 128.6. IT NEVER DOES. ] 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
I'm not the one who edited out the Strengths and Weakneses. .8 steals might belong in there. I'll tell you one thing, it certainly doesn't belong in an MVP section. I suggest you maturely make your case the person who edited it out in the discussion page RATHER THAN just putting it back and proclaiming you are superior to everyone.
I didn'tput0.8STEALSINTHEMVPSECTION.Readmyrecentpoststhere. ITWASINSTRENGTHSANDWEAKNESSES. AGAINYOULIE. ] 23:03, 17May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:Thanks joe, I also would like to add that the pages people are all reverting to and you posted on are from weeks ago. I am adding the new info here, on MY discussion page. Funny how it has been now found that me and Bucsrafe are from different continents. I told y'all.] 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
==Graffitting on people's userpages==
Make my case why 0.8 steals needs to be there?? I am not making my case it is called common sense. That is why it's in strengths and weaknesses now called player profile, it shows he is a defensive liability, given that stat, those games, and his lack of awards there. You did edit Strenghts and weaknesses, THAT IS HOW YOU TOOK OUT THOSE GAMES. AGAIN YOU LIE. ] 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
This is what you wrote on my userpage (I've highlighted it in red):
==Getting Better==
'''Revision as of 04:41, 4 June 2006'''
In looking at your most recent edit to ], I would like to sincerely thank you, as you clearly made an effort to present a more neutral point of view. We ''really'' do appreciate it. I think your overall tone could still use some work, so I've edited (not reverted, this time) your addition accordingly. But that's probably just a matter of you getting some more practice in at this. Certainly, the most important thing is that you made the effort and definitely improved the quality of your addition substantially, so again I wanted to be sure to thank you again for wanting to contribute and for showing respect to the policies here.
:<span style="color:red;">HEY lemme tell you RIGHT NOW I am not the Buscrafe guy, it's so funny haha. You guys think nobody else doesn't like nash. I just logged on now for the first time and I see you think I am him. LOL. I don't even know who he is. Hganesan 18:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan</span>
I told you before, do not write on people's userpages. Use the discussion page. How many times must you be told? --] 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheers! ] 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
==User talkpages==
In future, if you want to respond to another user, use their talkpages rather than edit their profile. It's the tab that says '''Discussion'''.
===Are you actually reading your discussion page?===
Unforunately, Downards, this is an outright lie. I put it on your DISCUSSION page, in user talk. Please check where I posted it again. ] 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
On my user page you wrote: <blockquote>'''nash lover wth is wrong with you, don't want to face the truth?? There is so much shit written on the kobe page. Don't be a FRAUD. You have to write ALL THE FACTS.'''</blockquote>
:Yes, you certainly did. You also graffitied my userpage - . --] 07:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That's great but instead of writing on the <strike>''']'''</strike> could you use the ''']''' in future. (You have been told already) Best of luck. --] 03:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW here is the link downwards. Please do not lie.
== Kobe Bryant MVP ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Downwards
And here was my only post on your user talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Downwards&diff=56697721&oldid=56697102
See I added it there.
] 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
And this post is even worse. It is funny that you find it so hard to believe other people don't agree with you. Check this post:
Misplaced Pages is for non POV work, the fact of stating kobe lost out on the award simply due to media bias is a POV stance. The fact that no MVP has come from a team with less than 50 wins in the last 25 years should be considered as to his standings in the MVP race. ----]
:Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I believe he holds a vendetta against those who don't think his edits are up to scratch or are not in the spirit of an encyclopedia, in particular both you and myself. I'm fine with it; he's a loose cannon and level-headedness always prevails. Also I don't know how he's doing it but ] and him are somehow connected, even though their IPs don't match up (look at ). Maybe he's using a computer remotely, I don't know. It's all very fishy. Cheers. :) --] 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
==Kobe Bryant issues again==
OK, now we're going to need to ask you to respect the Misplaced Pages policy on being ] to your fellow users. Your disagreeing with them about your edits does not give you cause to call them "dumb", nor to SCREAM AT THEM WITH ALL CAPS IN YOUR EDIT SUMMARIES. And most especially, it does not give you cause to tell them to "get out of here" because they "don't support Kobe". Reminding you of the ] policy, we are '''''not here''''' to "support" Kobe. We're here to create an encyclopedia. If providing support for Kobe Bryant (or Randy Moss or whomever else) is your agenda, certainly there is nothing wrong with that, but you're doing it in the wrong place. Rant on their discussion pages, if you must. Or on your own personal page. Or start a blog or something. But any edits you make to the article itself need to be made '''''without''''' any sort of a "support Kobe" mind set. ] 09:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
==Keeping it real==
I understand. But we can keep it real and keep it civil at the same time. If someone has deleted something that you honestly feel is justified and documented and non-biased, then by all means do stand up for yourself and state your case for why you feel it's legit. But let's just do it civilly. No need for name-calling ("bias boy") or "get out of here" or stuff like that. Whether it's you who starts it or them who starts it, or whoever, it's just not productive, so we need to keep all of that out of the discussion from both sides. Feel me?
You think that's civil?? A lot more incivil than anything I have posted in the last two days. Right, I am connected with someone I don't even know from another continent. You need to face reality here. Just admit it. You and the others were blatantly wrong. ] 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Rather than engage in a one-on-one back and forth with the individual involved, a much better solution is to take your case to the "Discussion" page of the article involved. You make your case on that page, and the other party can make theirs. If you only talk at each other on your two user discussion pages, you two may be the only ones to see the conversation. But if you discuss it (in a civil and mutually respectful tone) on the article's page, there are probably a number of other people who would be watching that page, also, and they can then chime in and hopefully we can all reach an acceptable consensus. It's really a better and more productive way to go. ] 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
<br>
<BR>
Yeah, I understand your feeling completely. I've been so busy at work lately, I haven't had time to keep up with all of the edits/deletions of the last day or so, but yeah, if someone deleted that Kobe is a good defender and he just made NBA All-Defense first team, for ''sure'' you have a legit beef. Just, like I said, make your case in a civil way, rather than getting angry about it. Because:
1) Whoever it was ''might'' not have meant anything personal by it. It might be just an honest difference of opinion. So-and-so didn't know he was All-Defense this year, maybe. You just let 'em know, "Hey, man, Kobe's on the All-Defense team. That supports my case, I think." They say, "Oh, hey, you're right. I'm sorry." You put it back in the article and everyone's happy. We all make mistakes. I made a mistake that knocked out some of another guy's work on the Kobe article just the other night. Nothing to get excited about. I researched it, saw I was wrong, admitted it and put his info back in. No blood, no foul, as Chick Hearn would have said.
:FWIW, Essjay found that Hganesan and Buscrafe are unrelated; they edit, indeed, from different continents. Joe 23:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
and 2) even if the person ''did'' do it because they personally have taken a dislike to you, and they're being stubborn about it, it still doesn't help to get into a flame war over it. Rather than go at them personally, like I said, take it to the Discussion page on the Kobe Bryant article. You say, "Hey guys, so-and-so keeps deleting that Kobe's a good defender even though Kobe's first team all defense." People are busy, so we may not have realized it was happening before you spoke up, but once you call something like that to our attention, the community will by all means support you on something like that. We'll get it back in the article and see that it stays there.
== Most recent Kobe edits ==
I've been in the situation where I've been up late at night working on something that I contribute here, and then someone comes along and whacks it an hour later. Believe me, I know how it feels and how frustrating it can be. But the good thing is that with Misplaced Pages's keeping history, it's ''really'' easy to get it back, if the community decides that what you wrote is worth restoring. So just let go of the frustration feeling and just take it to the community, state your case and let the chips fall where they may. If you've got the documentation behind you, it'll get restored. If we say no, "I really don't think that's suppored. It's too POV," then understand that it's not personal against you or your hard work. Frustrating, maybe. But not personal.
8-)
You take the community's criticism to heart, and come back with something better the next time. And hey, you've already done that once. Your very first contributes didn't cut the mustard as far as being neutral point of view, we checked you without insulting you or disrespecting you over it, you took the criticism and came back with contributions that were improved. That's the way it should always work. Both when you get criticzed, and when you feel you may need to criticize someone else.
Oh, I have ''always'' acknowledged that you do have quality content in your knowledge bank to contribute. I've never had one bit of doubt about that. And yes, that is reflected in some of your most recent edits.
Again, I appreciate that you understand where we're coming from on that point, and that you'll handle disputes that way going forward. I truly thank you for that and for being willing to be helpful to us in that area. You obviously are a knowledgeable sports fan so I have no doubt you've got many positive contributions that you'll be able to make going forward, and I look forward to seeing that happen. With less controversy. ;-)
I (and others) just question why you seem to feel the need to do it in such a confrontational, abrasive and insulting manner. You don't seem to care much about getting along with others, which (in my humble opinion, which I acknowledge is worth nothing more than what you are paying for it right now) isn't really the best way to be in a community setting such as Misplaced Pages. And your level of respect for the NPOV policy here seems to wax at times and wane other times.
Thanks! ] 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
But hey, you're gonna do what you're gonna do, obviously. I've said my peace to you and made my opinion known. You've head what I've had to say, but nonetheless seem to have chosen a different path than I suggest, so OK. It's certainly your choice to make, no argument there. ] 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
==RE: Edit summaries – calm down==
The edit summary box is there for you to provide an explanation (ideally it should be brief) of why you performed the alteration, from an editing point of view. It is not a forum for your tirades.
There is no different path than you suggest, I follow what you guys suggested. I am not edit warring anymore on Nash the trash, even though my edits from objective viewpoint are better. I know Nash is like a diamond to some on this site. ] 02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Also, don't let the "Show preview" button go unnoticed. It's right next to "Save page".
ta.
--] 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, but maybe you should stop criticizing my behavior no matter how good it is and no matter how great my posts are. What do you call this:
First, please sign your name on talk pages. You can do this by adding <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Second, please be a little less confrontational. Don't accuse people of just making arbitrary changes without be informed. Assuming that because someone is from Southern California and is therefore ignorant is very poor form. You really need to relax. As far as my edits were concerned, they were proper. I simply removed a POV adjective and asked for a source. If there is such a strong media bias, sources should be pretty easy for you to find and add. --] (]) 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I never did something like that on an article.
Pleas check out ]. If it is not verifiable, it does not belong. Simple as that. --] (]) 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
] 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
== 3RR and Civility ==
:Um . . . you came over to my discussion page and asked "It looks a lot better now doesn't it??" I did not initiate the conversation. If you don't care to hear any criticism (at least from me), the best way to avoid that would be to not solicit my opinion. As I noted, I've said my peace, so honestly, I don't intend to offer you any further criticism, if you're not asking for my opinions (which, like I said, aren't necessarily worht anything anyway) on your edits. You know my opinion. You obviously don't agree with it, and that's OK. I'm fine with that. I can certainly agree to disagree.
You are formally being warned for violating the ]. Don't revert the changes again. Please also be ] from now on. Any future violations to the three revert rule in the near future will result in a block. I naturally won't be the one to block you as I am too involved in the incident, but it will be passed on to another admin.
:As for these above edits you reference, you're right. I've never seen you do anything like that. Please don't get the idea that I'm defending that type of response, because I'm not. Not in the least. It's not helpful at all. ] 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not make any false statements; in fact, I was careful to attribute all the claims I made. Moreover, I framed the debate accurately (he was the only one who made such claims). I was merely illustrating a point that has been beaten to death over the last month. The mere fact that things are "true" and "verified" does not make them appropriate for inclusion in an article, particularly when they illustrate novel concepts which haven't been advanced elsewhere. I am guilty, perhaps, of using a non-notable source. I realized that and posted a message to the talk page requesting consensus on that; my message was promptly removed without explanation by (who else?) ].
In all seriousness, yes, I know: ]. I don't believe my actions were disruptive since there was ''already'' an edit war going on. I think all of us involved have been plenty willing to work with this user; the discussion pages are full of arguments and counter-arguments. The problem is that the actual page inevitably ends up only one way: his way. His claims have been rejected for any number of reasons, and he's clearly pushing his opinion across multiple pages. He's been considered sufficiently obnoxious to be blocked repeatedly by numerous admins. What, exactly, do we have to do to get a little peace and quiet on this matter? Honestly, I've been editing here for a year, and I've never had to deal with anyone even remotely like this. ] 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I never have posted claims, even MWelch admits that, and other users. My FACTS are being rejected by people like you Simishag, and downwards, duhon, the nash fans. ] 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Hey man maybe that is because you haven't had to deal with anyone who is from the US or knows something about basketball. Many of your edits are clueless at best. You do not think Bonds or TO are hated sports figures, and you did not think the alley oop from o'neal to bryant in game 7 was famous. I know my stuff here, almost nobody else does, look one guy is even asking for a citation for Kobe and Shaq's daughters being born minutes apart. You have to deal with, I don't live in Europe like you and most people here, I have more access to these sports than you guys do. Do you see me post on cricket or soccer?
The above only includes the reversion of the word "surprisingly" and none of your other reverts. Your other reverts are getting close to violating the 3 revert rule if they haven't already. --] (]) 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
] 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
:If I lived in Europe, my first claim would be that you're not taking a worldwide view of things (see ]). Since people all over the world, such as cricket fans, might read this, they might not understand why the play is famous, and they'd have no way to verify it other than your claim. However, the bigger point is on ], which you might want to read. It says, among other things:
Pretty funny how when I post facts now you are getting upset. I took out surprising btw. ] 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
::1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
You don't seem to get it that because some is factual doesn't mean it belongs in a specific area or in an article at all. If I posted how Kobe Bryant is the first MVP candidate to be accused of rape, you and many others would immediately delete it despite the fact that it is a fact. It doesn't belong there. Furthermore, you make it extremely clear what your intentions are in your comments and in the discussions for Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash articles. You are anything but neutral, only posting bad facts for Nash and good facts for Kobe. It's clear you have an agenda an you aren't fooling anyone by post your "facts" whenever it fits your agenda. - Henry
::2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
::3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
:Number 2 and 3 of those are particularly important. Together, they say: '''YOU''' need to cite a source when you make claims. It's not our job to verify all of your claims. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. It's only been explained about a zillion times. You just aren't interested in what anyone else has to say. ] 03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
POST IT. I DON'T CARE. Post that he is the first mvp candidate accused of RAPE. I would not take it off. I am sure others would because that has nothing to do with the MVP.
This compares Nash and his ON COURT PERFORMANCE to others with back to back MVPs.
Listen, it shows your lack of knowledge, that is why you deleted the stuff I wrote, Why don't you do what metros just did by writing citation needed or something. You cannot demand a citation for everything like that, if you need a citation for everything, it's better you don't edit and delete since you don't know what is going on. What I was posting is common sense here, if you don't know what is going on just put a citations needed stub there, don't delete and hide things like you always do, I know what is going on here, too bad you don't ] 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
It is not BAD for NASH. It is CALLED FACTS. You decide if it is good or bad, I POST A STAT. You post one you consider "good for nash" under MVP 2006, AS LONG AS it is A FACT. I don't care. Henry, you support propaganda if you delete the FACTS. STOP IT. ] 04:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Either that or it shows your clear desire just to bring me down here. Just like you kept on lying a zillion times with your claims about my sockpuppetry. Maybe you should stop deleting every post I write to make me look like I violated policies. Just like downwards when he deleted a post on LeBron that I wrote and claimed I was a sockpupeteer, and he posted something totally incorrect in place. I only post the right things and what is factual. I have even cut my warring on Steve Nash. I have not violated anything after May 20 or 21. Why don't you keep quiet and stop blaming me, and maybe remember that what goes around comes around. ] 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Apprarently you missed the point. It's not about whether you care or not. It's about whether it is relevant. You are posting stats that have nothing to do with the NBA MVP season at hand in a section for the MVP award. They are totally unrelated and irrelevant. - Henry
==More sockpuppet idenitification on people's userpages==
Post about the Kobe rape and the credibility of Misplaced Pages goes down instantly. THAT IS OFF COURT. What I posted is ON COURT.
Thanks for the graffitti you left on my page. Please knock it off. If you do it again, I will be forced to take action against your vandalizing my page as well as the garbage you've been putting on the Nash/Kobe articles. ] 16:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point TOTALLY. Then take off the company he is in. TAKE OUT THOSE 8 PLAYERS. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS MVP. ] 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
I wrote you were a sockpuppet. That's all. Don't lie.
Actually they have everything to do with it. What has nothing to do with it was Nash sitting on the bench in Phoenix 8 years ago. -Henry
] 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
And you're wrong. Thanks ] 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You know what??? Guess who put up Kobe's career stats??? IT WAS ME!! He sat on the bench in LA as a rookie!!! Only 23.9 ppg career average!! I still put it on! ] 04:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Ok, I might be, I cannot find out for sure, your weasel word uses is just like Simishag's , but that is not graffiting, learn a little bit and stop lying, be happy I am not posting this trash thousands of times on the admin boards, and getting you blocked for false speculation, which happened twice because of Simishag's trash lies.
You are giving half the story on WIKIPEDIA henry. This is an encyclopedia. This is NOT ESPN SPORTSCENTER. We already put him FACTUALLY with Jordan and Magic (mvps), now post how he is FACTUALLY different ] 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
] 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Then again, you could be downwards. Afterall, both you and him lied here about graffiting. I only posted on your discussion, user talk pages in the first place. ] 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
===Simishag come clean with your tactics and lies===
You really really don't get it. He was put factually with Jordan, Magic, Russel, Bird, Malone, Jabbar etc.. because he got back to back MVPs. This is all under an MVP section. He has not been compared to any of them in terms of career stats etc... Furthermore, to bring up career stats in a single season award is not relevant. There may be a place ELSEWHERE for these comments, altough highly doubtful. First off, you are post false information in one of them (the under 20 ppg one). I'm done with you, post that garbage again and I'll foward it to another admin. - Henry
You claim you have run out of tactics. I knew it, your whole idea here is to follow me around and try to bring me down; it won't work.
Hey i changed it Henry boy. Now it is factual. You see, I KEEP IT REAL.] 04:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
You've posted on Downwards' page, benihanalee, Duhon's page, the other ips like 128.6.78.50.
I ask that the admins look into his posts, which include editing the Kobe Bryant article itself and attacking me on it, and please use judgement here unlike the last couple to times I was blocked. Notice he is also saying the "appropriate admins" here. Please watch for this, and I urge you to actually look at my various contributions to the articles here. Look at the bold on my discussion page. It is frustrating that other editors do these kinds of things to me.
Pretty funny now you are stuck. I TOLD YOU. I KEEP IT REAL, and when I find something factually incorrect with what I posted or somebody TELLS ME, I FIX IT, unlike you, who just delete all the facts or attack me because I posted ONE FALSE INFO UNKNOWINGLY. ] 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
] 18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
You don't get it. He's just asking others if we are fed up with you. Don't you think it's funny how you are the only one who's been banned (and multiple times at that)? ] 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
you aren't supposed to unknowingly post anything. You are supposed to verify everything! You wouldn't have even known had I not said anything. It just goes to show you how you don't follow the rules. - Henry
Unknowingly?My post was different it saidbeforetheonlyplayer to not win a championship and averageunder20ppgshenryboy.Thencrybabyslikeyouchangeditandstartedplayingaround with it;in the processI forgot aboutRussell. ONE TIME I MESSEDUPandnowyouclaimidon'tfollow the rules.Onebadnashlover you are.Henryboynowyoufollowthe rules and don'tdeleteanyfacts. Nowyou see none of my changes have beendeleted.] 21:18, 12May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Since june, it has been for FALSE CLAIMS and lies. When was the last time I was banned btw fairly?? I got banned due to speculation the last two times. I have done nothing wrong here. Liar. And notice all the users he has posted on are the ones who are pro nash and anti every other nba superstar. It won't happen.] 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
:Check out your block log. It's pretty clear you were blocked for good cause every time, a total of 13 times. If you have a problem with that, you should take it up with the admins. I can't imagine you'd want all that info to stay around if it was false. ] 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't go out and delete all the lies and trash you write, it is not my job to clean up your lies and filth, I already have warned the admins about this. Those last few blocks are unfair thanks to you and the others who lied and falsely accused me. What a joke, I was blocked on the 28th even when I didn't post anything near that time period. From that block to the next three, the blocks are not justified. It was found I am not the guy who y'all thought I was. Unfair treatment here. I know what happened here, you lied and are trying to get a select few unfair admins to block me. Go mind your own business and stop trying to bring down the innocent. ] 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
== Jime Rome==
I see you have a had a number or problems remaining neutral in many of your edits evidenced by the multiple users who have left you messages in the past few days. If you want to claim to be a good editor, then please act like it. We don't need garbage such as the following which you posted:
* <div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been ] from editing for {{{time|2 weeks}}} in accordance with ] {{{reason|edit warring, incivility, etc}}}. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. {{{signature|''']''' (]) 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)}}} <!-- {{s/block1}} --></div>''']''' (]) 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"He did it to launch his career, but over a decade later, it has still gone nowhere. JT The Brick rules, Jim Rome drools."
Added another week on for that not-very-nice message. ''']''' (]) 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This is blatant opinion and vandalism. Please stop.
-HeyIdeleteditRIGHTAFTERIputiton. Do you have theballs to comeoutandidentify yourself??? I thinknot. ] 22:53, 13May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Unfair treatment never wins. Too bad you can't shake off the truth and that message. If you are going to treat me like this, I have to post the truth and reality. ] 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
I enjoy editing here and have contributed a lot more than y'all can imagine contributing. Will, I assure you I am not bothered one bit by your block; why? Because I have taken this unfair beating before here. I want to keep contributing to this site. I know I am innocent, I know I am right. On the other hand, you, by calling me a dick and blocking me for no reasons whatsoever, know you are wrong, hence you feel guilty, and understand the veracity of what I post. ] 22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
==More civility==
I am kindly asking you again to be more civil with your edit summaries. Making the following edit summary about content that was probably added months ago is extremely poor form "HAHA that is funny all the bryant haters can do now is say rapist??? GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT? Get rid of the many. There were not many. I did not put some. Kobe hate runs rampant on this site." I just have to ask, why do you persist in doing this? You have been asked to chill out time and time again. This trolling must stop. --] (]) 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
==LeBron pic==
Please, are you angry because I am putting stats on steve nash that you did not want to see??? I think so. I am not here to troll I have edited articles grammar wise and made them more bias free. I have added to several articles too and I have only been here a few days. Sometimes some comments I make when I post might come out as trolling. I am just making a joke here, I was not targeting any specific memebers like my earlier comments a few days ago. Steve Nash still has his 2 mvps by the way, there is no need for you to be upset; just because I have posted some facts and statistics on him does not mean he lost the mvps. Give me an example of what is not poor form? I am making a great point there. ] 04:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Well, like i said in the , it was my friend who took the picture; nonetheless, it is still a great one. ] can really soar to hights that no one expected (well, maybe we all expected it).
In any case, cheers, and good luck on not getting banned anymore.
: --] 03:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, you can already see by Duhon's claim that "LBJ is not eligible" ; people who are editing here just have no clue what is going on. Believe or not there are things like that all the time here.
:Why do you keep mentioning Steve Nash? I don't follow at all. My comment referring to your poor form is your edit summaries. --] (]) 04:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I also got a following me around who has no clue about any of articles I post under but simply wants to bring me down, along with one corrupt admin. I am totally innocent here. It is frustrating.
] 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
==Please Discuss==
Could you please discuss things on the Nash page before you post them if they are going to be controversial. Thanks. - Henry
I discussed enough about my edits there. You need to click on the discussion tab on the top of the article, and you will find I have posted enough on there. And bLee, i didn't delete what you reverted, after you cited it. You check it and stop lying. I already compromised with you enough. I let you delete all my games there. Get rid of the lies BLee.
One edit summary out of so many and you are upset. That is what I don't understand. I overreacted on that one. I am doing these things less and less. ] 04:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
How the hell am I supposed to know what facts are controversial or not to you guys? Oh, that's right, I know. Any fact and info posted by me that supports your Love of nash the trash is not controversial, and automatically swallowed. But any fact that offers the slightest criticism, and you guys throw up. Now reverse it around and apply that to all other athlete's pages I edit. Now when I post any type of facts, is following me around everywhere, and although he clearly has no clue of what is going on, keeps writing "who who who?" or "weasel words" a million times. Do I post on the "Parlaiment of the United Kingdom" or "Lord Chancellor?" No, because I have no clue about those articles. Weasel should learn from that here, instead of following me around and EDIT WARRING. I know what is going on. Why doesn't anyone block him with his vandalism and all his reverts and deletions of everything I write? Infact, I have not reverted much at all in the last few days. I know what is going on. Worse, downwards and duhon have changed my posts or deleting my corrrect info, and replacing incorrect and inaccurate info there.] 06:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
:I only cited one. There is a consistent pattern of incivility in your edit summaries. Just a few examples from the last 48 hours:
'''Bold text'''
::"It is FACTUAL. NOT OPINIONATED."
::"I can tell right off the bat henry contributed to this one."
::"Henry man, Henry. PLEASE. The more I read what has been written by you, the more respect I lose for Misplaced Pages. Please man, you cannot use words like remarkable. Dawg please."
:and so on.... --] (]) 04:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
==This is what happen when you use foreign sources and have clueless editors here- LeBron James in Dunk competition and DUHON==
Look at user Duhon, he unknowingly believes that LeBron is no longer eligible to participate. He brings up a bogus canadian source from 2004.
Wait wait wait. Those are considered "poor form"???? I don't understand
That is not the rule here, look at ], he was in the '04 competition iteslf
then. Explain each one. The first one, I am just making a point, no attacking, I am just writing in Caps, big deal. The second one, I just say I can tell he contributed to one report. The third, I am using the word please. I don't see how any of them are "poor form". Please explain. And explain how to fix those so they would not be "poor form"] 05:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
, the "source" is indicating he cannot participate, and he did. He was not in his third year. I know off the top Jordan himself won it in his fourth year, I was wondering if there was such a rule change since then; there is no, i cannot believe there are sources like that. Stackhouse was there in 2000, i know that was not his third season. BTW how is Chris Andersen there last year ('05), it is not his third season. Duhon, I have to admit man, I almost fell for it, but I knew something was fishy there. See people, this is the problem here, with people with these canadian and european sources here. That is the problem, there is always these misconceptions.
] 08:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
:Arguably the "problem" is that you fail to recognise that Misplaced Pages has no deadline. If it takes a few iterations to get something right, what's the problem? Work with people, not against them. Chill. ] 09:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:1) Using all capitilization on the Internet is considered the equivelent of yelling.
:2) Borderline personal attack.
:3) Trolling.
No, it just frustrates me that people don't understand the facts and info, and I am the one being blocked here, I'm one of the extremely few editors who consistently edits, who has a clue of what is going on with respect to the articles I edit. I should not be blocked at all here. I am not able to work with people when I am blocked and cannot edit any pages or add correct, factual info to any other pages but mine. ] 09:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
:I am not sure exactly who Henry is, but apparently you somehow know him (even if it is only through Misplaced Pages). --] (]) 05:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:You are the one being blocked because you are allowing your frustration to override Misplaced Pages's cultural norms. It's important not to edit war, not to make personal attacks and not to lose your cool, because this is a collaborative project and can't possibly work like a football game with opposing fans shouting from the touchline. Calm down, explain the problem in measured tones and with citations on the Talk page, be civil and neutral in your edit summaries, and you should have no problem. ] refers. ] 09:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No henry is the guy usually deleting all my Steve Nash posts and complaining, I don't think he has an account so he signs his name as -Henry (see the posts in this discussion thread above). Ok I will TRY to cut down on the capitalization, that is just part of how i type on discussion boards and stuff like that, I kind of guessed it was not the best thing because nobody else did that. Trolling I still am not sure what this is totally, I am guessing it is being annoying? But when you post a fact and people say it is trolling???? It is annoying only to people who don't like the facts. ] 05:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Listen I was totally calm and not edit warring, I did not attack anyone. Only after I was BLOCKED have I now started to complain here and lose my cool. I was unfairly blocked, you don't understand the situation. And you know what, you just proved my point here! I had no idea what a touchline was (dead serious) in ] and had to look it up, so it is actually a term for ], eh? The first thing that came to my mind was ], then i realize you must be a british or someone not in the us, hence you call ]. Do you see what I mean here??? The NBA is mostly in the US, all the teams and the players here are playing in the US 'cept the raptors, the major news sources and the fans in the US know more here and understand the game here and the issues. I am 100% NEUTRAL in my edit summaries, I am not putting my personal pov there, and my edits are never POV, why don't you check some pov edits in the corruption section of my userpage. That is what you call pov edits. I know the opinions here on ], baseball, and the NBA, I live in the country where all of this takes place. I know what is going on, I know those other editors looking to bring me down don't; it is clear from their edits and posts. You admins need to understand these things here. My edits are non-pov here, even the nash page, it is pov in ] and ], because most people there really admire nash and he is perfect to them. That is why I don't delete the insane Pro-POVs on nash and instead add the OTHER SIDE INDIRECTLY through FACTS, that the others don't know about or likely refuse to admit. It is frustrating. ] 09:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
==Preview button==
Please try to use the preview button, instead of executing "Save page" after every single minor edit. Also please quit ranting in the edit summaries, it's obnoxious. Thanks --] 06:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:Edit summaries full of SHOUTING and edit warring over insertion of text, instead of discussing on the Talk page, does not speak to me of keeping your cool. Your statement that your edits are "never POV" sounds a lot like you don't understand the difference between ] and ]. Do you think you are the only Fearless Defender Of The Truth ever to get blocked? This happens all the time - partly because people's judgment of what is The Truth tends to be coloured by their own personal opinions (no fan ever thinkts they are wrong about ''anything'') and partly because, surprising as it may seem, Misplaced Pages does not, in the short term, care about what is "true" only what is verifiable, and we have no deadline to meet so if it takes a while to get there it's not a problem. The specific problem in this case was your absolute insistence that a particular game is of such pressing importance that it ''must'' be in the article, which was clearly disputed by someone. When it was removed, you should have taken it to Talk. It's known as the Bold / Revert / Discuss cycle, and it's how we do things here. So, if you think that game is of pressing importance you need to go to Talk and citereliable secondary sources who say that. Your own opinion is, in Misplaced Pages terms, of no value at all. When your block expires, go to Talk, list the change you want to make and somebody does not like, support it with references which state that it is of unusual significance, and then everybody will agree and include it. Or they will disagree in which case you accept it and move on. ] 10:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What ranting? I am contributing a lot more than you right now. ] 07:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
'''Bold text'''
Listen, I added that IMPORTANT game on TWICE. Don't Lie Guy. Liar, I only put it back on TWICE, 1 and a half hours apart. This was not like a revert war for a few minutes. Lying admin, that is not called absolute insistence. You don't know anything about the NBA, so you shouldn't even be commenting. I do not have to go to the talk page to add info, I know my info is factual and important here. Instead, the clueless editors here need to put a {{fact}} of cite sources tag if they need it. It is not my fault that they know nothing, just like it is not your fault I had no idea what a touchline was. Think a little here. I post on what I know, I live where it all happens, I have the right sources here, that is why my edits are non pov.
:This is exactly an example of the civility problems I am talking about. Misplaced Pages isn't about who contributes the most. Furthermore, just because someone contributes a lot, it doesn't mean they are allowed to act incivil. --] (]) 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
To suggest there is a real rule like that in place with ineligibilty after three years is stupidity.
That is the kind of trash on this site here and pov crap you get from these foreign source. When did I yell on my edit summaries. I rarely did, I only criticized simishag on some of them, because he was a clueless pest here, trying to get people to bring me down. You admins be fair here and look at his posts. ] 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
He is saying i am ranting in the edit summaries and says they are obnoxious? so that is civil according to you? Check my recent edit summaries. I have not even had summaries in many of them. ] 07:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
The NBA now requires participants to no more than 3 years in the league if they are to participate in the Slam Dunk Contest now. The rule was changed a few years ago. The fact that you say Stackhouse was in it back then to disprove this doesn't hold. They added that such a lrule the year after that particular dunk contest. Duhon is correct and the fact that his source comes from Canada is meaningless. It's been a rule for atleast 4 or 5 years. ] 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:I was referring to your comment "I am contributing a lot more than you right now." --] (]) 07:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey prokj the problem is your misconception. Chris Andersen was in his fourth year when he participated in 05. ] was in the
Ok but please take it into context, maybe read the comment above what I wrote the next time. What he wrote is also called a borderline attack. ] 07:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
,
he was far past his third year.
Think. This is a stupid canadian source. So stupid, even the year it is written there is a guy past his third year participating in the competition. There is no dumb rule like that, this is the problem with you canadians and other foreigners editing these type of articles, your sources are all weak quality and you just read info. You cannot understand what is going on just by reading. ] 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
:You just made an ] attack on the source provided, accusing it of being unreliable simply because it's Canadian. Here's another source for the 2004-05 season. Quote: (emphasis mine)
:Please try to understand the distinction between a civil request and a borderline attack (assumedly you mean a ''']'''). The latter would typically not contain the word "please". The '''''' is a tool for you to enlighten others about why your change was performed. When it is used for ranting and raving and carrying on, you are not impressing anyone. No one wants to know about your dummy-spits. Read this aswell: '''''' --] 15:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
::Who's in the Slam Dunk Contest?: We may finally some stability in the ever-evolving Sprite Rising Stars Slam Dunk Contest after numerous changes over the year. The trouble is, we hate the rules that the NBA is sticking by: a four-contestant field and the ridiculous rule that '''only three-year professionals and younger may compete ... unless the field is too crappy'''.
"Your dummy spits" is a personal attack. Nash lovers and kobe haters do not like the stuff I write there. You are upset because I am not kissing nash. That is the bottom line. Quit complaining. You are complaining and whining too much now. ] 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Exactly, does that sound like a rule?? Incase you can not tell, NO. It is not a rule. No policy here. Hence he is '''NOT INELIGIBILE.''' He can still participate. ] 07:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
::It is only a matter of time until you are reported to an admin if you do not quit the ''''''. Again may I ask you to stop the obnoxiousness in your edit summaries? It is a reasonable ask. After the first two requests you appear to be ''''''. (What will it take for you to get the message?) --] 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:You're correct that the NBA allowed Andersen to slide on this. Also, Lebron just finished his third year, so 2006-07 would be the first year he might be "ineligible." The NBA has changed the rules a number of times for the Slam Dunk Contest in the past, and I can't find an NBA source for the rules. I think it is likely the NBA would allow Lebron to participate if he wanted to, but that's just my opinion.
== Steve Nash page ==
:However, all of this is completely irrelevant to the original point, which is: Lebron's non-participation in one small event is basically unimportant in the discussion of his career. Adding another section gives ] to this non-event. You appear to be the only one who believes this non-event deserves any coverage in his article. ] 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:One small addition: despite your attacks on Canadian sources, you seem to have no problem using them when it suits your purposes. ] 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I definitely have not followed the Nash page closely since your first couple of days. I can have a more detailed look and render an opinion, if you like. But before I even go to that point, let me point out (respectfully) that just because something is a fact doesn't necessarily make it an appropriate addition to an article. It's certainly better than putting in stuff that's blatantly opinionated, so that's good. Thank you for being careful about making things factual. I can't tell you how much I do appreciate your effort in that regard. But there's also the issue of relevence. This is an area that's a lot more subtle than the fact thing, which is somewhat cut-and-dried. So I think you may stumbling just a little bit in this regard.
Only to all you clueless canadians; in reality there is no such rule for the NBA, I saw that article too, there are misconceptions everywhere, you guys just read trash and think you know, you don't know, none of guys know what is going on here but me. That is the stupidity here. Have you heard of ]?? He was in his 6th season when he . User morrisS and another ip user who added to my comment as I checked believe it is ok to be mentioned. You guys are just clueless here, you don't know American media and don't watch games or go to games, that is the problem here. Almost all the NBA games are played in AMERICA, hence the articles need to be more US based and reflective of the US, not foreign places. You have no clue what is going on, it is not a small event here, it is discussed heavily leading up to the all-star game. Everyone wants to see him participate in the contest. ] 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
I just took a look at brief sampling of some of the more recent diffs and maybe I didn't get a really good sampling of the whole exchange, but in the little bits that I saw, even the facts you were adding seemed pretty much to be there for the primary purpose of supplying reasons that he should not have won MVP this year. And while I actually would agree with you in that opinion, it's honestly just not an argument that should be made in an encyclopedia biography of someone's life. If indeed there were some major media and public uproar over his winning it, if it were a big news story that Kobe or LeBron got shafted or what have you, that would be one thing. But if not, then it's beyond the realm of relevence to actually argue the case against him — even if that argument is based on facts. A brief mention that the vote was more lopsided than was generally expected might be appropriate, but that's really about it.
Hey simishag unlike you guys though I KNOW what is going on. That is the DIFFERENCE here. It is frustrating. I did not say all canadian sources are bad, this source is accurate , and I know there are not mistakes here because most IMPORTANTLY, I know what is going on. This here is a NEWS article here, and it accurate. You guys don't know what sources are accurate and not accurate, because you don't know fully know what is going on in the first place!] 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
The simple fact is that in ''most'' years (and regardless of the sport), you could make a legitimate criticism for why the guy who won it shouldn't have been the choice. So for a specific instance, it's honestly not particularly important to smack the reader in the face with the fact that there are reasons why some people would have chosen someone else that year. That's (almost) ''always'' the case, so we don't need to dwell on the details in any one specific instance.
==Missing talk page comments==
For a Misplaced Pages biography of an MVP-winning athlete, it's pretty much sufficient to simply say that he won it, not to list out reasons (even factual ones) why someone might think he should not have. Again, the exception would be if the choice wound up being ''especially'' controversial. And in this case, Nash's choice honestly has not been particularly controversial. Some people (you and I included) would have made a different choice, most people were mildly surprised that the vote wasn't closer . . . and that's been about it. *shrug* And we all move on.
Unless an admin or Hganesan removed it, there's a large chunk of previous comments missing from the talk page. I'm pretty sure that I added warnings on this page, but they seem to have disappeared. --] 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:IMO, there is no reason to drag this up again. Any admin will see the block log when taking action so it won't be hidden or forgotten. --] (]) 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to ]. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's ] policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Comment2-n (second level warning) --> -- ] 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If someone were to write a book on Nash's life, then a more detailed look the MVP's would be in order. Or if someone were to write a Misplaced Pages article (and this would ''not'' be a good idea to do — just using it as an example) that was specifically ''about'' the 2006 NBA MVP race (rather than an article that's specifically about Nash), then all of those details and arguments would be appropriate. But just for a Steve Nash article? No.
== ] ==
Reasons why Kobe might have won are appropriate for a Kobe article. Reasons why LeBron might have won are appropriate for a LeBron article. And for the Nash article, something along the lines of: he won it; he did so cuz he led the team to a much better record than people expected without Amare; it game him back-to-backs; other top candidates were so-and-so, the vote was such-and-such, which was a little wider margin than expected — really is sufficient. Stuff like "his scoring average was low compared to other MVP's" or what have you, even though it may be factual, just honestly isn't really relevent enough in our context here.
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Sticking to facts only and avoiding opinions is an excellent ''start'' when it comes to honoring the neutral point of view policy. And again, I commend you for making it a point to do that. But it's not the end of it. Putting undue stress on certain facts can also violate the policy in a more subtle (and often even unintentional) way. The trick is how to decide whether the stress is undue or is in fact appropriate. And I'll admit that is ''not'' always easy to do.
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 -->
One good guideline to follow would be this: (let's take the subject of Nash winning the MVP as an example). When you add anything on that subject, when I — Mr. Joe Blow reader out there who doesn't know you and doesn't have any pre-existing idea of what your opinion is on whether he should have won it — when I finish reading your edit, ideally I should ''still'' have absolutely no idea whether you, the author, think that Nash should have won or not.
The couple of recent posts I've just reviewed from you on the Nash page, pass the fact test very well, and that's great. But they still have your opinion that Nash shouldn't have won coming through loud and clear. Why? Because they stick out in terms of just not seeming relevent in the general context of an encyclopedia article.
If there had been a big, public controversy because Nash won, then a neutral observer certainly might well report something like "Controversy ensued because of these reasons: "and then list out the reasons why the win was controversial. But since there honestly was ''not'' any real controversy over his winning, just a little surprise over the voting margin, statements like "he's the only multiple MVP to score so little" really stand out like a sore thumb. Since the vast majority of basketball observers clearly aren't uptight about his scoring average compared to other multiple MVP's, when a reader hits that statement, it makes him say, "Why is that there? Who cares?" And the answer is that people who don't think he should have won care . . . and it's there cuz one of them put it there.
And the reason why is that statements like that are only relevent to the question of "Should he have won?" But again, without major controversy, that's not a question that a general article about him should be exploring. So, if we're not going to explore that question, there's no need for statements like that.
Again, this whole issue of relevence can be subtle at times. It's definitely something that's easy to trip over at first and where practice helps, so please don't feel like I'm coming down on you about it. I'm saying what I'm saying so as to help further improve your future edits so they can be appreciated without controversy. You're smart, so if you just think about the edits your making in that context in ''addition'' to the issue of being sure their factual, I think you'll find you have better luck overall. ] 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok but if we are going to put him in that presitigious group as well that makes him seem like he is up there with them. This case is exceptional though and much different than most cases, because it is also a back-to-back issue. If he has won no championships then he clearly is not with those other back to back MVPs, all of who have won MUTLIPLE titles (except moses malone). And the Malone comparison also gives the reader the assumption that he is the same as Karl Malone and Bob Pettit, and he is clearly not the type of scorer.
There is so much positive nash stuff on there, it is totally in favor of steve nash then. A neutral observer or someone who doesn't know much basketball will now think Nash is up there with Jordan and Magic, and this is Misplaced Pages so there are bound to be many people who just come to learn something. And all the articles I find all say the MVP race is going to be close before the results came out. Plus I don't see how that stat is interpreted as only bad. It can be good too, that means his play outside scoring is so great that he won it right? Like saying, "he joins magic johnson" as being the only point guard to win back to back. That is the good, now the difference between magic and him is he is he averaged under 20 ppg both seasons, AND lower assist average. Also he joins the prestigious group, so the difference is that he is the only player to have no rings. I guess the career stats should go then. This is real tought for me to do. I am just trying to separate Magic from Nash. Like even one guy in the Steve Nash discussion page is saying he probably thinks NASH is the only guy to average double digit assists in both MVP years. Like he thinks Magic did not. ] 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
==License tagging for Image:23141787.jpg==
Thanks for uploading ]. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an ] applied to the ] indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
*]
*]
This is an automated notice by ]. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at ]. 20:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:Please don't upload copyright images. Also, fair use doesn't cover replacing free images with copyrighted images. --] (]) 01:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
::1)The image was not deleted. 2)I did not place the image on ]. Please quit making assumptions. 3) Legally, Misplaced Pages can't use a fair use image over a free one, it violates fair use law. 4) None of my edits in regards to you, ] or ] involved any sysop actions. Please realize that there is a difference between me acting as an editor and me acting as an administrator. --01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
no your name is under the kobe bryant ball hog picture. You uploaded that image and put it on Ball hog and Bryant so you could link them together in that way. ] 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:I only uploaded the image. I have no control over what articles someone chooses to put it into. Again, I am reverting your change. This is a copyright violation issue, not an editorial one. Just because you have 7 days before the image is deleted off of the servers, doesn't mean that you can use the image in an article for that period. Please review ] and other relevant image pages. --] (]) 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok I got the tag and all, now lets be fair now. ] 02:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Would you care to explain edit? Why did you remove the image and replace it with nothing? An action like this is generally considered vandalism, but would you explain? By the way, you have violated the ] to an extreme degree. There is no excuse for this as you were previously warned. --] (]) 03:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to replace it with the Kobe dunk and try to tag it, but I clicked on the save page too soon. ] 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:As I stated previously, that image, under no circumstances can be used on Misplaced Pages. Please do not reinsert it. Also, please use the preview button before submitting the changes. Remember, your changes are live and anyone who loads up the page will see them, so it is important that you use the preview button first. --] (]) 03:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
== Kobe Pic ==
Oh, I think you might have misunderstood what PS2pcGAMER and Shimishag are trying to tell you. (No fault of your own, though — the whole "fair use" thing is SUPER complicated. Makes the NPOV stuff look simple, by comparison.) The bottom line, though, is that even if you tagged it properly, you still would not be able to use it here. One of the tenets of when it is "fair use" to use a copyrighted image is that '''''no''''' freely available image of the person is available. As long as that picture of Kobe shooting the free throw is available, there's no way it can be fair use to use the copyrighted picture you're trying to put in. Obviously the free throw picture sucks, and the pic you want is 100 times better. No argument there. But just from a legal point of view, we simply can't use it because the Times has the copyright on it.
Because of the complexities of the whole "fair use" thing, Misplaced Pages is actually moving now to a policy that any pic you put up really simply needs to be freely usable. No restrictions at all from the copyright-holder. So in other words, even if that crappy pic were *not* available, we've recently come to realize that it still would be best not to use a copyrighted pic as a substitute.
The best policy now is: if it's copyrighted, and the copyright-holder has not released to for public use with no restrictions at all . . . then don't use it. That really is what's best for Misplaced Pages.
Now then, as you browse around to other pages, you'll definitely find a *lot* of instances where this is being violated. But trust me, it's not because of "selective enforcement" on Kobe. It's just that there's so ''many'' of the violators out there (many of whom don't even realize they're doing wrong; others who just don't care &mdash soon as we take the illegal pic down, they or someone just puts it right back up . . . ugh!) that we just can't keep up with them. At least not yet. But we're working on it.
As for Kobe . . . like I said, the free throw pic does suck, but to this point it's unfortunately the ''only'' picture of him anyone has ever submitted that we have ben able to verify that the owner released all the rights to it. If you can find one that's better and that we can verify that the owner has released for free use, by all means please do come back and add that one. I'd love to see a better pic up there. That would be a great contribution if you could dig one up. ] 03:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:Actually the ''new'' policy we've moved to for the owner to release free of ''all'' restrictions. We did used to accept a special "permisison to post on Misplaced Pages" type of thing. But as I mentioned above, the thinking on that among the Foundation has changed recently. The Misplaced Pages Foundation wants to be free to redistribute the contents of the encyclopedia in any manner that adminstators see fit, even if that means repackaging information commercially at some point. That wouldn't be possible with a significant amount of the site's content (like images) being allowed to be here only a special-permission-for-Misplaced Pages-only basis or only-for-non-commercial-use basis or that type of thing. So therefore, the new thinking is that we want any image that's copyrighted to be released free of ''all'' restrictions.
:In other words, NOT "I the copyright-holder give permission for use on Misplaced Pages." But rather: "I the copyright-holder release this picture for free use by anybody for any purpose." If you could get the Times to agree to that, and provide a way to verify that the gave such permission, then the picture would be usable. I have no idea whether the Times ever releases images like that, though. I'd tend to doubt it . . . but then, I've never asked, either. I don't suppose it would hurt anything if you wanna give it a try and ask 'em. If they so 'no', we're no worse off than we are now stuck with that one pic. ] 06:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
::No, if the picture was copyrighted (not all pictures are . . . but certainly the majority of those that anybody would really want to use are . . . that's why the one of Kobe that we do have pretty much sucks. LOL 8-) ), then you'd have to get the permission of the copyright holder, not just of whoever has it on their site. A lot of people wrongfully use copyrighted pictures on their personal web sites. They really shouldn't, but just because they take it first, doesn't suddenly give us a right to do so also.
::It's kind of like the whole illegal music download or illegal DVD pirating issue. There's no point in the entertainment industry trying to track down or go after single individuals who do it. But if they find a specific organization that's doing it or intentionally allowing it, then they might sue (and in some cases have sued).
::Same for the pictures. If you take that Times picture and put it on your own personal non-commercial site (as I'm sure alot of Kobe fans actually have done already), the Times is almost certainly ''not'' going to trouble with trying to come after you. But if we see it on your site and then grab it to put ihere, they just ''might'' come after Misplaced Pages Foundation. Especially if they were to see that the Foudnation is not even ''trying'' to stop stuff like that. Admittedly, as of today, we don't really have good conrol yet over what the users here are doing in that area. And as a result there are still tons of pictures here that shouldn't be here, we can't deny that. But at least we do have a policy in place and we're ''trying'' our best to enforce it, so we do get some protection from that. And hopefully as the automated robots get more sophisticated, and as more users gradually become aware that even though such-and-such picture looks really nice and would make a great addition to such-and-such article, they really are risking doing a lot more harm than good to us in the long run, then hopefully we'll be able to get it more under control than it is today. It's just something we gotta keep working at.
::What we try now to do is really emphasize to the users to try to find freely released public domain pictures. They're out there; it just takes some digging. For me, personally, I prefer to concenrate on article text in the articles that interest me, rather than spending time trying to dig up pictures and then trying to figure out if they are really OK to use here, so that's why just for me, I choose never to upload pics. But that's just me. It's just not how I wanna spend my time. But for those who are more into the image thing, we just are trying to get it across as much as we can to please help us out by seriously researching a picture's copyright status, and if it's copyrighted, and you can't get the holder to release it free and clear . . . resist the temptation. ] 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
==Keeping your cool==
Please ] when things get heated when there are editing disputes with other users. Be more considerate with your edit summaries, and tone down your language. --] 06:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Right I understand that, I have already compromised THREE TIMES for the nash and I am not anymore. Everyone has accepted it but that one guy 68.192 has kept on deleting it. He is vandalizing now. ] 06:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
==2006 MVP==
In one of your edit summaries, you said: "Kobe was second in 1st place votes, don't hide it. not getting rid of it, compromised already too much, SUN(suns)-ray." First of all, let me tell you that I am NOT a Suns fan. I've been editing the article to tone down the gushing discriptions of Nash and to try to make it more readable. Secondly, on that particular edit, I was simply trying to reword it to avoid confusion. In the previous sentence it says that LeBron James was second in number of votes for the MVP. Then to say that Kobe Bryant was second is confusing. I simply took the statement out that Kobe was second, which is not true. He was second in ''number of 1st place votes'' -- a fact that is fairly evident from the wording as I had it. So please cool down a bit and let me do my work. ] 06:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not confusing, it would only be to an illiterate. After it says LeBron finished second, it says Nash also finished with the MOST FIRST PLACE VOTES, with 57, and kobe finishes 2nd with 22, FIRST Place votes is implied, because 22 and 280 or whatever are totally different numbers, the readers will know. It makes total sense. There is no way that is confusing. But I did not know you thought it was confusing. If you wrote in the edit summary that it was confusing i would not have written that. I thought you just were like a lot of these nash supporters and want to hide stuff. Sorry for that edit summary though. ] 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
== Dont edit war ==
No sooner does your block expire than you return to the same edit wars. I've blocked you for 24h. ] 09:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
: re your mail - well I was going to reply, then I saw the top of your page - so I won't ] 19:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not this is my own discussion page I can write what I want. ] 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
: In fact you can't: personal attacks, even on your discussion page, will get you blocked. But you'll also find that I won't discuss your block (which I know you *want* to discuss, cos you sent me an email) here unless you are nice ] 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is hard to be super nice to you when you block me from editing FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON. You did not even warn me or anything this time. I EVEN TOOK EXTRA TIME TO MAKE SURE ALL MY EDIT SUMMARIES WERE CIVIL, and i get blocked again. NEVER ONCE DID I THINK I WOULD BE BLOCKED AGAIN. ] 22:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
==Personal attacks==
{{Npa2}}
I have already warned you about keeping your cool. Any further attacks towards admins and other users will result in an extension of your block. --] 20:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
{{Npa4}} Your block has been extended, due to you non-stop attacks on other users within your talk page. Yes you're allowed to speak your mind on a talk page, but that doesn't give you the right to belittle other editors. --] 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
so when does this block end? ] 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Latest revision as of 13:56, 20 February 2023
{{Unblock| you know it by now, I was not supposed to be blocked anyways. Even more, user Sceptre Violated Admin and wikipedia policies. I had only reverted on the Kobe Bryant article TWICE with the important game. , please be fair here. I see One PRO NASH supporter kept reverting again and again on the ] page, yet he is blocked 15 minutes?? What is disgusting is the admin blocks user bucsrsafe for three hours, for NOTHING. He was reverting back to the accepted version!!!!! C'mon now, this is trash.
That being said, I know there must be fair admins out there. I request admins to actually take a look at my recent edits, and unblock me. The guy who has blocked me the last 4 times has done so unfairly every time. I have been blocked unfairly ever since may 28th. Starting from that block, I have been blocked for false speculations and lies by two clueless admins on the 28th and the 3rd of June who thought I was another user (bucsrsafe), and that is a lie and has even been proven false, and most recently for no reason whatsoever by one of those same admins. It is corruption here. I can only request that justice be served here; I did nothing wrong. It is frustrating to me because almost no other editor but me on this site has a clue about basketball and the NBA. For example, if you look at the recent ] edits, user Duhon took out the whole section I wrote in for the slam dunk competition. He claims LeBron is ineligible to participate. That's outright wrong; you do not become ineligible, there are no league rules like this. Also, while other players have not participated, this situation is so different. They have not been hyped like LBJ has by the fans and media to participate. Everyone talks about this excessively before every all-star game. I understand not having a whole section for it, but removing the whole thing is absurd, he could just shift the info to another section. Just one example of how I am needed here to set the record straight. Well, just remember y'all who are trying to bring me down, what goes around comes around, God is on my side; he will bite you sometime when you least expected it.}}
Request reviewed and seems amply justified. Enthusiasm is one thing, aggressive pushing of your viewpoint wquite another, and failing to learn from the experience of multiple blocks for doing so is another thing again. And attacking the janitors is just plain foolish.
Oh, and one of the last four blocks was from a different admin (if you alow that Sceptre merely extended the block at one point). You've been blocked by Sceptre, Jossi, Stifle, PSPcGAMER, Madchester and William M. Connolley - numerous blocks from numerous admins. Time to take the hint, I'd say. Just zis Guy you know?22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you seem to have some difficulty in understand that edit warring is simply not acceptable. You've also shown a lot of problems in being civil to other editors. Misplaced Pages's community has developed a set of policies that lets us all work together for the better of the encylopedia. If you don't feel you can follow those guidelines, it would probably be better if you found somewhere else to contribute your sports knowledge. I am declining to unblock you since I see no indication you're even willing to admit you may have been in the wrong. Shell 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen I need to be more specific here with my message. It is not just him who has unfairly treated me, it is mainly him, but also other admins like you and the other editors out there. Hganesan
I see nothing unfair. You violated policy, which you have violated before and been blocked for it. That is not smart. Haven't you worked out yet that calm debate works where edit warring and insults do not? Just zis Guy you know?22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, given you are blind in this situation, you don't. You have been against me from the beginning. I never violated any policies after my second to last block in may, i didn't even post here till june and I get blocked in may amid false lies and false speculation. This is the kind of injustice I have been dealing with ever since then. Bottom line, it is never a good idea to lie. You know the truth, everyone does. Hganesan22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
No the facts are all on my side, I am the only one who 100% of the time posts facts and the truths in all my edits. I make the articles fair and non-pov, and many times ADD/ACTUALLY POST great info to the articles, you can check my edits and you will find several of them, most recently for kobe and lebron. this. Or This. Hganesan07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Anyone who likes Kobe Bryant as much as Hganesan should be sterilized...and Im not even kidding.
IMHO, your unblock request evidences some desire to comport your behavior with our policies and guidelines (and, of course, the requisite underlying knowledge of those precepts), a desire to work collaboratively (which work is inhibited by the making of vituperative or otherwise gratuitously untoward comments), and, most importantly, an appreciation for the general rules of grammar and syntax to which even descriptivists here must adhere. You will find, I think, that when you focus your arguments on content rather than on other editors, and when you write in a comprehensible fashion on talk pages and in a formal, encyclopedic fashion on mainspace pages, others will be much more willing to discuss your concerns and more amenable to implementing your solutions (provided, to be sure, that they are consisent with our five pillars). Even as Misplaced Pages is not therapy, others will surely be inclined to help you edit better and disinclined to block you straightaway when you err when it is evident that you are acting in good faith and are here to improve, rather than to dirsupt, the project. Just yesterday I noted on the administrators' noticeboard that
At some point, an indef block of the user as having exhausted the community's patience might be in order. I think the user can become a valuable contributor, and I think we ought to work with him toward that end, but the user seems unwilling or unable to comport his editing with our policies and guidelines (most notably, even irrespective of POV/OR issues, with respect to style and the necessity that one affect a formal tone) and certainly has had a deleterious effect on the articles he has edited. Once more, I don't think an indef block is now appropriate, and I am eminently confident that we can help the user to edit productively, but it should be noted that, thus far, his editing and presence, taken cumulatively, have been more disruptive than constructive.
I am very hopeful that you will begin to contribute productively, though; notwithstanding your professions that no one else here must be at all knowledgable apropos of basketball, I, for one, consider myself well versed in the history of the game (especially relative to the NBA), and I find your knowledge of basketball to be facially plain. You won't be able to impart that knowledge to WP's readers, though, if you act disruptively. There are many basketball-related projects on which you may undertake to work here (e.g., Portal:Basketball, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Basketball Association, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Basketball), and I am certain you will find plenty of editors willing to help you edit productively here if you express some willingness to change, as it seems you have, at least in part. If you should need help navigating the sometimes complex principles that underlie our work here, I'd be happy to help; feel free to drop me a line. In any event, I hope that you're using this time (a) to familiarize yourself with how best to edit here, (b) to cool down, and (c) to find some articles here that need improvement, in order that you might get started editing as soon as you return (for this, you may see the basketball stub category, where you will find many articles in need of skillful revision and expansion). Joe23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks joe, I also would like to add that the pages people are all reverting to and you posted on are from weeks ago. I am adding the new info here, on MY discussion page. Funny how it has been now found that me and Bucsrafe are from different continents. I told y'all.Hganesan23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Graffitting on people's userpages
This is what you wrote on my userpage (I've highlighted it in red):
Revision as of 04:41, 4 June 2006
HEY lemme tell you RIGHT NOW I am not the Buscrafe guy, it's so funny haha. You guys think nobody else doesn't like nash. I just logged on now for the first time and I see you think I am him. LOL. I don't even know who he is. Hganesan 18:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
I told you before, do not write on people's userpages. Use the discussion page. How many times must you be told? --Downwards00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Unforunately, Downards, this is an outright lie. I put it on your DISCUSSION page, in user talk. Please check where I posted it again. Hganesan04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
And this post is even worse. It is funny that you find it so hard to believe other people don't agree with you. Check this post:
Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I believe he holds a vendetta against those who don't think his edits are up to scratch or are not in the spirit of an encyclopedia, in particular both you and myself. I'm fine with it; he's a loose cannon and level-headedness always prevails. Also I don't know how he's doing it but Bucsrsafe and him are somehow connected, even though their IPs don't match up (look at his contributions). Maybe he's using a computer remotely, I don't know. It's all very fishy. Cheers. :) --Downwards02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You think that's civil?? A lot more incivil than anything I have posted in the last two days. Right, I am connected with someone I don't even know from another continent. You need to face reality here. Just admit it. You and the others were blatantly wrong. Hganesan04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
FWIW, Essjay found that Hganesan and Buscrafe are unrelated; they edit, indeed, from different continents. Joe 23:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Most recent Kobe edits
Oh, I have always acknowledged that you do have quality content in your knowledge bank to contribute. I've never had one bit of doubt about that. And yes, that is reflected in some of your most recent edits.
I (and others) just question why you seem to feel the need to do it in such a confrontational, abrasive and insulting manner. You don't seem to care much about getting along with others, which (in my humble opinion, which I acknowledge is worth nothing more than what you are paying for it right now) isn't really the best way to be in a community setting such as Misplaced Pages. And your level of respect for the NPOV policy here seems to wax at times and wane other times.
But hey, you're gonna do what you're gonna do, obviously. I've said my peace to you and made my opinion known. You've head what I've had to say, but nonetheless seem to have chosen a different path than I suggest, so OK. It's certainly your choice to make, no argument there. Mwelch02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no different path than you suggest, I follow what you guys suggested. I am not edit warring anymore on Nash the trash, even though my edits from objective viewpoint are better. I know Nash is like a diamond to some on this site. Hganesan02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Thanks for the compliment, but maybe you should stop criticizing my behavior no matter how good it is and no matter how great my posts are. What do you call this:
Um . . . you came over to my discussion page and asked "It looks a lot better now doesn't it??" I did not initiate the conversation. If you don't care to hear any criticism (at least from me), the best way to avoid that would be to not solicit my opinion. As I noted, I've said my peace, so honestly, I don't intend to offer you any further criticism, if you're not asking for my opinions (which, like I said, aren't necessarily worht anything anyway) on your edits. You know my opinion. You obviously don't agree with it, and that's OK. I'm fine with that. I can certainly agree to disagree.
As for these above edits you reference, you're right. I've never seen you do anything like that. Please don't get the idea that I'm defending that type of response, because I'm not. Not in the least. It's not helpful at all. Mwelch02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not make any false statements; in fact, I was careful to attribute all the claims I made. Moreover, I framed the debate accurately (he was the only one who made such claims). I was merely illustrating a point that has been beaten to death over the last month. The mere fact that things are "true" and "verified" does not make them appropriate for inclusion in an article, particularly when they illustrate novel concepts which haven't been advanced elsewhere. I am guilty, perhaps, of using a non-notable source. I realized that and posted a message to the talk page requesting consensus on that; my message was promptly removed without explanation by (who else?) User:Hganesan.
In all seriousness, yes, I know: WP:POINT. I don't believe my actions were disruptive since there was already an edit war going on. I think all of us involved have been plenty willing to work with this user; the discussion pages are full of arguments and counter-arguments. The problem is that the actual page inevitably ends up only one way: his way. His claims have been rejected for any number of reasons, and he's clearly pushing his opinion across multiple pages. He's been considered sufficiently obnoxious to be blocked repeatedly by numerous admins. What, exactly, do we have to do to get a little peace and quiet on this matter? Honestly, I've been editing here for a year, and I've never had to deal with anyone even remotely like this. Simishag03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Guess who was on the wrong side again though there, like Always? You, because of your lack of knowledge. Hganesan03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
I never have posted claims, even MWelch admits that, and other users. My FACTS are being rejected by people like you Simishag, and downwards, duhon, the nash fans. Hganesan03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Hey man maybe that is because you haven't had to deal with anyone who is from the US or knows something about basketball. Many of your edits are clueless at best. You do not think Bonds or TO are hated sports figures, and you did not think the alley oop from o'neal to bryant in game 7 was famous. I know my stuff here, almost nobody else does, look one guy is even asking for a citation for Kobe and Shaq's daughters being born minutes apart. You have to deal with, I don't live in Europe like you and most people here, I have more access to these sports than you guys do. Do you see me post on cricket or soccer?
Hganesan03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
If I lived in Europe, my first claim would be that you're not taking a worldwide view of things (see WP:NPOV#Anglo-American_focus). Since people all over the world, such as cricket fans, might read this, they might not understand why the play is famous, and they'd have no way to verify it other than your claim. However, the bigger point is on WP:V, which you might want to read. It says, among other things:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Number 2 and 3 of those are particularly important. Together, they say: YOU need to cite a source when you make claims. It's not our job to verify all of your claims. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. It's only been explained about a zillion times. You just aren't interested in what anyone else has to say. Simishag03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen, it shows your lack of knowledge, that is why you deleted the stuff I wrote, Why don't you do what metros just did by writing citation needed or something. You cannot demand a citation for everything like that, if you need a citation for everything, it's better you don't edit and delete since you don't know what is going on. What I was posting is common sense here, if you don't know what is going on just put a citations needed stub there, don't delete and hide things like you always do, I know what is going on here, too bad you don't Hganesan03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Either that or it shows your clear desire just to bring me down here. Just like you kept on lying a zillion times with your claims about my sockpuppetry. Maybe you should stop deleting every post I write to make me look like I violated policies. Just like downwards when he deleted a post on LeBron that I wrote and claimed I was a sockpupeteer, and he posted something totally incorrect in place. I only post the right things and what is factual. I have even cut my warring on Steve Nash. I have not violated anything after May 20 or 21. Why don't you keep quiet and stop blaming me, and maybe remember that what goes around comes around. Hganesan03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
More sockpuppet idenitification on people's userpages
Thanks for the graffitti you left on my page. Please knock it off. If you do it again, I will be forced to take action against your vandalizing my page as well as the garbage you've been putting on the Nash/Kobe articles. 128.6.78.5016:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I might be, I cannot find out for sure, your weasel word uses is just like Simishag's , but that is not graffiting, learn a little bit and stop lying, be happy I am not posting this trash thousands of times on the admin boards, and getting you blocked for false speculation, which happened twice because of Simishag's trash lies.
Hganesan17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Then again, you could be downwards. Afterall, both you and him lied here about graffiting. I only posted on your discussion, user talk pages in the first place. Hganesan17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Simishag come clean with your tactics and lies
You claim you have run out of tactics. I knew it, your whole idea here is to follow me around and try to bring me down; it won't work.
You've posted on Downwards' page, benihanalee, Duhon's page, the other ips like 128.6.78.50.
I ask that the admins look into his posts, which include editing the Kobe Bryant article itself and attacking me on it, and please use judgement here unlike the last couple to times I was blocked. Notice he is also saying the "appropriate admins" here. Please watch for this, and I urge you to actually look at my various contributions to the articles here. Look at the bold on my discussion page. It is frustrating that other editors do these kinds of things to me.
Hganesan18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
You don't get it. He's just asking others if we are fed up with you. Don't you think it's funny how you are the only one who's been banned (and multiple times at that)? 128.6.78.5018:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Since june, it has been for FALSE CLAIMS and lies. When was the last time I was banned btw fairly?? I got banned due to speculation the last two times. I have done nothing wrong here. Liar. And notice all the users he has posted on are the ones who are pro nash and anti every other nba superstar. It won't happen.Hganesan18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Check out your block log. It's pretty clear you were blocked for good cause every time, a total of 13 times. If you have a problem with that, you should take it up with the admins. I can't imagine you'd want all that info to stay around if it was false. Simishag18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't go out and delete all the lies and trash you write, it is not my job to clean up your lies and filth, I already have warned the admins about this. Those last few blocks are unfair thanks to you and the others who lied and falsely accused me. What a joke, I was blocked on the 28th even when I didn't post anything near that time period. From that block to the next three, the blocks are not justified. It was found I am not the guy who y'all thought I was. Unfair treatment here. I know what happened here, you lied and are trying to get a select few unfair admins to block me. Go mind your own business and stop trying to bring down the innocent. Hganesan19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Unfair treatment never wins. Too bad you can't shake off the truth and that message. If you are going to treat me like this, I have to post the truth and reality. Hganesan22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
I enjoy editing here and have contributed a lot more than y'all can imagine contributing. Will, I assure you I am not bothered one bit by your block; why? Because I have taken this unfair beating before here. I want to keep contributing to this site. I know I am innocent, I know I am right. On the other hand, you, by calling me a dick and blocking me for no reasons whatsoever, know you are wrong, hence you feel guilty, and understand the veracity of what I post. Hganesan22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
LeBron pic
Well, like i said in the Picture info, it was my friend who took the picture; nonetheless, it is still a great one. LeBron can really soar to hights that no one expected (well, maybe we all expected it).
In any case, cheers, and good luck on not getting banned anymore.
Thanks, you can already see by Duhon's claim that "LBJ is not eligible" ; people who are editing here just have no clue what is going on. Believe or not there are things like that all the time here.
I also got a following me around who has no clue about any of articles I post under but simply wants to bring me down, along with one corrupt admin. I am totally innocent here. It is frustrating.
Hganesan08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Please Discuss
Could you please discuss things on the Nash page before you post them if they are going to be controversial. Thanks. - Henry
I discussed enough about my edits there. You need to click on the discussion tab on the top of the article, and you will find I have posted enough on there. And bLee, i didn't delete what you reverted, after you cited it. You check it and stop lying. I already compromised with you enough. I let you delete all my games there. Get rid of the lies BLee.
How the hell am I supposed to know what facts are controversial or not to you guys? Oh, that's right, I know. Any fact and info posted by me that supports your Love of nash the trash is not controversial, and automatically swallowed. But any fact that offers the slightest criticism, and you guys throw up. Now reverse it around and apply that to all other athlete's pages I edit. Now when I post any type of facts, is following me around everywhere, and although he clearly has no clue of what is going on, keeps writing "who who who?" or "weasel words" a million times. Do I post on the "Parlaiment of the United Kingdom" or "Lord Chancellor?" No, because I have no clue about those articles. Weasel should learn from that here, instead of following me around and EDIT WARRING. I know what is going on. Why doesn't anyone block him with his vandalism and all his reverts and deletions of everything I write? Infact, I have not reverted much at all in the last few days. I know what is going on. Worse, downwards and duhon have changed my posts or deleting my corrrect info, and replacing incorrect and inaccurate info there.Hganesan06:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Bold text
This is what happen when you use foreign sources and have clueless editors here- LeBron James in Dunk competition and DUHON
Look at user Duhon, he unknowingly believes that LeBron is no longer eligible to participate. He brings up a bogus canadian source from 2004.
That is not the rule here, look at Ricky Davis, he was in the '04 competition iteslf
, the "source" is indicating he cannot participate, and he did. He was not in his third year. I know off the top Jordan himself won it in his fourth year, I was wondering if there was such a rule change since then; there is no, i cannot believe there are sources like that. Stackhouse was there in 2000, i know that was not his third season. BTW how is Chris Andersen there last year ('05), it is not his third season. Duhon, I have to admit man, I almost fell for it, but I knew something was fishy there. See people, this is the problem here, with people with these canadian and european sources here. That is the problem, there is always these misconceptions.
Hganesan08:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Arguably the "problem" is that you fail to recognise that Misplaced Pages has no deadline. If it takes a few iterations to get something right, what's the problem? Work with people, not against them. Chill. Just zis Guy you know?09:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it just frustrates me that people don't understand the facts and info, and I am the one being blocked here, I'm one of the extremely few editors who consistently edits, who has a clue of what is going on with respect to the articles I edit. I should not be blocked at all here. I am not able to work with people when I am blocked and cannot edit any pages or add correct, factual info to any other pages but mine. Hganesan09:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
You are the one being blocked because you are allowing your frustration to override Misplaced Pages's cultural norms. It's important not to edit war, not to make personal attacks and not to lose your cool, because this is a collaborative project and can't possibly work like a football game with opposing fans shouting from the touchline. Calm down, explain the problem in measured tones and with citations on the Talk page, be civil and neutral in your edit summaries, and you should have no problem. WP:TIGERS refers. Just zis Guy you know?09:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen I was totally calm and not edit warring, I did not attack anyone. Only after I was BLOCKED have I now started to complain here and lose my cool. I was unfairly blocked, you don't understand the situation. And you know what, you just proved my point here! I had no idea what a touchline was (dead serious) in football and had to look it up, so it is actually a term for soccer, eh? The first thing that came to my mind was football, then i realize you must be a british or someone not in the us, hence you call soccer,football. Do you see what I mean here??? The NBA is mostly in the US, all the teams and the players here are playing in the US 'cept the raptors, the major news sources and the fans in the US know more here and understand the game here and the issues. I am 100% NEUTRAL in my edit summaries, I am not putting my personal pov there, and my edits are never POV, why don't you check some pov edits in the corruption section of my userpage. That is what you call pov edits. I know the opinions here on football, baseball, and the NBA, I live in the country where all of this takes place. I know what is going on, I know those other editors looking to bring me down don't; it is clear from their edits and posts. You admins need to understand these things here. My edits are non-pov here, even the nash page, it is pov in CANADA and EUROPE, because most people there really admire nash and he is perfect to them. That is why I don't delete the insane Pro-POVs on nash and instead add the OTHER SIDE INDIRECTLY through FACTS, that the others don't know about or likely refuse to admit. It is frustrating. Hganesan09:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Edit summaries full of SHOUTING and edit warring over insertion of text, instead of discussing on the Talk page, does not speak to me of keeping your cool. Your statement that your edits are "never POV" sounds a lot like you don't understand the difference between WP:NPOV and m:MPOV. Do you think you are the only Fearless Defender Of The Truth ever to get blocked? This happens all the time - partly because people's judgment of what is The Truth tends to be coloured by their own personal opinions (no fan ever thinkts they are wrong about anything) and partly because, surprising as it may seem, Misplaced Pages does not, in the short term, care about what is "true" only what is verifiable, and we have no deadline to meet so if it takes a while to get there it's not a problem. The specific problem in this case was your absolute insistence that a particular game is of such pressing importance that it must be in the article, which was clearly disputed by someone. When it was removed, you should have taken it to Talk. It's known as the Bold / Revert / Discuss cycle, and it's how we do things here. So, if you think that game is of pressing importance you need to go to Talk and citereliable secondary sources who say that. Your own opinion is, in Misplaced Pages terms, of no value at all. When your block expires, go to Talk, list the change you want to make and somebody does not like, support it with references which state that it is of unusual significance, and then everybody will agree and include it. Or they will disagree in which case you accept it and move on. Just zis Guy you know?10:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Bold text
Listen, I added that IMPORTANT game on TWICE. Don't Lie Guy. Liar, I only put it back on TWICE, 1 and a half hours apart. This was not like a revert war for a few minutes. Lying admin, that is not called absolute insistence. You don't know anything about the NBA, so you shouldn't even be commenting. I do not have to go to the talk page to add info, I know my info is factual and important here. Instead, the clueless editors here need to put a of cite sources tag if they need it. It is not my fault that they know nothing, just like it is not your fault I had no idea what a touchline was. Think a little here. I post on what I know, I live where it all happens, I have the right sources here, that is why my edits are non pov.
To suggest there is a real rule like that in place with ineligibilty after three years is stupidity.
That is the kind of trash on this site here and pov crap you get from these foreign source. When did I yell on my edit summaries. I rarely did, I only criticized simishag on some of them, because he was a clueless pest here, trying to get people to bring me down. You admins be fair here and look at his posts. Hganesan18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Slam Dunk Contest eligibility (Prokj's misconception)
The NBA now requires participants to no more than 3 years in the league if they are to participate in the Slam Dunk Contest now. The rule was changed a few years ago. The fact that you say Stackhouse was in it back then to disprove this doesn't hold. They added that such a lrule the year after that particular dunk contest. Duhon is correct and the fact that his source comes from Canada is meaningless. It's been a rule for atleast 4 or 5 years. Prokj19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey prokj the problem is your misconception. Chris Andersen was in his fourth year when he participated in 05. RICKY DAVIS was in the
04 competition,
he was far past his third year.
Think. This is a stupid canadian source. So stupid, even the year it is written there is a guy past his third year participating in the competition. There is no dumb rule like that, this is the problem with you canadians and other foreigners editing these type of articles, your sources are all weak quality and you just read info. You cannot understand what is going on just by reading. Hganesan21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
You just made an ad hominem attack on the source provided, accusing it of being unreliable simply because it's Canadian. Here's another source for the 2004-05 season. Quote: (emphasis mine)
Who's in the Slam Dunk Contest?: We may finally some stability in the ever-evolving Sprite Rising Stars Slam Dunk Contest after numerous changes over the year. The trouble is, we hate the rules that the NBA is sticking by: a four-contestant field and the ridiculous rule that only three-year professionals and younger may compete ... unless the field is too crappy.
Exactly, does that sound like a rule?? Incase you can not tell, NO. It is not a rule. No policy here. Hence he is NOT INELIGIBILE. He can still participate. Hganesan07:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
You're correct that the NBA allowed Andersen to slide on this. Also, Lebron just finished his third year, so 2006-07 would be the first year he might be "ineligible." The NBA has changed the rules a number of times for the Slam Dunk Contest in the past, and I can't find an NBA source for the rules. I think it is likely the NBA would allow Lebron to participate if he wanted to, but that's just my opinion.
However, all of this is completely irrelevant to the original point, which is: Lebron's non-participation in one small event is basically unimportant in the discussion of his career. Adding another section gives WP:NPOV#Undue weight to this non-event. You appear to be the only one who believes this non-event deserves any coverage in his article. Simishag21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
One small addition: despite your attacks on Canadian sources, you seem to have no problem using them when it suits your purposes. Simishag21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Only to all you clueless canadians; in reality there is no such rule for the NBA, I saw that article too, there are misconceptions everywhere, you guys just read trash and think you know, you don't know, none of guys know what is going on here but me. That is the stupidity here. Have you heard of Ricky Davis?? He was in his 6th season when he participated. User morrisS and another ip user who added to my comment as I checked believe it is ok to be mentioned. You guys are just clueless here, you don't know American media and don't watch games or go to games, that is the problem here. Almost all the NBA games are played in AMERICA, hence the articles need to be more US based and reflective of the US, not foreign places. You have no clue what is going on, it is not a small event here, it is discussed heavily leading up to the all-star game. Everyone wants to see him participate in the contest. Hganesan22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Hey simishag unlike you guys though I KNOW what is going on. That is the DIFFERENCE here. It is frustrating. I did not say all canadian sources are bad, this source is accurate , and I know there are not mistakes here because most IMPORTANTLY, I know what is going on. This here is a NEWS article here, and it accurate. You guys don't know what sources are accurate and not accurate, because you don't know fully know what is going on in the first place!Hganesan22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan
Missing talk page comments
Unless an admin or Hganesan removed it, there's a large chunk of previous comments missing from the talk page. I'm pretty sure that I added warnings on this page, but they seem to have disappeared. --Madchester07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
IMO, there is no reason to drag this up again. Any admin will see the block log when taking action so it won't be hidden or forgotten. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Israel. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
