User talk:69.254.29.248

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Leandro Barbosa
2 Inconsequential Petty Slight / Alluding to what one really means to say
- 2.1 March 07
- 2.2 WP:NPA

[edit] Leandro Barbosa

Please adhere to WP:NPOV when editing articles on Wikipedia. Your edits to Leandro Barbosa were very POV, and I have reverted them. I encourage you to continue editing, but please try to keep it as neutral as possible. Thanks! Kntrabssi 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: You didnt change anythign you just deleted everything I added. That seems sort of bias myself. What I wrote were tendancies and his comfortable movses. Its what he does it belongs in his bio.

I never claimed to change anything, what I did say was that I reverted the article. Your information has now been reverted a second time by someone claiming POV. Instead of saying "He is a legitamte three point threat" and "due to his exceptional speed one of his signature moves is to get an open 3 point look off of a fastbreak, often knocking the uncontested shot down", why don't we just say "He is a good three point shooter." The rest seems like trivial data and, honestly, is close to POV.

- Because its important to describe his strengths and the plays and moves he often reverts to, ESPECIALLY in a bio. Player tendancies happen to be very important in sports and theres no way you can write them off as POV. Its not subjective, its what he does, and its not your place to decide if it belongs in his bio, because it isnt POV.

Sentences like "Leandro is considered one of the favorites to win the NBA 2006-07 Sixth Man of the Year." are subjective. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If Leandro does win the Sixth Man award, then we can re-enter that information. I hope you understand that I am not doing this for personal reasons, but that this is Wikipedian policy. Kntrabssi 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had nothign to do with the sentance ""Leandro is considered one of the favorites to win the NBA 2006-07 Sixth Man of the Year."", and no thats not a skewed POV, and yes its different than saying "he is going to win", its actually a fact he is leading the running.

You obviously have something against him and you have some sort of control complex, you have no right to constantly delete things with no POV what so ever from someones bio, you are being a vandal in this sense and you have no right. Youre not fooling anyone and its messed up that you convince yourself that things you dont like are POV violations so you delete them. Its obvious youre the one with the petty POV problem.

- - As a matter of fact, I have contacted no one regarding this issue. You can check all of their talk pages if you'd like. It is one thing to say a player is fast. It is another to say that his speed is exceptional and describe all of the things he can do with it. Wikipedia is NOT a biography, it is an encyclopedia.

RE:As a matter of fact I find it hard to believe you have not used your influence here to your unfair advantage, there are a lot of other ways to talk to a friend than a recorded discussion page and you wouldnt tell them to back you up on one. But its obvious my addition is being unfairly targeted because it is NOT a POV violation and only after you started some childish headtrip crusade certian completely reasonable entrys get targeted.

RE:As a matter of fact a persons entry on wikipedia IS a biography and as a matter of fact the only difference with saying hes fast and using an adjective to describe it is asthetics and is quality writing. You are taking this extremely personally and you have no base to do this or legitimate reason, you seem to just have to feel like a big man. Youre really grasping and trying to fabricate reasons as to why what I wrote is unacceptable and now your final reason is that I used too many big words??? Please, this is an obvious abuse of influence and you have some serious ego problems to address. Theres a difference between fast and exceptionally fast, and I am far from the first to attribute this to LB.

Really, I have no pull around here. I am not an admin, and none of the users who have warned your or reverted your page even know me. It is easier for you to blame it on my "having a crusade" against Leandro Barbosa, whereas three different people have reverted the page. You can accuse me of whatever you like. However, you did blatantly violate the Three Revert Rule for which you are currently being reported. Please, in the future, read Wikipedia's policy about NPOV and 3RR. Kntrabssi 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: You have more pull than me and thats all that matters, thats what you are banking on. You are not on a crusade agaisnt Leandro Barbosa and I never said that, you are on a crusade agaisnt me and to make yourself a big shot. You initiate conflict and you refuse to abandon or concede any disupute even when you dont have not one valid point. You struggle to construct points and POV conflicts but when someone proves you wildly wrong and out of line you ignore it and try to build something else. You have no right and behind this image you love to portray you OBVIOUSLY have no valid point and you are fighting some childish crusade just because you were wrong and out of line to begin with and you simply are too egomaniacal to admit it to yourself.

If you could please point out one occasion in which I initiated conflict, did not assume good faith, and abused whatever "pull" I have, I would appreciate it. I would also ask you to please not make personal attacks, as they do not help issues get resolved, they unfortunately make things worse. I would like to compromise with you, but it will involve changing the language of the article. Barbosa's speed and perimeter shooting deserve to be included in the article, but the objective is to make this sound as neutral and professional as possible. Words like "exceptional", signature moves" and using the persons nickname to refer to him in the article make the entry sound more like a newspaper and less like an encyclopedia. Can you think of any other kind of language we could use to get around this? Kntrabssi 05:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Youre full of it. I appreciate the attempt at compromise but youre still trying to get some sort of mental upperhand. "Signature moves" is in no way POV and it is ABSOLUTELY neutral, it is common and universal for a professional athelete. Signature moves are a big part of biographies, they are completely warranted and they are simply tendancies, especially in the use of the term "signature moves", there is absoultely no POV attributed in those words. Secondly the nickname point, comopletely ridiculous. Wikipedian biographies have a section for people's nicknames and reffering to them in the article is a basic tool of grammar, its meant to avoid repetition and referring to someone as "he" in every sentance. Its basic quality writing skills, theres no POV whatsoever to it and it is something in hundreds of other wikipedia articles, its a sad grasp.

The word "exceptional" is the only thing you have a minor case about but proof that this is a crusade is that he had already been attributed "exceptional speed" for months in the first paragraph, and not by me. And plenty other people on wikipedia have thier strengths described as "exceptional".

I admit the first entry had minor POV issues but since and during this crusade I have edited many multiple times and your complaints at this point fall flat, theyre obviously personal so that you can feel a sense of victory. I would love to end this with you but as far as I'm concerned I have compromised from the beginning and have removed all POV, but I will not submit basic rights to your sole will. Its been neutral for hours now, Ive already submitted, theres no reason to try an crush me.

I would love to talk about this off the record and live if you have AIM.

[edit] Inconsequential Petty Slight / Alluding to what one really means to say

It seems to me that you have not read a lot of the policies which Wikipedians follow. I will provied a welcome template which will include a bunch of helpful links. As noted by the warnings below (at this point, you SHOULD be blocked), blanking talk pages, even your own, is considered vandalism. Please make sure you do not make personal attacks towards people, as that is seriously frowned upon.

Welcome!!

Hello, 69.254.29.248, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message.

[edit] March 07

Wrong attributed date; it dosen't count.

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Jewsoph. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Xiahou 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:69.254.29.248. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Xiahou 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC) You can't delete your recent warnings. You've deleted yours (multiple times) and other pages this is why you've gotten the

This is your warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:69.254.29.248, you will be blocked from editing. Xiahou 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Leandro Barbosa. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Caknuck 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gnan garra 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "First of all, the arbitration information and the information about disputing a block is completely skewed and impossible to go on with, its just a dead end for anyone that didnt have an account. I'm blocked from registering but the only thing I can do is either edit a disupte into the dispute page or email the blocking administrator, both things you need an unblocked account for.

Now, I was blocked by the administrator named Gnangarra, and because of a registered member named Kntrabssi who launched a unwarranted personal crusade against me on the basis that he cannot admit to being wrong and must feed his own ego.

Kntrabssi was involved in some edit warring just as much if not more than I was. I had a neutral contribution that was targeted. Kntrabssi reached far to try to fabricate POV disputes after I edited the entry neutral after the first time. There is more than enough evidence in the logs and Kntrabssi and my user comments pages.

I had added a paragraph on the entry for basketball player Leandro Barbosa, and the initial entry was mildly positive, but then it got deleted and claimed for being POV. So I edited it and made it completely neutral and added it again but by then the very egomaniacal deleting member had started a crusade against me and began harassing me and my entrys. He could seemingly do whatever he pleased and just fabricate some claim of POV to rationalize it. This was grossly and obviously unfair and childish and a move against me, not any POV issue (which had been resolved), so I continue to add my written addition to the article, and I get blocked for getting it unfairly deleted 3 times.

Its obvious favoritism and abuse of influence by the registered member Kntrabssi, who just "happens to be" friends with other registered wikipedia users. I was targeted by someone who had to be the undisputed winner of any dispute, despite any valid reasons or points. I tried to talk to him and address problems multiple times but each time Kntrabssi ignored my points and then continued to try to fabricate a new different reason for why I was violating POV, all of which were transparent and obviously a childish personal issue with me.

I was bullied on your website, the one website online that advocates and "claims" total neutrality. I was robbed of the common rights every user is supposed to have and I was a victim of multiple attempts to silence me all because of some sick egotrip by a registered and connected Wikipedia member who must feel like a big man over all else.

Im getting blocked because I'm not a regitered or connected user and am not farmiliar with the proper channels, and its not fair to let a memeber like Knobrassi to bully lower users and enforce his own bias POV.

Your site is lucky it dosen't have advertisers."

Decline reason: "You violated WP:3RR. Your lengthy rant above is completely beside the point. Also, take Gnangarra's warning below to heart. — Sandstein 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

I would like to point out that you were not blocked for POV violation, you were blocked for 3rr violation. Kntrabssi 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is the same thing. I refused to submit to your ego driven pressure and long after I took all the POV out of my entry you still kept deleting it and kept trolling me and kept fabricating reasons to write it off as POV in order to delete it. I was taken advantage of and I WAS bullied by you and I refused to be broken, I did what was right and kept re-adding my more than neutral, regular entry and you continued to vandalize the article by repeatingly deleting that entry. You filed an early block claim out of frustration and egotism and you took advantage of me being unregistered and unfarmiliar. I was blocked because of your manipulation and your playing and regularity of and with the wikipedia system. I kept adding my neutral entry and you kept deleting it. My addition, after the first revision, wasnt POV at all; but your constant deletion was complete POV. You just knew people in high places and knew the right channels to go through, and thats why I am banned right now and you are still trying to convince yourself and everyone else that it was warranted. Thats why youre SUCKING UP TO THE ADMIN THAT BANNED ME on his user discussion. Youre trying to play politics here on wikipedia and you happened to get in before me. I only pray that I can catch the attention of a neutral administrator that you dont know and that you havnt sucked up to. You and your admin GangGranga also made reason for you to delete my legitimate discrepencies on your user discussion page (along with everyone elses comments and discrepencies about you.) You made excuses for you to delete your discussion page, which is grouds for being banned for any other member's (who aren't playing the governing system) account. I can't even think of an adjective to describe what I feel I'm being treated like, or what youre acting like.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:69.254.29.248, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. While it's frustrating being block there is no need to make personal attacks against User:Kntrabssi as you have been doing in the request for an unblock. Your block was for violating WP:3RR with two further reverts after being warned about that by two Users. Further personal attacks will result in your block being extended. Gnan garra 07:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me???69.254.29.248 07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the arbitration information and the information about disputing a block is completely skewed and impossible to go on with, its just a dead end for anyone that didnt have an account. I'm blocked from registering but the only thing I can do is either edit a disupte into the dispute page or email the blocking administrator, both things you need an unblocked account for.

Your site is lucky it dosen't have advertisers.|decline=You violated WP:3RR. Your lengthy rant above is completely beside the point. Also, take Gnangarra's warning below to heart. — Sandstein 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}}

I would like to point out that you were not blocked for POV violation, you were blocked for 3rr violation. Kntrabssi 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

This will be the last time I will ask you to cease making personal attacks. If you do so again I will report you to an administrator and you will be blocked again. Kntrabssi 07:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me????????69.254.29.248 07:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

- I feel that this is pretty self explanitory. You have attacked me consistently since I reverted your changes on Leandro Barbosa. You were warned by three different users and blocked for your 3rr violation. You continued to attack me after you were blocked. The entire time I never gave you an official warning about personal attacks, I asked you to read the policy so you would know what not to do. You were warned about personal attacks by two administrators now. The second your block is up you come on here and repost more personal attacks. Then you warn me on my talk page about deleting content on you user page, after I added content. You have been given a lot of slack here, including 8 warnings of talk page blanking when 4 is enough to get you blocked. So if you post a baseless warning on my talk page or make personal attacks against anyone one more time, I will report you to an administrator the same as I would do anyone who has had the amount of warnings you have and continues to attack. Kntrabssi 08:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address.

[IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]